“INDIGENIZATION” OF THE

GROUNDED THEORY
METHODOLOGY (GTM): AN
UNFINISHED CONVERSATION WITH
KATHY CHARMAZ
César A. Cisneros-Puebla

ABSTRACT
By reconstructing the meanings, contexts, interests, and topics of conversation
held over the years with Kathy Charmaz, this short tribute conceptualizes the
indigenization of the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) from a position
of methodological innocence. The main question is about the existence of a
global methodology useful for and applicable to all cultures regardless of local
epistemologies, theoretical developments, conceptual histories, and methodo-
logical legacies existing in each nation. Acknowledging the development of
American pragmatism and its effects on the construction of GTM, the way in
which divergent epistemological perspectives can affect the research practice
conducted by using this methodological approach is explored here. The orig-
inality of Charmaz’s contribution on the internationalization of GTM is
explored from our conversations imbued with my vision as a Spanish-speaking
thinker. Arguing about cover-science was productive in opening paths toward
the recognition of a virgin field that demanded our attention. This short tribute
is an invitation to continue a journey of discovery on the geopolitics of science
and on the local or global application of knowledge generated through specific
research methodologies. Indigenous grounded theory research can still be a
point of axial tension between different options that need to be explored soon
to choose the most appropriate one for today’s troubled times. During the
years to come, the brilliant presence of Charmaz will illuminate the necessary

Festschrift in Honour of Kathy Charmaz

Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 56, 55–67
Copyright © 2023 César A. Cisneros-Puebla
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN: 0163-2396/doi:10.1108/S0163-239620220000056007
55
56 CÉSAR A. CISNEROS-PUEBLA

critical reflection on the particularities of practicing GTM in different societies

and cultures other than the American one.
Keywords: Pragmatism; epistemologies; Strauss; global methodology;
peripheral world; indigenization

Thanks to the great generosity of Jan Morse, I had a sabbatical stay at the
International Institute for Qualitative Methodology (IIQM), University of
Alberta for two years, from 2001 to 2003. It was in Edmonton and Banff at the
Advances in Qualitative Methods Conferences, Qualitative Health Research
Congresses, and Thinking Qualitatively Seminars that I first heard Kathy’s voice.
It was a wonderful time, a great opportunity to enhance my knowledge of
qualitative inquiry practices, and to meet prominent figures from the inter-
actionist and phenomenological traditions, the international community of
discourse analysis, and so on. All were linked to the qualitative inquiry movement
in the social sciences.
In that context full of academic interactions in June 2003, I was invited by Ray
Maietta to participate as a staff member in the First Qualitative Research
Summer Intensive held in Hauppauge, New York. It was another great oppor-
tunity to have closer contact with important authors from the qualitative inquiry
tradition. Kathy Charmaz was also there, conducting a workshop on grounded
theory methodology (GTM) and I was one of the dozen participants. In those
days, I was looking at the work of former students of Anselm Strauss to gain
knowledge about GTM and its elaboration over recent years (e.g., Morse et al.,
2009, 2021). Very enthusiastically during my time at IIQM, I voraciously read
some of their work and tried to locate them to establish contact and talk about
my academic interests. I became familiar with the work of Kathy Charmaz, Juliet
Corbin, Elihu Gerson, Susan Leigh Star, and Adele Clarke, among others. I was
always hoping for an opportunity to meet them, so that I could discuss my
interest in Anselm Strauss and the legacies of his work in their writings.
Finally, at the Fifth International Interdisciplinary Conference Advances in
Qualitative Methods (fifth AQM), held in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada from
January 29 to 31, 2004, I talked to Kathy Charmaz. As the editor of Symbolic
Interaction, she asked me for my institutional address to send some sample issues.
That was awesome, and like magic few weeks after that I duly received a
wonderful package whose contents I read many times. It was as if she deliberately
wanted to sponsor me in my work, as we had discussed when we met. This first
conversation, in which she was so friendly and supportive, exemplified her status
as the leader and tutor that she was. This was the very first step in my own story
of her sponsorship.
2004 was an important year for me not only because of meeting Kathy. At
that magnificent conference, I began formal interviews with Janice Morse and
Juliet Corbin, later submitted to the Special Issue: Interviews (Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5[3], Arts. 32 & 33). A few
days after the AQM conference, I returned to Mexico and had an emergency
surgery on my cervical spine. I had a very difficult recovery, but my happiness
An Unfinished Conversation with Kathy Charmaz 57

about conducting those interviews and establishing personal contact with these
admired researchers was a great incentive to me. In July 2004, I traveled to the
United States to enjoy some time with Julie Corbin and her family. I met Adele
Clarke at UCSF where she told me about her situational analysis book and gave
me samples of its content. My conversations with Juliet Corbin and Janice Morse
were also published in the FQS journal that year (Cisneros-Puebla, 2004a,
2004b), and I was the happiest man on earth because Corbin shared with me her
personal archive of Anselm Strauss for my research.1
In 2005, the first International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (ICQI) took
place in Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. Kathy attended and was there every year,
except when she had a medical or personal conflict. I also attended and have also
been a regular attendee ever since. My memories of Kathy are particularly
connected to her workshops as I attended several subsequent to the one in
Urbana-Champaign. From 2003 to 2010, we alternated our occasional meetings
and conversations, between New York and Urbana-Champaign. And in later
years we shared our interests and experiences only at ICQI meetings. We had
many talks over coffee or breakfast, sharing lunches with friends, various kinds of
consultancies and presentations in the same sessions or simply listening to each
other as attendees.
In this short tribute I try to provide the context, meanings, and effects of some
of the conversations Kathy and I had over these years. One of my basic concerns
has been to critically review the socio-geographic conditions that demonstrate
that epistemologically, politically, and methodologically, the production of
knowledge about human societies is not unique; we can identify differences and
particularities of diverse theories and methods produced through local episte-
mologies, knowledges, and cultures (Abend, 2006; Alasuutari, 2004; Geertz,
1983; Mruck et al., 2005). The strength of our unity as social scientists lies pre-
cisely in the great diversity of theories and research methods with which we study
human experiences and seek to transform our different societies. Fortunately, I
have not been alone in my critical reflections about the existence of a functional
and effective global “positivist” methodology for all societies and cultures (Gobo,
2011; Hsiung, 2012; Ryen & Gobo, 2011).

DOING GTM IN DIVERSE CULTURES

Since first reading Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory
in the early 1990s, I have been intrigued by what could be built upon these new
ideas about doing research. “. . .[F]or the first time, I felt like the book burned. . .”
(Bridges-Rhoads et al., 2018, p. 832). In those days, I was studying my doctorate
in political science, and although I did not use GTM for my dissertation, I was
keen to learn more about it. Years later when I heard about the death of Anselm
Strauss in 1996, I made it a point to find his students to talk to.
Candidly, in Mexico there was no discussion about his important and tran-
scendent social science contributions. And that was very sad for me because his
style of thinking had really impacted me. One year after his death, I wanted to
58 CÉSAR A. CISNEROS-PUEBLA

hold a commemorative seminar dedicated to his work at my University and

regrettably it was impossible because only I knew anything about his work. Still
today, I would like to find those Spanish-speaking colleagues who might have
talked with Strauss when he attended the 10th Congress of the International
Sociological Association held in Mexico City in 1982.
Imagine how happy I was to meet Juliet Corbin for the first time in Guada-
lajara, Mexico in 2000, when she was conducting a Grounded Theory workshop
there. In 2004, I had a great opportunity to ask Corbin about her thoughts on
spreading GTM outside the United States (Cisneros, 2004b). So, I spent years
developing ideas and was finally able to put them into questions during a formal
interview with one of the researchers trained in qualitative research by Strauss at
the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
In that interview I asked Juliet about what the practice of GT in other
countries meant to her. She remembered her workshops in various countries,
including Japan, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Korea, Germany,
Canada, Brazil, and Mexico. And it was very interesting for me to try to
distinguish how the differences that Juliet found between more or less structured
and unstructured societies led her to reflect on styles of doing GT, given that she
referred to learners’ difficulties:
In countries such as Japan, Grounded Theory is appealing because it has some structure to it.
Japan is a structured society. I have difficulty loosening them up and getting them to think more
freely and openly. . . (Cisneros, 2004b, §44)

For years I thought about the ways in which GTM was practiced in
Spanish-speaking countries as colleagues and researchers constantly asked me
about it. I developed projects inspired by this methodology. My interest in
knowing how researchers from non-English speaking countries were doing
grounded theory research grew over the years. And a doubt was beginning to
permeate my conversations in congresses and/or seminars with Kathy, with
Corbin, Morse, Hesse-Biber, Kelle, Tarozzi, and many other dear colleagues of
various nationalities: What does it mean to use GTM in global perspectives in
diverse cultural contexts and in other languages different from English?
Many years before I even imagined that I would ever talk to her over coffee in
the middle of a conference, the first paper I read by Kathy was her contribution to
a psychology book (Charmaz, 1994). I translated it into Spanish for my under-
graduate class on Methods in Social Psychology at the time. In those days, my
friends and I read everything that was published by or related to Rom Harré.
Thus, along with my admiration for Strauss’s work, Kathy’s chapter in his book
was a magnificent gateway to her work. I was greatly impressed by the thor-
oughness of the analysis of her interviews. Her interest in chronic illnesses was
lasting and persistent since her master’s thesis.
In the contribution to Smith, Harré, and Van Langenhove (Charmaz, 1995)
there was a passage by Kathy that particularly struck me. I share it now because
it will be the basis for some later comments. Kathy too used that passage years
later (Charmaz, 2006) to show the subtle finesse of focused coding (2006, p. 58)
based on initial line-by-line coding (2006, p. 52):
An Unfinished Conversation with Kathy Charmaz 59

If you have lupus, I mean one day it’s my liver. one day it’s my joints; one day it’s my head, and
it’s like people really think you’re a hypochondriac if you keep complaining about different
ailments . . . It’s like you don’t want to say anything because people are going to start thinking,
you know, ’God, don’t go near her, all she is-is complaining about this.’ And I think that’s why
I never say anything because I feel like everything I have is related one way or another to the
lupus but most of the people don’t know I have lupus, and even those that do are not going to
believe that ten different ailments are the same thing. And I don’t want anybody saying, you
know, [that] they don’t want to come around me because I complain.

I read that passage hundreds of times and used it hundreds of times to show
the microanalytical approach to line-by-line coding. I knew it by heart and could
recite it without seeing it. It generated in me a kind of fascination for Kathy’s
almost magical sensitivity in giving a name (a code) to each action said in words
by the interviewee. I was intrigued and wanted to discover if there was some kind
of hidden relationship between what the interviewee said and the code selected by
Kathy.
With methodological naivety, I wondered if that phrasing, that narrative of
the interviewee’s testimony depended on or was generated by the specific type of
interview in a GT study. On the other hand, with the same methodological
naivety but based on Goffman (1981), I wondered if that phrasing, that form of
talk during an interview was characteristic of American culture. If that form of
talk is the result of the specific way designing and conducting interviews in GTM,
then all the suggestions of Charmaz about it (2002) had to be rigorously and
correctly interpreted when conducting interviews in another language for research
using GTM. Or is it American culture that determines that in a face-to-face
conversation, like the one in the interview excerpt analyzed by Kathy, the
interviewee has that transparent way of expressing actions by speaking? Is it only
with that American phrasing when talking that it would be possible to code with
GTM? As I will discuss below, this methodological innocence has provoked
questions about the “Indigenization” of GTM or its applicability in researching
with other languages different from English or in other non-Anglo speaking
cultures. Atkinson and Silverman (1997) and Gubrium and Holstein (2002)
offered revealing readings that opened some doors for me in reflecting on the
sociological knowledge produced in my language and culture. These readings
allowed me to compare an American sociology that produces data and generates
theories by doing qualitative interviews, with the Spanish-speaking sociology that
only applies theories and, on many occasions, does not employ specific techniques
or data production strategies in research.
Maerk (2009) coined the word “cover-science” when paraphrasing the
Mexican Spaniard philosopher José Gaos (1900–1969). Gaos used the phrase the
“imperialism of categories” to criticize the use, with no changes or adaptations,
by Latin American thinkers of categories originating in other cultures, especially
Europe, to characterize in Latin America processes of social, economic, and
political orders. At the same time, Abend (2006) empirically demonstrated the
great differences in the use of concepts such as “theory” and “data” between
Mexican and American sociologies by comparing contributions in the most
prestigious journals from each country in the period of 1995–2001.
60 CÉSAR A. CISNEROS-PUEBLA

Based on such studies, I used to talk to my colleagues about the variety of our
national practices and the challenge of creating an emerging academic space and
place to discuss key issues. These include divergent epistemologies, our various
methodologies, the import of theoretical models, the critique of a global meth-
odology, the relevance of local theories, and the “Indigenization” of effective
methodologies in other territories of knowledge.
Obviously, every opportunity to chat with Kathy offered the possibility to
learn from her and to ask questions to enrich my knowledge. In some of these
conversations, I began to problematize the very idea of grounding the theoretical
conceptualization of data constructed from a creative conversation in the form of
a qualitative interview, by asking whether the methodological culture in which
said scientific practice arises is decisive for its foundation and consolidation. And
I’m sure I’m correct in recalling that Kathy once said to me, “Grounded Theory
is American” I would agree at least that Grounded Theory began as American, in
America, but many things have since happened to it.

GTM AS GLOBAL METHODOLOGY AND

AMERICAN PRAGMATISM
In recent years, works by Strübing (2007, 2019), Bryant (2009, 2021), and
Charmaz (2008) have analyzed GTM from the perspective of pragmatism is itself
an American philosophy. French sociologist Baszanger (1998) has highlighted the
impact of this American tradition on Strauss’s sociological thinking. Tarozzi
(2013) has wondered about the differences between doing grounded theory and
coding in his Italian mother tongue and in English. All these contributions,
together with the wide range of sources that Kathy researched for her discussion
of GTM from a global perspective (Charmaz, 2014) highlight the question of
GTM and methods in general, and their relationships to the contexts in which
they are created and developed.
Kathy (Charmaz, 2008; Charmaz & Keller, 2016) recognized the deep influ-
ence of Pragmatism on Strauss and used this in her own teaching at Sonoma State
University for over three decades. I think this influence also left an indelible mark
on the very ways she had of researching and teaching. Moreover, the Pragmatism
of Dewey, Mead, and Peirce, so present in Strauss’s thought, also influenced the
genesis of Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a, 2017). For
Schütze (2008), the legacy of Anselm Strauss in the social sciences is totally
different from the legacies of say Pierre Bourdieu or Talcott Parsons. Schütze
views Strauss’s legacy as founded in his creativity as social scientist to teach and
“. . .to imbue a way of seeing the world of human existence and a perspective of
how to make investigations in it. . .” (2008, p. 104). The genius of Strauss was his
ability to provide the tools needed to problematize, conceptualize, think, relate,
and to link objects and social processes. He created concepts such as trajectory,
social arenas, and turning points. As Schütze wrote, Strauss was not concerned
with conferring upon any of them a final or immutable definition. His influence is
particularly palpable in Kathy’s work.
An Unfinished Conversation with Kathy Charmaz 61

In a paper published in 2014, Kathy (Charmaz, 2014) recalled a specific

question I raised in a conversation in 2004 in New York about the method-
ologist’s responsibility to the international scene. Some years after this conver-
sation she decided to explore this topic, interviewing researchers of different
nationalities in order to compare and contrast their experiences doing and/or
teaching GTM. My casual question was used by Kathy to inform an interview
script with four central questions (Charmaz, 2014, p. 1075):

(1) How do the historical, national, disciplinary origins of this method affect
grounded theory research practice across the globe?
(2) What problems and possibilities might arise for grounded theorists from
different cultures?
(3) What concerns do international grounded theorists raise about using
grounded theory?
(4) How might their respective national and disciplinary trends influence inter-
national grounded theorists’ work?

According to Kathy, my question centered around the methodologist’s

responsibility to propose adaptations of his/her method to take the international
scene into account. However, I also had in my mind the responsibility of inter-
national researchers who take an existing method from another country and
apply it in their own respective countries.
The idea mentioned above that cover-science is being conducted in the His-
panic world and had been tormenting me for a long time. Maerk (2009) had first
published his ideas in Spanish at the end of the 1990s, and I had discussed the
implications of this with him several times. Pursuing this form of criticism caused
me many enmities in the Spanish-speaking academic world. Even friends of mine
began to distance themselves from me.
I published several articles in my native language (Cisneros, 2008, 2013,
among others) and also participated in Mexican and Latin American congresses
where I addressed the sensitive issue of the originality of research versus the
repetition of ideas produced in other latitudes by foreign authors. I joined with
others (Cisneros et al., 2006), in making an urgent call for an empirical sociology
comparing and contrasting the main epistemologies of different scientific cultures
as a step forward in the agenda for developing a new critical sociology of sci-
entific knowledge. This was a multinational and transcendent call given the
different origins of my co-authors – German, Mexican, American, Spanish, and
British.
Our qualitative inquiry practices are particularly well placed to serve as the
basis for theoretically articulating the complexities of our own cultures and
contexts. GTM is not different from other qualitative inquiry methodologies in
the sense of being itself intimately linked to the society and culture in which it was
produced and cultivated. Reflecting on the emergence of GT to think critically
from a global methodology perspective, Charmaz (2014) aptly asserted that
neither Glaser nor Strauss could anticipate that their method would spread
62 CÉSAR A. CISNEROS-PUEBLA

throughout the world, or that over the years it would impact such a wide variety
of specialties, disciplines, and professions. The Discovery of Grounded Theory was
full of presuppositions peculiar to postwar American sociological culture, tar-
geted at other North American sociologists.
It is essential to recognize that in the field of creativity of any kind, be it
musical, pictorial, poetic, or scientific, the creator is not responsible for the
interpretations or executions that others make of their work. No one can request
that they be held responsible for it, or assume the consequences that their work
may have when misapplied or misinterpreted. Further, does a social science
methodology become global by the claims of the authors? Or is it globalized due
to the efficiency and flexibility of its methods that are easily adaptable to other
cultural contexts and social realities? Or because it is attractive to PhD students
from peripheral countries? Or is it globalized through the colonization of
knowledge or just because the peripheral countries depend scientifically and
technologically on the “core” countries?
In the case of GTM, my conversations with Kathy were permeated with these
kinds of questions. Kathy’s careful and detailed attention to everything that was
happening in the world was remarkable and she honored me by listening to me
from my position as her Latin American sociologist colleague. In our dialogue
these questions were common to us as the following quote from my work dem-
onstrates (Cisneros, 2014, p. 172):
[G]lobalized knowledge means, in the field of qualitative research in particular, domination of
Anglo-American legacies, concepts, and methodologies over the peripheral world with their
own potentially innovative conceptual legacies and Indigenous epistemologies. I must note that
it is not the responsibility of any acclaimed and classical “great author” or the contemporary
and still alive “great authors” being copied as in the described way of “cover-science” to change
this practice. In another context, compare qualitative research and music, to follow the idea of
doing “cover-science” as playing “covers”: there is a potential dilemma for those musicians who
decide to keep their traditional instruments and explore the richness of their own culture versus
only playing€covers€of great American or European hits. As with the globalized musical world,
the scientific world must be aware of its unity and diversity. It is important to recognize the
different narratives we are able to listen to. . .

The burgeoning questioning about the existence of global knowledge and

global methodologies produced and practiced in qualitative inquiry has been
circulating for a long time (Alasuutari, 2004; Gobo, 2011; Hsiung, 2012; Mruck
et al., 2005; Ryen & Gobo, 2011).

UNFINISHED CONVERSATION
Today no one doubts that doing qualitative inquiry is very differently pursued
around the world. This is not only for economic reasons related to financing, nor
only for reasons derived from social policies, much less only for national prior-
ities or foci of attention. It is simply not the same to conduct ethnographical
research in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago as to do ethnography in the
Amazon rainforest, despite having received the “same” academic training at the
An Unfinished Conversation with Kathy Charmaz 63

University of Chicago or the University of Sao Paolo. And this is not a simple
prejudice.
The argument is based on the genesis of research methodologies: A Brazilian
researcher trained in the classrooms of the University of Chicago will practice a
specific way of doing his/her work unlike another trained exclusively in any local
Brazilian or Mexican university, for example. Similarly for Brazilian or Mexican
colleagues trained in Australia or Africa or Germany. And these differences will
persist even if they may all have read the same authors and the same books. Why
assume that they have all received the same training and practices, the same
methodology, regardless of national and cultural contexts? In this situation,
Atkinson (2005, §25), “. . .In no spirit of general anti-American feeling. . .,” noted
regarding the unity and diversity of qualitative research that American domi-
nance in research methods publications was causing a proliferation of pro-
nouncements and methodological prescriptions without solid disciplinary
foundations. He hoped to avoid “. . . some of the self-indulgent and ill-disciplined
work that too often spoils. . .” research.
Subsequently Hsiung (2012) proposed reflecting on the adoption of qualitative
research methods by peripheral countries from the perspective of “Indigeniza-
tion.” She was echoing criticism of the stereotype that the literature on qualitative
research methods is mainly produced by the privileged “. . .male, white,
Anglo-Saxon and more specifically North American. . .” (Mruck et al., 2005, §7).
For Hsiung it was imperative that the “Indigenization” of qualitative methods in
developing countries enrich the toolboxes of researchers in core countries. For
Hsiung (2012), to Indigenize qualitative methods also meant overcoming
Anglo-Saxon domination of the production of methodologies and methods.
From the peripheral or developing countries, what drove us in writing about
“Indigenization” of scientific practices was the need to establish recognition of
local epistemologies and methodologies along with their own conceptual legacies
and histories. This discussion on Indigenizing practices led to a seminal book by
Mihesuah and Wilson (2004), and another seminal book by Smith (1999) on
decolonization. Together these are key works for understanding the dynamics of
the global world, given that communication between and across diverse cultures
is composed of very complex and contested issues.
The concept of “Indigenization” has had a critical history full of political,
symbolic, epistemological, and even religious meanings linked to ancient tradi-
tions that cannot and do not stagnate. Its conceptualization involves: (1) gener-
alizations about Indigeneity; (2) issues of cultural imperialism and nativism; (3)
decolonization and its components; (4) patterns of rejection of valid exogenous
theories, practices and technologies; (5) equal political representation in gov-
ernment; (6) prioritization of everything perceived as Indigenous; (7) recognition
of important differences among Aboriginal cultures; and last but not least, being
sensitive to or adapting to the predominance of the Indigenous in a culture. In
summary, “Indigenization” can be conceptualized as collective efforts toward
decolonization.
For qualitative inquiry, with respect to GTM and based on Smith (2005),
Denzin (2007) proposed a complex thesis that would characterize indigenous
64 CÉSAR A. CISNEROS-PUEBLA

grounded theory inquiry as performative, collaborative, and participatory

research that is carried out by indigenous people in and for their communities in a
disruptive, pedagogical, and radically democratic sense. In an intense and pro-
vocative review, Bryant (2019) debates Denzin’s thesis on the critical Indigeni-
zation of GTM. Specifically, Bryant proposes the methodological requirement of
strictly and theoretically distinguishing the use of the words “performance and
performative,” since their indiscriminate use generates confusion. Does all
qualitative research performed by indigenous or non-American researchers using
GTM receive the title of “Indigenous grounded theory inquiry”? Are the criteria
mentioned by Denzin in his characterization essential to receive the title of
“Indigenous grounded theory inquiry”?
Today it is very important to recognize that a research method does not
become Indigenized when it is practiced by people from another culture, whether
they are Indigenous or not. On the contrary, if this method comes from core
countries, its contemporary application can be interpreted as a new form of
colonization. This is in sharp contrast to thinking of “Indigenization” as resis-
tance and decolonizing efforts as we have summarized above. But it is also
essential to recognize today that a discussion in these terms can be useless,
particularly in the field of qualitative research in which there is a permanent
horizontal debate of opposing ideas.
Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM), for instance, has been discussed for
more than 50 years, first in America and then gradually more globally. And the
methodology has been enriched by prominent students of Strauss such as
Charmaz (2006, 2014) and Clarke (2005; Clarke et al., 2018). Its international
spread is undeniable as evidenced by the recent Handbook of Current Develop-
ments in Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) which has many contri-
butions by non-US/UK scholars, the large number of papers presented at
congresses, and the many doctoral dissertations using GTM. Although it is not
yet possible to speak of a Hispano-American tradition of GTM, there is no doubt
that there is already a German school of GTM whose contributions are widely
discussed, as well as those that come from Poland, Scandinavia, and the United
Kingdom, among others.
Are non-American researchers who do or believe they do grounded theory
research similar or equal to musicians who only play covers of greatest hits from
elsewhere? And is this true even if it is not in a premeditated or conscious way? Is
GTM practiced in peripheral countries just cover-science? Is that fair to the GTM
and its great and original authors? The “Indigenization” of the GTM can’t exist
and remain in the future only as cover-science practiced by Indigenous or native
researchers from peripheral or non-English speaking countries.
In this short tribute to a dear friend and colleague, I wanted to remember my
conversations with her trying to reconstruct contexts and meanings as if she were
still present. Yet with this chapter, I do give the opportunity to critique me to all
those who dislike my idea about cover-science. In 2014, Kathy Charmaz (2014)
began and concluded her article on global perspectives on CGT with what for her
represented my question about the relationship between original and creative
researchers, their methods, and their international colleagues. She named it as
An Unfinished Conversation with Kathy Charmaz 65

“an unanswered question.” I say now that it is an unanswered question that is still
awaiting a valid response.
It was a great honor for me to participate with Kathy, that great intellectual
woman of constructivist GTM, in generating the type of questions that are still
there, still awaiting answers. Like many other colleagues I will miss for the rest of
my days the kindness, generosity, wisdom, and understanding of our dear Kathy
Charmaz.

NOTES
1. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (FQS) is a
multilingual online open access journal. Its main aim is to promote qualitative research
transnationally.

REFERENCES
Abend, G. (2006). Styles of sociological thought: Sociologies, epistemologies, and the Mexican and
U.S. quests for truth. Sociological Theory, 24, 141.
Alasuutari, P. (2004). The globalization of qualitative research. In G. Gobo, C. Seale, J. F. Gubrium,
& D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 595–608). Sage.
Atkinson, P. (2005). Qualitative research—Unity and diversity [25 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative Social Research, 6(3). Art. 26. http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0503261
Atkinson, P., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention
of self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 304–325.
Baszanger, I. (1998). The work sites of an American interactionist: Anselm L. Strauss, 1917–1996.
Symbolic Interaction, 21(4), 353–378.
Bridges-Rhoads, S., Hughes, H., & Van Cleave, J. (2018). Readings that rock our worlds. Qualitative
Inquiry, 24(10), 817–837.
Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss [113 par-
agraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative Social Research, 10(3). Art.
2. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs090325
Bryant, A. (2019). The varieties of grounded theory. Sage.
Bryant, A. (2021). Continual permutations of misunderstanding: The curious incidents of the grounded
theory method. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(3–4), 397–411.
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded
theory. Sage.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.),
Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2002). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A.
Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 675–694). Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2008). The legacy of Anselm Strauss for constructivist grounded theory. In N. K. Denzin
(Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (Vol. 32, pp. 127–141).
Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded Theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers.
Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084.
Charmaz, K. (2014a). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative
Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45.
Charmaz, K., & Keller, R. (2016). A personal journey with grounded theory methodology. Kathy
Charmaz in conversation with Reiner Keller [60 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative Social Research, 17(1). Art. 16. http://nbnresolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1601165
66 CÉSAR A. CISNEROS-PUEBLA

Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2004a). “Let’s do more theoretical work . . .”: Janice Morse in conversation with
César A. Cisneros-Puebla [96 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum for
Qualitative Social Research, 5(3). Art. 33. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0403331
Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2004b). “To learn to think conceptually:” Juliet Corbin in conversation with
Cesar A. Cisneros-puebla [53 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum for
Qualitative Social Research, 5(3). Art. 32. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0403325
Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2008). Manifiesto para una “sociologı́a peligrosa”. (Manifesto for a “dangerous
sociology”). Athenea Digital, 13(1), 171–184.
Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2013). Psicologı́a social: Polı́ticas del conocimiento y neocolonialismo. Teorı́a y
crı́tica de la psicologı́a (social psychology: Knowledge, politics and neocolonialism). Teorı́a y
crı́tica de la psicologı́a, 3, 30–39.
Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2014). Indigenous researchers and epistemic violence. In N. K. Denzin & M. D.
Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry outside the academy (pp. 164–178). Left Coast Press.
Cisneros-Puebla, C. A., Domı́nguez Figaredo, D., Faux, R., Kölbl, C., & Packer, M. (2006). Editorial:
About qualitative research epistemologies and peripheries [13 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative Social Research, 7(4). Art. 4. http://www.qualitative-
research.net/fqs-texte/4-06/06-4-4-e.htm
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage.
Clarke, A., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. (2018). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the inter-
pretive turn (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. (2007). Grounded theory and the politics of interpretation. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (1st ed., pp. 454–471). Sage.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. Basic Books.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of grounded theory. Sociology Press.
Gobo, G. (2011). Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14, 417–437.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2002). From the individual interview to the interview society. In J. F.
Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 3–32). Sage.
Hsiung, P. (2012). The globalization of qualitative research: Challenging Anglo-American domination
and local hegemonic discourse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung (Forum: Qualitative Social
Research), 13. Art. 21. http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1710
Maerk, J. (2009). Overcoming cover-science in Latin American social sciences and humanities—An
intervention. In M.-L. Frick & A. Oberprantacher (Eds.), Power and justice in international
relations: Interdisciplinary approaches to global challenges. Essays in honor of Hans Köchler (pp.
185–192). Ashgate Publishing.
Mihesuah, D., & Wilson, A. (2004). Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empow-
ering communities. University of Nebraska Press.
Morse, J. M., Bowers, B. J., Charmaz, K., Clarke, A. E., Corbin, J., & Porrwith Stern, C. J. P. N. (Eds.
). (2021). Grounded theory: The second generation revisited (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B. J., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Grounded
theory: The second generation (1st ed.). Routledge.
Mruck, K., Cisneros-Puebla, C., & Faux, R. (2005). Editorial: About qualitative research centers and
peripheries [10 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative Social
Research, 6(3). Art. 49. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0503491
Ryen, A., & Gobo, G. (2011). Managing the decline of globalized methodology. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology, 14, 411–415.
Schütze, F. (2008). The legacy in Germany today of Anselm Strauss’ vision and practice of sociology.
Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 32, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32009-2
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people. Zed Books.
Smith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85–108). Sage.
An Unfinished Conversation with Kathy Charmaz 67

Strübing, J. (2007). Research as pragmatic problem-solving: The pragmatist roots of empirically

grounded theorizing. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The handbook of grounded theory (pp.
580–601). Sage.
Strübing, J. (2019). The pragmatism of Anselm L. Strauss: Linking theory and method. In A. Bryant &
K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp.
51–67). Sage.
Tarozzi, M. (2013). Translating and doing grounded theory methodology: Intercultural Mediation as
an Analytic Resource [47 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum for Qualitative
Social Research, 14(2). Art. 6. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs130263