Talk:Grounded theory

message: Hi, good that there is an article about Grounded Theory now here. There is only one problem, and that is the reason I put the POV wrarning sticker on in: the article only deals with Glasers version of Grounded Theory and dismisses Strauss & Corbins version as "just standard QDA". I work with the Strauss & Corbin version of Grounded Theory and would argue that Strauss/Corbin is the true continuation of a systematic paradigma to create theory from data, whereas Glaser is only a pop science school (sorry to say that), labelling creativity and intuition without any systematic or quality standard as scientific method. On the other hand, I don't see a good way to improve this article without rewriting it completly. Maybe we should have a short Grounded Theory article with the history and "The Discovery of Grounded Theory" and move this one to Grounded theory (Glaser), and write another one about Grounded Theory (Strauss). -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 20:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV warning and academic discussion (dispute) 

message: the theroy of grouned is goin to your bed room for the night with no super!!!!!!so your grouned for being on this site!!!!GO TO YOUR ROOM!!
Ruchiraw 07:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed following vandalism

message: Could someone please add just a straight out definition to the start of this article. I mean, I found what I wanted to find over here, but the problem is that I had to go through all the preamble and historical accounts to get to it.
134.115.23.108 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straight out definition 

message: I made some changes to the intro paragraph in an attempt to clarify what grounded theory is. I also am recommending that the Glaser, Strauss, and Institute pages be merged onto this page until such time when the complexity, coverage, and/or notability of the topic requires spinning off subpages. As it stands now, there is information essential to understanding grounded theory that is only available on the Glaser page, while the other two are largely stubby and abandoned, and this page is largely historic rather than descriptive. Madcoverboy 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes and merger proposal

message: I made further clarifications to the article. As of now, in my view it lacks mainly a simple explanation on how GT is concucted. Already too much of the article goes to the split between the founders, while the information on what GT researchers really do is somewhat underrepresented. Any volunteers? Pundit|utter 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: further changes

message: This sentence does not give the reasons for its criticisms: "With its quasi-scientific procedures, grounded theory seems to be aping the methods of the natural sciences and making claims to explanation and prediction that are unwarrantable in social science. These criticisms are summed up e.g. by Thomas and James (2006)." e.g. Why is it quasi-scientific? Why is it unwarrantable? 
This entire section, actually, is pure opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.112.79 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: In referring to the book from 1967, Barney Glaser (in Maines (ed), 1991, pp. 15-16) writes "Anselm [Strauss] taught me two cardinal rules of taking credit when writing is finished. First, one wrote the whole book and both wrote the whole book togheter. This is the concept of jointly and severally. Thus it is impossible to pin credit on one and not the other for anything in the book. Also each one is responsible for everything in the book. Second, it follows that there is no significance to whose name is first on the book. The simple reality is that one name has to come before the other".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvever (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Discovery of Grounded Theory-book 

message: It is important to note that the Strauss vs Glasser methods debate is considerable.  The methods of the two do diverge, and most of what has been published by Strauss and Corbin is not mentioned here.  I am interested in the Strauss and Corbin method, and this article is not very useful for that.
A reason that there may be some lack of Strauss and Corbin method information is that Glasser's Grounded Theory Institute has more resources (even though many of their publications are focused on disputing the publications of Strauss and Corbin, rather than on refining the Glasser Method) than Corbin does.
I think the pages should be split again, due to the fact that while they come from the same beginnings, it could be compared to having Christianity and Judaism on the same page...
71.192.117.73 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can improve the current article by adding information on Strauss/Corbin!? If not, the merger proposal suggested that the "pages be merged onto this page until such time when the complexity, coverage, and/or notability of the topic requires spinning off subpages". If you are willing to expand the rather short article on Grounded theory (Strauss) into something that is worth having as a separate article, there shouldn't be much opposition to a split. Rl (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Strauss VS Glasser 

message: This whole paragraph comes straight out of Thornberg (fn 19). Jfredmenard (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constructivist Grounded Theory 

message: To adopt a balanced point of view, this article is going to have to recognize that grounded theory is, I assert, not accepted by most scientists. The "positivist tradition" (i.e, science) allows for something like grounded theory in observational steps of scientific method. Patterns are observed in data that may represented relations among variables (categories of data). The problem is, we can't assume the relations are real based only on the data. Science says we need a test (involving prediction and other data) to lend credibility to apparent relations. The procedure of grounded theory does not include such a test, because that would be the positivist tradition (having a question to test in advance). Moreover, scientific theories are explanations, and grounded theory tries to explain based on one sample of data, a very dubious idea. Any explanation would only apply to the data examined, it would not be generalizable (i.e, the inductive inferences is not compelling.). This article includes many words, likely in the hope that more words lend validity. They don't. 174.53.223.28 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A more balanced POV 

message: In the opening sentence, did the author mean 'methodical'?  'Systematic'?  It needs to be fixed.
DMTate (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: "Methodic" is not English

message: I hate this paper. The seem to manage to spend 2000 words saying something that could be said in three sentences. --Writethenread (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  G. Thomas and D. James 

message: I keep on wanting to restructure this article. But I'm not qute sure how to do so. Restructuring well can rqeuire you to understand the soure material and the "entire editorial logic" behind the articles structure at the same time. 
Random thoughts that come to mind at the moment:
* I don't like the use of bullets. But I don't know why. I think they make stuff difficult to read. I found some papers about how bullets remove the logical relation between sentences created by "but, however, and etc". I thin I might want to turn some of these into separate paragraphs
* I want to merge premise and philosophy into a single section - perhaps adding some subsections. 
* I want to merge stages of analysis and nomeclenture, and turn nomenclenture into a discussion of methodology
Does anyone have opinions or suggestions. (Writethenread (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I'm interested in this topic, so might have a go myself, perhaps you could give me some feedback if I have a go. Any advice would be useful :) ? I'm mostly trying to avoid a "you changed everything and it's terrible" scenario if I do some heavy editing. --Writethenread (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey there. I'll have a look at what you did. I've been digging into the literature for the sentence. I got the original book by glaser and strauss, and it was equally cryptic. I've found this iier.org.au/iier16/moghaddam.html - which looks like it might be helpful (searching google scholar for "grounded theory propert") --Writethenread (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, so I think the idea is that category is like a "label" you attach to data, you then group these into categories (groups of labels) and associate properties with different concepts in a category (categorical data) or "dimensions" - things that can vary. --Writethenread (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

text:  I found a nice source for properties / categories - sage handbook of grounded theory p.196 looks like it might be a clearer discussion of the meaning of terms. I think I agree with you in practice but not in theory :), in theory you could go and build a minimal possible descriptive model of what is going on (along with a minimal model of human language interpreted by a machine) and be completely clear and specific about of priors - though  the technology to do so does not yet exist. In practice you have to use your brain and it's learned way of categorising and interpreting things - which will always have some priors. I'd like to think there is some middle ground there so that you can be "more objective" (or perhaps not obviously wrong)... like the whole point studying anything is that some things might be more likely to be true that others, and grounded theory-esque studies on some controversial topics have been pretty compelling to me as "not obviously biased, perhaps I should update me views". --Writethenread (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool cool. I had a go at a little rewriting of the first paragraph (as well as merging together sections into methodology). See what you think. I'm a fan of the sage handbook - it's one of those "edited sets of papers" so it gives a range of viewpoints. --Writethenread (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: Grounded theory is a type of theory and not a method. Glaser and Strauss's (1967) book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, suggests ways to discover grounded theories. The book has a chapter on discovering theory from quant data. The relevant qual method is the constant comparative method. I think the article has some momentum now on the stance that it's a method, so I'm hesitating to wade in...! Andi Fugard [they/them] (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grounded theory is a type of theory not methodology