Introduction
The chapter will concentrate on grounded theory methodology (GTM) from the point of view of phenomenology (PH). I will analyze some classical books and ideas of grounded theory (GT) to see some possibilities of enriching GTM and adapting phenomenological thinking to GTM.
The goal of this chapter is to explain the similarities and differences between GTM and PH. We want to see how these two approaches could be an inspiration for creating a thoughtful approach in social research that is more reflexive, contemplative, and self-aware.
GT is an approach to research and analysis that emphasizes the focus on explicating and elaborating data while theorizing or building theories. The categories and concepts should be derived from the analysis of the data, not from existing theories (). It avoids the logical elaboration of hypotheses based on previously accepted axioms or assumptions and already defined concepts, as was done, for example, in the theories of Talcott Parsons or Robert Merton. Theoretical diagrams emerge systematically from empirical data which directly relate to the observed reality.
Hypotheses, concepts, and properties of concepts are built during empirical research and are then modified. There is also an iterative process of analysis and returning to the empirical field to collect the data (, 2007). So, building a theory is related to empirical research and the researchers experiencing the world.
This ).
Barney Glaser maintains the position that a theory is discovered, and he is against the constructivist approach (:95). The connection should be more appreciated, and it could show the effectiveness in discovering GT.
However, Kathy Charmaz ().
The construction of the theory has the character of continuously returning from deduction to induction to modify earlier arrangements (to reconstruct categories, change hypotheses, reconfigure theoretical diagrams) if the data interpretations suggest doing so. A test for the theory is whether it works, i.e., whether it explains and provides an interpretation of the phenomena (). This is a pragmatic methodological approach. It does not tell us whether the theory reflects reality (whether it mirrors the reality), only if it achieves what it was intended to achieve, for example, if it has explained the origin of a given phenomenon or has made it understandable.
We can add here that the constructivist GT is based on the concepts of :240). The researcher/analyst wants to give the reader the chance to assess how the researcher influences the research process, so the control of the researchers activities and attitudes are the issues:
Reflexivity [is] the researchers scrutiny of his or her research experience, decisions, and interpretations in ways that bring the researcher into the process and allow the reader to assess how and to what extent the researchers interests, positions, and assumptions influenced inquiry.
(:63)
Thanks to reflexivity, the researcher gains an insight into the work of his or her mind and the patterns of perception of the world.
The classic as well as the constructivist and critical approaches take the same inspiration from the basics of GTM, although there are some important differences. Assumptions should be avoided (classic GT) or critically reconstructed and analyzed (constructivist and critical GT). We can see the innovative potential in GTM in all of the above-mentioned approaches. The freshness of seeing the reality and analyzing it without preconceived concepts, and with a very open and critical analytical method, seem to be the basis of GTM.