Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

809455

research-article2018
QIXXXX10.1177/1077800418809455Qualitative InquiryCharmaz and Belgrave

Article
Qualitative Inquiry

Thinking About Data With


2019, Vol. 25(8) 743­–753
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Grounded Theory sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1077800418809455
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418809455
journals.sagepub.com/home/qix

Kathy Charmaz1 and Linda Liska Belgrave2

Abstract
This article examines qualitative data in an era of neoliberalism and focuses on the place of data in grounded theory studies.
Neoliberal values of individual responsibility, self-sufficiency, competition, efficiency, and profit have entered the conduct of
research. Neoliberalism fosters (a) reifying quantitative logical-deductive research, (b) imposing surveillance of types and
sources of data, (c) marginalizing inductive qualitative research, and (d) limiting access to data in grounded theory studies.
Grounded theory relies on data and resists current efforts to abandon data. The method resides in the space between
reifying and rejecting data. Data allow us to learn from the stories of those left out and permits research participants to
break silences. Data can help us look underneath and beyond our privileges, and alter our views. Grounded theory is
predicated on data, but how researchers regard and render data depends on which version of the method they adopt.
We propose developing a strong methodological self-consciousness to learn how we affect the research process and to
counter the subtle effects of neoliberalism.

Keywords
co-construction of data, institutional review boards, methodological self-consciousness, neoliberalism, pragmatism,
constructivist grounded theory

During an interview, Karen,1 an attractive middle-aged In this article, we consider these questions while focus-
woman, talked about having fibromyalgia, multiple chemi- ing on the place of data in grounded theory studies in an era
cal sensitivities, and constant pain from serious injuries. dominated by neoliberalism. In brief, many qualitative
Like other attractive women in the study, she dwelled upon researchers take for granted that the term data means the
the disparity between how people responded to her and empirical materials they gather, examine, and interpret to
what she felt and experienced. And she also sensed the illuminate a topic or problem in the world. Data serve a pur-
injustice of being devalued when other people disregarded pose. Data can be used for exploring topics, expanding
or disallowed her claims of being in pain. Karen said, knowledge, developing concepts, and providing evidence.2
How researchers view, construct, position, analyze, and
The trouble that I have is that people look at me, and they see represent data all vary. Thus, the “shoulds” and “oughts”
someone who’s in relatively good shape . . . They look at me corresponding to each stance on data also vary as we show
and they see somebody and they go “You don’t look sick” or in our discussion of grounded theory.
“You don’t look like you’re in pain” and I can’t say to them The grounded theory method rests on collecting, exam-
really because this is a very sensitive subject, “Well, the reason
ining, and checking data. This method has focused on data
I don’t look like I’m in pain is because I’m medicated; I’m on
a time-released pure codeine product that enables me to live
analysis, although its implications for data collection are
normally,” and so they look at me, and so it further—what I beginning to be articulated (Charmaz, 2014, 2015).
struggle with right now is what people see and what’s really Grounded theory is a systematic method aimed for theory
going on inside of me are two different things because I know construction, which relies on rigorous analysis and concep-
how to do make-up and dress. I learned that from my mother tualization of data. Grounded theory is an iterative, com-
early on to disguise what is really going on inside of me. parative, and interactive method that begins with inductive

Does Karen’s statement count as data? Is it merely an 1


Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USA
artifact produced by the artificial situation of the interview? 2
University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
Was it elicited? Does it matter? What are data? Might neo-
Corresponding Author:
liberal academic practices of institutional reviews have con- Kathy Charmaz, Sonoma State University, 1801 E. Cotati Avenue,
strained the form and content of the interview? How do Rohnert Park, CA 94928, USA.
different versions of grounded theory treat data? Email: charmaz@sonoma.edu
744 Qualitative Inquiry 25(8)

data. We grounded theorists analyze our data using com- free markets and minimal state interventions. Neoliberalism
parative methods from the beginning to the end of the emerged after World War II (WWII), has grown since the
research process. We use our early analyses to identify 1970s (Harvey, 2005), and escalated since the 1990s (Hay,
which data to subsequently collect. In turn, these data help 2004; Mudge, 2008). It gained academic respectability
us develop our budding ideas. Throughout the research, we when first Friedrich von Hayek in 1974 and then Milton
successively gather specific data to check and refine our Friedman in 1976 received the Nobel Prize in economics
major categories. Thus, grounded theory data evolve (Harvey, 2005). Neoliberal ideology found its way to the
throughout the study. To construct fresh theories, grounded public discourse via multiple avenues, including media,
theorists attempt to remain open to all possible theoretical churches, universities, and the like, to the extent that it has
understandings of the data and systematically check which become normalized, even hegemonic. In fact, “by 1990 or
one best accounts for them. so most economics departments in the major research uni-
Grounded theorists who follow various versions of the versities as well as the business schools were dominated by
method would agree with this definition of the method.3 neoliberal modes of thought” (Harvey, 2005, p. 54).
However, proponents of these versions differ substantially The neoliberal focus on individual freedom can interfere
about data: what data mean, how we find them, our stance with social justice movements, which rely on social solidar-
toward data and how it shapes our relationships with ity. Thus, the growth of neoliberalism may reflect part of the
research participants, as well as what we do with data. In division between the “traditional left” and the student
brief, objectivist grounded theorists treat data as facts exter- movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Moreover, the intensi-
nal to the researcher and method of collection. Post- fication of ideological individualism leaves individuals
positivist grounded theorists also treat data as objective but responsible for their own success or failure in all realms,
attend to its accuracy and mode of collection. Constructivist including health and education (Harvey, 2005). This inten-
grounded theorists view data as co-constructed between sification of individualism has occurred within the context
researchers and research participants and locate these data of processes of commodification of “things that were never
within their social, historical, and situational conditions of actually produced as commodities” (p. 166), such as art,
production. culture, history, and the creation of the “disposable worker,”
Grounded theory is an inductive, emergent method, both of which have extended into the academic world.
which researchers not only can use to conceptualize their What does neoliberalism have to do with research and
data but also to construct imaginative theoretical interpreta- data? Stephanie Lee Mudge (2008) argues that our ability
tions. As such, grounded theory conflicts with several main to grasp neoliberalism social-scientifically hinges on our
neoliberal assumptions and practices. ability to understand neoliberalism’s elevation of the mar-
ket as “a non-political, non-cultural, machine-like entity”
(p. 705) and to appreciate the importance of its power to
Effects of Neoliberalism on Qualitative define. Failure to see neoliberalism’s pervasiveness in
Inquiry and Grounded Theory nonpolitical realms leads to missing its influence on
claims to truth and meaning outside the political world.
Defining Neoliberalism The neoliberal focus on technical solutions for policy
Neoliberalism has been variously defined, partly because questions, focus on technical proficiency, and reliance on
the paradigm evolves and scholars in diverse fields have rationalist assumptions (Hay, 2004), once generalized
taken up its implications (Elliott, 2014; Hay, 2004). For our beyond the economy, have clear implications for the con-
purposes, we can start with David Harvey’s (2005) defini- duct of social research.
tion of neoliberalism as “a theory of political economic We have long known that science is political, though we
practices that proposes that human well-being can best be often ignore it beyond such acts as revisionist editing of
advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms inconvenient scientific reports and elected officials’ denial
and skills within an institutional framework characterized of climate science. Reflecting on the “International History,
by strong private property rights, free markets and free Philosophy and Science Teaching” conference in Greece,
trade” (p. 2). As Harvey points out, neoliberalism empha- July 2011, Jesse Bazzul (2012) notes (rather astoundingly)
sizes minimal state interventions in the market, and posits that the conference allowed no opportunity to discuss “the
an underlying assumption that “individual freedoms are [neoliberal] reforms that were [are] sweeping Greece and
guaranteed by freedom of the market and of trade” (p. 7). by extension much of the world” (p. 1002). We must look
Neoliberal assumptions of valuing individual responsi- deeper, beyond obvious manipulation to the interweaving
bility, self-sufficiency, competition, efficiency, and profit between science and neoliberalism.
surface in concrete policies and practices and in a narrow The elevation of individuals over social relationships
conception of accountability. Our depiction of neoliberal is characteristic of neoliberal thought. It is visible in
assumptions fits Colin Hay’s (2004) and others’ focus on social research that relies on individual measures and the
Charmaz and Belgrave 745

individual as the focus of analysis—a type of “methodolog- that generalizations cannot be made from the data. They
ical individualism” (Charmaz, 2016, 2017; Edmondson, stated that qualitative studies had few citations and did not
2003, p. 1725). These foci can lead to accepting a mecha- provide useful guidelines for clinical practice.5 Similarly,
nistic approach to society and certainly to social research. the quest for “hard” evidence to support policies pervades
Subsequently, qualitative researchers may find their work to many professions, albeit the marginalization of qualitative
be marginalized as indicated in such experiences as hearing research in their major journals may be more subtle.
a quantitatively oriented reviewer remark about a grant In fields where qualitative inquiry may seem to be more
application for qualitative research: “I wanted to like this welcome, students and staff may encounter obstacles.
proposal: the Investigator is addressing an important prob- Departments often insist on qualitative dissertation propos-
lem and he/she has some good ideas, but it just doesn’t look als fit quantitative paradigms. IRB (Institutional Review
like science” (Belgrave, Zablotsky, & Guadagno, 2002, p. Board) approval of data collection methods and research
1429). Certainly, we can advise qualitative researchers on participants’ informed consent often demand that the
strategies for successfully getting through reviews by quan- researcher can identify all the risks of participating in
titative evaluators, but why is the onus on qualitative advance. Some “risks” may be readily identified, and mea-
researchers to “sell” their work to these quantitative evalu- sures to counteract them may be obvious. But how can the
ators? We can trace this question to the impact of neoliberal researcher know what the full range of risk might be until
ideology through not only the political world, but the wider well into the data collection, or even after publication of the
culture, including the scientific domain. research report? Curiously, institutional review boards and
similar committees seldom entertain what might be the
risks to the researcher. In fairness to IRBs, protecting
Neo-Liberal Bureaucratization of Research researchers is not their mandate, which consists of protect-
Although qualitative research—including grounded theory— ing research participants. When Linda’s local IRB tried to
has advanced over the past fifty years, neoliberal assump- prevent one of her students from interviewing gang mem-
tions, policies, and practices undermine it. A major effect of bers to avoid risk, she successfully argued this point. After
neoliberalism on social scientific research is a resurgence of Linda’s intervention, the student did his interviews and won
assumptions and practices supporting the reification and an award for his research. Neoliberalism has fostered fitting
bureaucratization of the logical-deductive paradigm of con- research into bureaucratic imperatives. It has also fostered
ducting research with its quest for quantification. Thus, neo- increased surveillance of the research process. Under the
liberal values influence what stands as creditable data as well guise of following ethical research practices and protecting
as how to obtain it. As Patti Lather (2012) declares, human subjects, intrusive regulation has intensified over
“Neoliberalism LOVES quantitative reductionism,” thereby the past three decades. Surveillance and bureaucratic regu-
negating what cannot be counted and “profoundly shap[ing] lation thereby undermine the conduct and resources for
what counts as science” (p. 1023; emphasis in original). qualitative research as well as the value of the finished
Not only is the traditional quantitative model of conduct- study. The rhetoric of risk can dissolve into a ranking of
ing research the dominant model of inquiry but also this research methods. In his ethnographic study of institutional
model is embedded in the structure of many academic review boards, Will van den Hoonaard (2011) found that the
bureaucracies and funding agencies. What follows? The personal views and disciplinary paradigms of individual
quantification of excellence accelerates and the reproduc- IRB members governed their assessments.
tion of neoliberal assumptions and practices proliferates. Consistent with the logical deductive paradigm, regula-
This trend has occurred in recent pressures for evidence- tion of inquiry has buttressed specifying the research topics,
based practice in a variety of professions and further methods, participants, and outcomes in advance of conduct-
strengthens the logical deductive paradigm. Subsequently, ing the study. Quantitative logic underlies assessments of
incentives mount to conduct research based on “big data” rigor. Under these conditions, open-ended, inductive quali-
and/or an experimental model with control groups. tative research design loses credibility and becomes more
Biomedical research, for example, takes this paradigm to difficult to defend. Although some of us have been able to
its logical conclusion with claims that randomized clinical educate our local IRBs on the open-ended, flexible nature
trials represent the “gold standard” for research. Strict of qualitative research, it takes a long time, a commitment
adherence to this standard diminishes the significance—and not all can make. In Linda’s case, having IRB representa-
even presence—of qualitative research. What gatekeepers tives from multiple departments and schools that used qual-
accept as data matters, and qualitative data may be dis- itative research facilitated educating other IRB members
missed. One glaring example occurred when the editors of during a critical period. Once again, review panels, commit-
the British Medical Journal (BMJ) announced that they did tees, and agencies measure qualitative research against the
not welcome qualitative research.4 These editors noted that standards of logical deductive quantitative methods. The
qualitative studies are often small, and thus, they argued current arguments against inductive qualitative research
746 Qualitative Inquiry 25(8)

echo what Glaser and Strauss (1967) refuted fifty years ago. comparisons researchers can make become constrained by
They argued that qualitative research had to be evaluated by the research design, its review by institutional authorities,
its own canons; it cannot be judged by those for quantitative and in the case of funded research, also by the granting
research. agency.
The logical deductive paradigm stifles creativity in using Grounded theory is predicated on pursuing a fresh con-
traditional qualitative methods and in developing new ceptual analysis and gathering data that can illuminate it.
methods. Now, as in the 1960s, it imposes accountability on For example, the visibility and invisibility of illness and
quantitative terms—and extends accountability beyond disability became an important aspect of living with chronic
data, per se. Neoliberal values infuse criteria for excellence illness. When Kathy first began her foray into this area of
and evaluation of it in practice for both quantitative and research, talking with relatives of caregivers was a natural
qualitative researchers. Publication of articles in “top” jour- extension of interviewing people who experience chronic
nals often becomes the standard against which researchers illnesses. She learned early on how concerned partners and
are evaluated. In some fields, the so-called top journals relatives participated in managing the relative visibility of
almost exclusively publish quantitative studies. How many the person’s illness and disability, and added their stories to
articles does the researcher publish in a year? Are these her data collection. One mother monitored her adult daugh-
articles single-authored or co-authored? How many cita- ter’s fatigue at social events, so they could leave before her
tions does the article receive? How high does the journal daughter’s neurological symptoms of slurred speech and an
rank? Such questions arise without thoughtful scrutiny of unsteady gait surfaced. This woman’s monitoring protected
either their consequences or of what quality means. her daughter from debilitating over-fatigue and from dis-
Certainly, self-surveillance stands as among these conse- paraging judgments from people who assumed she was
quences, and it affects qualitative researchers. Pressures to drunk. But can a researcher treat “monitoring humiliating
publish lead to looking for easily collectible data and rapid symptoms” as a concept to develop and seek further data
publication. In qualitative inquiry, the data increasingly from friends and family on it, when they had not been
consist of ready-made texts from online sources. The pres- approved or even mentioned as potential research partici-
sure to publish also reinforces neoliberal imperatives to pants during earlier institutional reviews? Probably not.
design narrow research problems. Adding friends and family members to the type of research
In certain ways, neoliberalism particularly undermines participants to interview would now necessitate a fresh
conducting grounded theory studies. Using this method institutional review with an additional interview guide that
depends on starting with a broad topic or general research presupposes the researcher knows the questions to ask.
question that gains specificity as researchers develop their Similarly, institutional reviews discourage researchers
analyses. However, bureaucratic institutional reviews from tracing their nascent concepts or studied process
infused by neoliberalism foster forming narrow research across substantive fields that entail sampling new partici-
questions and favor preconceiving data collection ques- pants and/or settings. Such constraints inhibit theoretical
tions. Both lead to encouraging participants’ superficial sampling, which some grounded theorists (e.g., Hood,
responses. Subsequently, the data analysis is limited or 2007) view as the defining strategy of the method itself. In
compromised, and the types of comparisons that constitute brief, theoretical sampling means seeking more data to fill
it are constrained. Constant comparative analysis is funda- out the properties of a conceptual category the researcher is
mental to the grounded theory method. Glaser and Strauss developing. Such categories cannot be defined in advance.
(1967) urged researchers to develop their nascent theories They arise through analyzing data and focusing subsequent
by collecting comparative data in other fields. This approach data collection. Clearly, theoretical sampling can indicate
becomes increasingly more difficult with neoliberal institu- either gathering data across subfields or taking data collec-
tional and funding practices. To collect comparative data in tion in a new, that is, unauthorized direction. If so, research-
other fields typically entails institutional reviews of new ers often do not have the time or resources to gain new
proposals. Similarly, funding agencies expect developed authorization from the institutional review boards.
rationales for research decisions in advance of undertaking In short, all these obstacles diminish both defining and
the study. Moreover, recall that grounded theory is an emer- studying emergent data and conducting a grounded theory
gent method. The nascent conceptual analysis drives which analysis.
comparisons the researcher will seek. Grounded theorists
can neither predict in advance what concepts they will The Value of Data for Qualitative
develop, which comparisons they will subsequently need to
make, and what other directions the research process may
Inquiry and Grounded Theory
take beyond the initial research question. In qualitative inquiry, a wide intellectual space lies between
Consequently, the current climate of neoliberalism limits reifying data and outright rejecting the use of data. At one
grounded theory data analysis—and data analysis is what end of this intellectual space, we have understandings of
grounded theory is all about. In short, the types of data from a neo-positivist, realist position as something
Charmaz and Belgrave 747

researchers collect. If they are good at obtaining data, they of our understanding of social phenomena. Acknowledging
view their data as relatively objective, and if they have solid these voices includes:
analysis techniques, they believe they can coax theory from
these data. Working inductively can be interpreted as work- •• Those who see their experience as beyond words.
ing in the positivist vein (Brinkman, 2014), as can much of •• Those who have lost their ability to speak.
qualitative research (McClure, 2015; St. Pierre, 2014). •• Those who remain silent.
However, does a sweeping categorization of positivism fit •• Those who have been silenced.
all inductive research?
In contrast to positivism, postmodernism is at the other Through gaining in-depth knowledge of our topic, we
end of understandings of data. Here, we find a postmodern- can obtain data about silences. Qualitative inquiry has long
ist critique that goes deeper than rejecting data. Rather, it valorized individuals’ stories and overlooked silences
calls into question and deconstructs qualitative methodol- (Charmaz, 1999, 2009b). Being left out may mean being
ogy itself, partly based on the disconnect between humanist silent but does not necessarily mean being unstudied. For
ontology and epistemology and the concerns of scholars example, while much research has been conducted on the
pursuing postmodern, poststructuralist, and other “post” cholera epidemic in Haiti, most of it has been done by medi-
concerns (e.g., St. Pierre, 2014). Part of the problem appears cal and public-health researchers. Their work has yielded
to flow from reinvigorated attacks on qualitative work and important policy suggestions but represent “the expert”
recommitments to positivist research as the rigorous, scien- view. How do people living in the midst of the epidemic
tific research, attacks that clearly were political in nature understand it and manage their everyday lives in the face of
(see St. Pierre, 2014 for details) and flow from the hege- it? Kapriskie Seide (2016) explored this question in a small,
mony of neoliberal thought. constructivist grounded theory study. She gained access to
But what of modes of research that exist in that wide
interview street vendors and unemployed people, among
space between reifying and rejecting data? Where does
others, and learned of the hard choices they have to make
grounded theory stand? True, many grounded theory stud-
(e.g., whether to buy food or clean water for their children).
ies can be categorized as positivist. One example is Caroline
She also discovered some of the consequences of following
Mallory and Phyllis Stern’s (2000) interview study of thir-
professional recommendations such as becoming sick from
teen women at risk of HIV infection. The authors aimed to
adding chlorine to water, and the experience of using alleg-
develop an explanatory substantive theory to conceptualize
edly clean water, which has worms in it. None of these
the actions and attitudes of women who had engaged in sex
as a means of survival. After interviewing nine women, voices are part of the “official story” of the epidemic and
Mallory and Stern developed two major categories, “sliding efforts to manage it. It is noteworthy that Seide’s partici-
into survival sex” and “awakening,” which signified the pants extracted a promise from her to do something beyond
research participants’ new understandings about risk and writing a scientific report.
survival and marked their changed actions to reduce risk of Second, data can help/allow/force us to look beyond our
HIV exposure (p. 585). The authors next aimed to confirm own privilege as well as the roots of it. In the example ear-
the accuracy of these categories by interviewing three addi- lier, Seide went beyond a middle-class, educated Haitian
tional participants, a key informant, and a previous partici- view of the situation. Without making any claims of speak-
pant. The study contains strong elements of positivism ing for Haiti’s poor, she clearly exposes the absurdity of a
because the authors (a) aimed to generate explanations of formal policy that expects Haitians to take responsibility for
behavior, (b) treated the data as straight-forward facts sepa- protecting themselves from cholera. Similarly, in interview-
rate from their context and construction, (c) appeared to ing South Floridians to examine how people made sense of
assume the role of neutral observers without addressing the Ebola epidemic (Belgrave, LaToya, & Seide, 2016), a
positionality, including their authority as health profession- study participant told Linda:
als, and (d) presented their concept of awakening as explan-
Why Ebola was completely ignored in an African country?
atory, predictive, and generalizable.
Because they’re Africans . . . Unless you [live in] a rich African
Grounded theory emerged from a robust realist tradition in nation, no one cares. It’s another, you know, dead, poor African.
qualitative inquiry in the 1960s that assumed the objectivism Now, whether that’s racist or not, I have no idea. It’s not
of positivism and a realist view of data (Charmaz, 2000, Southern racist. That’s a different animal altogether. But it’s a
Charmaz, 2009a). Yet new versions of grounded theory differ. global thing. Because look at it. When Ebola crossed the color
How do those of us who understand data as being jointly line, so to speak, there was more urgency.
constructed between researchers and participants, who do
not see data as having a reality of their own, value data? Without data, would we expect a Southern White man in
Why go into the field at all? First, and most obviously, data the United States to make this kind of analysis of racisms?
bring in voices that might otherwise be unknown and left out It is also noteworthy that when this example was presented
748 Qualitative Inquiry 25(8)

at a conference, the mostly young, sophisticated, academic Glaser (2011) states, “What is real for the GT researcher
audience laughed. Perhaps more of us need to move beyond is exactly what is going on in his [sic] ‘whatever’ data and
our various forms of privilege. data mix” (p. 14). “Whatever” data are those researchers
Third, data can serve as a corrective for our own per- assume they “find.” Data are “there” in the world, not
spectives, getting us out of our own heads. In Belgrave shaped by what the researcher can comprehend and capture
et al.’s (2016) study of making sense of Ebola, the research- with words. From their first statement of grounded theory,
ers asked participants what they thought of the many state Glaser and Strauss (1967) subscribed to the then common
governors who instituted mandatory quarantines for any view of “letting the data speak for themselves” in which
health care workers who had cared for Ebola patients, on data are separate and independent from the observer
their return from Africa. Linda was furious at what she saw (Clarke, 2005, p. 75; Flick, 2019). Not surprisingly, in their
as blatant pandering to voters by governors who were up for rationale for using documents, Glaser and Strauss (1967)
reelection. She anticipated similar cynical responses from viewed library stacks as filled with “voices begging to be
study participants. Was she wrong! Everyone interviewed heard” (p. 163). They treat the voices to be heard as objec-
to date has supported mandatory quarantines, regardless of tive content without addressing the respective author’s pur-
their efficacy in public-health terms. pose, the production of the text, and its audiences’
Fourth, the construction of data, at least in the form of interpretation and use of it. Nor do Glaser and Strauss
in-depth interviews, gives permission to participants to dis- examine how researchers’ taken-for-granted standpoints
cuss topics and issues otherwise unshared or avoided. The and conceptual interests may shape their reading and ren-
White, Southern man quoted above, an acquaintance of dering of the text.6
Linda’s, is generally quite open in discussing all sorts of Objectivist grounded theorists remain neutral about
political issues, but never mentions race. Even during the what data are; they view their task as to remain open to
interview, he didn’t mention race, until asked about it, at what they find. In the objectivist view, relationships with
which time he said he had avoided bringing it up. research participants may matter for access to data, not for
These are only a few ways in which the data we con- how these relationships can shape the content of them.
struct with our participants serve as invaluable tools in our Glaser once insisted that the data would be overt because
inquiries. That said, in the same vein as avoiding reifying participants would tell the researcher what was happening.
data themselves, we don’t want to overstate the extent to In recent years, he espouses more nuanced views. Glaser
which we jointly construct them with participants. We fol- advocates getting beyond the research participants’ public
low many of the leads participants give us during their statements to what their real concerns are and acknowl-
interviews and revise our research goals, methods, and edges how they resolve their major concern might be latent
fledgling concepts in response to ongoing data analysis. Yet rather than overt.
it is we who invite participation, who draft interview guides Glaser’s (e.g., 2001, 2007, 2011) view of data is character-
and ask questions, or decide when and where to observe ized by his frequent slogan, “All is data.” He states,
social life and what is worthy of recording in field notes.
It means exactly what is going on in the research scene is the
data, whatever the source, whether interview, observations,
Data in Major Versions of Grounded documents, in whatever combination. It is not only what is
Theory being told, how it is being told and the conditions of its being
told, but also all the data surrounding what is being told. It
The Realist View of Data—Objectivist Grounded means what is going on must be figured out exactly what it is
Theory to be used for, that is conceptualization, not for accurate
description. (Glaser, 2001, p. 145)
Glaser and Strauss (1967) adopted a realist stance in their
original statement of grounded theory. They treat data as Glaser’s statements about what constitutes data demon-
given, out there, waiting to be apprehended, dissected, and strate continuity over the years and correspond to his initial
served up in analysis. Their view assumes that data stand on statement with Strauss in 1967. They articulated their realist
their own in a knowable external world. This stance makes stance on data in the following passage:
data unproblematic. For them, data are the necessary source
of the greater goal of conceptualization, which means Clearly, a grounded theory that is faithful to the everyday realities
abstracting the properties of data under a new explanatory of a substantive area is one that has been carefully induced from
label and making claims about them. Glaser continues to diverse data, as we have described the process. Only in this way
maintain this view. Glaser (2001) treats data as indicating will the theory be closely related to the daily realities (what is
theoretical categories, that are abstract variables detached actually going on) of substantive areas, and so be highly
from time, place, and people. applicable to dealing with them. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 239)
Charmaz and Belgrave 749

Consistent with their assumption that data stand on Post-Positivist Grounded Theory and the Legacy
their own, objectivist grounded theorists contend that the of Anselm Strauss
data must remain free of preconceptions. Anything such as
questions for field observations, and particularly, inter- Strauss and Corbin’s (1990, 1998) early editions of Basics of
view guides, become sources of preconceptions that con- Qualitative Research shared assumptions about data with
taminate data. Several contradictions are apparent in Glaser. They, too, saw data as separate and independent from
Glaser’s disavowal of such data collection tools. Interviews the observer, and viewed interpreting it as unproblematic
are the most common source of data for objectivist and unidimensional. David Hayes-Bautista recalled that
grounded theorists as well as qualitative researchers in Strauss advised students to “look for the story in the data”
general. Although Glaser recommends an open-ended (in Charmaz, 2000, p. S166). The story inhered in the data.
“grand tour” question to start an interview, he does not For Strauss and Corbin, data were to be collected and exam-
attend to how to avoid preconceiving the data in what fol- ined, but they did not entertain notions that researchers and
lows. He appears to assume that unplanned conversations participants co-construct data. Strauss and Corbin evinced
and passive observations lead to research without precon- less concern about preconceiving the data than Glaser as
ceptions, and training in interviewing is unnecessary (see they developed new procedures to be applied to the data,
also, Potter & Hepburn, 2012). A further contradiction rather than emerging from analysis of them.
exists between avoiding preconception by not using inter- As Antony Bryant (2009) points out, the positivist under-
view guides, but filling out conceptual categories with pinnings in Basics raise questions as to why Strauss did so
pointed questions that ignore typical interview etiquette little to bring principles from pragmatist philosophy into
such as establishing rapport (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Ian grounded theory. Strauss’s (1959/1969) earlier work
Dey (1999) condemned the latter as a “smash and grab” reflected his strong background in the pragmatist tradition.
data collection strategy (p. 119). In Mirrors and Masks, for example, he explored nuanced
The amount of data raises other contradictions. relationships between naming and knowing and saw them
Objectivist grounded theorists state that having many obser- as inseparable. His statement, “to name is to know” (p. 18),
vations obviates the need for accuracy but often argue that also reveals his awareness of the pivotal role of language
very small samples will suffice in unveiling participants’ for knowledge production. Strauss understood that renam-
main concern and, moreover, constructing a useful theoreti- ing anything marked a reassessed relationship to it that sub-
cal analysis of it. sequently changed people’s behavior toward it (p. 22).
The concerns Glaser raises about preconceiving the data Surely such pragmatist insights can be brought to bear
within interview guides are echoed by other qualitative on defining, naming, and explaining data and, thus, inform
researchers. Some advocate using personal narratives the grounded theory method. Strauss and Corbin’s (1990,
found in blogs, Internet support groups, and memoirs to 1998) early books did not draw explicit links to pragma-
avoid preconceived questions and contaminating the data. tism. However, after Strauss’s death, Corbin (Corbin &
But do personal narratives unsolicited by researchers pro- Strauss, 2008, 2015) has revised her approach to grounded
vide “better” data? Less preconceived data? Naturally theory in ways more consistent with the pragmatist
occurring data? More accurate data? The borders between tradition.
naturally occurring data and elicited, contrived, and manu-
factured data are not so clear as critics (e.g., Potter &
Hepburn, 2012; Silverman, 2007) insist. Authors of per-
Constructivist Grounded Theory
sonal narratives have purposes for writing, views of self to The pragmatist tradition is perhaps most visible in con-
present, and audiences in mind. structivist grounded theory. It builds on the pragmatist
Interviews can be more than contrived performances and underpinnings in Anselm Strauss’s (1959/1969, 1961,
manufactured responses. Instead, an interview can be an 1993) early writings and last book, Continual Permutations
opportunity for reflection and sharing. Perhaps, ironically, of Action. Constructivist grounded theory captures the
interview participants often impart unsolicited data. Karen’s dynamic interplay between the form and content of data.
short interview quote at the beginning of this article came at Form and content of data inform and shape each other in
the end of a long soliloquy about the course of her medical constructivist grounded theory. Researchers give data form
problems, her medications, and her involvement in alterna- through definition and categorization. What we treat as the
tive medicine. What interview question sparked Karen’s content of data is shaped by the form with which we view
soliloquy? After she had talked about the injuries she had them. Language and culture precede data, and informs
sustained in her accident, Kathy simply asked, “And what what and how we define them as well as the meanings we
happened next?” ascribe to them.
750 Qualitative Inquiry 25(8)

Objectivist Constructivist
• Unproblematic • Problematic
• Straightforward • Co-constructed, layered
• Uncontaminated • Shaped by language, culture, prior meanings
• Rejects preconceiving data • Examines positionality
• Epistemology is irrelevant • Explicates epistemology
• Dealing with data—simple and direct • Dealing with data— nuanced and complex

Figure 1.  Contrasting views of data in grounded theory.

In keeping with pragmatism, data do not consist of sta- story fit together?” “What’s left out?” “What contexts shape
ble, discrete entities. Rather, the form and content of data participants’ stories? Our stories?”
are in process. Grappling with this process prompts the While Strauss advised students to look for the story in
researcher’s emergent ideas to arise. These ideas are new, the data, a constructivist grounded theorist would say,
often unanticipated, and “do not simply reside in the con- develop the analytic story you construct from the data.
tent of the data” (Charmaz, 2008, p. 135). What we do with data is crucial, as is what we define as
Pragmatism views apprehension of the world as partial data. How do constructivist grounded theorists treat stories
and perspectival. Thus, our view of data reflects our per- in interview data and data in stories? We seek creating a
spectives and the standpoints from which we view them. collective analytic story from analyzing individuals’ stories
Unlike the objectivist view, data are not straightforward, by attending to research participants’—and our own—
unproblematic, and separate from us. Instead, we are a part meanings, language, and actions. This approach means
of what we see and we see the world through values. (See looking for multiple definitions of reality—and multiple
Figure 1 for a comparison of objectivist and constructivist realities. We also examine the construction of experience
views of data.) In the constructivist approach, categoriza- and enactment of structures. In the interview excerpt ear-
tion of data, knowledge of them, and value are inseparable. lier, we gain a sense of how this woman attempted to con-
Data are problematic, layered, and co-constructed through trol her experience. In so doing, we can explore how she
interactions with our research participants. Constructivist figured in enacting structures and then bring the story and
grounded theorists assume that the observer’s values, pri- the analysis together.
orities, positions, and actions affect his or her views of data. The constructivist approach to data means developing a
How we represent them is problematic, relativistic, situa- deeply reflexive examination of our values, standpoints,
tional, and partial. and research actions, which Charmaz (2017) calls, “meth-
How we see and categorize data is crucial. Consider odological self-consciousness.” Methodological self-con-
another woman’s statement from Kathy’s study of chronic sciousness involves a searching self-scrutiny beyond that
illness. Note the disjuncture between her description of how in which qualitative researchers commonly engage. It
she appeared to other people and how she felt. She said, entails learning to recognize how our worldviews, lan-
guage, meanings, and unearned privileges enter our
Someone said to me last Monday that I looked real good or research in tacit ways as well as examining ourselves in the
something, and I said, “Well, I haven’t been feeling good, so I research process.
really work on my image, on this and that.” And they thought During his doctoral research on Australian local govern-
the opposite, they don’t do anything, you know. Then they ment authorities, Richard McGrath (in Charmaz, 2014) kept
walked away. And that was kind of strange. It’s because I don’t a methodological journal while developing his grounded
identify with the image, but I know that’s what other people see, theory study. His willingness to question how his back-
and it’s like I’ll play the game. It’s like being in a movie or
ground might influence his understanding of his data exem-
something. (Her emphasis)
plifies developing methodological self-consciousness.
Constructivist grounded theorists would ask, “What My own dealings with local government “needing” research
does it mean to be living with jarring contrasts between reports to validate their decisions . . . to use as evidence to
appearance and physical feeling?” “What is it like to create support actions has occurred numerous times in my work as an
an image displayed for others but distanced from self?” RA [research assistant].
“How does playing ‘the game’ resonate with currents in the
larger society?” “What other questions might we raise about Am I seeing this in the data because of my own personal
such statements?” “Which story do we tell?” “How does the experiences???
Charmaz and Belgrave 751

I need to keep a check on this. Make sure I do not lead individual libertarianism, and cultural postmodernism. It
questioning in interviews to linking documents to actions. is ironic that arguments against using data in qualitative
research come from a postmodernist theoretical perspec-
Need to check previous audio recordings to see if this idea tive, often alongside calls for attending to social justice
occurs from the interviewees or is being directed by me. (In issues in research.
Charmaz, 2014, p. 166)
We can, however, find some hope in the “posts” cri-
tiques, particularly in the concept of post-neoliberalism.
McGrath tackles a major concern that many qualitative Despite the hegemony of neoliberalism, we must not
researchers share: the extent to which their prior knowledge increase its strength by reifying it. As Bazzul (2012) and
affects what they see, hear, and ask. Glaser might accuse Lather (2012) contend, neoliberalism is not inevitable. Our
him of pursuing the quest for “worrisome accuracy” (Glaser, position calls for explicating the historical and political
2007). Nonetheless, McGrath’s musings reveal his develop- bases of science (including current neoliberal ideological
ing methodological awareness of questions to ask next and assumptions) when we teach students and conduct research.
areas to check. This explication means making social interactions and insti-
As the distance increases between researchers and par- tutions transparent, including those embedded in the
ticipants’ lives, examining positionality is a crucial aspect research process and product.
of developing methodological self-consciousness.7 In their To achieve this transparency, we must pay attention to
grounded theory study of South African low-income fathers language. Our position is that all data are mediated by lan-
and teenage daughters, Elmien Lesch and Frederika guage and meaning. All data reflect the historical, material,
Scheffler (2016) raise concerns about their positionality in social, and situational conditions of their production. We
relation to the research participants. Race, class, gender, must acknowledge that language, culture, historical
and age in addition to their assumptions about fatherhood moment, perspective, and situation shape what we see or
enter the dynamics of the content and collection of data. construct as data.
Neo-liberalism is insidious. Even when railing against
. . . We are aware that our data and analysis were socially
it, we often miss the taken-for-granted nature of many of its
constructed. Therefore, during the course of this research, we
tried to stay aware of and reflective about (by writing memos premises. However, when we use data reflexively in
and keeping research journals) the various factors that may grounded theory research, we can be alert to, even shine
have shaped our data and analysis such as our own fatherhood light on, traps such as rampant individualism, reification of
constructions, and the socio-economic and demographic the market, and commodification of our (and others’) work.
differences that existed between us (White, educated, middle- We can see these and their consequences in the data we
class women) and the participants (Coloured, working-class, collect from or construct with participants. In fact, con-
adolescents and middle-aged men). (p. 545) structivist grounded theory is uniquely poised to resist neo-
liberalist ideology.
Developing methodological self-consciousness enables We end with some advice for new scholars. Pursue puz-
constructivist grounded theorists to position our data, while zles that you define in the data for they can lead you to fresh
we position ourselves in relationship to them. As a result, insights. Be willing to look deeply, listen intently, seek thor-
our awareness increases of the values and structures, such ough data, ask tentative questions, and return to make fur-
as those emanating from neoliberalism, which impinge ther queries as you develop your interpretations of the data.
upon our research. Then, subject your interpretations to systematic doubt.
And risk being “wrong.”
Conclusion
Authors’ Note
Those of us who base our scholarship on data must guard
Kathy Charmaz presented several sections of this article at the
against slipping into neoliberal perspectives and agendas.
International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, May 20, 2016.
As researchers, we fit neo-liberal agendas when we ignore
how we enter the construction of data; reduce social and
political issues to individual problems; pursue “safe,” that Acknowledgments
is, conventional and acceptable, topics; and fail to exam- We thank Uwe Flick and anonymous reviewers for comments on
ine the structural and situational contexts in which our an earlier version of this article.
data are located. Harvey (2005) alludes to similar connec-
tions between neoliberalism and culture, in which scholar- Declaration of Conflicting Interests
ship is immersed. He makes a compelling connection The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
concerning the compatibility between neoliberalism, par- respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
ticularly as exemplified in a culture of consumerism and article.
752 Qualitative Inquiry 25(8)

Funding Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,


10(3), Article 2. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs090325
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Charmaz, K. (1999). From “sick role” to stories of self:
Understanding the self in illness. In R. Ashmore & R.
Notes Contrada (Eds.), Self and identity: Vol. 2: Interdisciplinary
1. All names are pseudonyms. Kathy Charmaz conducted the explorations in physical health (pp. 209-239). New York,
interview. NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Although possessing data might mean learning information Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded the-
that distresses research participants or that endangers the ory. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of quali-
researcher, we contend that most qualitative research does tative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA:
not. Collecting participants’ stories, recording field observa- Sage.
tions, and the like seldom hold much potential for harming Charmaz, K. (2008). The legacy of Anselm Strauss for construc-
either participants or researchers. tivist grounded theory. In N. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic
3. We recognize that many authors mislead readers—and per- interaction (Vol. 32, pp. 127-141). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
haps themselves—with statements about using the grounded Charmaz, K. (2009a). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist
theory method when they conducted an inductive qualitative grounded theory methods for the twenty-first century. In J.
study. However, this method involves more than using induc- Morse, P. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A.
tive data. Frequently, such claims rest on a passing acquain- Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second gen-
tance with the method and superficial use of it (Charmaz & eration (pp. 127-154). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Bryant, 2011). Charmaz, K. (2009b). Stories, silences, and self: Dilemmas in dis-
4. The editors of the BMJ stated, “Please note that we do not closing chronic illness. In D. Brashers & D. Goldstein (Eds.),
usually accept case series or qualitative research” (http:// Communicating to manage health and illness (pp. 240-270).
www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-types New York, NY: Routledge.
/research). Trish Greenhalgh et al. (2016) together with Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.).
many qualitative signatories rebuked the editors in their London, England: Sage.
response: “An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative Charmaz, K. (2015). Teaching theory construction with initial
research” (BMJ Feb 10;352:i563. doi:10.1136/bmj.i563). grounded theory tools: A reflection on lessons and learning.
A lively discussion followed in the March 15 issue (BMJ Qualitative Health Research, 25, 1610-1622.
2016;352:i957). The BMJ current submission guidelines now Charmaz, K. (2016). The power of stories, the potential of theo-
include, “qualitative studies that help to explain why and rizing for social justice studies. In N. Denzin & M. Giardina
how doctors and patients do things” (http://www.bmj.com (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (pp. 41-56).
/about-bmj/resources-authors/forms-policies-and-checklists New York, NY: Routledge.
/bmj-right-journal-my-research-article). Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory
5. See Harry Torrance (2014, p. 1110) for a similar observation for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 34-45.
in other fields. Charmaz, K., & Bryant, A. (2011). Grounded theory and cred-
6. In his critique of Glaser and Strauss’s focus on the content of ibility. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Issues of
documents, Prior (2008, 2011) argues that researchers should theory, method and practice (3rd ed., pp. 291-309). London,
analyze what documents do, rather than only address their England: Sage.
contents. Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the
7. See Adele E. Clarke (2005) and Adele E. Clarke, Carrie postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Friese, and Rachel Washburn (2015) for excellent discussions Clarke, A., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. (Eds.). (2015). Situational
of positionality. analysis in practice: Mapping research with grounded theory.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research:
References Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
Bazzul, J. (2012). Neoliberal ideology, global capitalism, and 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
science education: Engaging the question of subjectivity. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research:
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 1001-1020. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
Belgrave, L., LaToya, L.-P., & Seide, K. (2016, April). Making 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
sense of Ebola & other infectious illnesses. Paper presented Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for quali-
at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Society, tative inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Atlanta, GA. Edmondson, R. (2003). Social capital: A strategy for enhancing
Belgrave, L., Zablotsky, D., & Guadagno, M. (2002). How do we health? Social Science & Medicine, 57, 1723-1733.
talk to each other? Writing qualitative research for quantita- Elliott, S. (2014). “Who’s to blame?” Constructing the responsible
tive readers. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1427-1439. sexual agent in neoliberal sex education. Sexuality Research
Brinkman, S. (2014). Doing without data. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, and Social Policy, 11, 211-224.
720-725. Flick, U. (2019). From intuition to reflexive construction: Research
Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious design and triangulation in grounded theory research. In
case of Anselm Strauss [113 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Charmaz and Belgrave 753

Current Developments in Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). London, (Master’s thesis). Department of Sociology, University of
England: Sage. Miami, FL.
Gerrard, J., Rudolph, S., & Sriprakash, A. (2016). The politics of Silverman, D. (2007). A very short, fairly interesting and rea-
post-qualitative inquiry: History and power. Qualitative Inquiry, sonably cheap book about qualitative research. London,
23, 383-394. doi:10.1177/1077800416672694 England: Sage.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discus- St. Pierre, E. A. (2014). A brief and personal history of post quali-
sions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. tative research: Toward “post inquiry.” Journal of Curriculum
Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Theorizing, 30(2), 2-19.
Conceptualization contrasted with description. Mill Valley, Strauss, A. (1969). Mirrors and masks: The search for identity.
CA: Sociology Press. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. (Original work published
Glaser, B. G. (2007). All is data. Grounded Theory Review, 6(2), 1959)
1-22. Strauss, A. (1961). Images of the American city. New York, NY:
Glaser, B. G. (2011). Blocking conceptualization. Grounded Free Press.
Theory Review, 10, 1-16. Strauss, A. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York,
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded the- NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
ory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Greenhalgh, T., Annandale, E., Ashcroft, R., Barlow, J., Black, Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,
N., Bleakley, A., . . . Ziebland, S. (2016). An open letter to the CA: Sage.
BMJ editors on qualitative research. British Medical Journal, Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:
352, Article i563. doi:10.1136/bmj.i563 Grounded theory procedures and techniques 2nd ed.).
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NY: Oxford University Press. Torrance, H. (2014). Qualitative research in the United Kingdom:
Hay, C. (2004). The normalizing role of rationalist assumptions in Short-term problems, long-term issues. Qualitative Inquiry,
the institutional embedding of neoliberalism. Economy and 20, 1110-1118.
Society, 33, 500-527. van den Hoonaard, W. (2011). The seduction of ethics:
Hood, J. (2007). Orthodoxy versus power: The defining traits Transforming the social sciences. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
of grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), University of Toronto Press.
Handbook of grounded theory (pp. 151-164). London,
England: Sage.
Author Biographies
Lather, P. (2012). The ruins of neo-liberalism and the construction
of a new (scientific) subjectivity. Cultural Studies of Science Kathy Charmaz is Professor Emerita of Sociology and the for-
Education, 7, 1021-1025. mer Director of the Faculty Writing Program at Sonoma State
Lesch, E., & Scheffler, F. (2016). Fathers, adolescent daugh- University. She has written, co-authored, or co-edited 14 books
ters and gender in a low-income South African community. including two award-winning books, Good Days, Bad Days; The
Journal of Gender Studies, 25, 540-556. Self in Illness and Time, and Constructing Grounded Theory: A
Mallory, C., & Stern, P. N. (2000). Awakening as a change pro- Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis and has written or
cess among women at risk for HIV who engage in survival co-authored over 50 articles and chapters about conducting and
sex. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 581-594. writing qualitative research. She has received distinguished career
McClure, M. (2015). The “new materialisms”: A thorn in the awards from the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, the
flesh of critical qualitative inquiry? In G. Cannella, M. Medical Sociology Section of the American Sociological
S. Perez, & P. Pasque (Eds.), Critical qualitative inquiry: Association, and the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry.
Foundations and futures (pp. 93-112). Walnut Creek, CA: Throughout her career, Professor Charmaz has given professional
Left Coast Press. development workshops and classes on grounded theory methods,
McGrath, R. (2014). Reflection and methodological journal entry. intensive interviewing, symbolic interactionism, and writing for
In K. Charmaz (Ed.), Constructing grounded theory (p. 166). publication.
London, England: Sage.
Mudge, S. (2008). What is neo-liberalism? Socio-Economic Linda Liska Belgrave is an associate professor of sociology at the
Review, 6, 703-731. University of Miami. Her scholarly interests are primarily in the
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview substantive areas of medical sociology, social psychology, and
researchers. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti, & K. social justice (broadly defined). She has used multiple qualitative
McKinney (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (2nd ed., methods, including in-depth interviews, focus-group interviews,
pp. 541-570). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. participant observation, and variations on auto-ethnography. Over
Prior, L. (2008). Repositioning documents in social research. the last few years, she has come to focus on constructivist grounded
Sociology, 42, 821-836. theory in both her research and teaching of qualitative methods.
Prior, L. (2011). Editor’s introduction. In L. Prior (Ed.), Using She has pursued topics such as elders’ experiences and definitions
documents and records in social research: Vol. I: The study of well-being, the daily lives of African American caregivers of
of content (pp. xxi-lii). London, England: Sage. family members with Alzheimer’s disease, political controversy in
Seide, K. (2016). In the midst of it all: A qualitative study of the the classroom, and, most recently, how South Floridians make
everyday life of Haitians during an ongoing cholera epidemic sense of Ebola and other infectious illnesses.

Potrebbero piacerti anche