Grounded Theory Methodology: Positivism, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism

Article excerpt

Glaserian grounded theory methodology, which has been widely adopted as a scientific methodology in recent decades, has been variously characterised as "hermeneutic" and "positivist." This commentary therefore takes a different approach to characterising grounded theory by undertaking a comprehensive analysis of: (a) the philosophical paradigms of positivism, hermeneutics, and pragmatism; and (b) the general philosophical questions of the aims of science and the issue of choosing a scientific methodology. The commentary then seeks to position grounded theory methodology in terms of these philosophical perspectives. The study concludes that grounded theory methodology contains elements of positivism, hermeneutics, and pragmatism. In coming to this conclusion, the study clarifies the degree to which these three perspectives are found within Glaserian grounded theory methodology. Key Words: Grounded Theory, Positivism, Hermeneutics, Pragmatism.

Although grounded theory methodology (Glaser, 1978, 1998, 2003; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) has been widely adopted in scientific research in recent decades, this qualitative methodology has been the subject of various interpretations and criticisms from a variety of perspectives. Some authors have classified grounded theory methodology as a positivist methodology (Charmaz, 2006), whereas others have considered it to be an interpretive methodology (Brown, 1995; Goulding, 1998). Barney Glaser is one of the two originators of grounded theory methodology in 1967 and Glaser (1998) himself claimed that the methodology occupied a pragmatic position that went beyond other philosophical schools of thought. Regarding the difficulty to classify this particular methodology, Gustavsson (1998) mentioned that it has been subjected to criticism from both subjectivists and objectivists.

The present study aims at analysing grounded theory in terms of various philosophical schools of thought. It is hoped that such an analysis will provide insights regarding the different philosophical perspectives inherent within this particular methodology. In other words, the purpose of this commentary is to position Glaserian grounded theory methodology in terms of the philosophical paradigms of positivism, philosophical hermeneutics, and pragmatism. Also, practical implications of this analysis are also discussed.

The report of this study begins with a brief description of grounded theory methodology. Secondly, I present researchers perspective in order to describe my own relations to this topic. Thirdly, I use two general question of science in order to position the Glaserian grounded theory methodology in terms of the philosophical paradigms of positivism, hermeneutics, and pragmatism. Based on this analysis, a picture of Glaserian grounded theory methodology is emerging that implies that influences from all these different philosophical traditions are found within this particular methodology, an insight that has practical implication in terms of opening up this methodology to a broader use.

Grounded Theory Methodology

According to Glaser (1978), data collection in grounded theory methodology begins with a "sociological perspective [of a] general problem area [rather than a] preconceived conceptual framework" (p. 44). The researcher thus begins with an attitude of openness, which seeks to ensure that the "the emerging of concepts never fails" (Glaser, 1978, p. 44).

The next step involves the generation of various categories by "constant comparison" of data through a procedure known as "open coding" (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). According to this procedure, which permeates the whole research process, "incidents are compared to incidents [and then] concepts to more incidents" (Glaser, 1978, p. 62), in By continuing this procedure of constant comparison, the researcher then establishes a "core category" (Glaser, 1978, p. 95), which is a category that holds all other categories together. …


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.