GLASER; STRAUS (1967): The discovery of grounded theory
GLASER; STRAUS (1967): The discovery of grounded theory
105
The Constant Comparative Method.
We shall describe in four stages the constant comparative method: ( l) comparing incidents applicable to each category, ( 2) integrating categories and their properties, ( 3) delimiting the theory, and ( 4) writing the theory.
(...)
1. Comparing incidents applicable to each category. The analyst starts by coding each i.11cident in his data into as many categories of analysis as possible, as categories emerge or as data emerge that fit an existing category.
106
Coding need consist only of noting categories on margins, but can be done more elaborately (e.g., on cards). It should keep track of the comparison group in which the incident occurs. To this procedure we add the basic, defining rule for the constant comparative method: while coding an incident for a category, compm·e it with the previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category.
(...)
This constant comparison of the incidents very soon starts to generate theoretical properties of the category. The analyst starts thinking in terms of the full range of types or continua of the category, its dimensions, the c,onditions under which it is pronounced or minimized, its major consequences, its relation to other categories, and its other properties.
107
As categories and their properties emerge, the analyst will discover two kinds: those that he has constructed himself (...); and those that have been abstracted from the language of the research situation.
(...)
After coding for a category perhaps three or four times, the analyst will find conflicts in the emphases of his thinking. He will be musing over theoretical notions and, at the same time, trying to concentrate on his study of the next incident, to determine the alternate ways by which it should be coded and compared. At this point, the second rule of the constant comparative method is: stop coding and record a memo on your ideas. This mle is designed to tap the initial freshness of the analyst's theoretical notions and to relieve the conflict in his thoughts. In doing so, the analyst should take as much time as necessary to reflect and carry his thinking to its most logical (grounded in the data, not speculative) conclusions.
108
2. Integrating categories and their properties. This process starts out in a small way; memos and possible conferences are short. But as the coding continues, the constant comparative units change from comparison of incident with incident to comparison of incident with properties of the category that resulted from initial comparisons of incidents.
109
(...) constant comparison causes the accumulated knowledge pertaining to a property of the category to readily start to become integrated; that is, related in many different ways, resulting in a unified whole (...) If the data are collected by theoretical sampling at the same time that they are analyzed (as we suggest should be done), then integration of the theory is more likely to emerge by itself.
109-110
3. Delimiting the theory. As the theory develops, various delimiting features of the constant comparative method begin to curb what could otherwise become an overwhelming task.
Delimiting occurs at two levels: the theory and the categories. First, the theory solidifies, in the sense that major modifications become fewer and fewer as the analyst compares the next incidents of a category to its properties. Later modifications are mainly on the order of clarifying the logic, taking out nonrelevant properties, integrating elaborating details of properties into the major outline of interrelated categories and-most important- reduction.
110
By reduction we mean that the analyst may discover underlying uniformities in the original set of categories or their properties, and can then formulate the theory with a smaller set of higher level concepts. This delimits its terminology and text.
110-111
Thus, with reduction of terminology and consequent generalizing, forced by constant comparisons (some comparisons can at this point be based on the literature of other professional areas), the analyst starts to achieve two major requirements of theory: ( 1) parsimony of variables and formulation, and ( 2) scope in the applicability of the theory to a wide range of situations, while keeping a close correspondence of theory and data.
The second level for delimiting the theory is a reduction in the original list of categories for coding. As the theory grows, . becomes reduced, and increasingly works better for ordering a mass of qualitative data, the analyst becomes committed to it. His commitment now allows him to cut down the original list of categories for collecting and coding data, according to the present boundaries of his theory. In turn, his consideration, coding, and analyzing of incidents can become more select and focused. He can devote more time to the constant comparison of incidents clearly applicable to this smaller set of categories. Another factor, which still further delimits the list of categories, is that they become theoretically saturated. After an analyst has coded incidents for the same category a number of times, he learns to see quickly whether or not the next applicable incident points to a new aspect.
113
4. Writing theory. At this stage in the process of qualitative analysis, the analyst possesses coded data, a series of memos, and a theory. The discussions in his memos provide the content behind the categories, which become the major themes of the theory later presented in papers or books.
(...)
When the researcher is convinced that his analytic framework forms a systematic substantive theory, that it is a reasonably accurate statement of the matters studied, and that it is couched in a form that others going into the same field could use-then he can publish his results with confidence. To start
writing one's theory, it is first necessary to collate the memos on each category, which is easily accomplished since the memos have been written about categories (...) One can return to the coded data when necessary to validate a suggested point, pinpoint data behind a hypothesis or gaps in the theory, and provide illustrations.
113-114
Properties of the Theory
Using the constant comparative method makes probable the achievement of a complex theory that corresponds closely to the data, since the constant comparisons force the analyst to consider much diversity in the data. By diversity we mean that each incident is compared with other incidents, or with properties of a category, in terms of as many similarities and differences as possible. This mode of comparing is in contrast to coding for crude proofs; such coding-only establishes whether
an incident indicates the few properties of the category that are being counted.
The constant comparison of incidents in this manner tends to result in the creation of a "developmental" theory. Although this method can also be used to generate static theories, it especially facilitates the. generation of theories of process, sequence, and change pertaining to organizations, positions, and social interaction. But whether the theory · itself is static or developmental, its generation, by this method and by theoretical sampling, is continually in process.
115
The constant comparative method cah yield either discussional or propositional theory. The analyst may wish to cover many properties of a category in his discussion or to write formal propositions about a category. The former type of presentation is often sufficiently useful at the exploratory stage of theory development, and can easily be translated into propositions by the reader if he requires a formal hypothesis.
105
The Constant Comparative Method.
We shall describe in four stages the constant comparative method: ( l) comparing incidents applicable to each category, ( 2) integrating categories and their properties, ( 3) delimiting the theory, and ( 4) writing the theory.
(...)
1. Comparing incidents applicable to each category. The analyst starts by coding each i.11cident in his data into as many categories of analysis as possible, as categories emerge or as data emerge that fit an existing category.
106
Coding need consist only of noting categories on margins, but can be done more elaborately (e.g., on cards). It should keep track of the comparison group in which the incident occurs. To this procedure we add the basic, defining rule for the constant comparative method: while coding an incident for a category, compm·e it with the previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category.
(...)
This constant comparison of the incidents very soon starts to generate theoretical properties of the category. The analyst starts thinking in terms of the full range of types or continua of the category, its dimensions, the c,onditions under which it is pronounced or minimized, its major consequences, its relation to other categories, and its other properties.
107
As categories and their properties emerge, the analyst will discover two kinds: those that he has constructed himself (...); and those that have been abstracted from the language of the research situation.
(...)
After coding for a category perhaps three or four times, the analyst will find conflicts in the emphases of his thinking. He will be musing over theoretical notions and, at the same time, trying to concentrate on his study of the next incident, to determine the alternate ways by which it should be coded and compared. At this point, the second rule of the constant comparative method is: stop coding and record a memo on your ideas. This mle is designed to tap the initial freshness of the analyst's theoretical notions and to relieve the conflict in his thoughts. In doing so, the analyst should take as much time as necessary to reflect and carry his thinking to its most logical (grounded in the data, not speculative) conclusions.
108
2. Integrating categories and their properties. This process starts out in a small way; memos and possible conferences are short. But as the coding continues, the constant comparative units change from comparison of incident with incident to comparison of incident with properties of the category that resulted from initial comparisons of incidents.
109
(...) constant comparison causes the accumulated knowledge pertaining to a property of the category to readily start to become integrated; that is, related in many different ways, resulting in a unified whole (...) If the data are collected by theoretical sampling at the same time that they are analyzed (as we suggest should be done), then integration of the theory is more likely to emerge by itself.
109-110
3. Delimiting the theory. As the theory develops, various delimiting features of the constant comparative method begin to curb what could otherwise become an overwhelming task.
Delimiting occurs at two levels: the theory and the categories. First, the theory solidifies, in the sense that major modifications become fewer and fewer as the analyst compares the next incidents of a category to its properties. Later modifications are mainly on the order of clarifying the logic, taking out nonrelevant properties, integrating elaborating details of properties into the major outline of interrelated categories and-most important- reduction.
110
By reduction we mean that the analyst may discover underlying uniformities in the original set of categories or their properties, and can then formulate the theory with a smaller set of higher level concepts. This delimits its terminology and text.
110-111
Thus, with reduction of terminology and consequent generalizing, forced by constant comparisons (some comparisons can at this point be based on the literature of other professional areas), the analyst starts to achieve two major requirements of theory: ( 1) parsimony of variables and formulation, and ( 2) scope in the applicability of the theory to a wide range of situations, while keeping a close correspondence of theory and data.
The second level for delimiting the theory is a reduction in the original list of categories for coding. As the theory grows, . becomes reduced, and increasingly works better for ordering a mass of qualitative data, the analyst becomes committed to it. His commitment now allows him to cut down the original list of categories for collecting and coding data, according to the present boundaries of his theory. In turn, his consideration, coding, and analyzing of incidents can become more select and focused. He can devote more time to the constant comparison of incidents clearly applicable to this smaller set of categories. Another factor, which still further delimits the list of categories, is that they become theoretically saturated. After an analyst has coded incidents for the same category a number of times, he learns to see quickly whether or not the next applicable incident points to a new aspect.
113
4. Writing theory. At this stage in the process of qualitative analysis, the analyst possesses coded data, a series of memos, and a theory. The discussions in his memos provide the content behind the categories, which become the major themes of the theory later presented in papers or books.
(...)
When the researcher is convinced that his analytic framework forms a systematic substantive theory, that it is a reasonably accurate statement of the matters studied, and that it is couched in a form that others going into the same field could use-then he can publish his results with confidence. To start
writing one's theory, it is first necessary to collate the memos on each category, which is easily accomplished since the memos have been written about categories (...) One can return to the coded data when necessary to validate a suggested point, pinpoint data behind a hypothesis or gaps in the theory, and provide illustrations.
113-114
Properties of the Theory
Using the constant comparative method makes probable the achievement of a complex theory that corresponds closely to the data, since the constant comparisons force the analyst to consider much diversity in the data. By diversity we mean that each incident is compared with other incidents, or with properties of a category, in terms of as many similarities and differences as possible. This mode of comparing is in contrast to coding for crude proofs; such coding-only establishes whether
an incident indicates the few properties of the category that are being counted.
The constant comparison of incidents in this manner tends to result in the creation of a "developmental" theory. Although this method can also be used to generate static theories, it especially facilitates the. generation of theories of process, sequence, and change pertaining to organizations, positions, and social interaction. But whether the theory · itself is static or developmental, its generation, by this method and by theoretical sampling, is continually in process.
115
The constant comparative method cah yield either discussional or propositional theory. The analyst may wish to cover many properties of a category in his discussion or to write formal propositions about a category. The former type of presentation is often sufficiently useful at the exploratory stage of theory development, and can easily be translated into propositions by the reader if he requires a formal hypothesis.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario