Epistemology and theoretical potential of the grounded theory approachtheory approach

The grounded theory method breaks up data and offers a manifold set of analysis procedures, using a comparative perspective to map out the properties and dimensions of complex human interactions around a social problem (Clarke, 2011). It is known as an empirical approach that emphasizes closeness to the subject matter. It is “designed to develop a well-integrated set of concepts that provide a thorough theoretical explanation of social phenomena under study” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990), which reflects its roots

in American pragmatism and symbolic interactionism. The purpose of the resulting grounded theory is to explain and describe a phenomenon, focusing on (inter)actions to locate awareness in the here and now of the substantive field. Originally, the grounded theory approach was invented by Glaser and Strauss to oppose the testing of hypotheses. Instead of the current research perspective of validating existing grand theories, they aimed for research emphasizing to generate theory instead of merely testing it. Clarke (2019, pp.

6ff) describes the origin and genealogy of the approach up to today. She points to the interpretive turn in social research rooted in two philosophical strands.

In Europe, the interpretive turn stands in the tradition of Kant, Nietzsche, Freud, Dilthey, and Weber and their approaches on verstehen. In the US, Clarke identifies mainly the pragmatist and interactionist sociology related to Mead and Thomas. A third innovative school of thought established by Berger and Luckman based on the notion of a socially constructed reality, gathering early thoughts and loose ends to form a coherent theory of constructionism.

Against this background, the grounded theory approach combines modern epistemological convictions, characterizing its implementation and research contribution to social research. On the one hand, derived from pragmatism, the focus on the meanings and motivations and social actors (Bryant 2017, p. 63) and on the other hand the idea of a socially constructed reality in which the subjective understanding and individual world-view shapes action which again creates reality in social interactions (Treibel 2006, p. 82 ff). With these roots of thought, the grounded theory appears as an approach with a pervasive empirical orientation, resulting in its characteristic described by Clarke: “Rather than being theory-driven, GT is based in abductively moving back and forth between empirical materials and efforts to conceptualize them via increasingly robust and sophisticated theorizing and sampling. It quickly grabbed the imaginations of scholars with interpretive orientations” (2017, p.

6). Since its invention in the late 1960s, the grounded theory gained recognition and developed both theoretical denseness and different perspectives emphasizing particular areas of interest in social research. After Glaser and Strauss divided their methodological devotion in different directions. Glaser mainly followed his theoretical background influenced by the Chicago School (he studied under Lazarsfeld and Merton) and concentrated on sharpening

grounded theory’s distinctive features such as theoretical sensitivity and emergence to ensure the potential of grounded theory to generate theory.

Strauss, in his later work, focused more on methodological considerations of how to implement the features of the approach, drawing stronger on his theoretical roots in symbolic interactionism, having been a scholar of Blumer and Mead (Schröer and Schulze 2010, p. 277; Bryant 2017, p. 74). Other branches which developed on the epistemology of the grounded theory emphasized particular aspects embedded in it. Charmaz (2006) advocated a social constructivist perspective in grounded theory research, Clarke achieved an emancipatory focus with the situational analysis. In the German speaking area, scholars seized the aspect of verstehen and the interpretive potential of the approach (Kelle 2007) and concentrated on its epistemological foundation (Strübing 2014).

The grounded theory became more and more popular in social research, especially in the field of social work. Clarke assumes this development relates to the strong empirical orientation of the approach, filling the gap other paradigms left for investigating the social realm. I agree with this and want to add another aspect to it. Since social work research is still controversially discussed and the knowledge base of social work contains many shares of related disciplines, there is a pressing need to develop own knowledge from and for social work. Grounded theory matches in many aspects to the epistemological background of social work. Beyond the philosophical base they share, they also share the interest in interaction, social encounters and the meanings and motivation behind it. Thus, grounded theory is a feasible and adequate tool for generating a sufficient knowledge base for social work.

Against the background of the discussion about an adequate knowledge base for social work, Aghamiri et al. (2018) make a point by requesting knowledge supporting practice by either explaining the problems of a substantive area and its inhabitants (explaining social problems) or to offer a “reflection foil”

(p. 13) for practice that is not abstract and prescribed from top down but that is developed closely to the field and its concern to generate useful and applicable knowledge for the discipline.

With this in mind, I chose grounded theory as the appropriate approach to follow my research interest. Since there are many different branches of

grounded theory, I had to narrow my methodological choices further down to mor specific concepts offered by grounded theory. After studying grounded theory literature, I identified Corbin & Strauss’s version of grounded theory as the most appropriate approach to gain a progressive understanding of the characteristic patterns of EAL, I applied Corbin and Strauss’s version of grounded theory. Their “coding paradigm” (Corbin & Strauss, 2015, p.

156) provides a heuristic for analysis and facilitates the customization of grounded theory principles to the specific research field. It offers a feasible way to comprehend existing knowledge. However, in order to ensure a holistic understanding of EAL, my research needed to go beyond a focus on interaction, and in this respect it was enriched by Adele Clarke’s approach to grounded theory. Her suggestion for situational analysis draws special attention to objects involved or used during interactions, focusing on “cultural objects, technologies, media—all the nonhuman, animate, and inanimate things that also constitute the situations we study” (Clarke et al., 2018, p. 14).