Deconstructing the Glaser-Strauss Dilemma: Integrative Discussion about the Grounded Theory in Management

Maria Carolina Conejero, M. Maclennan
{"title":"Deconstructing the Glaser-Strauss Dilemma: Integrative Discussion about the Grounded Theory in Management","authors":"Maria Carolina Conejero, M. Maclennan","doi":"10.1590/1984-92302023v30n0017en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Grounded Theory was developed in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss as methodological or research style. New investigative paths have emerged from Grounded Theory application. The aim of the present study is to highlight the antagonism between Glaser and Strauss from a conceptual complementary perspective that opened room for a highly structured and inherently flexible methodology based on the integrative approach. The goal of the Grounded Theory is to develop theories based on systematically collected and analyzed empirical data. The classical approach proved to be excessively subjective to meet empirical research demands in management, overtime. Accordingly, several authors advocate for Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) ideas. The current essay-style study focuses on proposing and assessing an integrative approach framework for the Grounded Theory. Emphasis is given to the complementary qualities suggested by these authors, which are treated as non-exclusionary, despite being influenced by both Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) positivist style and Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) interpretive style. Furthermore, this theory adheres to the fundamental principle of the classical approach, although it emerged from the research process. This methodology’s application can be a promising option for scientific development, since it can disclose potentialities that give researchers flexibility and freedom to create. Thus, ontological and methodological assumptions are choices made by researchers, themselves, since they can gather research methods (mixed-methodology) and follow the combined and sequential use of quantitative and qualitative techniques to create well-founded theories.","PeriodicalId":206469,"journal":{"name":"Organizações & Sociedade","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizações & Sociedade","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-92302023v30n0017en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The Grounded Theory was developed in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss as methodological or research style. New investigative paths have emerged from Grounded Theory application. The aim of the present study is to highlight the antagonism between Glaser and Strauss from a conceptual complementary perspective that opened room for a highly structured and inherently flexible methodology based on the integrative approach. The goal of the Grounded Theory is to develop theories based on systematically collected and analyzed empirical data. The classical approach proved to be excessively subjective to meet empirical research demands in management, overtime. Accordingly, several authors advocate for Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) ideas. The current essay-style study focuses on proposing and assessing an integrative approach framework for the Grounded Theory. Emphasis is given to the complementary qualities suggested by these authors, which are treated as non-exclusionary, despite being influenced by both Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) positivist style and Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) interpretive style. Furthermore, this theory adheres to the fundamental principle of the classical approach, although it emerged from the research process. This methodology’s application can be a promising option for scientific development, since it can disclose potentialities that give researchers flexibility and freedom to create. Thus, ontological and methodological assumptions are choices made by researchers, themselves, since they can gather research methods (mixed-methodology) and follow the combined and sequential use of quantitative and qualitative techniques to create well-founded theories.
解构格拉斯-施特劳斯困境:关于管理学扎根理论的综合讨论
扎根理论是20世纪60年代由社会学家Barney Glaser和Anselm Strauss发展起来的一种方法论或研究风格。扎根理论的应用产生了新的研究路径。本研究的目的是从概念互补的角度强调格拉泽和施特劳斯之间的对立,这为基于综合方法的高度结构化和内在灵活的方法开辟了空间。扎根理论的目标是在系统收集和分析经验数据的基础上发展理论。事实证明,经典方法过于主观,无法满足管理、加班等方面的实证研究需求。因此,一些作者主张施特劳斯和科尔宾(1990)的观点。目前的论文式研究侧重于提出和评估扎根理论的综合方法框架。尽管受到施特劳斯和科尔宾(1998)的实证主义风格以及格拉泽和施特劳斯(1967)的解释风格的影响,这些作者所提出的互补性特质被视为非排他性。此外,这一理论虽然是在研究过程中产生的,但它坚持了经典方法的基本原则。这种方法的应用可能是科学发展的一个有前途的选择,因为它可以揭示给研究人员灵活性和自由创造的潜力。因此,本体论和方法论假设是由研究人员自己做出的选择,因为他们可以收集研究方法(混合方法论),并遵循定量和定性技术的组合和顺序使用,以创建有充分根据的理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信