Grounded Theory in Practice: Is It Inherently a Mixed Method?.

Abstract

Long debated in the literature has been whether methods are necessarily linked to philosophical or methodological paradigms (Greckhamer & KoroLjungberg, 2005; Howe, 1988; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Reichardt & Cook, 1979). Our answer will be ―yes and no‖ (sic et non) 1 (in some ways they are and in some ways they are not). We contend that paradigms do not necessarily (i.e., in all possible worlds or cases) lead to particular methods (or vice versa) as a researcher synchronizes the instantiation of a method to his or her epistemological paradigm, partially because it is not the case that every method must be categorized as either a qualitative method or a quantitative method or as a constructive method or a realist method. Methods can typically be instantiated in many different ways. That said, it also is true that certain methods fit much better within specific paradigms and thus they should have some influence on the researcher‘s paradigmatic thinking and knowledge building. 2 In short, the influence is bidirectional or circular or mutual. We contend that mixed methods research (abbreviated ―MMR‖ hereafter) fits well with a significantly modified form of what Greckhamer and Koro-Ljungberg (2005) labeled ―strategic use of method‖ (p. 733) in which data collection and analysis methods prescribed by the researcher follow strategically based on the research goal or purpose or questions. MMR tends to give primacy to research questions, while at the same time taking epistemology and theoretical perspectives very seriously. Johnson and Turner (2003) demonstrated how major data collection methods (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, observations) can take on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed forms (called intramethod mixing), as well as how different methods can be used together (called intermethod mixing). The instantiation of a single method will depend on the researcher‘s strategic decision to give qualitative or quantitative research philosophy and methods equal status (typically by relying upon a dialectical logic), or to give one method dominant status (in which one approach/paradigm is privileged). (Hereafter, qualitative research is abbreviated ―QUAL‖ and quantitative research is abbreviated ―QUAN.‖) Generally speaking, in MMR the methods chosen are guided by the researcher‘s questions, goals, and purpose in combination with his or her ontological and epistemological beliefs; the exact combination of philosophy and design components is (or should be) undertaken thoughtfully and strategically. We contend that grounded theory (hereafter abbreviated as “GT”) is a research method that fits We address 2 key points of contention in this article. First, we engage the debate concerning whether particular methods are necessarily linked to particular research paradigms. Second, we briefly describe a mixed methods version of grounded theory (MM-GT). Grounded theory can be tailored to work well in any of the 3 major forms of mixed methods research (i.e., qualitative dominant, equal status, and quantitative dominant). In equal-status MM research, MM-GT works well in connecting theory generation with theory testing, linking theory and practice, and linking general/nomological description/explanation with idiographic understandings of the human world. Thus, is grounded theory inherently a mixed method? No it is not, simply because no method is fully and necessarily entailed (logically) by an epistemology. We contend that the relationships among question, method, theory, epistemology, and instantiation of a research study are multidirectional or circular or mutual. We hope that MM-GT will be advanced frequently in the future.