Kathleen Wells, PhD, is associate professor ; Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences , Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland , OH 441067164. It edited Riessman, by tive is the a Studies pleasure by recent Sherman and in to publication Qualitative Social write and an Work Reid. essay of Research two Research These about books, in books issues Social , edited Qualitatestify raised Work by , by the recent publication of two books, Qualitative Studies in Social Work Research , edited by Riessman, and Qualitative Research in Social Work , edited Sherman and Reid. Th e books testify to the variety of qualitative methods, their potential for enhancing knowledge and informing practice, and the interest of social work researchers in qualitative approaches. The editor-in-chief of this journal commissioned this essay along with others in this volume not only to acknowledge the importance of qualitative methods but also to recognize their complexity and the controversy surrounding their use (Morse, 1994). Indeed, social work researchers do not agree even on how to define, implement, and evaluate qualitative methods, because they cut across social scientific paradigms, academic disciplines, and fields of study and their associated questions (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Patton, 1990). To promote elaboration of some specific issues, this essay focuses on one qualitative strategy, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This approach has been used widely in social work, in other human services professions, and in the social sciences (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Several authors in Riessman's and Sherman and Reid's books used the strategy. The investigations these authors describe, however, do not conform to my understanding of the approach (Abramson & Mizrahi, 1994; Belcher, 1994; Burnette, 1994; Gregg, 1994; Mizrahi & Abramson, 1994). I suggest not that the investigations lacked rigor or merit but rather that the term "grounded theory" was applied to diverse approaches to knowledge development. Such use complicates the description, evaluation, and teaching of the grounded theory strategy. To clarify the strategy of grounded theory and to promote restricted use of the term, I review the development of the approach, its central features, and criteria for its evaluation. I then suggest some possible reasons for misunderstanding it and identify critical issues regarding its use.
[1]
N. Denzin,et al.
Handbook of Qualitative Research
,
1994
.
[2]
R. Broadhead.
The Private Lives and Professional Identity of Medical Students
,
1983
.
[3]
Anne E. Fortune,et al.
Qualitative research in social work
,
1994
.
[4]
M. Hammersley.
What's Wrong With Ethnography?
,
1991
.
[5]
M. Patton,et al.
Qualitative evaluation and research methods
,
1992
.
[6]
J. Morse.
Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods
,
1993
.
[7]
Herbert Blumer,et al.
The Problem of the Concept in Social Psychology
,
1940,
American Journal of Sociology.
[8]
A. Strauss.
Basics Of Qualitative Research
,
1992
.
[9]
T. Cook,et al.
Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings
,
1979
.
[10]
E. Kübler-Ross,et al.
On death and dying.
,
1972,
JAMA.
[11]
Anselm L. Strauss,et al.
Awareness of Dying
,
1966
.