Epistemological belief

One of the required readings on Grounded Theory Steve gave us was one by Dey (1999) entitled, Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. A section in that paper mentions briefly how Glazer and Strauss took different directions in developing grounded theory further after introducing grounded theory to the world back in 1967. My first impression was that both Glazer and Strauss had a fight and decided to go their separate ways. While Glazer chose to remain alone, Strauss found a new ally in Corbin. Hmm...how silly can I be!

Charmaz's (2006) book Constructing Grounded Theory and Locke's (2001) book Grounded Theory in Management Research enlighten what actually happened. What happened was that both remained true to their own epistemological belief.

Glazer had history of quantitative training under the tutelage of Paul Lazarfield at Columbia University. Glazer was very much influence by Lazarfield's work on quantitative research that he saw the possibility of codifying qualitative research methods as how Lazarfield had codified quantitative research. So Glazer brought into grounded theory "dispassionate empiricism, rigorous codified methods, emphasis on emergent discoveries, and its somewhat ambiguous specialized language that echoes quantitative methods" (Charmaz, 2006, p. 7) and is responsible for the objectivist face of grounded theory.

Strauss, on the other hand, did his doctorate in University of Chicago and he was exposed to the humanistic branch of symbolic interactionism through the works of Blumer and Mead. Humanistic branch of symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective that assumes self, society and reality are constructed through interaction (how people create, enact and change meanings and actions), where language and communication play an important role. So Strauss brought into grounded theory both symbolic interactionism and ethnographic research, and gave a constructivist face to grounded theory.

Being new to research, the importance of surfacing what my epistemological belief is and staying true to it is something I have not learn to appreciate. I guess young researchers like me (or it could only be me alone) tend to settle on what is most convenient for research. I mean, any epistemological belief will do as long as it fits nicely with a research approach that is easy and fits nicely into our schedule. It was so important for Glazer and Strauss to show commitment to their epistemological belief because they see themselves as lens through which their audiences see their research with. With that lens, the audiences can see "what kind of knowledge is possible and how [they] can ensure that [the knowledge] are adequate and legitimate" (Maynard, 1990, as cited in Crotty, 998, p. 8)