Can You "Do" Grounded Theory Without Symbolic
Interactionism?
P. Jane Milliken and Rita Sara Schreiber
G
rounded theory is the product of a unique partnership at the University of California at San Francisco between two sociologists, Barney Glaser from Columbia University, an ex- pert in "quantitative methodology and qualitative math" (Glaser, 1998, p. 22), and Anselm Strauss from the University of Chicago, steeped in symbolic interactionism. As Dey recently asserted, "In the marriage of these two traditions, it was intended to harness the logic and rigor of quantitative methods to the rich, interpretive insights of the symbolic interactionist tradition" (1999, p. 25). Thus, grounded theory emerged from and is intrinsically tied to symbolic interac- tionism (Stern, 1994). Consequently, the recent suggestion by one of the originators that grounded theory can be done outside the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism (Glaser, 1999) ini- tiated quite a stir, causing us to revisit our original understanding.Initial shock gave way to consideration of Glaser's assertion when a colleague suggested that Guba and Lincoln's Fourth Generation
177
Evaluation (1989) was an example of the use of grounded theory's constant comparative method without symbolic interactionism.
Thinking about this, we found ourselves wondering, "What do we mean when we use the term 'grounded theory'?" Is grounded theory a comprehensive package or a set of techniques? To answer this, we needed to examine our own understanding, as well as what others have written, of symbolic interactionism and grounded theory as an approach to research.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical perspective that illuminates the relationship between individuals and society, as mediated by symbolic communication. The use of symbols to denote objects is an essential human characteristic that enables communication and allows shared meanings to develop. Humans are understood as creat- ing meanings of objects based on their own internal dialogue and their interactions with others. To understand human behavior, the researcher must look beyond the behavioral component to the un- derlying meaning that motivates it. Shared meanings, the foundation of culture, make interaction somewhat predictable by allowing peo- ple to plan, rehearse, and evaluate their own behavior in terms of the anticipated response of others. According to Blumer, such patterned behavior, which he termed "joint action" (1969/1986, pp. 70-71), gives a measure of stability to social interaction, while differences in individual experience and meaning introduce uncertainty.
According to Manis and Meltzer (1972), people construct their behavior in the course of its execution, through an elaborate process of perceiving, interpreting, choosing, and rejecting potential lines of action. As such, human behavior is influenced, but not deter- mined, by the predictability of interactions. If individuals base their actions on their interpretations of meanings, it is essential to discover the actors' meanings in order to understand and explain the behav- ior (Manis & Meltzer, 1972). Thus, to understand human conduct requires study of the actors' overt and covert behavior. This is the chief methodological implication of symbolic interactionism that is directly addressed through the use of grounded theory.
Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism 179
GROUNDED THEORY
As we understand grounded theory, it is located within the construc- tivist paradigm. According to this paradigm, reality is pluralistic, relativistic, and created in the minds of individuals so that truth is based in consensus rather than objective fact (Schwandt, 1994).
People are understood to create and modify meanings actively through their own actions and interactions with others. When inter- preting the stories of research informants and other data, a grounded theorist's goal is to construct a model to explain the action and interaction surrounding the phenomenon of interest. Thus, a grounded theory is the researcher's reconstruction of the partici- pants' constructed definition and resolution of the situation and should be immediately recognizable to participants in the study.
The grounded theorist begins inductively by gathering data and posing hypotheses that are confirmed or disconfirmed during subse- quent data collection. Thus, grounded theory employs both induc- tive and deductive reasoning. Seeking out the widest possible range of experience with the phenomenon and using multiple data sources, the grounded theorist divines levels of conceptualization of the data that are checked against existing and incoming data, other concepts, and the developing theory. This is known as constant comparison.
At each stage of analysis, hypotheses are generated and tested against the data until a core category is distilled and a theory of behavior is constructed. Sampling is guided by the emerging conceptualizations and contrary cases are sought to enrich the model and raise the level of abstraction. The resulting grounded theory, in synthesizing the range of participant experience and varied levels of analysis, reveals the hidden meanings embedded in people's actions as they deal with the basic social problem that they share, and thus represents their consensual reality.
For us, the connection between symbolic interactionism and grounded theory was obvious. Nonetheless, we recognized our own inexperience relative to Glaser and found ourselves forced to rethink our assumptions, as we faced the possibility that our beliefs about the relationship between grounded theory and symbolic interactionism could be flawed. Investigating this led us into a confusing morass of
"conceptual macrame" (RosemaryJadack, personal communication, 1994). Concepts that we thought we had understood suddenly be-
came confusing. We found considerable irregularity in the use of such terms as epistemology, methodology, method, and techniques or strategies. We also found considerable variation in the views of both those writing about grounded theory and those claiming to use it. The lack of clarity around grounded theory is not surprising when the meanings of these key terms are not shared by the discussants.