IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/gigawp/247.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Too Abstract to Be Feasible? Applying the Grounded Theory Method in Social Movement Research

Author

Listed:
  • Peters, Ina

Abstract

Grounded theory methodology (GTM) has become a popular approach in the social sciences. Based on an iterative research design and reconstructive hermeneutic procedures, it enables scholars to reveal and comprehend patterns of understanding that are reproduced through linguistic and nonlinguistic symbols. Yet the vast literature on GTM often leaves scholars wondering how the method can be operationalized. This paper serves the dual purpose of providing a precise and comprehensive review of GTM sensu Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin while at the same time discussing its application in a social movement research project. Done thoroughly, GTM demands high levels of reflexivity, transparency, and openness from the qualitative scholar. I propose that these requirements concern not only the sampling and data collection but also the researcher's previous assumptions, transcription, translation, and data quality. As the latter aspects are frequently neglected, the paper calls for more accuracy in the application and documentation of research methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Peters, Ina, 2014. "Too Abstract to Be Feasible? Applying the Grounded Theory Method in Social Movement Research," GIGA Working Papers 247, GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:gigawp:247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/97304/1/786467975.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sartori, Giovanni, 1970. "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 1033-1053, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xinyu Zhang & Yue Liao, 2023. "A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Populism Research (2000–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    2. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    3. Pursey Heugens & J. Oosterhout & Muel Kaptein, 2006. "Foundations and Applications for Contractualist Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 211-228, October.
    4. Xiaohong Yu & Zhaoyang Sun, 2022. "The company they keep: When and why Chinese judges engage in collegiality," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 936-1002, December.
    5. Thomas Denk, 2013. "How to measure polyarchy with Freedom House: a proposal for revision," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 3457-3471, October.
    6. Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2015. "Delegation and pooling in international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 305-328, September.
    7. Graeme Auld & Stefan Renckens, 2017. "Rule-Making Feedbacks through Intermediation and Evaluation in Transnational Private Governance," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 670(1), pages 93-111, March.
    8. Mathieu Rousselin, 2012. "The EU as a Multilateral Rule Exporter - The Global Transfer of European Rules via International Organizations," KFG Working Papers p0048, Free University Berlin.
    9. Jessica F Green, 2017. "Policy entrepreneurship in climate governance: Toward a comparative approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(8), pages 1471-1482, December.
    10. Louise Tillin, 2013. "National and Subnational Comparative Politics: Why, What and How," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 1(2), pages 235-240, December.
    11. Kaminski Joseph Jon, 2019. "Rethinking Realism and Constructivism Through the Lenses of Themes and Ontological Primacy," Croatian International Relations Review, Sciendo, vol. 25(85), pages 6-29, November.
    12. Mueller, Klaus, 1997. "East European studies, neo-totalitarianism and social science theory," Discussion Papers, Presidential Department P 97-004, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Gutiérrez Sanín, Francisco, 2009. "The quandaries of coding and ranking: evaluating poor state performance indexes," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28483, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Riccardo Pelizzo, 2018. "Democracy and Governance," Research Africa Network Working Papers 18/004, Research Africa Network (RAN).
    15. Moshe Maor, 1995. "Intra-Party Determinants of Coalition Bargaining," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 7(1), pages 65-91, January.
    16. Suraj Jacob, 2015. "Towards a Comparative Subnational Perspective on India," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 229-246, December.
    17. Giovanni Sartori, 1993. "Totalitarianism, Model Mania and Learning from Error," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 5-22, January.
    18. Daniel Buarque, 2023. "What makes a serious country? The status of Brazil’s seriousness from the perspective of great powers," Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(3), pages 359-370, September.
    19. Giovanni Capoccia, 2002. "Anti-System Parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(1), pages 9-35, January.
    20. Victoria Finn, 2022. "A qualitative assessment of QCA: method stretching in large-N studies and temporality," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 3815-3830, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:gigawp:247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dueiide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.