Theory Building as an Important Component of Social Science Research - Essay Example

Doctorate of Social Science Unit 4: Qualitative Methods and Analysis – Assignment 4. Theory building is a more important component of social science research than theory testing. Discuss. The terms theory building is a more important component of social science research than theory testing. Bryman (2004) mentions that the term ‘theory’ is used in a variety of different ways, but its most common meaning is as an explanation of observed regularities. A ‘theory building’ is expected in studies where there lack precise theories and researchers try to build a theory based on findings and observations. Whereas a ‘theory testing’ can be found when there are certain theories formulated and researchers want to test applicability of them to a given phenomenon. Most social science fields lack solid theories, many researchers engage in theory building rather than theory testing. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to place the importance of theory building rather than theory testing in social science research. However, it can be argued that in social science research ‘theory building’ are more observable than ‘theory testing’. To bring to this argument, the essay is organized as four sessions. The following session explains two types of theory. It is followed by explanations on relationship between two main research methods and theory development. Next, grounded theory development is explained. Finally, it concludes. Deductive versus Inductive Theory Deductive theory represents the commonest view of the nature of the relationship between theory and social research. The researcher, on the basis of what is known about in a particular domain and of theoretical considerations in relation to that domain, deduces a hypothesis (or hypotheses) that must then be subjected to empirical scrutiny. Embedded within the hypothesis will be concepts that will need to be translated into researchable entities. The social scientist must both skilfully deduce a hypothesis and then translate it into operational terms. This means that the social scientist needs to specify how data can be collected in relation to the concepts that make up the hypothesis (Bryman, 2004). Inductive theory involves a movement that is in the opposite direction from deduction—it involves induction, as the researcher infers the implications of his or her findings for the theory that prompted the whole exercise. The findings are fed back into the stock of theory and the research findings associated with a certain domain of enquiry. Some researchers prefer an approach to the relationship between theory and research that is primarily inductive. With an inductive stance, theory is the outcome of research. In other words, the process of induction involves drawing generalizable inferences out of observations (Bryman, 2004). Figure 1. Two different approaches for theory building Source: Adopted from Bryman (2004) Therefore, the two terms theory building and theory testing can be referred to inductive approach and deductive approach respectively. The next session explains how these two approaches relates to two different research methods of quantitative and qualitative. Qualitative and quantitative research methods Reswick (1994) argues that quantitative and qualitative research differs in at least three major ways, namely (1) propose, (2) process, and (3) outcomes. They are used with the understanding--even caveat—that they are only idealizations. Real world research modifies and blends them as it does with all models. First, the quantitative research process is linear and unidirectional. In automatic control theory it would be termed "open loop." The researcher is able to isolate the experimental or study system, define the parameters, and select and measure relevant variables with precision and accuracy. The thinking process is essentially deductive following a creative act of hypothesis formulation (Reswick, 1994). The qualitative researcher cannot define the system and its variables with the relevancy and accuracy of the quantitative researcher. The researcher, therefore, creates an initial theory (based perhaps on intuition and experience), and proceeds to organize the study, apply tools, and gather data. As data accumulate and are reduced, the researcher may well redefine the model and alter the study design employing a refining method called comparative analysis. The diagram shows the central role of comparative analysis in qualitative research, how it occurs at any point in the process, and at any time, and suggests its feedback nature. Comparative analysis means to continually compare assumptions, structure, data, and outcomes with all available information including reports in the literature and to continually test data for reliability and validity. As first indications begin to suggest a theory, the researcher may alter and refine the study to produce new data that support this emerging theory or perhaps to point in another direction. This process continues until a theory, well grounded in data, takes credible form (Reswick, 1994). The involvement of study group persons as partners in the research is integral to the qualitative feedback research process and, in a large part, is vital to its success. This sort of critical sharing of research responsibility between researcher and those being studied is the essence of participative action research. Since it has always been vital to the success of much qualitative research, but rather be seen as one of many factors intrinsic to qualitative research (Reswick, 1994). Second, the quantitative researcher may work in the laboratory with instruments that measure quantities with precision and accuracy and, when required, work with animals or oversee research that studies human subject responses. In studies involving human subjects, they may serve as their own controls or they may be members of matched controlled populations. Statistical methods provide tools to measure reliability and validity of results. The tools of the qualitative researcher are likely to include questionnaires, focus groups, interviews, and personal participation and observation (Reswick, 1994). Third, the outcome of quantitative research is usually a truth test of an a priori stated hypothesis. The outcome of qualitative research is a grounded theory. The process starts with a theory based on experience and intuition. It ends with a theory that is grounded on data. If the data are reliable and valid and the study can be replicated by others, then the theory is credible and the process is scientific (Reswick, 1994). Table 1. Qualitative and Quantitative Research Process Qualitative research Quantitative research A. Conjecture theory. B. Define model/system, question(s), study format, variables, and instrument design. C. Carry out study, gather data, interview lead focus group(s), participate/observe. D. Analyze data, test for reliability and validity. E. Formulate theory grounded on data. A. Formulate Hypothesis. B. Define experimental model/system, variables and measurements. C. Perform experiment or carry out study. D. Analyze data, test for reliability and validity. E. Deduce truth or falsity of hypothesis. Source: Adopted from Reswick, J. B (1994) Therefore, in qualitative research method, a theory building is the final out come whereas the quantitative research deals with theory testing based on results of testing hypotheses. Grounded Theory and Qualitative Research As mentioned above, the qualitative research methods are usually used for theory building whereas quantitative research methods are applied to theory testing. In many social science researches, theory building was first documented in the pioneer work of Glaser and Strauss (1967). At some stage of a research project, the researcher(s) must choose between: (a) initially adopting or generating a theoretical framework with which to analyse and interpret a specific phenomenon; and (b) allowing an understanding of the phenomenon to emerge through data analysis and a literature search that is performed mainly after data have been collected, a procedure known as grounded theory generation (Johnson 1990). Both methods are legitimate approaches to the qualitative objective of explicating relationships (Hubemian and Miles 1994). The first option represents logical deduction theory building (Annells 1996), The second option, the inductive method of theory building, appears to be less frequently adopted. GT has its roots in sociology and originally grew out of the collaboration of Glaser and Strauss (1967), who sought to develop a research methodology based on the theoretical underpinnings of symbolic interactionism, a sociological approach developed circa 1920–1950 that posits fluid and dynamic processes of interpersonal relating in which meaning is created within and derived from those social interactions. It is assumed that people construct their realities through social interactions in which they use shared symbols (e.g., words, clothing, gestures) to communicate meaning. Grounded theorists interrogate the meanings created in these social relationships, attempting to discover how groups of people define their realities on the basis of their understandings of interpersonal interactions (Cutcliffe, 2000). Following their 1967 introduction of GT, Glaser and Strauss continued developing and articulating the approach (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987) and also applied it in the health arena (Glaser & Strauss, 1965, 1975). However, in the early 1990s, they diverged sharply in their perspectives regarding the theory-generation aspects of GT (Glaser, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998), a controversy (to which I return later) that has generated much debate among grounded theorists attempting to implement the approach appropriately. GT has grown from its sociological roots to be adopted widely by researchers in a variety of fields, particularly in health and nursing but also in education and business as well as a number of psychological specialties such as social, clinical/counseling, feminist, organizational, and environmental psychology (Henwood & Pidgeon, 2003). Indeed, GT has been described as “the most influential paradigm for qualitative research in the social sciences today” (Denzin, 1997, as cited in Patton, 2002, p. 487), and it now has a journal (Grounded Theory Review) and a Web site devoted specifically to it. Several extant variations of GT currently are being practiced (e.g., see Annells, 1997), not to mention the large number of researchers who utilize elements of the method (e.g., coding procedures) to carry out investigations that may or may not be true GT studies or even qualitative in their intent or paradigmatic foundation (Cutcliffe, 2000; Kendall, 1999; Parry, 1998). The grounded theory method was initially developed as a response to the perceived lack of new theories being generated in sociology (Locke 1996). Firmly believing in the inadequacies of logical deduction as applied in sociology, Glaserand Strauss (1967) sought to redress the emphasis on the verification of existing theories by constructing a methodology that could guide qualitative researchers through the theory development process. By doing so, they bridged the gap between empirical data and theory generation (Hammersley 1989). They proposed formalised procedures, such as theoretical sampling and coding, to provide structure to theory generation (Barnes 1996). Grounded theory has its emphasis on the socially constructed nature of reality (Goulding 1998), and the aim is to produce interpretations that can explain social phenomenon and provide information of value to those engaged in the behaviour under study (Annells 1996; Glaser and Strauss 1967). In particular, grounded theory aims to identify the main concern of social actors, along with the various strategies that can be employed in the resolution of this concern (Glaser 1992). In the process, grounded theory can be viewed as a potential instigator for change as it explains their own behaviours to social actors, giving them a degree of control that they did not possess previously (Wuest 1995; Hammersley 1989). Thus, one of the major strengths of grounded theory is that it recognises the complexity of the social world, and works to make sense of it to both analysts and lay-people (Glaser 1992; Wells 1995). Grounded theory was originally based on the proposition that data generated in a social environment can be used to construct social theories (Robrecht 1995), which was in tum founded on the contention that constancies exist in the social world (Huberman and Miles 1994). The method also operates according to the assumption that it is essential for the researcher to gain familiarity with the specific setting(s) in which behaviour occurs in order to generate useful concepts and theories for social actors and theorists alike (Huberman and Miles 1994). As a naturalistic research method, grounded theory commences with no precise research question (Melia 1996). Instead, the question is allowed to gradually emerge from the broad research area through on-going immersion in data relevant to the chosen social phenomenon (Wuest 1995; Glaser, 1992). Grounded theory relies on the close examination of empirical data prior to focused reading in the literature (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Goulding 1998; Locke 1996). By reversing the usual order of literature review and data collection, grounded theory seeks to adapt previous fmdings to the specific characteristics of the phenomena under study (Hirschman and Thompson 1997). The objective is to prevent contamination of the analysis with preconceived theories, aiming instead for a fresh perspective on the phenomenon that is tainted as little as possible by previous research (Locke 1996). Goulding (1998) suggests that the literature be treated as another informant, rather than a dominant contributor to the emerging interpretations. The extent to which researchers should avoid all relevant material prior to the analysis of the data is a point of contention among grounded theorists, particularly the two founding fathers. While Strauss and Corbin (1990) permit some depth of reading in the early stages, Glaser (1992) is adamant that researchers should actively avoid all such contamination until the core category(s) has been identified from the data. Given that many researchers focus their attentions in areas in which they have already accumulated some expertise, it is unrealistic to assume that they approach the phenomenon of interest as a clean slate (Kools, McCarthy, Durham, and Robrecht 1996). Instead, it is more appropriate to recognise the prior knowledge of researchers, while employ in quantitative process of literature review and data collection and analysis (Goulding 1998; Hirschman and Thompson 1997). The use of grounded theory has been complicated by heated disagreement between its two originators (Goulding 1998; Melia 1996). Bamey Glaser and Anselm Strauss were the founders of the grounded theory method. Subsequent to the publication of their first book on the subject in 1967 (The Discovery of Grounded Theory), they adopted different applications of the grounded theory method. Glaser remains committed to an approach focusing on total emergence (see Glaser 1992), while Strauss came to favour a dimensional approach that pre-suggests possible influences on behaviour (see Strauss and Corbin 1990). Glaser sees the primary purpose of grounded theory as exploration, to be followed later with verification studies. By comparison, Strauss and Corbin view grounded theory as a combination of hypothesis generation and verification. Strauss and Corbin allow for variations in interpretations according to the characteristics of the researcher, while Glaser seeks a correct interpretation that exists independent of the researcher. Other users of the grounded theory method are divided in their preferences for the varying approaches proffered by its originators. Some favour the traditional approach advocated by Glaser, while others embrace the version proposed by Strauss and Corbin. To date there is no consensus among grounded theorists as to which yields the superior interpretation of social phenomena (Kools et al. 1996). This conflict between proponents, however, need not preclude the use of grounded theory as a viable research methodology. In fact, the conflict reflects the diversity of potential applications of the general concept of grounded theory. This has resulted in the application of adapted versions of grounded theory, not all of which are entirely congruent with the method as it was originally presented by Glaser and Strauss (Goulding 1998). The divergence in approaches between proponents offers consumer researchers a greater range of specific research and analysis techniques that can be employed to meet the requirements of different research tasks and the skills of different researchers. In its current form, grounded theory is thus very flexible in application. While this can be attributed to a lack of maturity, as apparent in the continuing disagreement among users of the method, this flexibility remains a distinct advantage to its users in their efforts to explicate a broad range of behaviours and their determinants. Grounded theory procedures focus on the identification of conceptual categories that are derived from the data via the constant comparative method (Glaserand Strauss 1967; Hammersley 1989). The constant comparative method requires the constant comparison between incidents found in the data and the emerging theoretical concepts (Barnes 1996). The analyst compares the contents of one interview or observation episode with another in an effort to identify underlying themes. These themes can include both commonalities and contradictions (Wells 1995). The objective is to explicitly note similarities and differences in the data, which are then used to derive theoretical categories that can help explain the phenomenon under investigation (Glaserand Strauss 1967; Glaser 1992). The analysis phase continues throughout data collection, as the analyst determines the next appropriate interviewee or location on the basis of the theoretical understandings emerging from prior interviews and observations (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Locke1996). According to its instigators, the core or primary category of a grounded theory should possess explanatory power and account for the major concern of the social actors engaged in the activity understudy (Glaser 1992). Once categories have been established, thenext task is to identify the properties of these categories until saturation is achieved. These categories and properties represent the theoretical analysis of the phenomenon, conveying the basic social processes at work behind the observed behaviours (Glaser and Strauss 1967). This understanding is then often communicated by a discussion of the dimensions that represent the properties under specific conditions (Strauss and Corbin 1990). Dimensions or conditions reflect the extremes of what is being communicated by the data, such as the relevance of the masculinity or femininity of the social actors to the nature of the phenomenon (see for example Kimle and Damhorst 1997). Problems with Grounded Theory Woolley, Butler, and Wampler (2000) assert several strengths and limitations of the GT approach. They note its appropriateness as a way to build (vs. test) theory where little is known about a phenomenon and praise the capacity of the method to capture subtleties and allow a fresh, creative look at a phenomenon with as few preconceptions as possible. However, they note that the methodology is labor intensive, draws heavily on the conceptual skills of the researcher, requires explicit acknowledgment of researcher biases, is difficult to report succinctly because it relies on extensive examples from narratives, and can be used only with small samples. In some ways, the most appealing aspects of the GT approach also render it difficult to use in practice. Its paradigmatic and methodological bridging capacities make it a particularly useful approach for novice qualitative researchers who still may be tied to the positivist assumptions and goals that permeate the field of psychology (including counseling psychology) but who wish to venture into more naturalistic realms. However, this very flexibility leads to criticism from both quantitative researchers, who view GT, regardless of its systematic and detailed procedures, as insufficiently rigorous, and other (particularly postmodern and poststructural) qualitative researchers, who view the (post)positivist elements of GT with skepticism (Charmaz, 2000). In my own work, I have encountered this conflict directly in journal reviews; in earlier articles, I was asked (presumably by quantitatively oriented reviewers) to justify the GT approach using positivist rhetoric, and now (with more qualitative researchers serving in reviewer roles), I receive feedback justifiably critiquing my work for failing to obviate choices regarding more debatable aspects of GT. Another element of GT that makes it useful for novice investigators is that it is highly structured, particularly the Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) versions of the method. This structure makes it relatively easy to learn and highly effective at keeping the researcher tied closely to the data throughout the entire analytic process. Also, its focus on researcher reflexivity lends itself well to the use of research teams, which capture nicely the dialectical, iterative, interactive approach to the data and are particularly useful for mutual monitoring of biases and constant discussion of emerging theoretical formulations. Again, however, the method has been criticized for its excessive fragmentation of data (and thus experience) in the name of theorizing (see Charmaz, 2000), and the very structure that provides such analytic specificity and requires so much researcher reflection can also become ponderous in practice because it is extremely time consuming (and expensive), even when multiple investigators are used. The most enthusiastic researcher can experience flagging energy under the weight of so much data to interpret and integrate, especially after the first experience of reducing a 300-page dissertation or hundreds of pages of an audit trail to a journal article of 40 pages and realizing the amount of detail and richness that is lost. Rennie (1995) describes his attempts to manage the unwieldiness of GT data analysis by skipping the initial step of open coding to formulate categories immediately, an acknowledged departure from the method as originally outlined by Glaser and Strauss and probably successful because of this researcher’s extensive experience with studies of similar therapy processes. In my own work using diverse samples of women to produce an overarching theory of career development, I have conceptualized the overall endeavor as an amalgamation of smaller studies. Thus, as theoretical sampling is accomplished (in part) through the addition of each sample, I have begun later studies with tentative category lists generated from previous samples if I have reason to believe that my new sample will produce narratives with some elements of similarity. Moreover, I trust that the self-corrective, verification processes of the constant comparison method will ensure that important data are not lost (cf. Charmaz, 2000). However, these are difficult and debatable decisions, and Annells (1997) recommends the use of a mentor for researchers new to the GT approach. One way that some researchers attempt to ease the difficulty of the GT approach is through the use of computers to aid in data analysis (e.g., Rennie, 1996). The programs NUD*IST and Ethnograph are designed specifically to be used in GT analysis (Charmaz, 2000), and researchers are also using Atlas-TI and other computer programs to assist with data management, data search and retrieval, and visual mapping of relationships among categories. The use of computers, however, is not without controversy, and opponents cite the fragmentation of data that are meant to be interpreted holistically and the distancing of the researcher from the nuanced interpretive process as arguments against the practice. Moreover, there is danger that computer programs “may unintentionally foster an illusion that interpretive work can be reduced to a set of procedures” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 520) and thus dismiss the deep reflection that constitutes theoretical sensitivity at its best. In my own work, I have settled on a compromise position, wherein I use a data management package (FOLIOVIEWS) simply to organize data for ease in retrieval and complete all other aspects of the data analysis without computer assistance. Strengths of Grounded Theory When I wrote about structural equation modeling almost two decades ago, there were no published articles in counseling psychology to which I could point as exemplars of the approach. Fortunately, this is not the case concerning GT. Counseling psychologists have been publishing GT research for at least a decade (see Ponterotto, 2005), and more than 20 GT studies have appeared during this time in the two flagship journals in our field: the Journal of Counseling Psychology and The Counseling Psychologist. These studies have examined a range of topics that typify many of the current interests in counseling psychology, including counseling process, vocational behavior, supervision, adjustment and coping, multicultural counseling, mentoring, and even an analysis of Division 17 presidential addresses. Moreover, a number of these studies explicitly address issues of diversity. Any of these studies can serve as models for counseling psychologists who wish to try using a GT approach, and the relevance of each study’s particular paradigmatic location and analytic methods will depend largely on the goals of the researcher. Perhaps the greatest promise of the GT approach for counselling psychology is at the level of praxis. It has been noted by many scholars that, in general, qualitative inquiry parallels clinical reasoning because of the inductive nature of many qualitative approaches to assimilating knowledge. However, GT holds as its core tenet the construction of theory out of lived experiences of participants, and as such, it integrates theory and practice in ways that few other approaches can boast, constituting a methodological exemplar of the scientist–practitioner model. Indeed, if GT is integrated further with a critical paradigm focused on oppression and power, it comes closer than any other approach—quantitative or qualitative—to exemplifying a science-practice-advocacy model of professionalism in counseling psychology (Fassinger, 2000, 2001; Fassinger & O’Brien, 2000). In short, the paradigmatic and methodological flexibility of GT, its clear and structured analytic procedures, its focus on generating experience-near theory regarding important social contexts, and its applicability to a wide range of issues of interest to counseling psychologists make it a qualitative approach offering much promise in illuminating some of the most pressing problems that counseling psychologists might address. It is my hope that this article stimulates interest, curiosity, methodological risk taking, and challenging scientific discourse regarding our work as scientists, practitioners, and advocates for a socially just world. In conclusion, the theory building is done with grounded theory approach in qualitative research. In most social science research, due to lack of solid theories, many researchers choose research design of qualitative in which theory building is conducted based on findings and observations. The grounded theory has its limitations as well as its promises. Therefore, it will be common to find more qualitative research design is adopted in the social science researches with an aim of building theory rather testing it. References: Annells, M. (1996). "Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical Perspectives, Paradigms of Inquiry, and Postmodemism." Qualitative Health Research 6(3): 379-393. Barnes, D. M. (1996). "An Analysis of the Grounded Theory Method and the Concept of Culture." Qualitative Health Research 6(3): 429-441. Bryman, A. 2004. Social Research Methods; Oxford: Oxford University Press Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476–1485. Fassinger, R. E. (2000). Gender and sexuality in human development:Implications for prevention and advocacy in counseling psychology. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 346–378). New York: Wiley. Fassinger, R. E. (2001). On remodeling the master’s house: Tools for dismantling sticky floors and glass ceilings. Invited keynote address presented at the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Society for Vocational Psychology, Houston, TX. Fassinger, R. E., & O’Brien, K. M. (2000). Career counseling with college women: A scientist-practitioner-advocate model of intervention. In D. Luzzo (Ed.), Career development of college students: Translating theory and research into practice (pp. 253–265). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Glaser, B. and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Co. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. California, Sociology Press. Goulding, C. (1998). "Grounded Theory: The Missing Methodology on the Interpretivist Agenda." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 1(1): 50-57. Hammersley, M. (1989). The Dilemma of Qualitative Method. London, Routledge. Hirschman, E. C. and C. J. Thompson (1997). "Why Media Matter: Toward a Richer Understanding of Consumers' Relationships with Advertising and Mass Media." Journal of Advertising 26(1): 43-60. Huberman, A. M. and M. B. Miles (1994). Data Managementand Analysis Methods. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Ed.s N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Johnson, J. C. (1990). Selecting Ethnographic Informants. Califomia, Sage Publications Inc. Kendall, J. (1999). Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21(6), 743–757. Kimle, P. A. and M. L Damhorst (1997). "A Grounded Theory Model of the Ideal Business Image for Women." Symbolic Interaction 20(1): 45-68. Kools, S., M. McCarthy, R. Durham, and L Robrecht (1996). "Dimensional Analysis: Broadening The Conception of Grounded Theory." Qualitative Health Research 6(3): 312-331. Locke, K. (1996). "Rewriting the Discovery of Grounded Theory After 25 Years?" Journal of Management Inquiry 5(3): 239- 245. Melia, K. M. (1996). "Rediscovering Glaser." Qualitative Health Research 6(3): 368-378. Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85–106. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136. Rennie, D. L. (1995). Strategic choices in a qualitative approach to psychotherapy process research. In L. T. Hoshmand & J. Martin (Eds.), Research as praxis: Lessons from programmatic research in therapeutic psychology (pp. 198–220). New York: Teachers College Press. Reswick, J. B.1994. What constitutes valid research? Qualitative vs. quantitative research. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development; 1994, Vol. 31. Issue 2, pVii, 2 Robrecht L. C. (1995). "Grounded Theory: Evolving Methods." Qualitative Health Research 5(2): 169-177. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Califomia, Sage Publications. Wells, K. (1995). "The Strategy of Grounded Theory: Possibilities and Problems." Social Work Research 19(1): 33-37. Woolley, S. R., Butler, M. H., & Wampler, K. S. (2000). Unraveling change in therapy: Three different process research methodologies. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 311–327. Wuest, J. (1995). "Feminist Grounded Theory: An Exploration of the Congmency and Tensions Between Two traditions in Knowledge Discovery." Qualitative Health Research 5(1): 125-137. Read More