In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Review of Higher Education Summer 1982, Volume 5, No. 4 Pages 259-269 Copyright® 1982 Association for the Study of Higher Education All Rights Reserved GROUNDED THEORY: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO RESEARCH IN HIGHER EDUCATION Clifton F. Conrad For well over a century, most social science research has emphasized controlled, experimental, quantitative procedures. The crucial underpinning of this epistemology is the theory of absolute objectivity (Douglas, 1976). In brief, this theory draws a sharp line between subjective and objective so that the internal, subjective experience of human beings is clearly distinguished from objective reality, which is viewed as external to the consciousness of individuals. The subjective is seen as being, like Plato’s shadows of the cave, uncertain and untrue, while the objective is viewed as certain, absolute truth. According to the theory of absolute objectivity, subjectivity is controlled or eliminated and objectivity is ensured through the traditional scientific method. In addition to embracing this epistemology of “ logical positivism,” social science has also emphasized the testing or verification, rather than the gen­ eration, of theory. In part because many social scientists believe that there are outstanding theories aplenty but few confirmations of them, and in part because quantitative methods have become more sophisticated in recent years, the discovery of new theories has received scant attention. Scholars who want to generate theory, rather than test theory through quantitative techniques, have often had to face sharp criticism from their colleagues. Despite the dominance of logical positivism and verification in modem social science over the last decade, there nevertheless has been vigorous debate over theory and method. The most heated discussions have concerned method, and a growing number of social scientists have attacked the absolutist con­ ception of objectivity and its concomitant emphasis on quantification (Doug­ las, 1976; Johnson, 1975). Others argue that many of the existing theories do not fit the data and are simply untenable. They propose that social science Clifton F. Conrad is associate professor of higher education, Centerfor the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona. 239 240 The Review of Higher Education research should place more emphasis on theoretical advancement (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Out of these debates over theory and method have emerged numerous attempts to formulate alternatives to logical positivism, alternatives that reject the absolutist view of objectivity and the exclusive emphasis that is placed on quantification and verification. These alternatives include phenomenology, ethnomethodology (or “ neopraxiology” ), participant observation, naturalistic approaches, illuminative evaluation, ethnography, and grounded theory. While there are some important differences among these approaches, they have two common characteristics that distinguish them from mainstream social science research. First, with some qualification, all assert that too much attention has been focused on verification of extant theory at the expense of generating new theory. Second, all reject the subjective-objective dualism, asserting instead that there is an interdependency between the “ knowing subject” or observer and the objects of knowledge. As a consequence, these alternative approaches emphasize the validity and relevance of “ qualitative” data, for purposes of both generation and verification of theory. Within higher education, discussion of theory and method has mirrored the larger social science debate, although markedly less attention has been given to alternative methodologies. The current of mainstream social science—with its exclusive emphasis on verification and quantification—has swept along higher education scholars. Still, a growing number of researchers in the field have begun to explore the possibilités of employing alternative methodologies. This article considers but one of the alternative approaches to traditional social science theory and research. Grounded theory has been selected for three reasons. First, I am persuaded that of all the alternative approaches it responds most directly and effectively to the theoretical and methodological issues now being raised, without falling prey to the excesses (such as so­ lipsism) of some of the other approaches. Second, grounded theory, which employs the constant comparative method, does not perpetuate the mindless dualisms (such as quantitative versus qualitative research) that have militated against the careful examination of theory and method in higher education. It offers instead an approach to research that can serve as a bridge for reconciling mainstream research with many of the legitimate questions being raised by proponents of alternative...

pdf

Share