Some of us love it, some of us hate it. What is your take on Grounded Theory?
Latest Activity: Oct 22, 2014
This group does not have any discussions yet.
My chapter on GT (in the Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion) is available as a large pdf on my personal site (under Methodology). I would be interested in any comments anyone might have. http://stevenengler.ca/?page_id=590
In my understanding, "grounded theory" is a kind of "middle-range theory" in Robert Merton's terms. I am always puzzled why anthropologists and archaeologists are so infatuated with high-level, abstract social theory, which is difficult or impossible to apply directly to empirical data (Roy Ellen 2010).
My take on middle-range theory, from the perspective of ancient cities is found in:
Smith, Michael E.
2011 Empirical Urban Theory for Archaeologists. Journal of Archaeol...
2010 Theories in Anthropology and "Anthropological Theory". Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16:387-404.
And wouldn't it make more sense to merge this group with "Theory for Anthropology?" Grounded theory seems like an excellent example of a kind of theory that is widespread outside of anthropology, but something that anthropologists should pay attention to.
You need to be a member of Grounded Theory to add comments!