The Discovery of Grounded Theory Just a note from Chapter one so far:
In contrasting grounded theory with logico-deductive theory and discussing and assessing their relative merits in ability to fit and work (predict, explain, and be relevant), we have the position that the adequacy of a theory for sociology today cannot be divorced from the process by which it is generated. Thus one canon for judging the usefulness of a theory is how it was generated–and we suggest that it is likely to be a better theory to the degree that it has been inductively developed from social research.
“likely to be a better theory”. I will dwell on this for today. Is it reasonable to pick and choose among methodologies for theory-generation? What if I wrote a purely conceptual paper, say on patterns of CMC communication or comics-information behavior–whatever, and stated clearly what is my method of theory-generation (say, logical deduction or some kind of conceptual exercise). Would that be acceptable? I think that the answer is, “If your audience agrees with you, then so be it.”
If so, then what if I considered myself a very flexible theory-generator? Today, I will generate a theory using the principles of grounded-theory. Tomorrow, I will use a purely logical argument. Thursday afternoon, something else. Thursday evening, grounded-theory again. Is that possible? Why or why not?
As a footnote, what are other methods of theory-generation?