“Grounded theory combines traditions in positivist philosophy, general sociology, and, particularly, the symbolic interactionist branch of sociology. According to Ralph, Birks and Chapman, grounded theory is “methodologically dynamic” in the sense that, rather than being a complete methodology, grounded theory provides a means of constructing methods to better understand situations humans find themselves in.
Glaser had a background in positivism, which helped him develop a system of labeling for the purpose of coding study participants’ qualitative responses. He recognized the importance of systematic analysis for qualitative research. He thus helped ensure that grounded theory require the generation of codes, categories, and properties.
Strauss had a background in symbolic interactionism, a theory that aims to understand how people interact with each other in creating symbolic worlds and how an individual’s symbolic world helps to shape a person’s behavior. He viewed individuals as “active” participants in forming their own understanding of the world. Stauss underlined the richness of qualitative research in shedding light on social processes and the complexity of social life.
According to Glaser, the strategy of grounded theory is to interpret personal meaning in the context of social interaction. The grounded theory system studies “the interrelationship between meaning in the perception of the subjects and their action”.
Grounded theory constructs symbolic codes based on categories emerging from recorded qualitative data. The idea is to allow grounded theory methods to help us better understand the phenomenal world of individuals. According to Milliken and Schreiber, another of the grounded theorist’s tasks is to understand the socially-shared meanings that underlie individuals’ behaviors and the reality of the participants being studied.”
From: THE HUMBLE AND THE HUMBLED: A GROUNDED THEORY OF HUMILITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP By Jan Austin, MS, MPA June, 2013:
“Despite the clarion call over the past decade for greater humility in organizational leaders, little is known about the construct as a leadership trait. And, while scholars have engaged an energetic debate over how to define humility in an organizational context, there is scant evidence for how humble leaders enact humility, what enables it, and what outcomes humility promotes. The present study draws on various literatures to define the construct of humility, compare humility with related and contrasting constructs, and examine its characteristics in organizational leaders. The study examines findings from a sample of leaders representing multiple levels of leadership across a broad spectrum of private and public sector organizations in the United State and Canada, as well as a sample of 17 employees reporting to a leader who participated in the study. Specifically, the research study assimilates findings and insights from a series of 14 in-depth interviews into a model representing the attributes, actions, antecedents (enablers), and outcomes of humility in leaders and organizations. The study proposes a grounded theory that explains how leaders enact humility in their leadership roles. Further, the study provides insights that validate and elaborate on the findings of other humility research scholars. The richness of the lived experience of leaders as revealed through in-depth interviews tells a story about how humility is expressed in leaders. The study includes discussion of limitations as well as recommendations for future research and practice.”