Beginning in September 2019, we will send out a monthly PECE newsletter.
Be sure to sign-up to receive development updates, tips, and to learn how others are using PECE! 
Have a question about PECE? Be sure to post it on the PECE Slack Channel.

Mike Fortun (barely) remembers Anselm Strauss

Text

Grounded theory

 

It’s only on reading about grounded theory, again, that I remember, again, my actual experience in being “trained” in it.  Including once by Anselm Strauss, no less. 

 

In history of science at Harvard, we didn’t have a methods course.  Basically, the method in history (of science) was: read historians and write like a historian.  In the history department, I think, they offered a historiography course, but my sense was no one really took it as all that crucial or definitional.  It was only when I started taking classes with Joan Fujimura, which involved going to William James Hall and the sociology department, that I was really exposed to methods talk.  So Joan must have offered a course in – methods? Grounded theory? Quakitative analysis? Symbolic interactionism more broadly? I’m not sure… --that only had like three grad students in it: me from history of science, Amber somebody, and at least a third person if not more but all of whom are a complete blur if they even existed.  But it was small for sure.  I had just started on my dissertation research then, so it would have been 1989 or 1990; I know it because the “data” (and that’s how Joan talked about it) was articles from Science and such about the Human Genome Project, which I was in the very early stages of researching.  We were all reading Corbin and Strauss, and going through our data and coding it, etc. etc. – all the things that Timmermans provides a one-sentence summary for, but which I don’t retain even at that low level of detail.  It IS an elaborate – well, compared to historians, anyway – structure of methods and different kinds of coding and analysis.  Anselm was visiting Joan, and she had him lead one of the classes.  I only retain general impressions: super nice guy, really great teacher, really skilled analyst/thinker. [[as an aside: it may have been to Anselm that Joan made the joke about me being the anti-Merton, coming from history of science to sociology rather than the reverse as he did]].  (Reminiscences and materials here: http://dne2.ucsf.edu/public/anselmstrauss/index.html) Each of the students gave a brief intro to our research and our data, which we had coded and brought with us; Anselm spent time with each, going through our data and generally showing what a pathetic job of coding we had done, and how a genuine master would go at it.  Which he did, and it was a real pleasure and inspiration to watch and be part of.  It must have shaped my project at some level, but again, I only retain a general sense of that.  I certainly did not code all of my interviews that way, or the other writings I continued to collect, that I do remember.  “Grounded theory” may have been in my head, but it was not in my practice, not a part of my methodological “toolkit”.  So the dedication to it remains foreign to me still, although I can readily understand it and even empathize.  But I never thought of myself as doing it.

License

Creative Commons Licence

Creator(s)

Contributors

Created date

August 13, 2019

Critical Commentary

sparked by reading about grounded theory for the ab-using coding essay...

Language

English