Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums

Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving

Karen L Schumacher

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe accomplishments and conundrums in a midcareer program of research with roots in the Strauss and Corbin seminars at UCSF in the early 1990s. My use of grounded theory methods in a succession of studies, all focused on family caregiving during cancer treatment, has generated theory on family caregiving skill, a phenomenon that was underconceptualized in the early 1990s. However, my successive grounded theory studies have raised a number of methodological conundrums pertaining to researcher perspective. I describe two here. First, how can a researcher develop grounded theory through successive studies without becoming so analytically enmeshed with previous study results that what gets noticed in new data is limited? Second, how strong a presence can a researcher's clinical perspective have in an analysis without violating the tenets of grounded theory? I argue that recent scholarship in grounded theory provides new ways of thinking about these conundrums.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationStudies in Symbolic Interaction
EditorsNorman Denzin, James Salvo, Myra Washington
Pages87-102
Number of pages16
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 19 2008

Publication series

NameStudies in Symbolic Interaction
Volume32
ISSN (Print)0163-2396

Fingerprint

caregiving
grounded theory
cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Schumacher, K. L. (2008). Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums: Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving. In N. Denzin, J. Salvo, & M. Washington (Eds.), Studies in Symbolic Interaction (pp. 87-102). (Studies in Symbolic Interaction; Vol. 32). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32008-0

Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums : Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving. / Schumacher, Karen L.

Studies in Symbolic Interaction. ed. / Norman Denzin; James Salvo; Myra Washington. 2008. p. 87-102 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction; Vol. 32).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Schumacher, KL 2008, Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums: Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving. in N Denzin, J Salvo & M Washington (eds), Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, vol. 32, pp. 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32008-0
Schumacher KL. Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums: Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving. In Denzin N, Salvo J, Washington M, editors, Studies in Symbolic Interaction. 2008. p. 87-102. (Studies in Symbolic Interaction). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32008-0
Schumacher, Karen L. / Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums : Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving. Studies in Symbolic Interaction. editor / Norman Denzin ; James Salvo ; Myra Washington. 2008. pp. 87-102 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction).
@inbook{9c60a7b8ff5c46e5a8e5d265b686b090,
title = "Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums: Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving",
abstract = "The purpose of this paper is to describe accomplishments and conundrums in a midcareer program of research with roots in the Strauss and Corbin seminars at UCSF in the early 1990s. My use of grounded theory methods in a succession of studies, all focused on family caregiving during cancer treatment, has generated theory on family caregiving skill, a phenomenon that was underconceptualized in the early 1990s. However, my successive grounded theory studies have raised a number of methodological conundrums pertaining to researcher perspective. I describe two here. First, how can a researcher develop grounded theory through successive studies without becoming so analytically enmeshed with previous study results that what gets noticed in new data is limited? Second, how strong a presence can a researcher's clinical perspective have in an analysis without violating the tenets of grounded theory? I argue that recent scholarship in grounded theory provides new ways of thinking about these conundrums.",
author = "Schumacher, {Karen L}",
year = "2008",
month = "11",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32008-0",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781848551268",
series = "Studies in Symbolic Interaction",
pages = "87--102",
editor = "Norman Denzin and James Salvo and Myra Washington",
booktitle = "Studies in Symbolic Interaction",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Constant Comparisons and Constant Conundrums

T2 - Twenty Years of Grounded Theorizing about Family Caregiving

AU - Schumacher, Karen L

PY - 2008/11/19

Y1 - 2008/11/19

N2 - The purpose of this paper is to describe accomplishments and conundrums in a midcareer program of research with roots in the Strauss and Corbin seminars at UCSF in the early 1990s. My use of grounded theory methods in a succession of studies, all focused on family caregiving during cancer treatment, has generated theory on family caregiving skill, a phenomenon that was underconceptualized in the early 1990s. However, my successive grounded theory studies have raised a number of methodological conundrums pertaining to researcher perspective. I describe two here. First, how can a researcher develop grounded theory through successive studies without becoming so analytically enmeshed with previous study results that what gets noticed in new data is limited? Second, how strong a presence can a researcher's clinical perspective have in an analysis without violating the tenets of grounded theory? I argue that recent scholarship in grounded theory provides new ways of thinking about these conundrums.

AB - The purpose of this paper is to describe accomplishments and conundrums in a midcareer program of research with roots in the Strauss and Corbin seminars at UCSF in the early 1990s. My use of grounded theory methods in a succession of studies, all focused on family caregiving during cancer treatment, has generated theory on family caregiving skill, a phenomenon that was underconceptualized in the early 1990s. However, my successive grounded theory studies have raised a number of methodological conundrums pertaining to researcher perspective. I describe two here. First, how can a researcher develop grounded theory through successive studies without becoming so analytically enmeshed with previous study results that what gets noticed in new data is limited? Second, how strong a presence can a researcher's clinical perspective have in an analysis without violating the tenets of grounded theory? I argue that recent scholarship in grounded theory provides new ways of thinking about these conundrums.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56049091494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=56049091494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32008-0

DO - 10.1016/S0163-2396(08)32008-0

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781848551268

T3 - Studies in Symbolic Interaction

SP - 87

EP - 102

BT - Studies in Symbolic Interaction

A2 - Denzin, Norman

A2 - Salvo, James

A2 - Washington, Myra

ER -