RALPH LAROSSA Georgia State UniversityGrounded Theory Methods andQualitative Family ResearchThere is an irony—perhaps a paradox—here:that a methodology that is based on ‘‘interpreta-tion’’ should itself prove so hard to interpret.(Dey, 1999, p. 23)Among the different qualitative approaches thatmay be relied upon in family theorizing,grounded theory methods (GTM), developed byBarney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, are themost popular. Despite their centrality to familystudies and to other fields, however, GTM canbe opaque and confusing. Believing that simpli-fying GTM would allow them to be used togreater effect, I rely on 5 principles to interpret3 major phases in GTM coding: open, axial,and selective. The history of GTM establishesa foundation for the interpretation, whereasrecognition of the dialectic between inductionand deduction underscores the importance ofincorporating constructivism in GTM thinking.My goal is to propose a methodologically con-densed but still comprehensive interpretation ofGTM, an interpretation that researchers hope-fully will find easy to understand and employ.Beginning in the early 1970s with the creation ofthe National Council on Family Relations’ The-ory Construction and Research MethodologyWorkshop, and continuing through a series ofvolumes on family theories and methods (Bengt-son, Acock, Allen, Dilworth-Anderson, & Klein,2005a; Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, &Steinmetz, 1993; Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss,1979a, 1979b), family studies has become a fieldwhere methodologically based theorizing mat-ters. Cognizant of this fact, family scholars placea premium on research techniques that facilitatethe development of new ideas.In quantitative studies, multivariate statisticaltechniques are essential to the theorizing pro-cess. In qualitative studies, any number ofapproaches may be used to generate theory, butfamily scholars tend to rely on a multivariatenonstatistical (or quasistatistical) set of proce-dures, known as grounded theory methods(GTM). GTM were originally devised to facili-tate theory construction, and their proponentsroutinely assert that a GTM approach promotestheorizing in ways that alternative methods donot (see Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss,1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990a,1998).Besides being drawn to GTM’s theory-generating potential, family scholars may beattracted to GTM’s compatibi lity with quantita-tive research. Unlike some other qualitativeapproaches, which are expressly descriptive intheir intent (e.g., phenomenological analysis),GTM are purposefully explanatory (Baker,Wuest, & Stern, 1992). With government grant-ing agencies viewing quantitative and qualitativemethods as ‘‘mutually supportive’’ (NationalInstitutes of Health, 2001; see also Ragin, Nagel,& White, 2004), investigators may feel thatreferring to GTM procedures in their proposalswill increase their chances of getting funded.Yet another reason that family scholars maybe disposed to use GTM is that a number ofDepartment of Sociology, Georgia State University, Univer-sity Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303 ([email protected]).Key Words: content analysis, grounded theoretical analysis,qualitative methods, theory construction.Journal of Marriage and Family 67 (November 2005): 837–857 837qualitative software programs (e.g., ATLAS,ETHNOGRAPH, and NUD*IST) were designed—or are at least believed to have been designedor reconfigured—with GTM in mind (Seale,2005).Given the many books and articles devoted tooutlining the procedures, one might presume thata basic grasp of GTM is within easy reach. Suchis not the case, however. Apart from the fact thatGTM guidelines can be opaque and confusing,there is also a war of sorts being fought amongdifferent GTM interpreters. Debates abound overwhose version of GTM is genuine, and the ver-bal sparring occasionally has gotten nasty.Studying GTM can be exhilarating, but it alsocan be extremely challenging, with an inordinateamount of time devoted to trying to figure outwhat different GTM procedures mean. Some ofmy students have confessed that they founddoing grounded theory more tiring than inspir-ing, and a few have abandoned the approachaltogether, after deciding that the procedureswere needlessly cumbersome.GTM are not the only way to do qualitativeresearch, but they are a valuable set of proce-dures for thinking theoretically about textualmaterials (i.e., intensive-interview transcripts,observational fieldnotes, historical documents,and the like). I thus find it troubling that, despiteall the attention in recent years to publicizingthe methods, they have become, if anything,less user friendly. The result is that GTM arenot being employed to their full advantage.Given how much family studies has relied onqualitative research to generate important theo-retical insights (Gilgun, 1999; LaRossa & Wolf,1985), family researchers can ill afford to ignorea situation that threatens their ability to do theo-retical work.Is there a solution? Perhaps. After teachingqualitative methods for a number of years, Ihave come to think that, if it were possible toreduce GTM to a set of essentials, people woulduse them to greater effect. This article springsfrom that belief. My goal is to propose a meth-odologically condensed but still comprehensiveinterpretation of GTM, an interpretation that re-searchers hopefully will find easy to understandand employ.The interpretation that I present rests on fiveprinciples. These are (a) Language is central tosocial life. Thus, the microanalysis of writtentexts, the heart of a grounded theoretical analy-sis, is a worthwhile enterprise. (b) Words arethe indicators upon which GTM-derived theo-ries are formed. The connection between thewords on a page and the theories in one’s mind,however, is more reciprocal than is sometimesrealized. (c) Coding and explanation are builtupon a series of empirical and conceptualcomparisons. The construction of variables (cat-egories in the GTM lexicon) depends on classi-fying concepts and infusing dimensionalityinto the theorizing process. (d) From a groundedtheoretical perspective, theories are sets of inter-related propositions, whereas propositions statehow variables are related. Scholars are free tosubscribe to other definitions of theory, but thisis the definition that undergirds most GTMmanuals. (e) There is value in choosing onevariable from among the many variables thata grounded theoretical analysis may generateand making that variable