Tina Wildhagen Assignment 7 4105

							Tina Wildhagen: Assignment 7
4/1/05

       In this essay, I address two of the fallacies to which the strategy of grounded theory may
be susceptible. First, I list two of Glaser and Strauss’s (S&G) arguments as formal arguments,
including premises and conclusions. Each argument’s conclusion is the same—the method of
grounded theory generates better theory than does the logico-deductive method. Following each
argument, I discuss a fallacy to which the argument may be susceptible.

Argument One:
(1)  If one uses a grounded theory rather than a logico-deductive theory, then the assumptions
     of that theory will be grounded in empirical data more than those for the logico-deductive
     theory.

(2)    If the assumptions of a theory are grounded in empirical data, then that theory will have
       better explanatory power than a theory with a priori assumptions.

(3)   If a theory has more explanatory power than another, then it is the better theory.
______________________________________________________________________________
      Therefore, if one uses a grounded theory rather than a logico-deductive theory, then it is
      the better theory.

Fallacy:
1.       Distinction without a Difference Fallacy
        In my opinion, Premise 1 is an example of Damer’s Distinction without a Difference
Fallacy (117), because G&S are unfairly distinguishing the empirical qualities of the
assumptions of grounded and logico-deductive theories. I argue that the assumptions of every
sociological theory, regardless of the method by which the theory is generated, are grounded in
empirical data. For example, Marx, whose theories G&S criticize, grounded many of his
assumptions in the work conditions for factory workers. In my opinion, no sociological theory’s
assumptions are generated a priori, because all theorists have some empirical knowledge of the
social world. In order to avoid this false distinction between assumptions of these two kinds of
theories, researchers who are using a grounded theory strategy should compare their assumptions
with those of logico-deductive theories to see if they are similar.


Argument Two:
(1)  If one uses the method of grounded theory, then one allows categories to emerge from the
     data in the substantive area.

(2)    If one allows categories to emerge from the data in the substantive area, then one will
       “aim at achieving much diversity in emergent categories” (37).

(3)    If one “aim[s] at achieving much diversity in emergent categories,” then theories using
       those categories will explain better the questions in that substantive area than will
       logically deduced theories.
(4)   If theories using emergent categories with diverse characteristics will explain better the
      questions in that substantive area than will logically deduced theories, than those theories
      are better theories.
____________________________________________________________________________
      Therefore, if one uses the method of grounded theory, the theories thus generated will be
      better than will logically deduced theories.

Fallacies:
1.      Fallacy of Deductive Inference: Denying the Antecedent (66)
        In my opinion, the Premise 3 of Argument Two is fallacious because it assumes that in
the absence of the antecedent (diversity in emergent categories), a theory will have diminished
explanatory power. That is, this premise implies that the diversity of a category is the sole
determinant of its explanatory power in a substantive area. However, in my opinion, the utility
of a category also depends on its ability to explain phenomena across substantive areas. G&S
themselves recognize the importance of this “analytical” property of concepts, citing the
importance of categories that are “sufficiently generalized to designate characteristics of concrete
entities, not the entities themselves” (38, emphasis added). A category that relies too much on
including diverse characteristics runs the risk of simply describing a phenomenon. In order to
avoid simply describing empirical phenomena, researchers should attempt to uncover only the
essential characteristics of concepts.

2.      False Alternatives (126)
        In my opinion, by limiting the methods of generating theory to either grounded theory or
logico-deductive methods, this argument is susceptible to Damer’s False Alternatives Fallacy.
This fallacy occurs when one restricts alternatives too severely and assumes that one of the
suggested alternatives is true. I argue that there exists middle ground between pure grounded
theory methods and pure logico-deductive methods for generating theory. That is, researchers
can employ strategies from both methods.
Abigail Darwin #7

         The grounded theory strategy of Glaser and Strauss may be susceptible to fallacies which
violate the relevance criterion, acceptability criterion, sufficiency criterion, and rebuttal criterion
of a “good” argument (Damer 2005). With regard to the relevance criterion, grounded theory
may be susceptible to the fallacy of drawing the wrong conclusion. As Damer states, “this
fallacy consists in drawing a conclusion other than the one supported by the evidence presented
in the argument” (Damer 2005:86). Specifically, insofar as Glaser and Strauss emphasize that
“accurate evidence is not so crucial for generating theory,” it is conceivable that a researcher
could potentially draw erroneous conclusions from the data and posit relationships that are
erroneous or non-existent (Glaser and Strauss 1967:30). To avoid this fallacy, researchers must
ensure that the evidence they gather is accurate and should run statistical tests on the data to
ensure that relationships which seem to exist actually do and in the direction hypothesized.
         One fallacy which violates the acceptability criterion to which grounded theory may be
susceptible is the fallacy of false alternatives. As Damer states, “this fallacy consists in
restricting too severely the number of proposed alternatives and in assuming that one of the
suggested alternatives must be true” (Damer 2005:126). Glaser and Strauss seem to imply that
there are only two alternatives for conducting research: using logico-deductive theory or using
grounded theory. They suggest that logico-deductive research primarily consists of verifying
“arm chair theories” not “grounded” in reality (Glaser and Strauss 1967:10); grounded theory, by
contrast, is a research method driven by the results of data collection which entails both theory
generation and verification (Glaser and Strauss 1967). After delimiting research to these two
modes, the authors spend the remainder of the article defending why grounded theory is the
superior method. In presenting the reader with merely these two alternatives, they imply that no
other research modes exist and that no mode could be superior to grounded theory. However, it
is plausible that some researchers might insist on combining random sampling with data
collection, a technique which Glaser and Strauss state is not necessary, but which I would argue
would make the generated grounded theories more accurate (Glaser and Strauss 1967:63).
         One fallacy which violates the sufficiency criterion to which grounded theory may be
susceptible is the fallacy of insufficient sample. As Damer states, “this fallacy consists in
drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of cases” (Damer 2005:142). In
their article, Glaser and Strauss assert that “the number of cases [involved in data collection]
is…not so crucial” (Glaser and Strauss 1967:30). For Glaser and Strauss, a theorist need only
collect data until “saturation” of a given phenomenological category has occurred. However,
Glaser and Strauss never present a clear formula for determining when “saturation” has occurred;
rather, they leave it up to the “theoretically sensitive” researcher to determine (Glaser and
Strauss 1967:62). Thus, it is highly plausible that a researcher, especially one following the
mandates of Glaser and Strauss to not be guided by prior theory, could believe he has reached
“saturation” when in fact he has not. And, especially if the sample of cases is small, even with
statistical analysis, the sociologist could be led to surmise erroneous conclusions and generate
inaccurate theory. Thus, researchers using a grounded theory strategy would be wise to collect
data on a large sample of cases and to then consult prior relevant empirical research to ensure
they really have achieved “saturation.” From there, researchers should use appropriate statistical
techniques to ensure that the relationships they think exist actually do.
         A second fallacy which violates the sufficiency criterion to which grounded theory may
be susceptible is the fallacy of unrepresentative data. As Damer states, “this fallacy consists in
drawing a conclusion based on data from an unrepresentative or biased sample” (Damer
2005:144). Glaser and Strauss clearly commit this fallacy when they argue that “the researcher
who generates theory need not combine random sampling with theoretical sampling” and that
“once discovered, [a] relationship [between variables] is assumed to persist in direction no matter
how biased the previous sample of data was, or the next sample is” (Glaser and Strauss 1967:63).
Using unrepresentative or biased data can lead the researcher to erroneous conclusions;
therefore, researchers using grounded theory would be well-advised to use random sampling and
unbiased samples.
         A third fallacy which violates the sufficiency criterion to which grounded theory may be
susceptible is the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. As Damer states, “this fallacy consists in
arguing for the truth (or falsity) of a claim, because there is no evidence or proof to the contrary
or because of the inability or refusal of an opponent to present convincing evidence to the
contrary” (Damer 2005:146). Glaser and Strauss clearly commit this fallacy when they argue
that “[the assumption] that if a relationship holds for one group under certain conditions, it will
probably hold for other groups under the same conditions…is subject only to being disproven—
not proven—when other sociologists question its credibility” (Glaser and Strauss 1967:63). As
Damer argues, such a statement “violates the principle that the burden of proof for any claim
generally rests on the person who sets forth the claim” (Damer 2005:146). Indeed, an argument
that relies on proof to the contrary “fails to provide sufficient grounds for the claim at issue,
since evidence is missing altogether” (Damer 2005:147). And, not only does Glaser’s and
Strauss’ statement violate the sufficiency criterion of a good argument, it also violates the
scientific maxim that a theory can never be proven—it can only be supported or disconfirmed
(Cohen 1989). Thus, researchers using grounded theory would be well-advised to realize that
any theory they generate will have to undergo testing in a wide array of situations before it can
be surmised as applicable to those cases; also, researchers should always be on the defensive and
realize that their theory may have to be revised at some future time based on disconfirming
evidence.
         One fallacy which violates the rebuttal criterion is the fallacy of denying the
counterevidence. As Damer states, “this fallacy consists in refusing to consider seriously or in
unfairly minimizing the evidence that is brought against one’s claim” (Damer 2005:172). Glaser
and Strauss argue that the “assumption of persistence [of a theoretical relationship] is subject
only to being disproven” and that “evidence and testing never destroy a theory; they only modify
it” (Glaser and Strauss 1967:28, 63). While it is a scientific maxim that theories must be
falsifiable, statements such as these by Glaser and Strauss make one question whether a
grounded theory could ever be falsified (Damer 2005:7). Researchers using a grounded theory
strategy could avoid this fallacy by clearly spelling out their knowledge claims and scope
conditions and by clearly defining and operationalizing all non-primitive terms (Cohen 1989).
This would allow replicability, and consequently, falsifiability.
Erica Dusenberry #7

Unrepresentative Data—The grounded theory approach is susceptible to the problem of using
unrepresentative data to generate a theory. Glaser and Strauss describe theory generation as an
ongoing process in which theory emerges and “the emerging theory points to the next steps” to
be taken in the research (47). Thus, each subsequent group or category suggested by the
emerging theory to be strategically analyzed is essentially hand picked; yielding data that are not
necessarily independent across groups. Such a method jeopardizes the random and
representative nature of the data.
         Glaser and Strauss address the issue of data sampling in their discussion of the grounded
theory approach. They first claim that “accurate evidence is not so crucial for generating
theory” and therefore use of a fully representative or random sample is unnecessary (30). Glaser
and Strauss claim that the focus of the grounded theory approach is on generating a theory and
not on learning information regarding the whole field. However, in my opinion, a theory
generated without consideration of the whole field could itself be unrepresentative and faulty. If
one were to focus only on correlated samples that related to a specific category of analysis, then
valuable information could be overlooked regarding outside variables and influences on the issue
being analyzed. Theory generation should not occur in a vacuum and it is therefore my opinion,
as it is Damer’s (144), that accurate and representative evidence is crucial in generating theory
since the theory itself is going to be considered in an environment beyond the one used for its
generation.
         Also, Glaser and Strauss state that random sampling is not necessary for discovering a
relationship or for assessing its presence in other groups, but in order to describe the magnitude
of a relationship, random sampling is necessary (64). Once again, it is my opinion that this
assertion by the authors is problematic to a sociologist using the grounded theory approach.
First, to claim that a relationship merely exists does not add much to the progression of
knowledge if the relationship can not be described in terms of magnitude. Furthermore, to claim
that a relationship exists based on samples that are unrepresentative and biased, in my opinion,
does hold significant importance since the samples in which the relationship was experienced
cannot confer any notion of common understanding to the audience regarding the environment in
which the relationship is said to exist nor is the information as inclusive as it would be if random
sampling were employed.
         Therefore, an individual using the grounded theory approach, in my opinion needs to be
aware of these sampling issues. I would suggest that he keep in mind the audience that will be
considering and potentially using his theory. His audience exists beyond any biased sample that
he may create, and therefore he should do his best to make his theory as inclusive and fruitful as
possible. Such efforts, in my opinion, would increase the information the theory contains, as
well as applicability of his theory to future research. With these goals in mind, I would hope an
individual would naturally be more inclined to use representative data for his research.
Denying the Counterevidence—The grounded theory approach is also susceptible to the fallacy
of denying the counterevidence. For an argument to be sound, it must consider potential
counterevidence against its claim. To not do so, is to obstruct the discovery of truth and to
violate the fallibility principle (Damer 172). The notion presented by Glaser and Strauss that
grounded theory is a progressive and emerging method suggests that once a theory has been
established it can not be “completely refuted or replaced by another theory” (4). Theories, then,
generated from the grounded theory approach are simply modified over time, as evidence and
testing can “never destroy a theory” (28). Therefore, one who adheres to the assertions of Glaser
and Strauss would not acknowledge any evidence against his theory nor feel that his theory could
be weakened. In fact, Glaser and Strauss suggest is that theories can only be enhanced by new
modifications (28). Not only is this a problem of obstructing the development of truth, in my
opinion, it is also a problem of theory development. If theories continue to be additively
modified, then it can be wondered, ironically considering Glaser and Strauss’s goal to enhance
attention to theory generation, how substantively new theories develop. In my opinion, from the
method that Glaser and Strauss suggest, the real occurrence is that a few theories simply keep
growing in size and depth.
         In order to avoid this fallacy, in my opinion, a researcher using the grounded theory
approach must maintain perspective of his ultimate goal in performing research: to find truth. By
denying counterevidence to his claim and lacking acknowledgement of weakness, he does not
enhance the purpose of an argument or research. The researcher must keep an open mind
regarding his research issue and be able to identify when his theory is not the best for enhancing
knowledge on the issue or where faults exist in his own theory (Damer 9). From this
acknowledgement, in my opinion, he should focus not on the failure or weakness of his theory,
but on the potential insights gained for future research opportunities.
Attacking a Straw Man—Glaser and Strauss attempt to assert the magnificence of the grounded
theory approach by falling victim to the fallacy of attacking a straw man. They compare the
approach of grounded theory to other approaches, most notably logico-deductive (31). The fault,
in my opinion, is that Glaser and Strauss make their comparisons against a “weakened version”
of the logico-deductive approach in a way that “subtly includes [their] own negative evaluation
of it” (Damer 183). It is my opinion that a weakened version of the logico-deductive approach is
used by the authors in that their focus on the negative aspects and shortcomings of the approach
oftentimes uses opinion and interpretation rather than substantiation by evidence to support
claims. For example, in regards to the methods of control used by logico-deductive sociologists,
the authors claim that “this effort of purification is made for a result impossible to achieve,” (51).
Here the authors focus on the far-reaching role of controls and trivialize the benefits that the
efforts of controlling can offer. The logico-deductive approach is further weakened by referring
to it as “boring” and “dull” (76), as well as yielding predictions that are only worthy of
discussion in places where “they will do no harm,” (99). It is my opinion that references such as
these immediately portray the alternative approach to grounded theory as being less robust and
obviously weak, even though this is only the authors’ interpretations rather than actual fact about
the approach.
         Glaser and Strauss also insert their negative evaluations of the logico-deductive approach.
They claim that it can “lead followers astray in trying to advance sociology,” (4) and the
adherence to rules regarding accurate evidence can lead to “stultifying effects of creativity,”
(76). Such claims are based on individual negative evaluations of the logico-deductive approach
and therefore misrepresent the true strength of logico-deductive (Damer 183). Therefore, an
individual attempting to decide whether to use the grounded theory approach or the logico-
deductive should question whether the perspective that Glaser and Strauss offer is the best
presentation of both methodological options. It is my opinion that this work by Glaser and
Strauss offers a good description of the grounded theory approach, but another source on the
logico-deductive approach should be cited by an individual in order to accurately weigh the
influences that each approach can offer his research.
Christopher P. Kelley #7

On Glaser and Strauss
“The Discovery of Grounded Theory”

         The authors tell us that grounded theory is “the discovery of theory from data” (p.1).
They go on to define data as “systematically obtained and analyzed in social research” (p.1).
From this point the explanation regularly breaks down to a comparison of the ways that
Grounded Theory corrects or compensates for the mistakes and failings of the current
conventions of sociology its emphasis a Logical Theory approach. They repeatedly advocate the
use of Grounded Theory in the production of formal theory and tout the approach as superior to
logical deductive method. The authors consistently make arguments that infer problems with the
logical deductive method, which are often neither well-support nor necessarily true, to the point
of committing ad-hominem fallacies. This tactic is employed ineffectually as a means to support
their assertions about the value of the superior methods of Grounded Theory.. These arguments
against logical deductive theory are offered in supportive contrast to methods the authors
endorse. This is done instead of sound, well-reasoned arguments. In defense of the matter of data
collection, the authors offer an appeal against the claim that their criteria for theoretical sampling
“may appear too flexible (too much so for validity some critic has said)” (P.48). The authors’
first response is confusing and seemingly contradicts the stated purposes. They say, “Our main
purpose is to generate theory, not to establish verifications with the ‘facts.’” With this statement
the value of an unverified or verifiable theory now come into question. In the next paragraph the
authors’ tell us that “data collected according to preplanned routine are more likely to force the
analyst into irrelevant directions and harmful pitfalls” (p.48). This would be very bad if it were
true, but no real support is offered. With the exception of the assertion that conventional methods
force some kind of bad outcomes this argument is offered in the absence of e better supporting
claim for the Grounded methods. This kind of ad-hominem fallacy weakens the argument for
grounded theory.
         Grounded Theory is also vulnerable to the problems that arise from Denying Counter
evidence and/or Ignoring counter evidence. Because the data collection and the theory are both
propelled by the individually determined and directed perceptions and conclusions of the
researcher, the problem of systematically biasing one’s findings in favor of one’s own pet theory
becomes more likely. The problem stems from the fact that Grounded Theory is by design un-
falsifiable by any means. According to the authors’ depiction, Grounded Theory simply changes
with the inclusion of new evidence and is thus continually refined (p.62). Although the authors
suggest that this is tempered by the inclusion and exclusion of perceived conditions this is a
problematic and possibly self deluding. As issues arise, what the researcher thinks is and isn’t
going on, could compounded the problem of starting with an initial misconception or getting off
track
         Suppose using grounded theory a researcher found solid data about the practice of
deception found in cases of infidelity. The grounded researcher employs categories from this
earlier research and substantive theory develops from observational studies of the concealment of
extramarital activities practiced by cheating spouses and their lovers. With the secretive nature
of clandestine relationships, the researcher might determine that at times the absence of evidence
could be construed as implicate indication of some form of cover-up--likely covert action—a
kind of “everything is too perfect and fits well to be real” argument. By this understanding, the
absence of evidence at times can be construed as evidence by the very fact it is not where and
when the researcher expected to find it. In this case, the absence of evidence is now good data.
After moving on from this study to its natural progression, the surreptitious observation and
research of US clandestine operations, the research has further evidence from a comparative
study that maximizes differences by moving from a micro structure of obscured behaviors to the
macro structure of organizationally obscured behaviors. The researcher has further verification
and refinement of how things are systematically concealed by clandestine network structures.
Based on this developing substantive theory, suppose the Grounded theorist felt s/he had reason
to believe that aliens had crash landed in the Nevada desert some time in the 1940’s or 50’s and
that the government has been systematically hiding evidence of the fact ever since. The pursuit
of this absurdity makes clear the problems that can abound with either the denial of counter
evidence and\or the Ignoring of counter evidence afforded by an un-falsifiable theory.
        Another fallacy that Grounded theory could be susceptible to is arguing from ignorance.
This problem also stems from the issue of Grounded Theory being un-falsifiable. For example
the authors tell us that, “This assumption of persistence is subject only to being disproven--not
proven—when other sociologists question credibility… (in grounded theory ) once discovered
the (a) relationship is presumed to exist”(p.63). The authors go on to tell us that “persistence
helps generalize scope and is usually considered uninteresting since it requires no modification
of the theory” (p.63). The problem of having a relationship that is not susceptible to being
falsified is there can be no evidence against it, only forever-shifting scope conditions. This
makes nearly any perceived relationship real with a simple course of rebuttals. In this case, a
near infinite number of proposed conditions offered by a challenger can be rebutted with the
simple claim that the proposed circumstance doesn’t meet the scope and only serves to refine the
theory. Employing this method, I could make a career on one claim and sit in my office waiting
for challenges claiming that any possible circumstance which appears to be in contrast to my
theory simply doesn’t meet the scope and helps me refine it a bit more and every so often publish
a more “refined” version.
        The problem of Arguing in a circle is also a concern with Grounded Theory. If an
argument implicitly or explicitly asserts in one of its premises what is asserted in its conclusion,
then the argument is circular. In Grounded Theory, the conclusion in a sense is the argument
since the argument changes in accordance with its conclusions. The relationships examined are
not defined by these assumptions but essentially on where those assumptions eventually take the
researcher’s idea or proposed persistent relationship.
Layana Navarre-Jackson
Assignment 7


Glaser and Strauss present a grounded theory strategy as an approach for conducting qualitative
research. The grounded theory strategy is not statistical or quantitative but focuses on an area of
study and involves gathering data from a variety of sources through interviews and field
observations. Once the data is gathered, it is analyzed using coding and theoretical sampling
procedures before theories are generated. The goal of grounded theory research is to construct
theories in order to understand phenomena. In the following paragraphs, I will summarize the
grounded theory strategy of Glaser and Strauss and then attempt to point out the fallacies that
Glaser and Strauss have committed while presenting their strategy for grounded theory.

Glaser and Strauss state that the problem with applying logico-deductive theory is that if
sociologists are focused on verification, then they miss the chance to explore new sociological
phenomena and they end up trying to force the data to fit the theory that they have started with.
In addition, Glaser and Strauss state that logico-deductive theory uses “exampling” whereby
researchers find examples for “dreamed-up, speculative, or logically deduced theory after the
idea has occurred” (p.5). They tear down logico-deductive theorizing to build up grounded
theory by stating that exampling is one problem that cannot occur in grounded theory (p.5).

Glaser and Strauss state that the adequacy of theory is tied to how the theory is generated and go
on to state that “the notion of independence too often ends up being taken as a license to generate
theory from any source—happenstance, fantasy, dream life, common sense, or conjecture—and
then dress it up as a bit of logical deduction” (p.6). Glaser and Strauss also state that logico-
deductive theory only tests part of a theory rather than the whole theory, whereas grounded
theory tests the entire theory and grounded theory does not force the data to fit the theory
because the strategy involves starting with data and not theory.

Grounded theory uses comparative analysis and the researcher uses any information that is found
to be contradictory to the theory to change the theory or, in the words of Glaser and Strauss, “the
scope of the theory is broadened” (p.57). According to Glaser and Strauss, testing of the theory
is not independent of theory generation and it is only after sample “saturations” that the
researcher begins to notice specific relations among categories. At that time, the sociologist
learns which categories need the most or least “saturation” and which can be dropped (p.70).

Glaser and Strauss argue that substantive theory is developed for empirical observations and
formal theory comes from substantive theory. Moreover, they argue that grounded formal theory
is more trustworthy than logico-deductive theory in its use in research and teaching (p.98). They
state that grounded theory is also more useful in predictions and explanations and that
explanations and predictions from logico-deductive formal theory are used where “they will do
no harm” (p.98).

Abusive Ad Hominem Fallacy:         Glaser and Strauss commit this fallacy by unfairly attacking
logico-deductive theory when using dismissive terms such as “dreamed-up” and “exampling”
when discussing logico-deductive theory. It seems that they are using this technique to discredit
logico-deductive theory and—in doing so—discrediting any possible argument that proponents
of the theory might come up with and to build up grounded theory.
        Glaser and Strauss might avoid this fallacy as well as the following two fallacies by
avoiding the attempt to build up grounded theory by tearing down logico-deductive theory, they
could have admitted that there is much of logico-deductive theory that does meet their criteria for
usefulness and pointed out why grounded theory is more useful.

Resort to Humor or Ridicule:         As mentioned above, Glaser and Strauss attack logico-
deductive theory by using terms such as “dreamed-up” and “exampling” when ridiculing logico-
deductive theory. They also state that the logical deduction in logico-deductive theory is
“fantasy” that is “dressed up.”

Attacking a Straw Man Fallacy:        Glaser and Strauss commit this fallacy by oversimplifying
logico-deductive theory and stating that the researchers find examples for “dreamed-up theory
after the idea has occurred” (p.5).

Red Herring Fallacy:            Glaser and Strauss commit the red herring fallacy by attacking
logico-deductive reasoning as an attempt to draw attention away from the major weakness in
their strategy of grounded theory, which is that grounded theory is not falsifiable if the researcher
is allowed to just keep “broadening” the theory when new information is found that contradicts
or does not fit into the theory in question.
         Glaser and Strauss might avoid this fallacy by addressing the weaknesses in grounded
theory and explaining why the theory is still useful and adequate despite the weakness.

Special Pleading Fallacy: Glaser and Strauss appear to commit the special pleading fallacy
by attempting to apply double standards with regard to what constitutes a useful theory. They
state that one rule for deciding that a theory is useful is how the theory is generated (p.5). Glaser
and Strauss argue in favor of grounded theory’s strategy of looking at data prior to generating a
theory but they also state that the criteria for useful research concerns categories and properties.
However, they ignore the fact that logico-deductive theories might meet their criteria for
categories and properties and still dismiss logico-deductive theory as not being useful.
         Glaser and Strauss might avoid this fallacy by not attempting to play by a double
standard. Instead of trying to build up grounded theory by tearing down logico-deductive theory,
they could have admitted that there is much of logico-deductive theory that does meet their
criteria for usefulness and pointed out why grounded theory is more useful.

Arguing in a Circle Fallacy:           Glaser and Strauss commit this fallacy by stating that
grounded theory is more useful than logico-deductive theory and emphasizing how useless
logico-deductive theory is, while not actually giving logical reasons for the uselessness of logico-
deductive theory or their basis for the claims that logical deduction in that theory is “fantasy” and
inadequate. The authors also do not justify their claim that one of the rules of usefulness for
theory is that the method of generating the theory is important regardless of whether the theory
meets the criteria for categories and properties.
        Glaser and Strauss might avoid this fallacy by having a factual basis for the claim that
logico-deductive theory is useless, which is what they are basing their claim that grounded
theory is so much better than logico-deductive theory on.
Danielle Rohret
         Glaser and Strauss present a strong argument overall for the use of grounded theory.
However, the strategy they advocate may be particularly susceptible to several of the fallacies
outlined in Damer. To begin with, Glaser and Strauss claim that their method of theory
generation “is a way of arriving at theory suited to its supposed uses” (p. 3). One of those
supposed uses is to enable prediction and explanation of behavior. I would argue that the
predictive value of theory generated using a grounded theory strategy is questionable at best.
G&S present theory as a process. According the these authors, theory generation and
development is ongoing. That is, future instances of the phenomenon of interest are potential
opportunities to refine or modify a theory. If a negative case (or set of negative cases) doesn’t
falsify a theory, but rather refines it, a theory never makes a false prediction. If a theory by
definition, always makes the correct prediction, it has no real predictive power. This line of
argumentation leads Glaser and Strauss to commit the structural fallacy of inconsistency:
Prediction is one use of theory. Grounded theory is suited to all its uses. Therefore, grounded
theory is suited to prediction. But, as I have argued, the very method of grounded theory is, in
fact, not suited to prediction.
         The grounded theory method may be particularly susceptible to the fallacy of circular
argumentation. The reasons for this are again related to the fact that the grounded theory method
produces theories that can not be falsified, only modified and refined. If a theory makes a
prediction about the relationship between two variables, for example, and then the empirical
relationship between those two variables is used to modify the theory post hoc, the revised theory
will by definition predict the correct “outcome”.
         The practice of grounded theory may be particularly susceptible to committing fallacies
that violate the rebuttal principle. It’s not that the method denies or ignores the counterevidence.
In fact, counterevidence is essential in the grounded theory method, as it provides the feedback
to modify the theory. Rather, the method itself does not allow for viable alternative positions, as
I have already eluded to. It simply incorporates alternative positions into the theory. This
violation of the rebuttal principle represents an unnamed fallacy. Incidentally, although the
method is susceptible to fallacies related to the violation of the rebuttal principle, G&S in the
presentation of their argument for the use of grounded theory do a good job adhering to the
rebuttal principle. Throughout there argument they attempt to preempt potential
counterarguments that are likely to come from the logico-deductivists that held sway at that time
in sociology.
         The use of grounded theory may be particularly susceptible to commission of the genetic
fallacy, thus violating the relevance criterion. Upon first consideration, it might seem as if
grounded theory guards against this type of fallacy, in that the method allows for the continual
reconsideration of context that is allowed to alter the theory. However, the genetic fallacy occurs
when the arguer ignores relevant changes that may have altered its character in the interim. The
key phrase here is “altered its character”. When a negative case arises in grounded theory it is
used to alter the original theory, rather than viewing that negative case as an instance of a
different, altered phenomenon to which the theory is not relevant. One could potentially avoid
committing this fallacy by paying more attention to scope conditions and identifying the contexts
under which a theory does or does not apply.
         I believe that there is not much that can be done to avoid committing the preceding
fallacies when using grounded theory, short of changing the very definition of what grounded
theory is. While there are definite benefits created through the practice of grounded theory, the
term is in a way an oxymoron. A theory, conceived of as a set of interrelated universal
statements, must be independent of time, space and historical circumstance. Grounded theory,
theory generated from historical circumstance in a manner of speaking, violates this condition.
Shane Soboroff
Theory Construction and Analysis
Assignment 7: Glaser & Strauss

        Grounded Theory uses data collection and analysis to construct an analytical framework
for the understanding of various “categories” of social phenomenon. By using groups where a
category can reasonably be expected to apply and comparing those groups to other groups, the
scope of the framework and the predictions that may be generated by it will emerge. Grounded
theory aims to create logical and meaningful frameworks for understanding social categories
without relying on assumptions that are derived from logic but may have no grounding in reality.
        There are a few instances where the logic and procedure for generating grounded theory
may run into trouble logically. By analyzing two of these instances in the light of Damer’s book
Attacking Faulty Reasoning, it is possible to also see how such trouble can be avoided, while
allowing the pursuit of grounded theory to continue.

“For substantive theory, he (the researcher) can select, as the same substantive class, groups
regardless of where he finds them. He may thus compare the “emergency ward” to all kinds of
medical wards in all kinds of hospitals, both in the United States and abroad. But he may also
conceive of the emergency ward as a subclass of a larger class of organizations, all designed to
render immediate assistance in the event of accidents of breakdowns” (Glaser & Strauss 53-54).

        Glaser and Strauss go on to include fire, crime, automobile, and plumbing agencies in
this class of categories. In the light of the grounded theory approach, this is perfectly logical.
For Glaser and Strauss, the fact that plumbing and automobile agencies are qualitatively different
in the services they provide (i.e. most likely not providing life-saving services) allows the
researcher to further define the scope of the theoretical framework they are developing.
However, by creating a class of “organizations, all designed to render immediate assistance in
the event of accidents or breakdowns,” one may run the risk of the fallacy of equivocation.
Damer defines equivocation as:

 “Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a work of phrase
employed in two different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout”
(Damer 105).

        In the instance we have just dealt with, immediate assistance in the case of an
emergency room would be to give someone medical attention. There will be a whole
constellation of actions and expectations associated with this type of assistance. Where the
plumber is concerned, the goal will be to possibly stop property damage, though it is likely that
no one’s life is threatened and the allowance for error may be greater.
        Researchers attempting to classify groups in grounded theory must be careful to
remember that the goal is not simply to verify the existence of a category of phenomena through
a multitude of substantive evidence, but to find the limits of its application through similar and
divergent circumstances. The latter goal should drive the former. By focusing on finding similar
and divergent groups, a researcher is forced to generate new properties, categories, and the
relationships between them at every stage of the theory construction process. This will allow the
theoretical framework to evolve naturally. If a researcher allows for this, the definitions of their
categories and the categorical properties will always be explicit and understood in the context of
their applicability to a new situation. Charges of equivocation will be avoided.

“Naturally we wish to be as sure of our evidence as possible, and therefore check on it as often as
we can. However, even if some of our evidence is not entirely accurate this will not be too
troublesome; for in generating theory it is not the fact upon which we stand, but the conceptual
category that was generated from it. A concept may be generated from one fact, which then
becomes merely one of a universe of many possible diverse indicators for, and data on, the
concept (Glaser & Strauss 23).”

        In this instance Glaser and Strauss argue that conceptual categories may arise from a
single fact. Under grounded theory this fact would have been established based on the
identification of a theoretically relevant group. In other words, the concept that the researchers
were interested in could be expected to apply to that group. Damer might argue that the assertion
made in the above excerpt violates the fallacy of the insufficient sample. Damer defines this
fallacy as: “consisting of drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of
cases”(Damer 142). If one fact is generating an assumption about the operation of a concept
from a single case, then Glaser and Strauss have a logical problem. The solution is to find more
cases and identify indicators of the concepts through comparative analysis. I believe that
Glaser’s and Strauss’ argument, while susceptible to this charge, can also be defended from it. A
fact may exist in multiple circumstances. For instance, the fact of a resource exchange may
appear in numerous contexts. In one instance it may be money for groceries. In another, it may
be information. While no one instance may be typical of all exchanges, the concept of exchange
behavior could still apply. I still feel that Glaser and Strauss need to specify whether or not the
one fact will be found in many cases or can be simply taken from a single case.
Campos, Ana

     Grounded Theory concerns itself with sociologists’ ability to discover theory from
systematically collected and analyzed data in social research (Glaser & Straus, 1967:1). Glaser
and Straus define the purpose of sociological theory in five points; (1) “to enable prediction and
explanation of behavior; (2) to be useful in theoretical advanced sociology; (3) to be useful in
practical application…(4) to provide a perspective on behavior; (5) to guide and provide a style
for research on particular areas of behavior” (1967: 3). According to Glaser and Straus, the
process to construct theories that fulfill the purpose of sociological theory (the five points) is the
grounded theory approach. However, this approach to theory construction does not take into
account several of Damer’s (2005) principles for effective discussion (fallibility, truth-seeking,
clarity, burden of proof, charity, structure, relevance, acceptability, sufficiency, rebuttal,
resolution suspension of judgment, reconsideration) (Damer, 2005: 4-7); thus it is susceptible to
several fallacies. According to Damer, a fallacy is a violation of criteria of a good argument
(2006: 43). In order to find the strengths and weakness of Grounded Theory approach, it is
important to (1) discuss the grounded theory strategy of Glaser and Strauss in light of the
fallacies Damer presents, (2) and make suggestions on strategies researchers might use in order
to avoid fallacies when using grounded theory.
         Before analyzing the Theory Construction Approach and its susceptibility to fallacies, it
is vital to understand the limitations of this theory construction process. The first requirement
for providing an effective intellectual discussion is to use the Fallibility Principle, which has
been embraced when “each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue [is] willing to accept
that fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that a through
examination of the issue may reveal that one’s initial view is not the most defensible position in
the question” (Damer, 2005). The Grounded Theory approach places theories in a constant
revision process. The theory in an indeterminate state, limiting other academics’ ability to
critically analyze the theory. Thus, the theory never becomes accessible to test it, reject it, or
accept it. It is necessary to formulate the theory and open it for criticism; thus, the theorist can
never be wrong. One strategy grounded theorists can use is to have an open and community
theorizing process. Grounded theory requires a constant revision of a theory; thus, if the
academic community has the ability to participate in the theorizing process by testing, accepting,
or rejecting knowledge claims as the theory is in development, grounded theory would follow the
fallibility principle.
         Like all other approaches, the Grounded Theory approach to theory construction
encourages the avoidance of specific fallacies, while placing itself as a target for others. In order
to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the theories, it is necessary to use Damer’s proposed
fallacies (46). First, I will critique Glaser and Straus’s argument for the Grounded Theory
approach; second, I will point out the fallacies the ground theory approach successfully avoids;
and lastly, I will point to the fallacies the grounded theory approach becomes an easy target for.




■Glaser and Straus Argument and their Fallacies:
Throughout Glaser and Straus’ argument for grounded theory, they appeal to irrelevant
emotional sociological debated, such as the science and anti-science sociological debates.
◙ Appeal to Tradition Fallacy
      ●First, they use the appeal to tradition, which consists in attempting to persuade others
      of a point of view by appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for some tradition
      instead of to evidence” (93).
      ●They define the grounded theory approach against all other traditional theory
      construction approaches, by stating that sociology is in need of theories and the “great
      men” forefathers (Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Marx, Veblen, Cooley, Mead, Park, ect.)
      did not explain all social phenomenons (10). Traditionally, sociology had been
      preoccupied with the empirical testing of existing sociological theory. However, Glaser
      and Straus went against tradition; thus, they did not appeal to tradition to sell their
      argument.
      ●Suggestions: Glaser and Straus not only avoided the fallacy, but also went against it.
◙Appeal to Self Interest
   • Second, they did not appeal to self interest, “urging an opponent to accept or reject a
      particular position by appealing solely to his or her personal circumstance or self interest,
      when there is a more important issue at stake” (95).
   • Glaser and Straus (1967) do not spend the time appealing to sociologists’ personal
      circumstances; in the contrary, they went against what sociologist perceived as sociology.
      As they state, sociology’s primary concern was “the verification [was] the dominant
      orientation in virtually all social work” (12). Thus, proposing an opposing goal (theory
      construction instead of empirical testing) and using a anti logico-methodology was
      definitely not a selling pitch.
   • Suggestions: Glaser and Straus were not afraid to propose a new direction for sociology.

◙ Popular Wisdom
   • The fallacy of popular wisdom “consists in appealing to insights expressed in
     aphomorisms or clichés, folk wisdom, or so-called common sense, instead or relevant
     evidence for the claim” (150)
   • Grounded theorists are discouraged from creating a personal experience or observations
     in everyday life, but take an “initial, systematic discovery of the theory from the data of
     social research” (3). Glaser and Strauss (1967) discuss the presence of this fallacy in
     logico-deductive, “The notion of independence too often ends up being taken as a license
     to generate theory from any source-happetance, fantasy, dream life, common sense, or
     conjecture- they dress it up as a bit logical deduction” (6). Thus, the theory construction
     approach can successfully avoid the Popular Wisdom Fallacy.
   • Suggestions: No grounded theory construction product will ever be susceptible to the
     popular wisdom fallacy, unless the data was not systematically collected.


■Used Against Work Produced through Grounded Theory:


◙ Unrepresentative Data fallacy
   • Unrepresentative Data fallacy “consists of drawing a conclusion based on data from an
      unrepresentative sample or biased data” (144).
   •   Through the modification and bias data selection (Glaser & Straus, 45), grounded
       theorists have become the red target for committing the Unrepresentative Data fallacy. In
       the first case study, the researcher will select data engaging in sociological patterns. All
       other data not supporting the emerging patterns will be eliminated. The second case data
       will be selected based on those emerging patterns. Thus, the non-random selection of
       case studies will encourage the researcher to analyzing unrepresentative data.

◙ Pleading Fallacy
   • Third, the special pleading fallacy consists in “applying principles, rules, or criteria to
       other person while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself or to a situation that is of
       personal interests, without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception”
       (152)
   • In order to advocate the grounded theory approach, they focus on constrains within
       logico-theory construction. Through logico-theory construction, once a theorists has
       developed a theory, she/he will be force to find data to fit the theory; thus, encouraging
       the creation of limited and inadequate theories. However, Glaser and Straus are equally
       guilty, or more, of the same fallacy. The research in grounded theory “collects, codes,
       and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect nest and where to find them in
       order to his theory as it emerges” (45). This data selection process leads to bias; it is the
       need to find supporting data for the previous findings that will dictate future case studies.
       The question is, “Where can I find supportive data?” Instead of, “Does another random
       case study have the same patterns?”
   • Suggestions: In order to avoid the pleading fallacy, it would be logical to select random
       cases, without predisposed notions, and analyze all under the same basis. Selecting data
       with a want to prove the previous findings lead to bias data collection.


■Used to support the Work Produced through Grounded Theory

◙ Contradiction between Premise and Conclusion
   • Contradiction between Premise and Conclusion is “drawing a conclusion that is
      incompatible with at least one of the premise” (64).
   • Grounded theory is constructed through the lead of the first findings; thus, the premises
      will always lead to conclusion, without contradiction. It is impossible to argue against
      the fact than an orange came from an orange three. In the same manner, the premises
      come from data, and the following data for the next case study is selected base on the
      finding from the previous data. ‘The researcher chooses any groups that will help
      generate, to the fullest extent, as many properties of the categories as possible, and that
      will help relate categories to each other and to their properties” (49); thus, the premise
      will not contradict the conclusion.

◙ Genetic Fallacy
   • The Genetic Fallacy “consists in evaluating a thing in terms of its earlier context and then
      carrying over the evaluation to the think in the present, while ignoring relevant changes
      that may have altered it character in the interim” (83)
   •   Grounded theory is never final; thus, the theory construction process is infinite and leads
       to a large history of a theory. The history will consist of numerous case studies and
       modifications. This long history will make grounded theories an easy target for a genetic
       fallacy, meaning that critics can easily manipulate the theory construction process and
       create argue against the theory.
   •   Suggestion: Being a target of genetic fallacy is unavoidable when the theory construction
       process requires a long developmental history.

◙ Insufficient fallacy
   • Insufficient fallacy consists in “drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small
       sample of cases” (142).
   • Grounded theories have successfully avoided the accusation of insufficiency fallacy
       through the collection of a large number of cases.