Revisiting ‘Accuracy’ in Formal Grounded Theory: Ambiguities and Opportunities

Abstract

This study attempts to address the ‘scant attention’ (to use Barney Glaser’s words) given to formal grounded theory by revisiting and reformulating the concept of accuracy (interchangeably used with accurate descriptions and empirical evidence) which Glaser blames to be the reason behind grounded theorists neglecting formal grounded theorizing. A novel concept called pragmatic accuracy is introduced to meet the requirements of formal grounded theorizing. Pragmatic accuracy by supplementing inductive reasoning with abductive places methodological self-consciousness at the center of formal grounded theorizing as there is a continual need for scrutinizing the core assumptions of a researcher and those of their participants’. This study does not entirely reject Glaser’s approach of shunning accuracy. Rather it teases out the contradiction between Glaser’s words and practice towards qualitative descriptions and shows how he, in a coauthored formal grounded theory, recognizes the importance of empirical references and explanatory definitions. Along with Glaser, Charmaz’ and Kearney’s views on accuracy are also unpacked and brought in harmony with the requirements of formal grounded theorizing. A case is made through pragmatic accuracy to encourage a sustained focus on the inclusion of empirical content in an emerging formal theory to increase its applicability and generalizability. The reformulated pragmatic accuracy also offers two lengths for formal grounded theories, article-length and book-length, depending upon the requirements of the topic and the researcher.