Questions for Tuesday, 10/2

1.  Grounded theory, as Neff describes it, seems almost overwhelming and too complex—does its openness to complexity hinder its being useful to researchers and to readers of research?
2. When would it be most appropriate to use grounded theory—only when attempting to build new theory?  Or are there other uses for it?
3. Comparing the explanations of grounded theory that Strauss and Corbin give it and Neff gives it, they seem to contrast in tone.  While both texts are very positive towards use of the theory, Strauss and Corbin really do a lot to idealize it, especially in the first section of the book.  When I read Neff, I thought, “ugh.  Sounds like a lot of work.”  But when I read Strauss and Corbin, I thought, “wow, this grounded theory stuff could save the world.”  Do you believe these are two different perspectives on grounded theory, or are they writing for different rhetorical purposes (Strauss and Corbin are trying to defend its existence, while Neff is trying to inform us)?