MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603236714 · doi:10.1177/160940691201100510

Examining the Nexus between Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism

2012· article· en· W1603236714 on OpenAlexaff
P. Jane Milliken, Rita Schreiber

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSymbolic interactionismGrounded theoryInteractionismNexus (standard)The SymbolicEpistemologySociologyConstructivist grounded theorySymbolic data analysisPsychologyQualitative researchSocial scienceComputer sciencePsychoanalysisPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grounded theory is inherently symbolic interactionist; however, not all grounded theory researchers appreciate its importance or benefit from its influence. Elsewhere, we have written about the intrinsic relationship between grounded theory and symbolic interactionism, highlighting the silent, fundamental contribution of symbolic interactionism to the methodology. At the same time, there are significant insights to be had by bringing a conscious awareness of the philosophy of symbolic interactionism to grounded theory research. In this article we discuss the symbolic interactionist concepts of mind, self, and society, and their applicability in grounded theorizing. Our purpose is to highlight foundational concepts of symbolic interactionism and their centrality in the processes of conducting grounded theory research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.125
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1250.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.051
Scholarly communication0.0180.017
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.790
GPT teacher head0.727
Teacher spread0.063 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207