Theoretical Sensitivity and Using the Literature

Theoretical sensitivity means that through data gathering and analysis researchers are able to “discover” relationships between their categories that lead them to construct a grounded theory that fits, works with, and is relevant to the field under study (Glaser, 1978). “To gain theoretical sensitivity, we look at studied life from multiple vantage points, make comparisons, follow leads, and build on ideas” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 135). One way of fostering theoretical sensitivity, according to Glaser (1978, 1998, 2005; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), is for researchers to delay reading theoretical literature and published research in the substantive area of their study until the analysis is nearly complete. The main reasons for this dictum are (1) to keep the researchers as free and open as possible to discovery, and (2) to avoid contamination (for example, forcing data into preexisting concepts that distort or do not fit these data or have no relevance to the substantive area). At the same time, Glaser (1978, 1998, 2005) argues that researchers should possess prior knowledge of and read literature in other substantive areas that are unrelated to the actual research project, for the purpose of enhancing their theoretical sensitivity by knowing many theoretical codes.

However, Glaser's dictum of not reading literature in the substantive area until the end of the analysis—that is, ignoring established theories and research findings—entails a loss of knowledge. “A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see further than the giant himself” (Burton, 1638/2007, p. 27; see also Stern, 2007, p. 123). The researchers have to recognize that what may appear to be a totally new idea to them in terms of an “innovative breakthrough” in their research may simply be a reflection of their own ignorance of the literature (Lempert, 2007). As constructivist grounded theorists, we argue that instead of risking reinventing the wheel, missing well-known aspects, coming up with trivial products, or repeating others' mistakes, researchers indeed can take advantage of the preexisting body of related literature in order to see further. We reject the very idea of an unbiased “tabula rasa” researcher who, without any prior theoretical knowledge and preconceptions, collects and analyzes value-neutral and theory-free data (in essence, empirical facts “as they really are,” independent of the researcher) in order to discover and represent reality as it is in itself. No neutral position exists; no objective god's-eye view of the world is available. Glaser's emphasis on the researcher's neutrality and objectivity overlooks the embeddedness of the researcher within specific historical, ideological, sociocultural, and situational contexts.

In contrast to Glaser's position, Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998; see also Corbin & Strauss, 2008) argue that the literature can be used more actively in grounded theory studies, as long as the researcher does not allow it to block creativity and get in the way of discovery. According to Strauss and Corbin, familiarity with relevant literature can enhance sensitivity to subtle nuances in data, provide a source of concepts for making comparisons to data, stimulate questions during the analysis process, and suggest areas for theoretical sampling. Our view assumes a similar logic. If grounded theorists reject naive empiricism as well as theoretical forcing, they need not dismiss extant theoretical and research literatures nor apply them mechanically to empirical cases. Instead, grounded theorists can use these literatures as possible sources of inspiration, ideas, “aha!” experiences, creative associations, critical reflections, and multiple lenses. “There is a difference between an open mind and empty head.… The issue is not whether to use existing knowledge, but how” (Dey, 1993, p. 63). We recommend that researchers remain open to the field under study and the data they are gathering, take a critical stance toward preexisting theories and research findings throughout the research process, and subject all ideas to rigorous scrutiny (for a further discussion, see Thornberg, in press).