This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Strauss, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Notes on the Nature and Development of General Theories

University of California, San Francisco

There is a remarkable absence of discussion in sociology about the nature of (grounded) theories, how to generate them, and go about verifying them (witness the recent Handbook of Qualitative Research). Most theories are substantive. Differences among types of theories along various dimensions are discussed. A stand is taken against the usual oversimplified hierarchization of them by "levels," using an analysis of how theories appear in Science articles. For social scientists, this use constitutes models to be learned from, but not slavishly followed. Extended illustration is given from the author's research on the control of information, including guarding secrets, giving misleading information, engaging in suspicion searches, and the like. From this research, several innovative procedures are discussed relative to developing, checking, and linking general theories, both with each other and with substantive theories.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Richards Closeness to Data: The Changing Goals of Qualitative Data Handling Qual Health Res, May 1, 1998; 8(3): 319 - 328. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Daly Re-Placing Theory in Ethnography: A Postmodern View Qualitative Inquiry, September 1, 1997; 3(3): 343 - 365. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Alasuutari Theorizing in Qualitative Research: A Cultural Studies Perspective Qualitative Inquiry, December 1, 1996; 2(4): 371 - 384. [Abstract] [PDF]