Sources used in this document:

In his discussion of different methodologies of coding, such as open coding, LaRossa reflects upon how different theorists approached this complex process, but still tends to rely upon Glaser and Strauss for most of his definitions. Of open coding, for example, they note that "the concept-indicator model is predicated on the constant comparison of indicators, that is, on regularly identifying similarities and variations in texts" (LaRossa 2005: 841). In discussing axial quoting, LaRossa quotes more heavily from Strauss' later work (1987) alone, noting it "consists of "intense analysis done around one category" (LaRossa 2005: 846). With selective coding there is profound disagreement between Glaser and Straus: "although there is unanimity that selective coding entails the identification of a core variable" (LaRossa 2005: 851). LaRossa admits "if you find these descriptions hard to follow, you are not alone" (LaRossa 2005: 842). Quoting from the previous literature on the subject, rather than clarifying the concept, merely highlights why grounded theory is considered so obscure in many quarters.

After using (by his own admission) highly theoretical and somewhat obscure examples from theoretical literature, LaRossa then 'grounds' his discussion in a more specific study, that of Richardson's (1988) American Sociological Review article on extramarital affairs to show how grounded theory can actually be useful to create a 'narrative' theory of human experience (LaRossa 2005: 852). He also draws from examples of his own use of the theory "analyzing the interview transcripts in our study of the transition to parenthood" and Diane Vaughan's application of Glaser and Strauss to her work with dying patients (LaRossa 2005: 852). These examples are used to clarify the coding techniques that make up the bulk of the body of the paper and to show grounded theory's utility in 'real world' and 'hands on' research.

The majority of the body of the paper is thus relatively quote-heavy and draws from the literature, particularly Glass and Strauss, given their significance in the development of the theory. The introduction and the conclusion introduce the 'problem' of how to value grounded theory in the context of family research. Overall the tone of the article is very positive, but it would be more helpful to use extended examples. The bulk of the article discusses debates over appropriate coding, without examining how these are reflected in the later quoted actual research studies. Ultimately, qualitative coding attempts to illuminate phenomena in the real world that quantitative research cannot but the