With any data-gathering approach, consider how participants invoke ideas, practices, and accounts from both the larger and local cultures of which they are a part. Keep in mind that they may not simply borrow from these cultures or reproduce them; rather, they may make innovations as they adapt them to serve their immediate purposes. Similarly, as researchers, we adapt language and meanings as we record data; data are never entirely raw. Recording data alone confers interpretations of them because we place a conceptual frame on them through our use of language and understandings about the world. Scrutinizing how you collect data and which data you obtain helps to locate them. Such scrutiny also helps you when coding and categorizing because you will be able to place your emerging analysis in its social context. Then you can make more precise comparisons when coding data. By studying your methods, you will improve both your methodological skills and the quality of your data. Subsequently, your scrutiny may lead you to realize later that collecting another kind of data with a different method may answer questions in your emerging analysis. For large projects such as theses, you might use two or more datagathering approaches. For a major funded research project, multi-method and multi-site approaches often prove to be useful. If you construct a research proposal that builds in possibilities for pursuing data in several settings, you have the flexibility later on to use or develop methods that address emergent questions. In the interim, we next move on to begin the analytic phase of our grounded theory journey, through coding our early data.
(с.40)
Даётся такое мягкое разрешение выбирать свои методы сбора данных, ежели того требуют данные.
Просто Charmaz развивает в большей мере центростремительный вариант традиции GT + с добавлением излишней философии и т.д. Её вариант дальше не рассматриваем, ориентируясь только на Gleser (Глезера).