A quality debate on grounded theory in sport and exercise psychology? A commentary on potential areas for future debate

Objectives: The objective of this commentary on my own (Weed, 2009a) and Holt and Tamminen's (2010) recent contributions on the use of grounded theory in sport and exercise psychology is to identify those areas in which there is debate, and those where there is agreement, and to suggest the key areas on which future debate might most productively and usefully focus. Methods: The two contributions are discussed to examine their contribution to a quality debate on grounded theory: both a debate about the quality of grounded theory research, and a debate of high quality on grounded theory. Results: While there is some disagreement between Holt and Tamminen (2010) and myself (Weed, 2009a) on the appropriateness of search strategies used to identify grounded theory research in sport and exercise psychology, and on the extent to which an attempt is being made to police or correct methods, on the more substantive issues relating to micro-level research quality considerations for grounded theory in sport and exercise psychology there appears to be little on which there is substantive debate or disagreement. However, there appears to be much greater scope for productive debate on macro-level considerations relating to the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of variants of grounded theory, and their implications for research quality. This is clear from the wider grounded theory literature, but these important aspects of a high quality debate on grounded theory have not yet been extensively addressed in sport and exercise psychology. Conclusion: While there is little substantive disagreement about issues of micro-level research quality considerations for grounded theory in sport and exercise psychology, a high quality debate in the future must recognise that micro-level research quality is inextricably linked with quality concerns for grounded theory in sport and exercise psychology at the macro-level. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.