Why is nagging such an interesting behavior to study? I don't know if I can ever get anything from it. Concept or theory ... nah! A zillion miles from it.
So far, all I obtained from the conversations with the participants were merely descriptions of what, why, when, who and how. Nothing emerged, yet. This is more like I'm doing phenomenology than GT.
The mistake I made is clear now. This study of nagging was supposed to be using phenomenology. Three years a go, before my encounter of the third kind with GT, I decided to use phenomenology for my study. I couldn't come up with a proposal because the literature review wasn't exhaustive. Anyway, it wasn't my fault, the studies or articles related to nagging were so few and mostly mentioned as an effect of dissatisfaction. The studies were always denotated as conflict in the family.There were no mentions of theory or concept of nagging. The only consolation and possibly motivation for me to continue the study was actually the lack of literature in nagging. So I thought, may be I should push the boundary further by using GT.
But my experience with the nagging literature and phenomenology will definitely have great influence on my conceptualizing the phenomenon.
My supervisor wanted me to proceed with nagging because she sees its significance. She believes that it'll be a great study. I don't quite agree with her because GT wasn't her expertise. She is an ethnographer. Some fellows from the GT Institute also wanted me to do nagging. They said it's interesting. But still I have worries that must be resolved.
Is this the right substantive area of study? Or is nagging actually the initiation stage of other things to come?
Help me, Grounded Theorists!