Table 1
Paradigmatic Assumptions and Characteristics of Grounded Theory (GT) Methodologies (adapted from Groen et al., 2017).
| Classic GT (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) | Pragmatic GT (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998) | Constructivist GT (Charmaz, 2006, 2014) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology | Critical Realist | Interpretivist | Constructivist |
| Epistemology | Objective | Pragmatic | Subjective |
| Researcher Role | Observer | Interpreter | Integrated Co-Constructor |
| Purpose | Abstract theory and meaning | Abstract theory or gain in-depth understanding | Abstract theory and in-depth meaning |
| Implementation | Promotes adherence to rigorous, fundamental processes | Provides a set of tools that may be used, rejected, or ignored | Highlights flexibility within the process; resists mechanical application |
| Outcome | Generalized theory that transcends time and context | Subjective theory dependent on time and context or descriptive non-theory | Subjective, descriptive theory dependent on time and context |
Table 2
Comparison of Grounded Theory Methodological Characteristics and Paradigmatic-Related Definitions (adapted from Groen et al., 2017).
| Methodological Component | Classic GT (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) | Pragmatic GT (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998) | Constructivist GT (Charmaz, 2006, 2014) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of Literature Review | General reading is used to establish a general problem area; focused reading occurs after emergent theory is developed | Literature serves as a way to establish the phenomenon that is to be studied and what is known about it | Early review may be used to establish a research argument; later review can be used to compare and contrast emergent theory to prior work |
| Sensitizing Concepts | Concepts that serve as departure points and to guide inquiry | Concepts that help guide but do not limit inquiry | Background ideas that inform the overall research problem and initiate inquiry |
| Causality Assumptions | Based on causal processes in which some events influence others | Causal mechanisms and their effects are not fixed, but contingent | Causal mechanisms and their effects are not fixed, but contingent |
| Researcher Role and Influence | Maintains a neutral, expert, and passive researcher perspective | Maintains a neutral researcher perspective while acknowledging personal experience and knowledge | Maintains a non-neutral researcher perspective and acknowledges personal priorities, positions, and values |
| Quality Criteria | Generated theories are general, modifiable explanations of process, actions, and interactions | Generated theories are researcher interpretations of process, actions, and interactions; can also be used for non-theory generation and description | Generated theories are suggestive, sophisticated, and informed explanations of process, actions, and interactions |
Figure 1
Summary of Grounded Theory Traditions and Methodological Components.
Figure 2
Relationships Among Grounded Theory Implementation, Research Design, and Outcomes.
Table 3
A Summary of Quality Criteria for Grounded Theory (GT) Traditions.
| Classic GT (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) | Pragmatic GT (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998) | Constructivist GT (Charmaz, 2006, 2014) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Close fit with data (i.e., credibility) | 1. Validity, reliability, and credibility | 1. Credibility |
| 2. Usefulness | 2. Plausibility and value | 2. Usefulness |
| 3. Conceptual density | 3. Adequacy of process | 3. Resonance |
| 4. Durability over time | 4. Empirical grounding | 4. Originality |
| 5. Modifiability | ||
| 6. Explanatory power |
Figure 3
Strategies to Consider When Implementing Reconceptualized Grounded Theory.