Grounded Theory (GT) is an innovative research methodology, consisting of three prevailing traditions: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. Despite arising from the same root, and sharing a number of the original methodological techniques, Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT have nevertheless diverged to such an extent that they are neither homogenous nor interchangeable methodologies. They are differentiated by contrasting philosophical frameworks and conflicting methodological directives. Through a careful analysis of the literature, the authors propose that the incongruity of the three GT traditions hinges on three principal and paramount demarcations: Firstly, their contending coding procedures; secondly, their opposing philosophical positions; and thirdly, their conflicting use of literature. The authors argue that these three areas of contention represent the quintessential distinction between the three GT traditions. Accordingly, this article will illustrate and contrast the contending coding conventions, uncover the underlying philosophical positions, and explore the contrasting uses of literature embedded within Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT.
Classic Grounded Theory, Straussian Grounded Theory, Constructivist Grounded Theory, Coding, Framework, Research Philosophy, Paradigms, Methodology, Differences between Grounded Theories, Grounded Theory Diagrams, Literature Reviews, Use of Literature
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Recommended APA Citation
Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2015). Contrasting Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist Grounded Theory: Methodological and Philosophical Conflicts. The Qualitative Report, 20(8), 1270-1289. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss8/9