Procedural and Methodological Rigor in Classic Grounded Theory

Main Article Content

Barry Chametzky


Though well-respected within its community, classic grounded theory is not as widely known as some other qualitative and quantitative research designs. Just as the other research designs have inherently rigorous principles, so too does classic grounded theory. The purpose of this talk is to explain several of these rigors by way of the tenets of the design. Only through a discussion of how rigorous this research design is, can novice and more experienced researchers truly appreciate its beauty, acquire valuable information about the design, and discover how beneficial the design might be to them. More specifically, there will be a detailed discussion on the following elements of rigor: (a) remaining true to and not manipulating the data; (b) using a grand tour question with no other questions; (c) using the Constant Comparison Method; (d) developing conceptualized rather than descriptive concepts; and, (e) ensuring the five pillars of classic grounded theory are present.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chametzky, B. (2024). Procedural and Methodological Rigor in Classic Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory Review, 23(1), 122–145. Retrieved from


Chametzky, B. (2013a). Offsetting the affective filter: A classic grounded theory study of post-secondary online foreign language learners (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).

Chametzky, B. (2013b). Generalizability and offsetting the affective filter. Grounded Theory Review, 12(2).

Chametzky, B. (2015). Surviving situational suffering: A classic grounded theory study of post-secondary contingent faculty members in the United States. Grounded Theory Review, 14(1).

Chametzky, B. (2022a). How Barney Glaser and classic grounded theory have changed and impacted my life. The Grounded Theory Review, 21(1).

Chametzky, B. (2022b). Coding in classic grounded theory: I’ve done an interview; Now what? The Grounded Theory Journal, 21(2), 22-32. Reprinted from Sociology Mind, 6(4), 163-172.

Chametzky, B. (2023). The constant comparison method of classic grounded theory and the explication de texte: Connections and differences. Grounded Theory Review, 22(2).

Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography: Step-by-step. Sage.

Gazzaniga, M. (2009). Humans: The party animal. Daedalus, 138(3), 21-34.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1965). Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underlying qualitative research. The American behavioral Scientist, 8(6), 5-12.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1996). Gerund grounded theory: The basic social process dissertation. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (2002a). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3, Art. 12).

Glaser, B. (2002b). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38.

Glaser, B. (2007a). All is [sic] data. The Grounded Theory Review, 6(2), 1-22.

Glaser, B. (2007b). Doing formal grounded theory: A proposal. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. Doing quantitative grounded theory. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (2009). Jargonizing: Using the grounded theory vocabulary. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (2012). Stop, write: Writing grounded theory. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (2014). Applying grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), 46-50.

Glaser, B. (2022). The future of grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 21(1), 1-10.

Perret, L. (2020). L’explication de texte et ses avatars: Des exercices en tension dans les programmes. Pratiques.