Classic Grounded Theory Common Misunderstandings and Confusions

Main Article Content

Tom Andrews

Abstract

Grounded Theory continues to be the most widely used methodology in qualitative research. Although it is based on what people do naturally (to act habitually and a tendency to theorise), it can be confusing for those new to the methodology, particularly Classic Grounded Theory. This is usually but not limited to the use of the literature, coding, theoretical sampling, the commonly held view by those using constructivist GT that CGT is objective in nature and theoretical coding.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Andrews, T. (2024). Classic Grounded Theory: Common Misunderstandings and Confusions. Grounded Theory Review, 23(2), 85–93. Retrieved from https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/56
Section
Articles

References

Charmaz, C. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Rediscovering grounded theory. Sage.

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

Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2003). The grounded theory perspective II: Description's remodelling of grounded theory methodology. Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Sociology Press.

Holton, A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory. Sage.

Murphy, E., Dingwall, R., Greatbatch, D., Parker, S., & Watson, P. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment, 2(16): iii-ix, 1-274. PMID: 9919458. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2160

Puddephatt, A. J. (2006). An interview with Kathy Charmaz: On constructing grounded theory. Qualitative sociology review, 2(3), 5-20.

Simmons, O. (2022). Experiencing grounded theory. Brown Walker Press.