Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

Distinguishing Between the Types of Grounded Theory:

Classical, Interpretive and Constructivist

Kailah Sebastian
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
sebastik@uregina.ca

Since its inception in 1967, the grounded theory methodology has developed into many perspectives, each
underpinned by different ontological and epistemological assumptions. This is shown primarily through the
work of Glaser and Strauss; Glaser; Strauss and Corbin; and Charmaz. Positivism versus interpretivism; prior
knowledge and experiences versus a clean slate; pre-established data coding categories versus building from
the ground up – each of these opposing assertions can be applied as a characteristic towards the three types or
perspectives of grounded theory. But which assertions go where? This paper will argue that, by clarifying these
perspectives and giving each its own separate label, grounded theory researchers will be able to more easily identify
and distinguish a chosen approach and its implications within research.

KEYWORDS: Grounded theory, Grounded theory types, Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology

Introduction & Background Grounded theory is an inductive methodology that

attempts to bridge the gap between research and theory
s per the fathers of grounded theory, Barney (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It emphasizes a simplified

A Glaser and Anselm Strauss, the intent of this

methodology focused on the "discovery of the-
ory from data [that is] systematically obtained and
approach to methods that collect rich and unbiased
data. This leaves theory to be conceptualized within the
study and by the data rather than verifying previous
analyzed in social research" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, theoretical assumptions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Char-
p. 1). Further, their educational upbringing in the maz, 2014; Farragher & Coogan, 2018). Researchers
positivist and interpretivist schools of thought are cred- wanting to use grounded theory do so with an intent
ited with influencing the direction of the methodology. to provide a useable theoretical explanation for a com-
While Glaser brought forth "epistemological assump- plex problem. Rather than relying on past analyses
tions, logic, and [a] systematic approach," Strauss con- or assumptions to highlight the right answers to the
tributed "notions of human agency, emergent processes, wrong questions, grounded theory pushes researchers
social and subjective meanings, problem-solving prac- to be enthusiastic and driven towards finding the right
tices, and the open-ended study of action to grounded answers to the right questions.
theory" (Charmaz, 2014, p. 9). The first application of
grounded theory, prior to its formal unveiling to the However, as time progressed and distinct assump-
research community, was through the original authors’ tions of how grounded theory could improve and
1965 project (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1965, evolve, many complexities arose. In the past few
1967; Holton & Walsh, 2017). This project, with a focus decades, discussions regarding grounded theory have
on death and dying perceptions, has been succinctly become contentious and confusing due to the numer-
summarized by Kathy Charmaz (2014): ous (original and emerging) approaches. If one were to
ask, ‘What is grounded theory?’ the discussions would
. . . Glaser and Strauss’s research team ob- appear tedious (to allow for a backstory reaching to the
served how dying occurred in a variety of 1960s origin), contentious (arguing which perspective
hospital settings; they looked at how and is grounded theory), or even confusing (attempting to
when professionals and their terminal pa- clarify the original from the emerging). Rather, the
tients knew they were dying and how they questions that should be asked are: ‘What types of
handled the news. Glaser and Strauss gave grounded theory are there?’ and ‘How do we distin-
their data explicit analytic treatment and guish them?’ Simplified, contemporary grounded the-
produced theoretical analyses of the social ory contains three separate and leading perspectives to-
organization and temporal order of dying wards its application in research: (1) classical grounded
(p. 5). theory (GT); (2) interpretive grounded theory (IGT);

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 1
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

and (3) constructivist grounded theory (CGT). 1 Corbin, and Kathy Charmaz) were included, which
While both GT and CGT can and have been eas- addressed critiques, advancements and clarifications
ily referenced – although it is not always done with towards the utility of the different types of grounded
regards to the former – IGT has yet to be labelled in theory. Supplementary literature, written by numer-
a way that distinguishes its unique capabilities.2 This ous researchers and academics, were also chosen and
paper suggests a consensus be reached on the unique included within this article for their attempts to: (1)
title and application of each type of grounded theory clarify grounded theory as a methodology; (2) compare
within current and future academic research and liter- two or more grounded theory perspectives; (3) have
ature. To do so would be doing a service to current detailed their application of a grounded theory within
and future grounded theory researchers. To learn, un- a research project.
derstand, and effectively apply any one of these will With the exception of the primary authors, 3 the
become easier as they would no longer be mixed under literature was collected from scholarly source search
one heading or methodological title. queries. The primary search queries were conducted in
The structure of this paper will lightly touch on the University of Regina’s main library database, with
the rift that initiated the emergence of new and dis- specifications set for peer-reviewed articles within the
tinct grounded theory perspective, along with their span of 1989-2019. The inclusion of these two criteria
primary authors. Next, a comparative analysis will allowed for the most recent research examinations and
take place regarding the unique nature of each type of discussions, held up and scrutinized by other leading
grounded theory approach and their most significant researchers and experts, to be analyzed and included in
methodological steps. It is during this examination that this discussion as supporting evidence. Primary word
clarification will occur for long-standing confusion and searches within these queries included (but were not
misinterpretation – such as philosophical influences limited to): grounded theory, classical grounded theory,
and the allowance of prior knowledge. Lastly, a discus- interpretive grounded theory, constructivist grounded
sion on the future use and implications of expressing theory, Glaser, Strauss, Corbin, and Charmaz. Articles
these types with their own title will occur as one last were vetted for their direct acknowledgement of any
attempt to argue their potential. Included here is a brief or all type(s) of grounded theory as well as their ref-
discussion on a variety of research fields which utilize erence list for whether it included any or all original
one or more of these perspectives (such as nursing, author(s). For example, articles were omitted if, at the
environmental studies, education and science research) bare minimum, they did not state grounded theory as
to convey their expanding use and connection to many their methodology or if they did not include any of the
research areas. original authors in their reference list. 4
Lastly, as a secondary exploration, each original
Methods text and supplementary articles’ reference list was ex-
In addition to reviewing the primary texts (Basics of amined; this process allowed for the discovery of sec-
Qualitative Research, Constructing Grounded Theory, and ondary sources (also checked for their peer-reviewed
The Discovery of Grounded Theory), articles written by the journal status) vital to the overall discussion presented
leading authors (Barney Glaser, Anselm Strauss, Juliet here. In total, four primary texts (this includes two sep-

1 Farragher and Coogan (2018, p. 5) refer to a fourth type of grounded theory as "Feminist Grounded Theory." However, throughout my

research and numerous examined peer-reviewed sources, there was no other reference or discussion on this fourth type. Therefore, it has been
omitted from this examination on the leading types of this methodology.
2 Insufficient examples include: "Straussian grounded theory" (Farragher & Coogan, 2018, p. 5; Howard-Payne, 2016, p. 51; Kenny & Fourie,

2014, p. 1); "the constructivist approach to GT" or "this GT" (referring to CGT; Kean et al., 2016, p. 3113, 3115); "Glaser and Strauss’s original
version and Strauss and Juliet Corbin’s proceduralised [sic] version" (referring to GT and IGT respectively; Lian, 2016, p. 88) "Glaserian. . .
grounded theory" (Howard-Payne, 2016, p. 51). Furthermore, Taber (2000) and Vanderlinden et al. (2018) only refer to "grounded theory" as
their methodology and do not specify which type has influenced their work.
3 Hard-copies of the original texts were provided by a methodology research professor at the University of Regina.
4 This occurred a handful of times as there were researchers who expressed a desire to base their conclusion on a "theory grounded in the

data". Some search queries picked up on the phrase and include the article for its similarity. In other search queries, specifically those which
included the original authors’ names, these types of articles would be included as they were lightly influenced by this premise and, rightfully
so, added the source(s) to their reference list. These however were vetted and subsequently omitted as they did not entirely acknowledge or
apply in full any type of grounded theory.
5 Both the third edition from 2008 and the fourth edition from 2015 were included as Juliet Corbin included invaluable insights and

clarifications in each edition.

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 2
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

arate editions5 of Basics of Qualitative Research), seven tandem with theoretical sampling as a means of guid-
articles and one book as added material by the original ing the direction of further data sampling” (p. 34). This
authors, and twenty-four supplementary articles were method allows for primary data to emerge – or, in the
included in this research analysis. case of CGT, to be constructed – as patterns that lead
to substantiated theoretical understandings.
Division of the Methodology This said, there are still several distinct alterations
that have occurred within the conceptual tenants of any
A professional difference of opinion between Glaser
grounded theory research (see Figure 1). The following
and Strauss may have been inevitable as the former was
discussion will provide succinct overviews of the cen-
educated by the positivist paradigm whereas the latter
tral tenets (philosophical influence, prior knowledge
openly aligned himself with interpretivism. Following
and experience, as well as data coding and analysis)
the division between the original authors, they would
and how they are diversely interpreted within GT, IGT,
come to elaborate on their original work in separate,
and CGT.
opposing, ways. Picking up where Strauss departed,
Glaser continued writing on classical grounded theory
(GT) and proclaimed that his interests were formalized Findings
prior to his partnership with Strauss (Charmaz, 2014;
Holton & Walsh, 2017). Glaser went on to further clar-
Philosophical Influence
ify his position and teach those willing to learn about Many GT researchers assert Glaser follows a posi-
GT through many journal articles, presentations and tivist ontological approach, influenced in part by his
books (Glaser, 1992; Glaser, 1999; Walsh et al., 2015). time at Columbia University when positivism was at
In the 1990s, Strauss began to work alongside Juliet its height of study (Bruscaglioni, 2016; Charmaz, 2014).
Corbin, applying a more interpretivist approach to the However, it is also argued, Glaser may not adhere pub-
methodology, to address previous concerns of rigid licly to any philosophical or ontological perspective
structure and clarity in its flexible nature. Strauss and (Bottcher Berthelsen, Lindhardt, & Frederiksen, 2017;
Corbin continued to work alongside each other un- Holton & Walsh, 2017). Bottcher Berthelsen et al. (2017)
til Strauss’ passing in 1996, constantly improving and suggest Glaser emphasized GT as "free from ties to
clarifying interpretive grounded theory (IGT). Strauss any theory of science and [tried to avoid] philosophi-
(posthumous) and Corbin’s most recent 4th edition of cal conceptions of what is ’truth’" (p. 414). Therefore,
Basics of Qualitative Research (2015) includes a reflection GT should remain as a purely inductive and flexible
on how far IGT has come as well as conveying antici- methodology (Glaser, 2013).
pation for how new grounded theorists may use IGT Strauss and Corbin have previously identified inter-
in the future. pretivism as their ontological influence for IGT (Strauss
Following an influence by the original authors, & Corbin, 1994). In this paradigm, emphasis is placed
Kathy Charmaz, a student of both Glaser and Strauss, on individual perspectives as they contain valuable
began applying a more modernized and constructivist data for the development of a theoretical understand-
approach towards grounded theory. This modernized ing (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). IGT researchers acknowl-
approach includes acknowledging the "interaction be- edge theories can be subject to various interpretations
tween the ’viewer’ (researcher) and the ‘viewed’ (sub- as well as limited in two ways: (1) "they are always
ject of the research)" (Farragher & Coogan, 2018, p. provisional," such that others may elaborate or refute
5; Lian, 2016; Martin & Barnard, 2013). This said, the theory’s claims; and (2) "theories are limited in
Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory (CGT) does time," such that they are influenced by a particular era
remain true to some of the key tenets of the origi- or society (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, p. 279). Therefore,
nal grounded theory articulated by Glaser and Strauss Strauss and Corbin have encouraged and applauded
(1967), particularly interpretive understanding and iter- researchers for their continued adaptation of IGT. One
ative logic (Charmaz, 2014). such adaptation is the argument of IGT allowing for an
Throughout many changes and interpretations be- abductive reasoning influence rather than being purely
tween GT, IGT and CGT, the constant comparative inductive (Bruscaglioni, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
method has remained one of the original and most Charmaz (2017a; 2017b) proclaims CGT has a prag-
important criteria. As discussed by Holton and Walsh matist ontology with a relativist epistemology. Fur-
(2017), “[the] constant comparative analysis is a strat- ther, CGT’s approach includes the notion of many con-
egy for directing the collection and analysis of data in structed realities, such as "situating [the] research in

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 3
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

Figure 1: Illuminating the Types of Grounded Theory

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 4
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

the historical, social, and situation conditions of its or areas to examine can be used "as tentative tools,
production" (Charmaz, 2014; Charmaz, 2017a, p. 299; rather than definitive concepts. . . they open up inquiry
Kean, Salisbury, Rattray, Walsh, Huby & Ramsay, 2016). rather than shutting it down" (p. 31). Therefore, these
These realities can also include how a researcher’s sta- ideas or areas of inquiry can allow for development to
tus (i.e., their "background, values and actions, [and] occur in the initial stages of a study.
situation") should not be thrown aside (Charmaz, 2017a
p. 299; Lian, 2016). For example, as per Farragher and Data Coding and Analysis
Coogan (2018), a researcher’s connection and ability
to "understand the meanings that the research par- GT’s coding of data focuses on two flexible steps:
ticipants made of their experiences. . . [may lead to] (1) substantive coding, and (2) theoretic coding (Br-
generating theories that may have usefulness when uscaglioni, 2016; Holton & Walsh, 2017). Essentially,
transferred across contexts related to the area of inter- substantive coding occurs throughout the initial analy-
est" (p. 6). Therefore, the researcher’s status should be sis of emerging data; it is tied to the premise of allowing
acknowledged, applied appropriately (only when nec- all data to be included in the coding process of cate-
essary and not to a point where it steers the research), gories. GT warns there may be too many descriptive
and addressed within the research they conduct (Char- codes available to apply towards potential categories
maz, 2014). that may distract from the emerging theory. There-
fore, Glaser suggests researchers should not waste too
Prior Knowledge and Experience much of their time on the descriptive codes, but rather
focus on saturation to guide their research towards
GT suggests the inclusion of a researcher’s influ- the core category (Glaser, 2016). Saturation should oc-
ence, knowledge, or experience would add a significant cur through the constant comparative method as data
bias towards the data and negatively impact the over- are being compared against one another and certain
all quality of the study. Categories and concluding incidents or themes continually appear.
theories should emerge from the data, rather than be- The emphasis of a core category within GT includes
ing assumed or prescribed based on preexisting ideas denoting the main phenomenon connecting all other
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Holton & Walsh, 2017). There- categories together. Following the discovery of the core
fore, the researcher must remain a neutral observer category, the researcher will begin to make theoretical
whose main priority is to report on naturally occurring hypotheses regarding its relationship with the remain-
and emerging data. This said, GT acknowledges that ing categories. This theoretic coding stage additionally
prior knowledge can be useful, but only when attempt- includes "coding families" that are available to assist
ing to apply a formulated substantive theory towards with the process (Bruscaglioni, 2016, p. 2014). Glaser
a more meta (formal) theory. refers to these "coding families" as theoretic codes (or
IGT, however, recognizes that a researcher cannot TC’s) and describes them as abstractions which are
be fully blind or ignorant to prior literature on their used in merging categories together and towards the
area of study (Holton & Walsh, 2017; Strauss & Corbin, final goal of a substantive theory (Glaser, 2013).
1990). Strauss and Corbin suggest researchers become IGT, emphasizing a more structured approach, has
aware of and acknowledge such influences so that they three main steps to the data coding and analysis pro-
do not negatively impact or steer their research focus, cess: (1) open-coding, (2) axial-coding, and (3) selective-
data collection or categorization. Such information can coding (Bruscaglioni, 2016; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
be used to strengthen the overall resolve and quality Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggest beginning open-
of the research, creation of data categories and, finally, coding by breaking down and questioning a particular
theoretical assumptions. observation, event or piece of information. Throughout
CGT, being aligned with IGT’s principles but with this process many concepts may be created, eventu-
GT’s concerns, concedes that previous knowledge can ally grouped together around commonalities, which
strengthen a research project, provided that it does not will then influence the development or discovery of
define the project (Charmaz, 2014; Farragher & Coogan, significant subcategories. The next step, axial-coding,
2018; Rand, 2013). Additionally, CGT researchers are to connects the subcategories and rebuilds the concepts
carefully navigate and control their perspectives rather within them into larger and more focused categories. It
than attempt to erase or forget their knowledge or ex- is through these more focused categories that selective-
periences. Charmaz (2014) suggests preconceived ideas coding will begin and the researcher will select a core

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 5
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

category as their primary focus. The use of a core cate- sumptions are tested against the remaining data and
gory dates to grounded theory as a unified methodol- the researcher’s own influence can be included. CGT
ogy and therefore is also significant for the IGT coding refers to this as focused coding, in which the researcher
process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Through the selective actively chooses which codes are most significant to
coding process, by which a core category emerges, the- carry on with towards theoretical conceptualization
oretical conceptualization can begin, and the researcher (Charmaz, 2014; Lian, 2016). These chosen codes will
can attempt to verify any assumptions that they may have specific analytical strength behind them and can
have (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Whether their assump- provide insights that can be seen nowhere else in the
tions are proven or disproven, they will have newly data.
acquired information that will aid in a concluding the-
ory on their research topic. Practical Application
Continuing the constant comparative method, orig-
Researchers who utilize GT, IGT, and CGT come
inally introduced by Glaser and Strauss (1967), IGT
from many focused backgrounds, such as nursing and
specifies that the researcher should move between the
health (Glaser, 1999; Farragher & Coogan, 2018; Kean
open-coding and axial-coding processes many times
et al., 2016; Li, Turale, Stone & Petrini, 2015; Mc-
before moving onto selective-coding (Strauss & Corbin,
Callin, 2011), socio-ecological studies (Apostolopoulou,
1990). This interplay between steps allows for strong
Drakou, Santoro & Pantis, 2012; Endl, 2017; Eriksson &
statements or concepts to emerge as well as allowing
Emmelin, 2013; Faehnle, Backlund, Tyrvainen, Niemela
the researcher to verify the quality or overall impor-
& Yli-Pelkonen, 2014; Hansson, Pedersen & Weisner,
tance of a potentially significant core category.
2012; Wuelser & Pohl, 2016; Vanderlinden et al., 2017),
CGT has two main phases towards coding and anal- education and learning (Rand, 2013; Smith-Sebasto
ysis: (1) naming all pieces of data from the interview, & Walker, 2010; Taber, 2010), digital archival (Lian,
document, or however else researcher collects data; 2016), and gender diversity in the workplace (Martin
and (2) taking the most used codes and organizing the & Barnard, 2013). They choose grounded theory based
remaining data around them (Charmaz, 2014). The on several factors, the most important of which is to
first phase allows for the possibility of many potential discover a theory rooted in the data. But with three
theory directions and is accomplished through several leading perspectives incorrectly labelled, it has proven
possible coding styles, such as word-by-word, line-by- difficult for researchers to acknowledge or confirm
line and incident-by-incident (Charmaz, 2014; Martin which type has influenced a study and whether or not
& Barnard, 2013). This is a step away from IGT and GT it was correctly applied (Holton & Walsh, 2017).
as they are skeptical of too many codes or descriptions.
Unfortunately, due to the contentious and confusing
However, CGT does include the constant comparative
nature of the blanket title "grounded theory" there are
method, as Charmaz suggests including note-taking
instances (Endl, 2017; Norton et al., 2013; Smith-Sebasto
or memos as part of the cyclical process to help con-
& Walker, 2010; Taber, 2010) wherein researchers have
struct the primary categories (Charmaz, 2014; Martin
co-applied techniques from two or more types. Due
& Barnard, 2013). This process allows the researcher to
to this oversight, and the "picking-and-choosing" of
code data as actions rather than participant characteris-
distinct characteristics, there may be considerable flaws
tics to allow for the analysis and categories to become
within a research analysis that has not effectively ap-
much stronger. Unlike the use of a "core category",
plied either GT, IGT, or CGT as a singular methodology.
Charmaz suggests that more than one central cate-
For example: a researcher stating an influence of GT to-
gory or theme is allowed (Berthelsen et al., 2016). Al-
wards their study but allowing for an influence of prior
though these categories are to be constructed from the
knowledge (associated with IGT and/or CGT) and
data rather than being influenced by pre-conceived no-
more than one core category (associated with CGT).
tions, Charmaz argues that escaping prior knowledge
is nearly impossible and thus cautions CGT researchers
to keep an open mind and be flexible (Charmaz, 2014). Discussion
CGT takes coding one step further by reiterating the
interactive practice that allows for the understanding With distinguishable methodological titles, re-
of "participants’ views and actions from their perspec- searchers can begin to clearly understand what sep-
tives" (Charmaz, 2014, p. 115). It is within the second arates the distinct types of grounded theory and more
phase where the previously constructed theoretical as- easily debate which may be more suited towards a

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 6
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

given study. Not only will researchers be able to cor- Conclusions

rectly identify which grounded theory they hope to use,
but they will also be able to apply its methodological as- Although there are a few underlying assumptions
sumptions properly in an attempt to effectively uncover agreed upon by all three types of grounded theory,
and apply a significant theoretical conceptualization many more steps, processes, and philosophical assump-
towards a given phenomenon. tions are subject to disagreement. As GT philosophi-
Many researchers who have read discussions on cally aligns with positivist thinking (or is not defined
grounded theory have heard the phrase "research by any paradigm, according to Glaser), IGT empha-
grounded in data"; however, this may not necessarily sizes interpretivism through individual perspectives,
mean a researcher has effectively used GT, IGT, or CGT. while CGT allows for interpretive understandings and
As Glaser states, "it is [classical] grounded theory only iterative logic. With regards to data collection and anal-
when it follows the grounded theory methodological ysis, GT and IGT are, at the very least, in agreement
package" (Glaser, 1999, p. 836). Overall, this senti- on the use of core categories but disagree on the use of
ment is shared with Strauss and Corbin (1990), as well prior knowledge, literature or experiences. GT suggests
as Charmaz (2014), who additionally emphasize the that no prior knowledge should influence a research
importance of their own methodological completion, study or its collected data, whereas IGT suggests that
which primarily rests of theoretical conceptualization. these are opportunities that could strengthen the entire
Most often, researchers in the fields of nursing and project. The outlier would be CGT, as it does not use
health tend to lean purposefully towards GT (Knott, core categories but emphasizes the assertion that prior
Turnbull, Olver & Winefield, 2012; Li et al., 2015; Mc- knowledge and a researcher’s experience can become
Callin, 2011; Norton, Holloway & Galvin, 2013). This significant within a research study. Where GT and
is a reasonable finding as the original grounded the- CGT agree is in the area of saturation of significant cat-
ory began with nursing and health care studies and egories within the data that is necessary for theoretical
Glaser carried on with this in his GT work (Glaser, 1992; development. IGT, on the other hand, suggests for the
Glaser and Strauss, 1965, 1967). However, there are in- breakdown and rebuilding of data and categories allow-
stances in which researchers in this area have utilized ing for the rebuilt categories to try and withstand prior
CGT (Farragher & Coogan, 2018; Kean et al., 2016). knowledge and either lead into or towards a strong
Both socio-ecological as well as education and learning theory.
research have included influence primarily from IGT While Glaser focused more on what he believed
(e.g., Apostolopoulou et al., 2012; Endl, 2017; Eriks- GT ought to be, as the original grounded theory es-
son & Emmelin, 2013; Faehnle et al., 2014; Hansson tablished in 1967, Strauss and Corbin appeared more
et al., 2012; Wuelser & Pohl, 2016). Newly introduced accepting of variations (Charmaz, 2014). It is through
to grounded theory ideals and research, the fields of Strauss and Corbin’s acceptance and encouragement
digital archival and gender diversity in the workplace that Charmaz undertook one of the largest leaps to-
have included CGT’s modernized approach (Lian, 2016; wards modernizing grounded theory: an accepted,
Martin & Barnard, 2013). utilized and distinguished constructivist perspective.
While it is beyond the scope or purpose of this pa- As Charmaz was inspired to provide her approach
per to discuss at length how or why certain fields pre- to grounded theory with a unique and specified title,
dominantly choose one grounded theory perspective current and future researchers of this once singular
above others, this type of research would be beneficial methodology should look towards the benefits that this
towards the overall theme and discourse on the dis- distinction can offer.
tinct types of grounded theory. An extensive literature Rather than asking "What is grounded theory?"
review and philosophical discussion are required to the more appropriate question a researcher should ask
fulfil such a request. Additionally, further research and is, "What types of grounded theory are there?" From
specified articles into each type of grounded theory there, the researcher should be able to succinctly out-
should occur to address their unique presumptions line and discuss classical, interpretive or constructivist
and processes. grounded theory. They will have the opportunity to
properly acknowledge GT, IGT and CGT, and the pri-
mary tenets that are attributed to each (Farragher &
Coogan, 2018). Therefore, a researcher should be able
to clearly identify and be transparent about which type

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 7
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

of grounded theory they are influenced by and, by Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1965). Awareness of dying,
extension, what type of philosophical interpretation, Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
inclusion of outside information and methods of data Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded
collection and analysis have occurred. theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Hawthorne,
NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
References Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emer-
gence vs. forcing, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Apostolopoulou, E., Drakou, E.D., Santoro, F., & Pantis, Glaser, B. (1999). Keynote address from the fourth an-
J.D. (2002). Investigating the barriers to adopting nual qualitative health research conference: The
a ‘human-in-nature’ view in Greek biodiversity future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Re-
conservation. International Journal of Sustainable search, 9(6), 836-845.
Development and World Ecology, 16(6), 515-525.
Glaser, B. (2013). Staying open: The use of theoretical
Bottcher Berthelsen, C., Lindhardt, T., & Frederiksen, codes in GT. Grounded Theory Review: An Interna-
K. (2017). A discussion of differences in prepara- tional Journal, 12(1).
tion, performance, and postreflections in partic-
Glaser, B. (2016). Open coding descriptions. Grounded
ipant observations within two grounded theory
Theory Review: An International Journal, 15(2).
approaches. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences:
Hansson, A., Pedersen, E., & Weisner, S. (2012).
Methods and Methodologies, 31, 413-420.
Landowners’ incentives for constructing wetlands
Bruscaglioni, L. (2016). Theorizing in grounded theory
in an agricultural area in south Sweden. Journal of
and creative abduction. Quality & Quantity, 50,
Environmental Management, 113, 271-278.
2,009-2,024.
Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded the-
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory, 2nd
ory: Applications with qualitative & quantitative data,
Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2017a). Constructivist grounded theory.
Howard-Payne, L. (2016). Glaser or Strauss? Con-
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 299-300.
siderations for selecting a grounded theory study.
Charmaz, K. (2017b). The power of constructivist Psychological Society of South Africa, 46(1), 50-62.
grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative
Kean, S., Salisbury, L. G., Rattray, J., Walsh, T.S., Huby,
Inquiry, 23(1), 34-45.
G., & Ramsay, P. (2016). ‘Intensive care unit sur-
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative vivorship’ – A constructivist grounded theory of
research, 4th Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. surviving critical illness. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
Endl, A. (2017). Addressing ‘wicked problems’ through 26, 3,111-3,124.
governance for sustainable development – A com- Kenny M., & Fourie, R. (2014). Tracing the history of
parative analysis of national mineral policy ap- grounded theory methodology: From formation to
proaches in the European Union. Sustainability, fragmentation. The Qualitative Report, 19(103), 1-9.
9(10). 1,830.
Knott, V., Turnbull, D., Olver, I., & Winefield, A. (2012).
Eriksson, M., & Emmelin, M. (2013). What constitutes A grounded theory approach to understanding
a health-enabling neighborhood? A grounded the- the cancer-coping process. British Journal of Health
ory situational analysis addressing the significance Psychology, 17, 551-564.
of social capital. Social Sciences & Medicine, 97.
Li, Y., Turale, S., Stone, T., & Petrini, M. (2015). A
112-123.
grounded theory study of ‘turning into a strong
Faehnle, M., Backlund, P., Tyrvainen, L., Niemela, J. & nurse’: Earthquake experiences and perspectives
Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2014). How can residents’ experi- on disaster nursing education. Nurse Education
ences inform planning of urban green infrastruc- Today, 35(2015), e43-e49.
ture? Case Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning,
Lian, Z. (2016). Factors influencing the integra-
130. 171-183.
tion of digital archival resources: A construc-
Farragher, R., & Coogan, D. (2018). Constructivist tivist grounded theory approach. Archives and
grounded theory: Recognizing and raising the Manuscripts, 44(2), 86-102.
voice of young people with experience of care
Martin, P., & Barnard, A. (2013). The experience of
systems. Child Care in Practice, 1-12. DOI:
women in male-dominated occupations: A con-
10.1080/13575279.2018.1521377

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 8
 Journal for Social Thought 3(1) • July 2019

structivist grounded theory inquiry. SA Journal of

Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1-13. Acknowledgments
McCallin, A. M. (2011). Moderated guiding: A
grounded theory of nursing practice in end-of-life I thank Dr. Amber Fletcher (University of Regina) for
care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20, 2325-2333. her valued guidance and insightful contributions to-
Norton, E., Holloway, I., & Galvin, K. (2013). Comfort wards the progress and strength of this article. Her
vs risk: A grounded theory about female ado- steadfast encouragement is appreciated.
lescent behaviour in the sun. Journal of Clinical
Nursing, 23, 1,889-1,899.
Author Biography
Rand, J. (2013). Action learning and constructivist
grounded theory: Powerfully overlapping fields Kailah Sebastian is a graduate student with the Uni-
of practice. Action Learning: Research and Practice, versity of Regina’s Department of Sociology and So-
10(3), 230-243. cial Studies. She is currently completing her Mas-
Smith-Sebasto, N.J., & Walker, L.M. (2010). Toward ter’s thesis entitled Sources of water conflict: Climate
a grounded theory for residential environmental change impacts on riparian communities. Throughout her
education: A case study of the New Jersey School research project she has been awarded two research
of Conservation. Journal of Environmental Education, grants and numerous academic scholarships – includ-
37(1), 27-42. ing the Saskatchewan Innovation and Excellence Grad-
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative uate Scholarship. Her primary scientific interest centres
research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, around socio-ecological impacts on watershed sustain-
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ability, such as prolonged and exacerbated flooding
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory events. Kailah currently resides on the Sunshine Coast
methodology: An overview. In N.K. Denzin & in British Coumbia.
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research,
(pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taber, K. S. (2000). Case studies and generalizability:
Grounded theory and research in science educa-
tion. International Journal of Science Education, 5(22),
469-487.
Vanderlinden, J., Baztan, J., Touili, N., Kane, I. O.,
Rulleau, B., Simal P. D., . . . Zagonari, F. (2017).
Coastal flooding, uncertainty and climate change:
Science as a solution to (mis) perceptions? A qual-
itative enquiry in three coastal European settings.
Journal of Coastal Research, 77, 127-133.
Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Lev-
ina, N. & Glaser, B. (2015). What grounded theory
is. . . A critical reflective conversation among schol-
ars. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 581-599.
Wuelser, G., & Pohl, C. (2016). How researchers frame
scientific contributions to sustainable development:
A typology based on grounded theory. Sustainabil-
ity Science, 11, 789-800.

https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index 9