Choosing a Methodological Path:

Researchers deciding to use grounded theory are faced with complex decisions regarding which method or version of grounded theory to use: Classic, Straussian, feminist, or constructivist grounded theory. Particularly for beginning PhD researchers, this can prove challenging given the complexities of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jenna P. Breckenridge, Derek Jones, Ian Elliott, Margaret Nicol
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sociology Press 2012-06-01
Series:Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/156
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849426027203264512
author Jenna P. Breckenridge
Derek Jones
Ian Elliott
Margaret Nicol
author_facet Jenna P. Breckenridge
Derek Jones
Ian Elliott
Margaret Nicol
author_sort Jenna P. Breckenridge
collection DOAJ
description Researchers deciding to use grounded theory are faced with complex decisions regarding which method or version of grounded theory to use: Classic, Straussian, feminist, or constructivist grounded theory. Particularly for beginning PhD researchers, this can prove challenging given the complexities of the inherent philosophical debates and the ambiguous and conflicting use of grounded theory ‘versions’ within popular literature. The aim of this article is to demystify the differences between classic and constructivist grounded theory, presenting a critique of constructivist grounded theory that is rooted in the learning experiences of the first author as she grappled with differing perspectives during her own PhD research.
format Article
id doaj-art-b7bbca12eed54a2191ce878f604084e6
institution Kabale University
issn 1556-1542
1556-1550
language English
publishDate 2012-06-01
publisher Sociology Press
record_format Article
series Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal
spelling doaj-art-b7bbca12eed54a2191ce878f604084e62025-08-20T03:29:34ZengSociology PressGrounded Theory Review: An International Journal1556-15421556-15502012-06-011101Choosing a Methodological Path:Jenna P. BreckenridgeDerek JonesIan ElliottMargaret NicolResearchers deciding to use grounded theory are faced with complex decisions regarding which method or version of grounded theory to use: Classic, Straussian, feminist, or constructivist grounded theory. Particularly for beginning PhD researchers, this can prove challenging given the complexities of the inherent philosophical debates and the ambiguous and conflicting use of grounded theory ‘versions’ within popular literature. The aim of this article is to demystify the differences between classic and constructivist grounded theory, presenting a critique of constructivist grounded theory that is rooted in the learning experiences of the first author as she grappled with differing perspectives during her own PhD research. https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/156grounded theoryconstructivist grounded theoryStraussian grounded theoryPhD researchers
spellingShingle Jenna P. Breckenridge
Derek Jones
Ian Elliott
Margaret Nicol
Choosing a Methodological Path:
Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal
grounded theory
constructivist grounded theory
Straussian grounded theory
PhD researchers
title Choosing a Methodological Path:
title_full Choosing a Methodological Path:
title_fullStr Choosing a Methodological Path:
title_full_unstemmed Choosing a Methodological Path:
title_short Choosing a Methodological Path:
title_sort choosing a methodological path
topic grounded theory
constructivist grounded theory
Straussian grounded theory
PhD researchers
url https://groundedtheoryreview.org/index.php/gtr/article/view/156
work_keys_str_mv AT jennapbreckenridge choosingamethodologicalpath
AT derekjones choosingamethodologicalpath
AT ianelliott choosingamethodologicalpath
AT margaretnicol choosingamethodologicalpath