Editing Grounded theory (section)

==Split in methodology and methods ==
There has been some divergence in the methodology of grounded theory. Over time, Glaser and Strauss came to disagree about methodology and other qualitative researchers have also modified ideas linked to grounded theory.<ref name="Ralph, Birks & Chapman (2015)" /> This divergence occurred most obviously after Strauss published ''Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists'' (1987).<ref>Strauss, A. (1987). ''Qualitative analysis for social scientists''. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</ref> In 1990, Strauss, together with Juliet Corbin, published ''Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques''.<ref name = "Strauss-Corbin 1990"/> The publication of the book was followed by a rebuke by Glaser (1992), who set out, chapter by chapter, to highlight the differences in what he argued was the original grounded theory and why what Strauss and Corbin had written was not grounded theory in its "intended form."<ref name="Glaser, 1992">Glaser, B. (1992). ''Basics of grounded theory analysis''. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.</ref> This divergence in methodology is a subject of much academic debate, which Glaser (1998) calls a "rhetorical wrestle".<ref name="Glaser, 1998"/> Glaser continues to write about and teach the original grounded theory method.

Grounded theory methods, according to Glaser, emphasize [[Inductive reasoning|induction]] or emergence, and the individual researcher's creativity within a clear stagelike framework. By contrast, Strauss has been more interested in validation criteria and a systematic approach.<ref name = "Kelle"/> According to Kelle (2005), "the controversy between Glaser and Strauss boils down to the question of whether the researcher uses a well-defined "coding paradigm" and always looks systematically for "causal conditions," "phenomena/context, intervening conditions, action strategies," and "consequences" in the data (Straussian), or whether theoretical codes are employed as they emerge in the same way as substantive codes emerge, but drawing on a huge fund of "coding families" (Glaserian).<ref name="Kelle">Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-27-e.pdf]</ref>

===Constructivist grounded theory===
A later version of grounded theory called constructivist grounded theory, which is rooted in [[pragmatism]] and [[constructivist epistemology]], assumes that neither data nor theories are discovered, but are constructed by researchers as a result of their interactions with the field and study participants.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Mills | first1 = J. | last2 = Bonner | first2 = A. | last3 = Francis | first3 = K. | year = 2006 | title = The development of constructivist grounded theory | journal = International Journal of Qualitative Methods | volume = 5 | pages = 25–35 | doi = 10.1177/160940690600500103 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Proponents of this approach include [[Kathy Charmaz]]<ref>Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), ''Handbook of qualitative research'' (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</ref><ref>Charmaz, K. (2006). ''Constructing grounded theory''. London: Sage.</ref><ref>Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In J.A. Holstein & J.F. Gubrium (Eds.), ''Handbook of constructionist research'' (pp. 397–412). New York: The Guilford Press.</ref><ref>Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2012). Grounded theory. In S. D. Lapan, M. Quartaroli, & F. Reimer (Eds.), ''Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs'' (pp. 41–67). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley/Jossey–Bass.</ref> and Antony Bryant.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bryant|first1=A|year=2002|title=Re-grounding grounded theory|journal=Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application|volume=4|pages=25–42}}</ref>

In an interview, Charmaz justified her approach as follows: "Grounded theory methodology had been under attack. The postmodern critique of qualitative research had weakened its legitimacy and narrative analysts criticized grounded theory methodology for fragmenting participants' stories. Hence, grounded theory methodology was beginning to be seen as a dated methodology and some researchers advocated abandoning it. I agreed with much of the epistemological critique of the early versions of grounded theory methodology by people like [[Kenneth Gergen]]. However, I had long thought that the strategies of grounded theory methodology, including coding, memo writing, and theoretical sampling were excellent methodological tools. I saw no reason to discard these tools and every reason to shift the epistemological grounds on which researchers used them."<ref>A Personal Journey with Grounded Theory Methodology: Kathy Charmaz in Conversation With Reiner Keller. FQS, Volume 17, No. 1, Art. 16 – January 2016. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2541/3936#g4</ref>

Data are co-constructed by the researcher and study participants, and colored by the researcher's perspectives, values, privileges, positions, interactions, and geographical locations.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} This position takes a middle ground between the realist and postmodernist positions by assuming an "obdurate reality" at the same time as it assumes multiple perspectives on that reality. Within the framework of this approach, a literature review prior to data collection is used in a productive and data-sensitive way without forcing the conclusions contained in the review on the collected data.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Thornberg | first1 = R | year = 2012 | title = Informed grounded theory | url = http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:433790/FULLTEXT01| journal = Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research | volume = 56 | issue = 3| pages = 243–259 | doi=10.1080/00313831.2011.581686| s2cid = 39486623 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ramalho |first1=Rodrigo |last2=Adams |first2=Peter |last3=Huggard |first3=Peter |last4=Hoare |first4=Karen |title=Literature Review and Constructivist Grounded Theory Methodology |journal=Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research |date=2015 |volume=16 |issue=3 |doi=10.17169/fqs-16.3.2313|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Critical realist===
More recently, a critical realist version of grounded theory has been developed and applied in research devoted to developing mechanism-based explanations for social phenomena.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kempster|first1=Stephen|last2=Parry|first2=Ken|title=Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective|journal=The Leadership Quarterly|volume=22|pages=106–120|date=2011|doi=10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.010|url=https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/58975/1/10.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Oliver|first1=Carolyn|title=Critical Realist Grounded Theory: A New Approach for Social Work Research|journal=The British Journal of Social Work|volume=42|issue=2|pages=371–387|date=2012|doi=10.1093/bjsw/bcr064}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bunt|first1=Sarah|title=Critical realism and grounded theory: Analysing the adoption outcomes for disabled children using the retroduction framework|journal=Qualitative Social Work|volume=17|issue=2|pages=176–194|date=2016|doi=10.1177/1473325016664572|s2cid=151878799 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hoddy|first1=Eric|title=Critical realism in empirical research: employing techniques from Grounded theory methodology|journal=International Journal of Social Research Methodology|volume=22|pages=111–124|date=2018|doi=10.1080/13645579.2018.1503400|s2cid=149952268 |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/151694/3/Revised%20CR%20manuscript%202.pdf }}</ref> [[Critical realism (philosophy of the social sciences)|Critical realism]] (CR) is a philosophical approach associated with [[Roy Bhaskar]], who argued for a structured and differentiated account of reality in which difference, stratification, and change are central.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} A critical realist grounded theory produces an explanation through an examination of the three domains of social reality: the "real," as the domain of structures and mechanisms; the "actual," as the domain of events; and the "empirical," as the domain of experiences and perceptions.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}}