Grounded Theory: An Exploration of Process and Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded theory, as an evolving qualitative research method, is a product of its history as well as of its epistemology. Within the literature, there have been a number of discussions focusing on the differences between Glaser's (1978, 1992) and Strauss's (1987, 1990) versions of grounded theory. The purpose of this article is to add a level of depth and breadth to this discussion through specifically exploring the Glaser-Strauss debate by comparing the data analysis processes and procedures advocated by Glaser and by Strauss. To accomplish this task, the authors present the article in two sections. First, they provide relevant background information on grounded theory as a research method. Second, they pursue a more in-depth discussion of the positions of Glaser, using Glaser's work, and Strauss, using Strauss's and Strauss and Corbin's (1990) work, regarding the different phases of data analysis, specifically addressing the coding procedures, verification, and the issue of forcing versus emergence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.138 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".