Grounded Theory: An Exploration of Process and Procedure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.085 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it