Grounded Theory and the Conundrum of Literature Review: Framework for Novice Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of the literature review remains a conundrum and a controversy within the discourse on grounded theory methodology. Grounded theory researchers are expected to minimize preconceptions to ensure the concept of interest is grounded in data, yet at the same time are required to evaluate existing literature to support institutional ethics and scientific review of the research proposal. In addressing this dilemma, we espouse that literature review in grounded theory should comprise a multistage nonlinear approach to the literature and introduce a framework for novice grounded theory researchers. This framework offers a reflexive, dynamic and integrative process for conducting a literature review that allows researchers to minimize preconceptions while maintaining the original intent of grounded theory methodology.
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 | 0.576 | 0.423 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.124 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".