A Systematic Review of Grounded Theory Methodology: Re-Grounding in Weber
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 is considered one of the most rigorous methodologies in qualitative research. Debate on its philosophical paradigm has trended toward endless over the past 50 years, as it was not clarified in its first canon. Scholars from multiple disciplines and philosophical backgrounds have contributed throughout its development, necessitating a comparison of the evolving dynamics of philosophies in the key grounded theory methodological schools. This article provides a systematic comparison at both substantive and formal levels, analyzing the philosophical approaches and methodological designs of Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz. The philosophical paradigms chosen by these three key schools and how they are perceived by researchers who adopted grounded theory methodology are presented. Formal grounded theory methodological design is limited in comparison to substantive grounded theory methodology. A novel Weberian approach is proposed to re-ground formal grounded theory methodology; contributing to initial grounded theory methodological design.
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 | 0.028 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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