Bibliographic record
Abstract
This foundational work of Grounded Theory (GT), entitled The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, even though it was a breakthrough in the sociological panorama of the 1960s, neglected the establishment of the philosophical foundations on which the new methodology would be based. Barney Glaser, cofounder of GT, repeatedly devalued the argument concerning the philosophical perspective underlying this methodological approach. In fact, the American sociologist considers that adopting such a perspective reduces the broad potential of GT. Moreover, the content of the language he uses when he speaks of emergence in the simultaneous process of data collection and analysis - just as it happens in later stages of analysis, when he mentions that a central category emerges - leads some authors to claim that he adopts a post-positivist paradigm. This philosophical vacuum has contributed to the erosion and remodelling of GT by subsequent authors, who have offered fragmentary explanations of the ontology, epistemology and methodology in which this investigative approach is rooted. The present paper intends to map the main philosophical influences of Barney Glaser's thought. In fact, in the wake of Nathaniel, we are of the opinion that it is relevant to identify the philosophical foundations of GT because the recognition of the principles, beliefs and philosophical assumptions of this methodological approach will contribute to the robustness of the structure, logic and cohesion of GT. For Alvita Nathaniel, Classical GT is consonant with Charles Sanders Pierce's pragmatist philosophy, both its epistemological and ontological assumptions and the corresponding principles of the scientific method. We therefore consider it appropriate to highlight the main characteristics of this philosophical perspective.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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; 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".