Aligning Critical Realism and Classic Grounded Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Viewing research designs from a methodological standpoint and a philosophical lens or worldview can amplify how the doing of research may elicit meaning from people’s experiences. Notably, doing research is more than a stepped approach or formal plan, as research questions are invariably tied to various philosophical perspectives and their underlying assumptions. For researchers looking to utilize classic grounded theory methodology, a critical realist lens offers a useful perspective to understand experiences in the social world and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and dynamics at play. This approach allows researchers to move beyond simply describing the observed social experiences and delve into the causal mechanisms that underpin them. As a result, the theories developed may be more robust and insightful in explaining the social experiences being investigated. To achieve robust theory development, it is important to consider the alignment between the philosophical perspective and the research methodology. Critical realism and classic grounded theory complement each other in the following ways: 1) seeking a clear understanding of reality, 2) appreciating the subjective experience of individuals and the objective reality of the world around them, 3) developing insight into underlying causal mechanisms and processes, and 4) using multiple perspectives to shape a comprehensive understanding of reality. In this paper we highlight challenges and benefits that are inherent within this philosophical-methodological complement as a helpful guide for researchers conducting classic grounded theory research underpinned by a critical realism lens. Keywords: Classic Grounded Theory, Critical Realism, Research Paradigms, Worldview
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 | 0.189 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".