A New Explanation for the Conflict Between Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory

The purpose of this article is to produce a new explanation for the conflict between constructivist grounded theory and objectivist grounded theory. Grounded theory (GT) has drawn much attention because it enables qualitative researchers to produce theoretical explanations about what is going on. Si...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of qualitative methods 2020, Vol.19
Main Author: Coşkun, Kerem
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Conflict
Epistemology
Grounded theory
Positivism
Qualitative research
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-3a62d253e3928fe84e8eb3b0ff5e7ce9aa25b06a261e7dcfd3367b4aac5c75b03
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-3a62d253e3928fe84e8eb3b0ff5e7ce9aa25b06a261e7dcfd3367b4aac5c75b03
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title International journal of qualitative methods
container_volume 19
creator Coşkun, Kerem
description The purpose of this article is to produce a new explanation for the conflict between constructivist grounded theory and objectivist grounded theory. Grounded theory (GT) has drawn much attention because it enables qualitative researchers to produce theoretical explanations about what is going on. Since Glaser and Strauss invented the term “grounded theory,” there have been debates about what grounded theory is and what are its components. In this article, epistemological, ontological, and methodological beliefs about constructivist and objectivist grounded theory are explained and compared, and definitional analytical aspects of the two approaches are addressed by emphasizing their paradigmatic roots. As a result, it was concluded that objectivistic grounded theory is an agreement between positivism and the naturalistic approach advocating that researchers can be value laden but must stay as objective as possible. On the other hand, it is proposed that constructivist grounded theory is a value-laden logical operation in producing theoretical explanations.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1609406920938280
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_abd41788f72e4405a00540ca71a63598</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1609406920938280</sage_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_abd41788f72e4405a00540ca71a63598</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2473728726</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-3a62d253e3928fe84e8eb3b0ff5e7ce9aa25b06a261e7dcfd3367b4aac5c75b03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UTtPwzAQjhBIlMLOaIk54NhJ7IylKqVSRZcyMFkX59ymKnGxXUr_PQnlJSSmu_vue5x0UXSZ0OskEeImyWmR0rxgtOCSSXoU9Too7rDjX_1pdOb9ilIms4L1oqcBecAdGb1t1tBAqG1DjHUkLJEMbWPWtQ7kFsMOsekAH9xWh_q19oFAU5FZucKveezstqmwIvMlWrc_j04MrD1efNZ-9Hg3mg_v4-lsPBkOprFOExFiDjmrWMaRF0walClKLHlJjclQaCwAWFbSHFieoKi0qTjPRZkC6EyLdsP70eTgW1lYqY2rn8HtlYVafQDWLRS4UOs1KiirNlNKIximKc2A0iylGkQCOc8K2XpdHbw2zr5s0Qe1slvXtOcrlgoumBQsb1n0wNLOeu_QfKcmVHXPUH-f0Urig8TDAn9M_-W_A1U7iNo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2473728726</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A New Explanation for the Conflict Between Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>SAGE Open Access</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Coşkun, Kerem</creator><creatorcontrib>Coşkun, Kerem</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this article is to produce a new explanation for the conflict between constructivist grounded theory and objectivist grounded theory. Grounded theory (GT) has drawn much attention because it enables qualitative researchers to produce theoretical explanations about what is going on. Since Glaser and Strauss invented the term “grounded theory,” there have been debates about what grounded theory is and what are its components. In this article, epistemological, ontological, and methodological beliefs about constructivist and objectivist grounded theory are explained and compared, and definitional analytical aspects of the two approaches are addressed by emphasizing their paradigmatic roots. As a result, it was concluded that objectivistic grounded theory is an agreement between positivism and the naturalistic approach advocating that researchers can be value laden but must stay as objective as possible. On the other hand, it is proposed that constructivist grounded theory is a value-laden logical operation in producing theoretical explanations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1609-4069</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1609-4069</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1609406920938280</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Conflict ; Epistemology ; Grounded theory ; Positivism ; Qualitative research</subject><ispartof>International journal of qualitative methods, 2020, Vol.19</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-3a62d253e3928fe84e8eb3b0ff5e7ce9aa25b06a261e7dcfd3367b4aac5c75b03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-3a62d253e3928fe84e8eb3b0ff5e7ce9aa25b06a261e7dcfd3367b4aac5c75b03</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3343-2112</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1609406920938280$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2473728726?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4010,12826,21373,21945,25731,27321,27830,27900,27901,27902,33200,33588,33751,36989,43709,44566,44921,45309</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Coşkun, Kerem</creatorcontrib><title>A New Explanation for the Conflict Between Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory</title><title>International journal of qualitative methods</title><description>The purpose of this article is to produce a new explanation for the conflict between constructivist grounded theory and objectivist grounded theory. Grounded theory (GT) has drawn much attention because it enables qualitative researchers to produce theoretical explanations about what is going on. Since Glaser and Strauss invented the term “grounded theory,” there have been debates about what grounded theory is and what are its components. In this article, epistemological, ontological, and methodological beliefs about constructivist and objectivist grounded theory are explained and compared, and definitional analytical aspects of the two approaches are addressed by emphasizing their paradigmatic roots. As a result, it was concluded that objectivistic grounded theory is an agreement between positivism and the naturalistic approach advocating that researchers can be value laden but must stay as objective as possible. On the other hand, it is proposed that constructivist grounded theory is a value-laden logical operation in producing theoretical explanations.</description><subject>Conflict</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Grounded theory</subject><subject>Positivism</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><issn>1609-4069</issn><issn>1609-4069</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFRWT</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UTtPwzAQjhBIlMLOaIk54NhJ7IylKqVSRZcyMFkX59ymKnGxXUr_PQnlJSSmu_vue5x0UXSZ0OskEeImyWmR0rxgtOCSSXoU9Too7rDjX_1pdOb9ilIms4L1oqcBecAdGb1t1tBAqG1DjHUkLJEMbWPWtQ7kFsMOsekAH9xWh_q19oFAU5FZucKveezstqmwIvMlWrc_j04MrD1efNZ-9Hg3mg_v4-lsPBkOprFOExFiDjmrWMaRF0walClKLHlJjclQaCwAWFbSHFieoKi0qTjPRZkC6EyLdsP70eTgW1lYqY2rn8HtlYVafQDWLRS4UOs1KiirNlNKIximKc2A0iylGkQCOc8K2XpdHbw2zr5s0Qe1slvXtOcrlgoumBQsb1n0wNLOeu_QfKcmVHXPUH-f0Urig8TDAn9M_-W_A1U7iNo</recordid><startdate>2020</startdate><enddate>2020</enddate><creator>Coşkun, Kerem</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publishing</general><scope>AFRWT</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3343-2112</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2020</creationdate><title>A New Explanation for the Conflict Between Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory</title><author>Coşkun, Kerem</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-3a62d253e3928fe84e8eb3b0ff5e7ce9aa25b06a261e7dcfd3367b4aac5c75b03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Conflict</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Grounded theory</topic><topic>Positivism</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Coşkun, Kerem</creatorcontrib><collection>SAGE Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>International journal of qualitative methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Coşkun, Kerem</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A New Explanation for the Conflict Between Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory</atitle><jtitle>International journal of qualitative methods</jtitle><date>2020</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>19</volume><issn>1609-4069</issn><eissn>1609-4069</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this article is to produce a new explanation for the conflict between constructivist grounded theory and objectivist grounded theory. Grounded theory (GT) has drawn much attention because it enables qualitative researchers to produce theoretical explanations about what is going on. Since Glaser and Strauss invented the term “grounded theory,” there have been debates about what grounded theory is and what are its components. In this article, epistemological, ontological, and methodological beliefs about constructivist and objectivist grounded theory are explained and compared, and definitional analytical aspects of the two approaches are addressed by emphasizing their paradigmatic roots. As a result, it was concluded that objectivistic grounded theory is an agreement between positivism and the naturalistic approach advocating that researchers can be value laden but must stay as objective as possible. On the other hand, it is proposed that constructivist grounded theory is a value-laden logical operation in producing theoretical explanations.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/1609406920938280</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3343-2112</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1609-4069
ispartof International journal of qualitative methods, 2020, Vol.19
issn 1609-4069
1609-4069
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_abd41788f72e4405a00540ca71a63598
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); SAGE Open Access; Publicly Available Content Database; Social Science Premium Collection; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Conflict
Epistemology
Grounded theory
Positivism
Qualitative research
title A New Explanation for the Conflict Between Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T15%3A06%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20New%20Explanation%20for%20the%20Conflict%20Between%20Constructivist%20and%20Objectivist%20Grounded%20Theory&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20qualitative%20methods&rft.au=Co%C5%9Fkun,%20Kerem&rft.date=2020&rft.volume=19&rft.issn=1609-4069&rft.eissn=1609-4069&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1609406920938280&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2473728726%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c417t-3a62d253e3928fe84e8eb3b0ff5e7ce9aa25b06a261e7dcfd3367b4aac5c75b03%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2473728726&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1609406920938280&rfr_iscdi=true