CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

The erosion of a method: examples from grounded theory

Greckhamer, Thomas, Koro‐Ljungberg, Mirka·2005·International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
DOI 10.1080/09518390500298204
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Since its original inception in the 1960s grounded theory has been widely used by many qualitative researchers. However, recently epistemologically different versions of grounded theory have been presented and this epistemological diversity among grounded theorists and the erosion of the method will be the major focus of this paper. The first section explores the question of what ‘erosion’ of grounded theory means for the practice of qualitative research and the epistemological assumptions embedded in different uses of grounded theory are discussed. Furthermore, three ways to use qualitative methods are conceptualized: epistemological, strategic and intuitive. Additionally, the first section describes the erosion that occurs when research methods are transferred from one epistemology to another. The second part of the paper raises the questions as to whether it is possible to transfer methods from one epistemological realm and theoretical stance to another one to do qualitative research situated therein and how the erosion of a method influences qualitative research. To elucidate these questions, examples will be drawn from grounded theory to illuminate the different uses of methods. Last, the authors ask why such a transfer would be attempted altogether. In this final part of the paper they discuss how grounded theory is used as a label, believing that much of the current popularization of grounded theory is based on power, privilege and authority.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09518390500298204

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Each grounded theory approach is rooted in a different historical context.

    “First, each approach is rooted in a different historical context (Clarke, 2009; Greckhamer & Koro‐Ljungberg, 2005; Ralph et al., 2015).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005

  • The philosophical perspective of SGT has pragmatist and symbolic interactionist foundations, but it is also somewhat ambiguous and has evolved over time.

    “The philosophical perspective of SGT has pragmatist and symbolic interactionist foundations, but it is also somewhat ambiguous and has evolved over time (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Greckhamer & Koro‐Ljungberg, 2005).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005

  • There are likely many possible theoretical interpretations from one set of data.

    “The grounded theory ‘constructs an image of a reality, not the reality’ (Charmaz, 2000; p. 523), and there are likely many possible theoretical interpretations from one set of data (Greckhamer & Koro‐Ljungberg, 2005).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Greckhamer & Koro‐Ljungberg, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Greckhamer, T., & Koro‐Ljungberg, M.
Affiliations
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Greckhamer, Thomas
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-11
Volume
18
Issue
6
Pages
729-750
ISSN
  • 0951-8398 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5898
DOI
10.1080/09518390500298204
OpenAlex
W2146133712
Cited by
95
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
12.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (publishedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
grounded theory, epistemological diversity, epistemological assumptions, methodological pluralism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review