CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsSociology and Education StudiesEducational Research and Methods

Alternative Interpretations: Valid or not?

Corbin, Juliet M.·1998·Theory & Psychology
DOI 10.1177/0959354398081007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper attempts to clarify the divisions that have emerged in interpretations of grounded theory following the publication of Strauss and Corbin's Basics of Qualitative Research (1990). In particular I examine our use of the term `experience', our meaning of `hypothesis testing', the integration of macro-conditions into the analysis, and the relation of structure to process. I conclude by quoting from a memo written by Strauss concerning these issues in our own and Glaser's work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0959354398081007

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Evidence for constructivist leanings in SGT can be found in statements like 'theorizing is the act of constructing' and 'there are many alternative interpretations of data'.

    “Evidence for constructivist leanings can be found in statements like ‘theorizing is the act of constructing’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 25) and ‘there are many alternative interpretations of data’ (Corbin, 1998; p. 122).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Corbin, 1998

  • In SGT, the researcher's experience can facilitate the generation of hypotheses.

    “The researcher's experience can enhance theoretical sensitivity, facilitate the generation of hypotheses, and create a base for making comparisons (Corbin, 1998).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Corbin, 1998

  • In SGT, the researcher's experience can enhance theoretical sensitivity.

    “The researcher's experience can enhance theoretical sensitivity, facilitate the generation of hypotheses, and create a base for making comparisons (Corbin, 1998).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Corbin, 1998

  • In SGT, the researcher's experience can create a base for making comparisons.

    “The researcher's experience can enhance theoretical sensitivity, facilitate the generation of hypotheses, and create a base for making comparisons (Corbin, 1998).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Corbin, 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Corbin, J. M.
Affiliations
San Jose State University (US)
Corresponding author
Corbin, Juliet M.
Venue
Theory & Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1998-02
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
121-128
ISSN
  • 0959-3543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7447
DOI
10.1177/0959354398081007
OpenAlex
W2009561202
Cited by
53
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Theory & Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociology and Education Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
grounded theory, qualitative research methodology, experience, hypothesis testing, structure and process, Strauss and Corbin, Glaser

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