Cited by 42Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsSociology and Education StudiesEducational Research and Methods

The Validity of Divergent Grounded Theory Method

Open access
Amsteus, Martin Nils·2014·International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to assess whether divergence of grounded theory method may be considered valid. A review of literature provides a basis for understanding and evaluating grounded theory. The principles and nature of grounded theory are synthesized along with theoretical and practical implications. It is deduced that for a theory to be truly grounded in empirical data, the method resulting in the theory should be the equivalent of pure induction. Therefore, detailed, specified, stepwise a priori procedures may be seen as unbidden or arbitrary. It is concluded that divergent grounded theory can be considered valid. The author argues that securing methodological transparency through the description of the actual principles and procedures employed, as well as tailoring them to the particular circumstances, is more important than adhering to predetermined stepwise procedures. A theoretical foundation is provided from which diverse theoretical developments and methodological procedures may be developed, judged, and refined based on their own merits.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/160940691401300133

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • Understanding the similarities and differences between grounded theory approaches facilitates methodological transparency and philosophical/methodological congruence.

    “This understanding facilitates methodological transparency (Amsteus, 2014) and philosophical/methodological congruence (Evans, 2013; McEwen & Wills, 2014; Ryan, 2018).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Amsteus, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amsteus, M. N.
Affiliations
Linnaeus University (SE)
Corresponding author
Amsteus, Martin Nils
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Published
2014-02
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
71-87
ISSN
1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1567694487
Cited by
42
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
17.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
methodological transparency, qualitative research methodology

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