COMPARISON OF CLASSIC, STRAUSSIAN AND CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHES TO GROUNDED THEORY: SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF PUBLICATIONS
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Elo S., Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008. Vol. 62, No. 1. P. 107-115.
- Connor A. O., Carpenter B., Coughlan B. An Exploration of Key Issues in the Debate Between Classic and Constructivist Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal. 2018. Vol. 17.
- Santos J. L. G., Cunha K., Adamy E. K., Backes M. T. S., Leite J. L., Sousa F. G. M. Data analysis: comparison between the different methodological perspectives of the Grounded Theory. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2018. Vol. 52. e03303. DOI: 10.1590/ S1980-220X2017021803303 16. Sebastian K. Distinguishing Between the Strains Grounded Theory. Journal for Social Thought. 2019. Vol. 3, No. 1. · DOI
- Authors
- Savchenko, M. M.
- Corresponding author
- Savchenko, M.M.
- Venue
- Habitus
- Published
- 2024
- Issue
- 62
- Pages
- 21-28
- ISSN
- 2663-5208 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402401048
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Habitus (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociology and Education Studies
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory, qualitative research methodology, methodological approaches, publication analysis
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
