بررسی روش‌شناسی تطبیقی در نظریۀ زمینه‌ای و قابلیت آن در آفرینش نظریه

This article, through a monographic documentary study and comparative analysis within the framework of qualitative methodology, examines grounded theory (data-based) from the perspectives of experts such as Glaser, Strauss & Corbin, and Charmaz. The objective is to identify and categorize the various approaches proposed in this field. This study serves as both a methodological survey and an analytical exploration of scientific understanding, addressing one of the most significant methodological approaches within the interpretive paradigm and inductive strategy. Unlike deductive reasoning and the affirmative paradigm, grounded theory follows an inverted funnel approach, making it a fundamental method in the humanities for developing and emerging theories.

Grounded theory has the capacity to generate hypotheses, create new categories, and even develop new theories that align with the cultural and social contexts of a given society, rather than merely validating pre-existing theories in a social field. In other words, grounded theory methodology focuses on constructing theory from the realities, information, and data available within the studied society. Research in this method begins in the field of reality, allowing the theory to emerge directly from the collected data. The study process starts by posing a research question and seeking answers within the research community. The researcher typically begins with observations and interviews, then identifies patterns, themes, and categories to develop new insights, conceptual categories, and theories.

This article highlights the exploratory power of grounded theory and examines the similarities and differences in the approaches of leading scholars. The analysis covers key methodological aspects such as ontology, epistemology, types of interviews, data collection methods, research quality assessment, coding stages, theory emergence, and theory presentation. By doing so, this study aims to elucidate the capabilities of grounded theory, emphasizing its depth in revealing social realities for better understanding and analysis of society.


Introduction:
Methodological trends and waves in recent decades have seen significant progress and diversity across quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. However, such dynamism has not been equally observed in the realm of theory or theory-building. Generally, contemporary social theory lacks innovation and offers limited insights into many critical issues. Thus, it falls upon sociologists, psychologists, social psychologists, and other social researchers to engage in systematic conceptualization within the social sciences. In this context, grounded theory provides a structured method for conceptualization.
Currently, three main approaches in grounded theory exist, each associated with distinct scholars: Barney Glaser’s approach; Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin’s approach; and Kathy Charmaz’s constructivist approach. The necessity of this study arises from the extensive evolution and ensuing disagreements in grounded theory's development. It aims to deliver a comparative analysis of these approaches, offering a comprehensive perspective on grounded theory across different methodologies and its role in theory generation. The overarching goal is to advance grounded theory methodology by examining and contrasting these approaches, highlighting their contributions to theory-building in the humanities.
Method:
This study first explores the methodological features and capabilities of grounded theory, focusing on research strategies. Subsequently, a comparative analysis of documents related to grounded theory is conducted. The comparative method was chosen to align with the study's objective of identifying and categorizing different approaches. The qualitative research design is theoretical and monographic, relying on descriptive and analytical documentation drawn from library resources. The scope is specifically limited to the methodological approaches of Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz, as these scholars' perspectives are central to the comparative analysis.
Results and Discussion:
The differences and similarities among the three primary grounded theory approaches are summarized in the table below:
Table: Differences and Similarities Among the Three Main Grounded Theory Approaches




Aspect


Glaser


Strauss & Corbin


Charmaz




Ontology


Positivist


Subjectivist


Subjectivist




Epistemology


Critical Realism


Interpretive-Pragmatism


Interpretive-Pragmatism-Constructivism




Interview Type


Objective


Observational-Interactive


Interactive-Constructivist




Data Collection


Inductive-Comparative-Theoretical Saturation


Inductive-Comparative-Theoretical Saturation


Inductive-Comparative-Hermeneutic-Theoretical Saturation




Coding Stages


Basic Coding (Open, Selective)-Theoretical Coding


Open, Axial, Selective Coding


Open, Focused, Theoretical Coding




Research Quality


Credibility and Generalizability


Credibility and Applicability with Interpretive Role


Credibility and Local Applicability with Constructivist Role




Literature Review


Post-Findings Literature Review


Pre-Findings Literature Review


Pre-Findings Literature Review




Theory Construction


Theoretical Sensitivity


Theoretical Sensitivity


Theoretical Sensitivity




Theory Presentation


Conceptual Hypothesis Supported by Quantitative Research


Model-Building with Core Category


Model-Building Based on Social Constructivism




 
The three aforementioned grounded theory approaches—Glaser's, Strauss and Corbin's, and Charmaz's—each present distinct methodologies for theory generation. Glaser's approach, rooted in quantitative methods and the principle of generalizability, accepts theories with wide-ranging applicability. Within the grounded theory framework, where researchers work within specific, limited fields, the resulting theory primarily serves as a foundation for subsequent quantitative research. Through their investigations, grounded theory researchers formulate hypotheses that quantitative researchers may later test.
Strauss and Corbin, while acknowledging theory generalization, maintained that locally derived theories could be transferable to other social contexts. They argued that theories emerging from grounded theory research could provide predictive insight across different social domains. In contrast, Charmaz emphasized the local context and the researcher's active participation in theory construction, viewing theories as inherently bound to the specific research context in which they were developed.
A crucial distinction in Charmaz's approach, setting it apart from Strauss and Corbin's, lies in her emphasis on constructivism and the researcher's active role in both the research process and theory development. Charmaz's approach occupies a distinct position between Glaser's objectivist perspective and Strauss and Corbin's structured, paradigmatic approach. Unlike Glaser, she does not seek to generalize theories independently of research literature or preconceived understandings of the research field. Nor does she follow Strauss and Corbin's more rigid model aimed at strengthening a theory's predictive power and coherence. Instead, by highlighting constructivism and the researcher's active role, Charmaz seeks to deepen local theories within their specific contexts.
Conclusion:
While maintaining their distinct differences, all three approaches share a commitment to theory generation through grounded theory methodologies. The scope and applicability of each approach's theoretical contributions vary according to their adopted paradigms and data collection procedures. Qualitative researchers can select among these three approaches based on their paradigmatic alignment, applying them to analyze research field issues and ultimately develop theories appropriate for their specific research questions.
For instance:

Researchers aiming to develop experience-based, theoretically sensitive frameworks without predetermined structures might employ Glaser's approach. This allows them to cultivate theoretical sensitivity through empirical research processes, potentially transitioning later to quantitative methods for theory generalization.
Those seeking to utilize conceptual literature for data guidance and paradigmatic models for theory refinement might adopt Strauss and Corbin's approach in order to develop localized theories.
Researchers preferring to construct theories within local contexts without rigid paradigmatic models—relying instead on their creativity and active participation in interviews and coding—would find Charmaz's constructivist approach most suitable.

Each approach offers distinct advantages depending on the researcher's objectives, epistemological stance, and the nature of the research problem under investigation. The choice among them should be guided by the specific theoretical and methodological requirements of the study being conducted