Charmaz allows for the idea of "sensitizing concepts" to help guide your research (e.g., identity is her major starting point). So, if you can get some useful, general orientation from the life course perspective, that would be worthwhile. What you have to avoid in GT, however, is going to far with directing your research from any external perspective, to the extent that such a perspective has too much influence on what you observe in the field. Sadly, Charmaz does not provide much guidance on when to avoid relying too heavily on sensitizing concepts.

Hello,

I thought this paper might be relevant, but have not been able to access the full text:

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2007). Constructionist perspectives on the life course. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 335-352.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249494376

Article Constructionist Perspectives on the Life Course

I was not sure about constructivist and constructionist, but found this by Charmaz:

Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. Handbook of constructionist research, 1, 397-412.

http://www.sxf.uevora.pt/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Charmaz_2008-a.pdf

This dissertation using constructivist grounded theory:

Stemmler, M. S. (2012). Methamphetamine Using Mothers: Perceptions of Prepregnancy Sexual Risks, Recognizing Unintended Pregnancy, and Engaging in the Pregnancy.

https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt2s01j3n1/qt2s01j3n1.pdf

. . . also used concepts from this paper:

Hser, Y. I., Longshore, D., & Anglin, M. D. (2007). The life course perspective on drug use: A conceptual framework for understanding drug use trajectories. Evaluation Review, 31(6), 515-547.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5859494

But apart from these, I have not found anything relevant. It will be interesting is you have responses from anyone who is conversant with both these perspectives. I have only used constructivist grounded theory.

Very best wishes,

Mary

I have sent you a copy of the Holstein & Gubrium article as a personal message.

Thank you so much Prof. David, as usual your views are very helpful. Academics like you have made RG such an interesting and learning place. I will also look at the article you have sent me. However, I am having problem in demarcating when 'senstizing concepts' become 'definitive concepts' as discussed by Prof. Kathy Charmaz and where should one stops? Robert Thornberg (2012), "Informed Grounded Thoery" offers interesting points on this confusion. But the question is how far is too far? How can we know when we are crossing the read line?

Mary C R Wilson thank you indeed for the recommending articles. I'll look at them as they seem interesting.

Why not?