Dear James Barker,

You seem like you are in dilema:

However; your interest in applying Critical Realism (CR) to Grounded Theory (GT) for your research on regenerative tourism is both ambitious and intellectually stimulating.

CR offers a rich philosophical framework that aligns with your interest in exploring the interactions between social and natural worlds. However, the challenge lies in the fact that there is limited guidance available on combining CR with GT, which could make your project more complex, especially without strong support from your supervisors.

On the other hand, using a constructivist approach to GT might simplify your methodology and offer more resources and supervisory support, though it may feel like a compromise on your philosophical stance.

Ultimately, you should trust your instincts and weigh the risks and benefits carefully.

If CR feels essential to the type of knowledge you want to generate, and you are prepared for the challenges, it might be worth the effort. However, a hybrid approach, where you use Constructivist GT as your primary method while incorporating CR principles during analysis, could provide a balance between philosophical rigor and practical feasibility. Engaging with CR communities and seeking external support could also be beneficial as you navigate this complex but rewarding approach.

I wish you success!

Critical realist grounded theory is ultimately constructivist GT. It is less aligned with Glaser and more with Charmaz. It is only new to you, as it has a following. It is easily explained. Besides my recommendations, read the work of Joseph Maxwell on critical realism. After you read Maxwell, you'll see that critical realism is common in most qualitative research.

Oliver, C. (2012). Critical realist grounded theory: A new approach for social work research. British journal of social work, 42(2), 371-387.

Hoddy, E. T. (2019). Critical realism in empirical research: employing techniques from grounded theory methodology. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 111-124.

Kempster, S., & Parry, K. W. (2011). Grounded theory and leadership research: A critical realist perspective. The leadership quarterly, 22(1), 106-120.

Lee, F. S. (2016). Critical realism, method of grounded theory, and theory construction. In Handbook of research methods and applications in heterodox economics (pp. 35-53). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fletcher, A. J. (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets method. International journal of social research methodology, 20(2), 181-194.

I think the main thing you need to ask yourself is what you would do differently if you used a CR rather a Constructivist approach to GT. How would you collect of analyze your data differently?

As for retroductive reasoning, there is nothing unique to it's use within CR. It is simply the second half of abductive logic, as emphasized in Constructivist GT. More specifically, abduction leads from observations to tentative explanations, while retroduction pursues the likely consequences of those potential explanations for future beliefs. Both of these steps go back to the work of the pragmatist Charles Peirce.

And as for what to make of Glaser's position. I think Charmaz was polite to call it "objectivist." As far as I can tell, he believed that there was truth to be found in the data, so long as you pursued it using the correct methods -- which is to say the methods that he himself advocated.

Then there its the question of which version of CR you are using. David C. Coker recommends work that builds on Maxwell, so be sure you are referring to that tradition rather than the work of Roy Bhaskar.

The first answer is ChatGPT--not that helpful. Next time, run your question through ChatGPT if you want that. No one I know follows such a path.

Bhaskar originated many of the concepts used by Maxwell--all CR is indebted to Bhaskar. There is significant overlap, obviously, with differences. Maxwell wrote specifically for qualitative research while Bhaskar wrote generally about science. Bhaskar never used the term critical realism, but that is the interpretation other philosophers/researchers used.

See the above-referenced articles by me (the first one only discusses Bhaskar). Secondly, look at Charmaz, but compare to Glaser and Strauss. These first two steps show how critical realism and constructivism have been used in the field. Thirdly, follow Maxwell's guidance that critical realism is not a paradigm, and that no one is philosophically pure (compare critical realism with different renditions and similar iterations); in other words, adopt and adapt for your own purposes in a coherent, rigorous way. Lastly, move from philosophizing to practicalities: What does critical realism mean for your study, how will you operationalize it in an optimal way, and how does this stance connect with your purpose, aims, and research questions? As one researcher put it, get over the philosophy and look to do what is necessary to answer your questions. There is no one scientific method.

David C. Coker Can you give me an example of an ar where Maxwell cites Bhaskar? As for CR not being a paradigm, it certainly is treated that way by others because of its claims about ontology and epistemology.

Some examples follow. From the start, Maxwell acknowledged Bhaskar. Certainly, some scholars disagree with Maxwell [see this article, which gives a great historical debate: Willis, M. E. (2023). Critical realism and qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 20(2), 265-288.)]

Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard educational review, 62(3), 279-301.

Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 2, 145-168.

Maxwell, J. A. (2022). Critical realism as a stance for designing qualitative research. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design.

To the original poster, you see the friendly debate is because research is complicated. Whether Glaser or Braun/Clarke, qualitative research is not parametric, statistical research with rules for calculations. There is not one path, and no one should act like they simply followed another researcher. Each person must make decisions throughout a study, apply specific methods, and explain general rules specific to the problem at hand. This does not mean anything goes (for example, saying one followed Glaser exactly and incorporated one's instrumentality is a contradiction that is illogical). Think beyond dichotomous, either/or thinking, avoid to the best limit possible becoming a philosopher-king, and work on conducting a study that rigorously answers your purpose/aims.

Hi all,

Thank you so much for your responses.

I'm fairly familiar with most of the recommended readings (currently have a range of text son a shelf behind me from Charmaz, to Strauss, to Maxwell, to Sayer!). Although some of those further Maxwell texts could be very useful!

I appreciate the point that much of CR GT aligns with Constructivist GT. I admit I have got caught up in the weeds of trying to fully understand how to adapt coding with retroduction. And with Hoddy being one of the few articles elaborating on this, I got tied up with the Straussian approach.

However I also appreciate the suggestion to stop philosophising for a bit and focus on the practicalities. I shall continue with extensive reading and puzzling but your responses have been very helpful!

David L Morgan have you had time to review these articles by Maxwell??? There are many, many others.

Yes, and I found a one line citation to Bashkar with no substantive content. This was accompanied by a definition of CR that sounded amazingly like Post-Positivism. That did not surprise me because Maxwell is quite favorable towards Donald Campbell who is the ultimate Post-Positivitist.

What a shame. The above articles, such as the mixed methods article, is not one line. The historical article also draws many comparisons. Whether substantive or not is you opinion, and I honor that. Maxwell, obviously, also aligned with Campbell.

To me, more importantly, is pragmatically philosophy matters much less than action. I believe acting like one is a philosopher is not as helpful as actions. Ethnographers point out the attudinal fallacy, and I find it persuasive. Thanks for the enlightenment.

We will leave this debate at what Joe Maxwell shared in personal conversation and will soon publish with Sage. With permission.

I’ve acknowledged Bhaskar’s work on critical realism many times, although I disagree with his more recent interpretation of this. I’ve provided below an excerpt from my forthcoming book “Mixed Methods Research Outside the Box” that summarizes my view of Bhaskar’s work. I hope this clarifies my understanding of Bhaskar’s views. Joe In the social sciences, the most prominent manifestation of realism is the “critical realist” tradition usually associated with the work of Roy Bhaskar (1978, 1989, 2011; Archer, Bhaskar, Collier, Lawson, & Norrie, 1998; Manicas, 2006; Sayer, 1992, 2000). However, Bhaskar’s work, particularly his more recent development of critical realism as an emancipatory perspective, which he called “dialectical critical realism,” departed in significant ways from the position I take here, and has been criticized by others in the “critical realist” tradition (e.g., Pawson, 20061; cf. ;, accessed 11/2/2009). I have therefore not adopted Bhaskar’s views in general, although I find his basic positions (particularly on the importance of distinguishing ontology from epistemology) compatible with the stance that I present here. My position draws substantially from other versions of realism that I see as compatible with the key ideas of the critical realist tradition, and that provide additional insights and alternative perspectives for using realism in qualitative research. These include the work of the social scientist Donald Campbell (1988) and the philosophers Cartwright (1999, 2007), Davidson (1980, 1993, 1997), Haack (1998, 2003), Little (1991, 1998, 2010), McGinn (1999), Putnam (1990, 1999), Salmon (1984, 1989, 1998, 2005), and Wimsatt (2007); the physicist Barad (2007); the linguist Lakoff (1987; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999); the evaluation researchers Pawson and Tilley (1997; Pawson, 2006) and Henry, Julnes, and Mark (1998; Mark, Henry, & Julnes, 2000); and the qualitative researchers Huberman and Miles (1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994) and Hammersley (1992, 1998).

Me: Beware of what I call positive post-positivism. Researchers often have theory allegiance (think Gioia) and report what they believe, yet they act neutral. Ultimately, critical realism (or transcendental realism as coined by Bhaskar, with differences) means research should be grounded in the data of the researchers. Maxwell and Bhaskar believe in the researcher’s hermeneutical interpretation—something Glaser and descriptive phenomenologist would not allow/deny.

My point is, as previously referenced, Maxwell repeatedly cited Bhasjar BUT movea beyond acting like a philosopher and think grounded means grounded in the data, and if you believe your instrumentality needs reported or is the driver, make your decision transparent. I know I learned something here and obviously certainly others should have, too.

As a pragmatist myself I certainly agree that action matters more than philosophy and especially versions of philosophy that rely on ontology and epistemology.