Hi
I have been reading about GT and found some differences between its versions. I'm really confused about how the findings are presented for each version. For example, in constructivist GT, the finding presents the participants experience while CGT present a theory. what does it mean that constructivist version analysis ends with story narrative? and how the meaning in this version is co-constructed by participants and researcher? Is it like CGT ends with thematic analysis and its final product is substantive theory and it is not the case with the constructive version?
It seems to me that all 'versions' of GT, as Gunnar comments regarding constructivist and CGT, end with a synthesis of data in terms of conclusion---the grounded theory; however, with emphasis differing in each GT 'version'.
I think that any research results must contains references to theory. No matter what kind of research have you performed, you must mention what theory have you applied, modified, tested or grounded.
To do research means to produce new knowledge and that means you have to apply or to test a theory in a new context, to modify an existing theory, to ground a new theory etc. Or maybe you just produced some scientific information to be later or by other used to creat or test theories...
Any essay or story is an artistic not a scientific presentation of the research results.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning