I am a novice researcher who is writing my dissertation. My topic is high school students' demotivation and their coping strategies in my country. Currently, I am thinking about using Straussian or Charmaz's GT to conduct my qualitative research. I have read some summarizing papers about these two approaches and found that Straussian's coding procedure is more rigorous but more detailed while that of Charmaz are more relaxed and flexible. For a novice researcher, which one should I use? I am afraid that I might not follow all of the principles of Straussian GT perfectly due to my lack of experience. But Charmaz's procedure might have so much freedom that I might add too much preconception to my analysis, which decrease its' value as GT. If any of you have any experience with possible difficulty in using these two approaches, please share them with me.
Hello Tinh Ta
When we carried out grounded theory, it was in order to look into what it was like for the participants to live with faecal incontinence and we used constructivist grounded theory. I looked at what I had written in my thesis:
'Objectivist grounded theory, as evolved by Strauss and Corbin, minimises the subjectivity of the researcher; data 'discovered' through 'analytic questions, hypotheses and methodological applications' [:513], which, according to Charmaz, may provide rich description, but does not access experience [:525]390.'
(Ref: 390. Charmaz K. Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2000: 509-535.)
We wanted to look into what the participants had experienced and constructivist was exactly right.
I feel that it depends on the perspective you are looking at from your students; would it be more as of a neutral observer seeking rich description or would you be wanting to understand what they had experienced?
I hope this helps, but also hope that some of the more erudite ResearchGate members respond. This is basically from my experience!
Very best wishes,
Mary
This question is v helpful and relevant to my own research at present. I’ve chosen to use theoretical thematic analysis but probably should have chosen constructivist GT. can I ask, why you chose grounded theory over theoretical TA?
Dear Tinh Ha,
You have formulated the question beautifully; so much so that you almost answered yourself! You feel more inclined towards Charmaz and rightly so since it provides you with the freedom that a qualitative researcher needs sometimes. While I have nothing against Straussian GT, I feel more comfortable with Charmaz and have never faced any issues related to 'less value' etc. It is widely used and widely accepted.
All the best.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medical Science Nursing
- Dissertations