Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology that was describe briefly in this blog previously when we looked at systematic design. In this post, we will look at two other designs that fall under the grounded theory approach which are emerging and constructivist design.
Emerging design was in many ways a reaction to systematic design. Glaser and Strauss worked together to develop grounded theory during the 1960’s. By the 1990’s Strauss along with Corbin had refined grounded theory into what is now know as systematic design.
Glasser had issues with systematic design. He considered it to rigid and strict with the emphasis on rules and procedures. In response to this, he develop the emerging design.
Glasser proposed allow the theory to emerge from the data rather than forcing the data into preconceived categories. Glasser was also focused on a more iterative approach. This means that data was compared to data, data was compared to category, and category compared to category.
Glasser viewed grounded theory as the process of abstracting to higher and higher level rather than only describing a process. The generate theory should appropriately fit the data, should actually work, be relevant, and changeable.
The constructivist design is the youngest of the three grounded theory designs. It was first developed in the earlier 2000’s by Charmaz. Unlike the other forms of grounded theory with the focus on categories, codes, and theory generating. The constructivist design emphasizes the views, values, and feelings of the people rather than the process.
Whereas Strauss & Corbin and Glasser would focus on describing a process in their systematic or emerging design approach, the constructivist design would focus on how people felt during these process and try to extract meaning from the experience.
For example, if we conducted a study on men with chronic illness the results would vary depending on the grounded theory design we used. If we used systematic or emerging design we would focus on the common process of acquiring and dealing with a chronic illness. However, if we used the constructivist design we would focus on how the men feel during their experience with a chronic illness as well as trying to determine what it means to have a chronic illness.
Which to Choose?
The decision of what design is best depends on the purpose of the study and the preference of the researcher. It is difficult to say one is better or worst than the other. Rather, each is appropriate depending on the context of the study.