Limiting Misleading ideas about the History of Grounded Theory Methodology

Abstract

Since its inception in the sociological field more than fifty years, Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) has been extended to a range of research areas but there still be confusions and misconceptions about its history and methodological principles. This paper attempts to provide a full theoretical overview of the history of GTM and allows limiting misconceptions about the methodology itself. Drawing upon social sciences perspectives, the paper begins by briefly shedding the light on two major related concepts: Grounded Theory (GT) and Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM). It continues by defining what GTM really means and outlines the reasons behind The Discovery of grounded theory and further focuses on the big split that gave birth to three schools of Grounded Theory Methodology: Glaserian, Straussian and Constructivist GTM.

Introduction

Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) remains a popular research strategy that can be used across several disciplines. Conversely to deductive approaches, this methodology aims at systematically collecting and analyzing data in order to rigorously generate theory that is grounded in the data (Goulding, 1999). It was launched during the 1960s by two American Sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss who had different intellectual backgrounds and was developed through the combination of a set of principles based upon an inductive approach (Thornberg, 2012).Years after its inception in the sociological area, Grounded Theory Methodology has been extended to a range of fields including management sciences (Fendt & Sachs, 2008; Rosenbaum et al., 2016). However, in spite of the rapid evolution of the methodology induced by a growing body of research, the history of GTM is currently little detailed and it has received less attention in the academic world. The popular work we have found tracing back the history of GTM is that of Kenny and Fourie (2014). The authors focus on the backgrounds of the co-founders of GTM and its genesis prior to underlining the great schism and the controversial constructivist GT. However, they did not attempt to put out misleading ideas that surround GTM’s History and its purpose. We mean by misleading ideas, ideas that refashion and remodel the historical orthodoxy of GTM without any clear basis. To this should be added the ongoing confusion related to the use of GTM in some fields such as management research where it is often subjected to misinterpretation (Jones & Noble, 2007). From that point, there is a real need to provide more insights into the historical basis and the purpose of such a methodology for both management and social sciences. The purpose of this paper is to recall the history of GTM by outlining and correcting misleading conceptions that often undermine its progress. The paper is structured as follows: We first briefly focus on the difference between the concepts of Grounded theory (GT) and Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM), we then explain what GTM really mean and what it is not prior to revealing the main reasons that gave rise to the methodology itself. Further, we explain how the theory itself was discovered before providing a deeper understanding of the divergence stances that came later and split it into three schools: Classical, Straussian and Constructivist Grounded Theory Methodology. The paper contributes to overcoming misconceptions and misunderstandings about the methodology and provides small insight about its philosophical underpinnings. It is quite useful for those relatively new to the qualitative field and offers them deeper insights related to the ins and outs of such an innovative methodology.

Understanding concepts: Grounded Theory Methodology and Grounded Theory

This section provides full insights about defining and differentiating the key related terms of GTM and GT. It also offers some historical and philosophical perspectives on the subject.

Grounded Theory and Grounded Theory Methodology: what is the difference?

The two terms Grounded Theory and Grounded Theory Methodology are always confused and used to define the same thing: they seem interchangeable. But taking a look at the existing literature allows affirming that they are not substitutable and do not give the same meaning: “A Grounded Theory is the possible outcome of using the Grounded Theory Method” (Bryant, 2002, p. 27). Grounded Theory does not represent the methodology itself. It is a product, an outcome or a consequence that is directly derived from the correct use of the whole methodological approach, including its core principles and it “proves itself by being a GT of the method” (Glaser in Walsh et al., 2015, p. 23). However, the way of combining tools and techniques that really fits with generating a substantive theory designed as Grounded Theory (GT) is called Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM). One should say there is a causal relationship between GTM and GT. Otherwise, we should keep in mind that designing Grounded Theory Methodology is suitable at the empirical phase of the research process while Grounded Theory should be pronounced when the research comes to at the end.

Historical perspective of GT and GTM

Grounded Theory as the product of the methodology, periodically emerged during the 1960s and does not have an exact birth date contrary to what it was supposed to be. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’s publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory exactly backs in 1967 and this was the seminal work on the methodology. It is therefore inaccurate to consider the theory as something invented or created. It was not. Glaser and Strauss (1967) labeled their work The Discovery of grounded theory because it was discovered and constitutes a cue of the emergence of the methodology itself with a highlight of a few guidelines that allow reducing the gap between theory and method (Glaser, 2016). In addition, it must be emphasized that the methodology was not a single work that came out in 1967: it was derived from the combination of a range of basic texts and similarly to its product, Grounded Theory Methodology does not have a specific birth date that really marks its advent. It emerged in the 1960s and came from both Awareness of dying (1965), Discovery (1967), Time for dying (1968), and Status Passage (Bryant, 2009; Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Birks & Mills, 2015). Glaser and Strauss strongly collaborate, combine their work and provide long term efforts covered by empirical and theoretical studies until they get a top ready methodology that innovatively differs from the existing ones known in qualitative and quantitative fields. The Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) encompasses a set of guidelines such as theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, theoretical saturation, constant comparative method, coding process, memoing, sorting etc. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Throughout these guidelines, the goal is to systematically collect and analyze data in order to discover (Glaser & Holton, 2004) or construct (Charmaz, 2006) a theory that is grounded in the data.

Philosophical underpinnings in Grounded Theory Methodology

Philosophical underpinnings may vary from one grounded theory approach to another, depending on the authors’ backgrounds. Even though admitting the influence of symbolic interactionism and the Chicago school philosophical background throughout his teamwork with Anselm Strauss, Glaser disagrees with any philosophical assumption about doing grounded theory. He views GTM as a general methodology that can combine both qualitative and quantitative data: “Let me be clear. Grounded theory is a general methodology. It can be used on any data or combination of data (Glaser, 1999). From a Glaserian perspective, philosophy does not stand as a specific way of doing grounded theory. By contrast, it is the methodology itself that constitutes a driving force for further philosophical stance: “Viewed as a general research methodology, GT is not confined to any particular epistemological or ontological perspective; rather, it can facilitate any philosophical perspective as embraced by the researcher” (Holton, 2008, p.70). However, Glaser’s denial of philosophy may be ambiguous because he was first rooted in positivist backgrounds derived from Columbia University where he attempted to codify qualitative data as Paul Lazarsfeld coded quantitative data (Charmaz, 2006). He remains consistent with the idea of letting the data express itself and trying to understand reality by being objective rather than moving toward an interpretive orientation. Nevertheless, Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) work was rooted in pragmatism and symbolic interactionism and moved toward an interpretive perspective. This is due to the fact that Anselm Strauss was himself influenced by pragmatism and symbolic interactionism derived from the work of G.H.Mead and John Dey (Charmaz, 2006; Bryant, 2002). Finally, Katy Charmaz (2006) reveals in an explicit manner her constructivist philosophical position. Rather than advocating in favor of the existence of external reality and an independent viewer who acts objectively, she adopts a reflexive stance which is mainly concerned with how meanings are co-constructed through the ongoing interaction between the researcher and participants. The Table 1 summarizes the above statements.

Table 1.

The parameters for distinguishing GT from GTM.

	Grounded Theory	Grounded Theory Methodology
Meaning	-Outcome, product of the methodology -Should be pronounced at the end of the research process	-General methodology  -It includes the combination of tools and techniques to generate theory from data
Emergence	No specific birthdate but during the 1960s	No specific birthdate but during the 1960s
Philosophy		1.Glaserian GTM: -No philosophy according to Glaser -Objectivism philosophy according to the literature2.Straussian GTM Pragmatism and symbolic interactionism3.Constructivist GTM: Constructivism philosophy

Clearing up the Ambiguities About GTM as a Method or a Methodology

GTM is often considered as a method and sometimes confused with other qualitative methods. It is now necessary to clearly indicate what GTM is and what it is not, and to show why the term ‘Methodology’ is preferred over ‘Method’ in a Grounded Theory Study.

What Grounded Theory Methodology is?

Grounded Theory Methodology is a general methodology that stands on its specific tools and rules through high level of conceptualization (Glaser, 2016). In opposition to the descriptive nature of many qualitative approaches, Grounded Theory Methodology is deeply embedded in conceptualization:“Quantitative research and QDA (qualitative data analysis) provide description of aggregates and in-depth cases respectively and GT (grounded theory) provides the conceptual overview with grounded interpretation, explanations, impacts, underlying causes and so forth” (Glaser, 2003, p. 118). It is not about a tool for descriptive qualitative analysis but it is an innovative methodology with rigorous procedures for theory building where concepts appear at the crux of the analysis process: “Only concepts can relate to concepts to achieve hypothesis construction… Descriptions cannot relate to descriptions in any clear or precise way if at all. Hypotheses, if achieved, are unit empirical with no generalizability.” (Glaser, 2001, p. 38). As a general methodology, GTM requires a simultaneous data collection and analysis process in which the researcher sets aside all theoretical frameworks that could biaise his study and tries to generate a theory from the data (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It may include all kind of data (interviews, questionnaires, observations, videos, documents, etc). Glaser (1999) reveals his dictum of All is data during a conference adress: “Let me be clear. Grounded theory is a general method. It can be used on any data or combination of data”. The outcome of a Grounded Theory study is neither presented as a narrative nor a descriptive form that underlines participants’ concerns, but it appears as a set of hypotheses that conceptualize the link between concepts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Doing a grounded theory study is not easy, it is both time and energy consuming. The researcher needs to be patient and creative, and he should look for the theory’s emergence rather than forcing it (Glaser & Holton, 2004). Whatever well done it is, the generated theory is not going to be perfect. A grounded theory is never perfect, it should be revised and adjusted according to a list of criteria: “A grounded theory is neither right nor wrong, it just has more or less fit, relevance, workability and modifiability. Readers of grounded theory should evaluate them against these criteria” (Thulesuis, 2008 as cited in Holton, 2008, p. 79). However, the existing literature informs that a number of scholars including Glaser himself, may sometimes use the term Grounded Theory instead of Grounded Theory Methodology or he even terms method instead of methodology. In this respect, getting into Glaser’s mindful conception may be quite helpful to understand that GTM is not just a simple method. For instance, a citation taken from “Getting started” clearly indicates the way Glaser considers GTM with the use of the term ‘methodology’ a number of times: “In comparison to preconceived description, there is no dilemma when choosing the grounded theory methodology...Once grounded theory methodology is chosen...The methodology process [uncovers] the emergent problem...” (Glaser, 2016, p.3). Therefore, the debate may be closed by keeping in mind that the term ‘methodology’ is preferred to method because GTM encompasses four main features which justify its methodological aspect. First, it breaks with traditional qualitative inquiries by relying on its own method of data collection and analysis through theoretical sampling, constant comparative analysis, and theoretical saturation. Second, it allows the combination of both qualitative and quantitative data. Third, it is possible for Grounded Theorists to use both qualitative and quantitative techniques of analysis in their study (Walsh, 2015). Fourth, it has the specific purpose of generating a theory grounded in the data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) emphasize two main kinds of theory: substantive and formal theory. A substantive theory is just applicable to a certain substantive field in opposition to a formal theory which can be related to many different substantive areas. In sum, GTM is a general methodology in the way it combines several methods in the course of the research process. These include methods of literature use and methods of data collection and analysis (See Charmaz, 2006; Nathaniel, 2022; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

What Grounded Theory Methodology is not?

It is often misleading to consider GTM as a unique and pure qualitative method or just a simple technical approach for coding process as it is applied with qualitative data. Grounded Theory Methodology was first rooted in inductive quantitative analysis (Holton, 2007) and it is sutable for both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Hence, relegating it as just a qualitative approach strongly minimize and contrast its power of a general methodology (Glaser & Holton, 2004; Holton, 2008). Grounded Theory Methodology is not also a tool for ignoring the literature, doing content analysis or theory testing (Suddaby, 2006). This idea is misleading and does not fit with the methodology’s basic requirements. Those who usually label their work as grounded theory under the use of content/thematic analysis method should have other aim rather than generating a substantive theory derived from data. Thematic analysis is about characterizing people’s experiences throughout an ongoing process of themes identification, analysis and classification. Instead of generating a theory, the purpose of thematic analysis is to provide full reporting about the phenomenon under study by putting out the interconnection between themes and sub-themes. But this is not what grounded theory methodology looks like. If you also want to understand the difference between content analysis and Grounded Theory Methodology, you may take a look at Cho and Lee (2014). We hereby reiterate that GTM is a general methodology susceptible to be conducted with a full package of principles: theoretical sensitivity, theoretical saturation, constant comparative method, literature use, theoretical coding, memoing, sorting, and so on. If one of them is missing, the theory itself is going to be less grounded. The coding process used in Grounded Theory studies is familiar to the methodology. In other words, extracting it from the whole methodological approach in order to meet the needs for conducting a case study, a phenomenological approach or other qualitative studies, is somewhat misleading. Readers and scholars should understand that GTM coding process is fully embedded in conceptualization and developing categories, subcategories and core variables.Therefore, a high level of plausibility and density based upon category development is expected to be at time. In general, the coding process in qualitative approaches does not require such a commitment and this corroborates again the innovative nature of GTM. This methodology stands in its own way and breaks with the traditional qualitative methods often considered to be unrealistic and biased. In this regard, the work of Hood (2007) allows for summarizing the difference between GTM and Inductive qualitative methods: the priority of discovering new theory grounded in data. This is a requirement in any grounded theory study while it is not mandatory for those undertaking Generic Inductive Qualitative Models (GIQM). Further, the author clearly put out three main components that differentiate GTM from other GIQM: “(1) theoretical sampling, (2) constant comparison of data to theoretical categories, and (3) focus on the development of theory via theoretical saturation of categories rather than substantive verifiable findings” (Hood, 2007, p.163). These three properties as termed by the author can be seen as the basis of the methodology and allow not only to differentiate it from other methodologies but above all to remain consistent with its innovative nature.This is what GTM looks like: a general methodology that breaks with other qualitative inquiries with its own method of data collection and analysis and that sometimes guides any epistemological assumption. Therefore, those who wish to conduct a specific type of qualitative study should adapt their work with full respect of the chosen research strategy guidelines instead of polluting it with GTM principles which potentially turn out and obstruct their findings. Doing a case study, means just doing it appropriately with regard to the research strategy orientation. You don’t need to borrow the GTM coding process when you have to code your data: It’s not suitable for your study but you should be introduced into how to code qualitative data (See Saldana, 2015). If you want to build theory from cases study, please refer to Eisenhard (1989) but do not undermine your work with GTM’ process. There is a big difference between these two procedures. In sum, GTM stands as a general methodology that should not be subjected to partial use or a distortion of its basic principles. It should be conducted with full respect for its whole package of principles and does not rely on any predetermined concept. The Table 2 is a compilation of how to conceive Grounded Theory Methodology.

Table 2.

How to conceive Grounded Theory Methodology.

1. What Grounded Theory Methodology is or is About ?	What it is not ?
A circling process (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)	A linear process
Theory building	Theory testing (Suddaby, 2006)
Conceptualization (Glaser, 2003, 2016, 2018)	Description
Inductive and abductive reasoning (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 2016)	Deductive reasoning
Simultaneous data collection and analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)	Separation between data collection and analysis
Concepts (Glaser, 2001; Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998)	Individuals
2. How grounded theory methodology should be considered?	How it should not be considered?
As a general methodology (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser and Holton, 2004)	As a coding procedure or just a qualitative method
With full respect and use of its guidelines (Glaser, 2005; Holton, 2008, 2010)	By misusing one of its guidelines
Through hypotheses verification within the course of the research process (Strauss and Corbin, 1990)	Verifying hypotheses through quantitative methods
With mixed data (Glaser, 2008)	With one data collection tool

From the Causes Behind ‘The discovery of Grounded Theory’ to its Usefulness

Urquhart and Fernandez (2006) assert that one of the main reasons behind The discovery of grounded theory was a response to what sociologists using functionalist theories labeled ‘armchair theorizing’ in the 1960s (Kendall, 1999; Dey, 1999). At that time, there were a short number of books that dealt with qualitative research in social sciences (Hallberg, 2006) and the methodology was poorly developed and orally transmitted to students (Holton, 2010). Qualitative researchers used preconceived ideas and extant theories prior to data collection and analysis (Gibbs, 2012). In doing so, they have been subjected to a number of criticisms from quantitative scholars who viewed qualitative research as being “unsystematic, impressionistic, and unreliable” (Hallberg, 2006, p.142), hence leading it to a subordinate position behind the deductive approach that prevailed. This gives rise to a new way of challenging the underlined controversial ideas by undertaking a new methodology based on more rigorous procedures (Goulding, 1999). In response to the supremacy of deductive approaches in social sciences research, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss launch an innovative methodology in which the literature review was delayed and the data was simultaneously collected and analyzed through comparative method. The outcome was a product labelled Grounded Theory which directly reflects participants’ concerns (Goulding, 2005). This seminal work was quite revolutionary in the way in which it breaks with the idea of considering qualitative research as a means for quantitative methods development by laying the foundation of a methodology that could use scientific procedures based on its own right for a rigorous theory generation. Glaser and Strauss (1967) played a significant role in legitimizing and reinforcing the credibility of qualitative research in social sciences and later the methodology becomes one of the most famous in the world that impressed many young scholars particularly nursing students (Charmaz, 2006; Birks & Mills, 2015; Goulding, 1998).

How the Theory was discovered?

Glaser and Strauss (1967) studied the phenomenon of dying in several hospitals in the united states. They examined how medical staffs and their terminally ill patients perceived the new that they are going to die and how they reacted (Charmaz, 2006). Glaser and Strauss (1967) early set aside both the logico-deductive approach and the traditional qualitative method which consisted of using preconceived ideas and previous experiences related to the area under study. They delay the literature review and initially engaged in a systematic data collection and analysis. Doing so “they gave their data explicit analytic treatment and produced theoretical analyses of the social organization and temporal order of dying. They explored analytic ideas in long conversations and exchanged preliminary notes analyzing observations in the field” (Charmaz, 2006, p.4). The theory was inductively developed and grounded in the data through a systematic process of data collection and analysis that contrasts the well-known linear process of theorizing: “we define grounded theory as the discovery of theory from data–systematically obtained and analyzed in social research” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1). Glaser and Strauss’s innovative approach works as a circular process and includes numerous guidelines as highlighted at the beginning of this paper: Delaying literature review, theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, simultaneous data collection and analysis, comparative method, memo wriitng and sorting, looking for theory emergence (Holton, 2010). Accordingly, a completed grounded theory must be powerful in terms of explanation, useful, dense, close to the data and changeable (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Further, it should be noted that these given guidelines constitute the basis of the divergent ideas between the co-founders of GTM that have led to the emergence of three schools of Grounded Theory Methodology.

From the Big Split to the Emergence of Three Schools of Grounded Theory Methodology

The history of Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) has been marked by heated debates and certain cleavages between the co-founders. This has further turned the methodology into three forms: Glaserian, Straussian and Constructivist GTM. We first get inside the big split prior to focusing on the emergence of the three schools of GTM.

Inside the big split

It is sometimes argued that Glaser and Strauss have been separated and worked independently since their successful collaboration that backs in 1967. This idea is inaccurate and a misleading one. Many years after The discovery of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss still work together and they have trained several students at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) who became later experts in the methodology (Birks & Mills, 2015).They remained teaming up during the early 1970s and became co-authors (see Holton, 2008). They published three books that extend the GTM perspective during the 1970’s (Glaser, 2016). The first one was entitled Anguish: A Case History of a Dying Trajectory (1970), the second was Status Passage: A Formal GT Theory (1971) and the third was about Chronic Illness and the Quality of Life (1975). Later, Glaser (1978) published a small book entitled Theoretical sensitivity where he brought a set of theoretical codes and Strauss (1987) published the 'Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists ' (QA), a book that mainly resulted from the workshop he did with research students particularly those interested in GTM (Bryant, 2009). At that time, everything was fine and there was no remarkable divergence between the two founders of GTM. But three years later, Anselm Strauss in collaboration with Juliet Corbin, attempted to help students without or with little knowledge about qualitative methods and GTM (Bryant, 2009). They published the ‘Basics of Qualitative Research’ (BQR) in 1990.Therefore, the ‘bifurcation’ as termed by Goulding (1999) widely came from this publication. This basically represents the flagship event that marks the split between Glaser and Strauss (Holton, 2008). Glaser was so frustrated and two years later, he gave a strong response in Basics of Grounded Theory: Emergence vs Forcing where he rejected Strauss & Corbin’s new version of GTM and viewed it as completely descriptive and contrasting the seminal work (Glaser, 1992). To confirm his disagreement, Glaser (1992) sent two personal letters to Anselm Strauss complaining against what he termed the ‘distortion’ and ‘misinterpretation’ of Grounded Theory Methodology and considers Strauss as someone who had never understood what they were doing before: this book is something “without conscience, bordering on immorality… producing simply what qualitative researchers have been doing for 60 years or more: forced, full conceptual description” (Glaser, 1992, p. 3). He then asked Strauss to withdraw the book and rebuild it on the basis of a bilateral consent with him in order to revise and correct what he had seen as contrasting 90 percent of the original version (Goulding, 1998). But Strauss (1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) had not seen a major difference between their publication and the original version of GTM. According to Bryant (2009), Anselm Strauss claimed receiving permission from Glaser by quoting some passages of theoretical sensitivity (Bryant, 2009). In opposition to Glaser’s call for withdrawing the book, Strauss and Corbin remained on their willingness to move the old version of GTM toward verification and refinement. In this respect, Glaser and Strauss ceased their collaboration and decided to work separately (Urquhart & Fernandez, 2006).

The emergence of three Schools of Grounded Theory Methodology

After the big split, two schools of GTM come out first: Glaserian grounded theory methodology known as the classical form, and the Straussian grounded theory methodology (Thornberg, 2012). From a Glaserian perspective, it is about remaining consistent with the orthodoxy form of GTM. The Methodology is what it is and should be free of any kind of remodeling. The ideal is to be faithful to the seminal work. Glaser left the academic world before Strauss died (Birks & Mills, 2015) and further strived to refine the methodology with Judith Holton in order to avoid any forthcoming publication that could refashion it in a misleading way (Glaser, 2006; 2018; Glaser & Holton, 2004). Strauss died in 1996, but his version was still ongoing and become a remodeled school with Strauss’ and Corbin (1998, 2008, 2014) successful series of publications of the Basics of Qualitative Research. These publications revealed strong differences with the Glaserian perspective. First, they broke with the dictum of delaying literature review until the emergence of the core category and advocated in favor of literature use at the outset of the research process in order to be theoretically sensitive and to find a research problem. Second, they move the coding process towards a more complex process divided into three stages: open coding, axial coding and selective coding. Axial coding has been criticized as being so excessive (Charmaz, 2006) due to its complicated use of a paradigm model that underlines the causes, conditions, strategies and consequences of the studied phenomenon. Third but later, they recognize the epistemological underpinnings of their work by highlighting a full chapter that focuses on pragmatism and symbolic interactionism (Birks & Mills, 2015). Their method of assessing a GT includes a set of criteria related to the research process and the empirical grounding of the study such as theory variation, conditions for theory variations, account process and so on (McCann & Clark, 2003). The emerging theory is also verified throughout the course of the research process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Later in the 2000s, Kathy Charmaz ‘a member of the first cohort of doctoral students in sociology at the University of California, San Francisco trained by Glaser and Strauss’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. xii), joins the debate and brings a huge contribution by developing a new version of grounded theory methodology largely inspirited from the work of her tutors but with a constructivist perspective. Charmaz (2006, 2008) challenged the idea of considering the researcher as a neutral observer who did not directly interact with participants. She states that rather than being external to the social context of the phenomenon under study, the Grounded Theorist should continuously be in interaction with the data and the participants. Contrary to the purist view, constructivist grounded theorists assume the co-construction of meanings through the researcher's and participants’ interpretations of data. Charmaz (2006, 2014) remains consistent with some of the main guidelines of the original methodology such as theoretical sampling, constant comparison method, memoing but she refines the coding process into two stages: initial coding and focused coding. She also focuses on the use of relevant literature but guards against extensive literature review until the end of the analysis process (Charmaz, 2006). Rather than adopting an inductive reasoning, constructivist grounded theorists outline the crucial role of abductive reasoning (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Charmaz, 2006). From their point of view, “ abduction is about discovering new concepts, ideas or explanations by finding surprising events, which cannot be routinely explained by pre-existing knowledge ” (Thornberg, 2012, p. 247). Through abductive reasoning, grounded theorists make forth and back between data and extant theories and provide plausible explanations by comparison and interpretation (Bryant, 2009; Charmaz, 2006). Criterion for assessing constructivist grounded theory studies include credibility, originality, usefulness and resonance (Charmaz, 2006). In sum, it must be emphasized that none of the three schools of GTM prevails over the other, they all share a common goal of generating substantive theory from data. What differentiates them lies in the epistemological backgrounds of the founders, their approach to coding process and literature use. However, while the Straussian and Constructivist GTM advocate in favor of a primary literature review, Glaser’s dictum of ‘delaying literature’ may not be suitable for historical dataset (Metsämuuronen, 2013). According to the author, applying GTM with historical data requires getting prior knowledge in the substantive area. This idea allows reminding the old debate about doing a literature review in GTM whereas a number of positions have been adopted about when and how to conduct the literature review. The Table 3 summarizes insights about the three schools of GTM and allows avoiding mistakes while conducting a GT study.

Table 3.

Making differences between GTM and true GTM.

The Three Schools of Grounded Theory Methodology
Glaserian Grounded Theory Methodology	Consistency with the Orthodoxy Form of GTMFocus on Theory Emergence
Straussian Grounded Theory Methodology	Break with the orthodoxy form of GTMRemodeled coding process with three stages: Open, axial and selective codingFocus on literature usePhilosophical assumption
Constructivist Grounded Theory Methodology	Break with the orthodoxy form of GTMRemodeled coding process with two phases: Open and focused codingFocus on literature usePhilosophical assumption
Avoiding mistakes in a grounded theory study
What about a grounded theory study in which:			Results
The researcher ignores what he means by theoretical sampling		This is not a grounded theory but a qualitative outcome
He cannot explain how theoretical saturation has been achieved				This is not a grounded theory because it is confused
He omits the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) or wrongly does it				This is not a grounded theory but a misleading theory without saturation
The memoing and sorting step (Glaser and Holton, 2004) are omitted				This is not a grounded theory because there is a lack of rigor
He early does all the literature review prior to commencing data collection and analysis				This is not a grounded theory but a biased theory
He separately collects and analyzes data, uses the common qualitative coding process. Uses content or thematic analysis to analyse data				All these are not grounded theories but traditional qualitative outcomes.
He fails to achieve a resonnable level of conceptualization				This is not a grounded theory but a descriptive qualitative outcome
The social behaviour of the phenomenon (Glaser, 2005) is not revealed				This is not a grounded theory because it is not completed

Conclusion

This paper makes an overview of the History of Grounded Theory Methodology by stressing its purpose and addressing some misleading ideas. From a broader perspective, there is no doubt about the growing body of research that intends to legitimize the methodology since its birth date during the 1960s but the way in which it is conducted may be critical due to a lack of rigor in understanding the methodological principles. Confusions about GTM and its purpose should now be out of date and we urge junior researchers to renew their endeavors in terms of making significant strides towards understanding the use of GTM’s full package of guidelines in their studies since it may be a potential tool for theory generation in management and social inquiries. Definitely, all forms of disagreement derived from the Glaserian, Straussian and Constructivist stances may be seen as a cue of maturity of the methodology rather than an obstacle (McCann & Clark, 2003). There is no reason to adopt a radical stance while choosing one of the three grounded theory approaches because despite a central issue related to the use of literature and their philosophical underpinnings, they share the same purpose of building theory from data.