FORUM : QUALITATIVE SOCIAL RESEARCH SOZIALFORSCHUNG A Constructive / ist Response to Glaser

  • Bryant A
  • 14

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • N/A

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

Recent articles on the Grounded Theory Method (GTM) have started to analyze its conceptual and philosophical foundations. In particular it has been argued that the early characterizations by GLASER and STRAUSS exhibit a scientistic and positivist orientation that is no longer tenable. In her recent contribution to the GTM literature, CHARMAZ distinguished between objectivist GTM and constructivist GTM. This drew a response from Barney GLASER in an earlier issue of FQS. What follows is a rejoinder to GLASER, offering some clarification of developments in people's understanding of this important and widely-used qualitative approach.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

  • Antony Bryant

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free