Grounded Theory (GT) is an innovative research methodology, consisting of three prevailing traditions: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. Despite arising from the same root, and sharing a number of the original methodological techniques, Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT have nevertheless diverged to such an extent that they are neither homogenous nor interchangeable methodologies. They are differentiated by contrasting philosophical frameworks and conflicting methodological directives. Through a careful analysis of the literature, the authors propose that the incongruity of the three GT traditions hinges on three principal and paramount demarcations: Firstly, their contending coding procedures; secondly, their opposing philosophical positions; and thirdly, their conflicting use of literature. The authors argue that these three areas of contention represent the quintessential distinction between the three GT traditions. Accordingly, this article will illustrate and contrast the contending coding conventions, uncover the underlying philosophical positions, and explore the contrasting uses of literature embedded within Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT.

There are very few articles, which track the history of Grounded Theory (GT) methodology from its tentative conception to its present divisions. This journal article addresses the dearth by tracing the history of GT methodology from its conception in the 1960’s, discussing the context of its composition, character, and contribution. Subsequently, the article follows the maturation of GT which is characterised by a series of contentious and, at times, antagonistic academic debates. The crux of these debates centres on disputes over core tenets of GT and have resulted in three dominant and divergent configurations of the GT methodology: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. These factions can often create confusion for the researcher wishing to embark on a GT study. However, an examination of the history of the GT methodology sheds light on the logic of these schisms.

No abstract

No abstract