Grounded theory methodology - has it become a movement?

There is an ongoing debate regarding the nature of grounded theory, and an examination of many studies claiming to follow grounded theory indicates a wide range of approaches. In 1967 Glaser and Strauss's ''The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research'' was published and represented a breakthrough in qualitative research ; it offered methodological consensus and systematic strategies for qualitative research practice. The defining characteristics of grounded theory include: simultaneous involvement in data collection and analysis, construction of analytic codes and categories from data (not from preconceived logical hypotheses), use of the constant comparative method/analysis that involves making comparisons during all steps of the analysis, developing theory during each step of data collection and analysis, memo-writing to elaborate categories, etc., theoretical sampling aiming toward theory construction (not representativeness), and conducting a literature review after performing the analysis and developing theory. When developing a theory, identification of a core category is central for the integration of other categories into a conceptual framework or theory grounded in the data. Most grounded theories are substantive theories because they address delimited problems in specific substantive areas. Another aspect that is important to highlight is that the problem that is focused on in grounded theory is called the main concern; the solution to this main concern is hence the core category. These are the foundations of Glaserian grounded theory, sometimes also called classic grounded theory. About 20 years later Strauss (1987) moved grounded theory toward verification and, together with Corbin as a co-author, this direction was furthered. Strauss and Corbin's (1990) version of grounded theory also favours new technical procedures rather than emphasising comparative methods. This direction in grounded theory is sometimes called Straussarian grounded theory. Dey's (Dey, 1999) research offers a variation on grounded theory. While his approach is grounded in the Glaserian version, had borows from Strauss and other researchers' approaches when it fits his purpose. By 1990 grounded theory was critiqued for its positivistic assumptions, as it had gained acceptance from quantitative researchers. However, some researchers moved grounded theory away from the positivism of Glaserian and Straussarian grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978). Charmaz is one of these researchers. She moved from conceptual theory in grounded theory towards a constructivist mode of grounded theory. Charmaz retains most of the defined characteristics, but takes a more subjective and reflexive stance. The outcome of a constructivist grounded theory is presented as …