Paradigmatic Positioning

These labels are ideal types; hybrid stances are common.

Ontology–epistemology–methodology alignment

If you treat participant meanings as primary reality for your study (interpretive ontology/epistemology), methods should support thick description, reflexivity, and emergent analysis—not pretend to neutral brute facts.

If you adopt critical aims, include how analysis surfaces ideology, marginalization, or structural conditions.

Guba & Lincoln’s paradigm framework

Naturalistic/constructivist inquiry historically challenged positivist criteria, proposing trustworthiness over narrow replication. Use this lineage explicitly when defending qualitative rigor to mixed audiences.

Glaser’s position (use carefully in writing)

Glaser’s classic GT is often read as having objectivist/realist tendencies: theory is discovered in data through disciplined procedures, not invented arbitrarily. Some scholars debate labels; when you write, define what you mean rather than relying on sloganized “objectivist GT.”

Charmaz’s constructivist position

Kathy Charmaz’s constructivist GT emphasizes co-construction of data and researcher interpretation as inevitable. Rigor includes reflexivity and partial perspectives, while still demanding systematic comparison.

Writing a philosophical positioning section

Include:

1. Stance statement: 1–2 sentences naming paradigm influences.
2. Ontology/epistemology: what counts as data/knowledge in this study.
3. Methodological consequences: why interviews/ethnography/GT fits.
4. Rigor framework: credibility/trustworthiness/fit-work-relevance, etc.
5. Researcher role: how positionality matters.

Avoid long textbook summaries; apply philosophy to decisions.

Common student pitfalls

• Declaring constructivism while writing purely realist “proof” language.
• Listing paradigms without linking to methods.
• Treating philosophy as boilerplate unrelated to analysis.

Grounded theory paragraph template (adapt)

“This study adopts a Glaserian classic grounded theory stance, treating emergent categories as earned through constant comparison while acknowledging the researcher’s disciplined interpretive work. Rigor is evaluated through fit, work, relevance, and modifiability, complemented by audit trail practices supporting dependability.”

Checklist

• Ontology/epistemology/methodology coherent.
• GT variant named (classic vs constructivist vs other).
• Rigor criteria match paradigm.
• Positionality/reflexivity integrated where constructivist/critical.
• Language of claims matches philosophical stance.

References (starting points)

• Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. “Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (in Denzin & Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative Research editions).
• Charmaz, K. Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.).
• Glaser, B. G. Doing Grounded Theory — researcher role and emergence.