Constructivist Gt

Coding language and phases

• Glaser — Substantive coding, theoretical coding, selective coding around a core category; strong emphasis on constant comparison and theoretical sampling until saturation.
• Charmaz — Initial coding (line-by-line or segment-by-segment, staying close to data) and focused coding (using the most significant codes to synthesize larger segments). Axial coding (conditional matrix, etc.) is treated cautiously—optional and not reified as a mechanical procedure.

Sensitizing concepts

• Glaser warns against premature forcing from literature or extant theory.
• Charmaz allows sensitizing concepts as starting points if their partial, provisional status is acknowledged and they do not override participants’ meanings.

Reflexivity

• Charmaz foregrounds reflexivity: researcher standpoints, interactional contexts of interviews, and power relations shape data. Glaser emphasizes researcher neutrality and theoretical sensitivity earned through coding/memoing rather than autobiography—though later Glaserian writing also discusses researcher discipline.

Social justice and critical inquiry

• Charmaz aligns CGT with critical and feminist sensibilities when researchers examine inequality, marginalization, and institutional power. Glaserian GT traditionally brackets explicit political framing in favor of emergent substance—though researchers apply Glaser across political topics.

When to choose constructivist over classic GT

Choose constructivist GT when:

• You embrace interpretive epistemology and want explicit reflexivity.
• Interview co-construction and language are central to your claims.
• You may use sensitizing concepts early with transparent caution.
• Critical/feminist lenses are integral to the inquiry.

Choose classic Glaserian GT when:

• You commit to emergence with minimal preconception and delayed substantive-area literature as data later.
• You want core category integration and theoretical sampling tightly coupled to emergent categories.
• Your institutional or personal stance aligns with classic GT texts and no-forcing discipline.

Many dissertations hybridize—justify any blend methodologically to avoid method slurring.

Charmaz’s quality criteria

Charmaz proposes four criteria for evaluating constructivist GT:

1. Credibility — Sufficient, diverse data; detailed accounts; member checks where appropriate; reflexive documentation.
2. Originality — Fresh insights, new conceptual links, meaningful reframing.
3. Resonance — Categories reflect participants’ lived experiences and ring true to audiences with stake in the topic.
4. Usefulness — Concepts work for explaining process, guiding action, or stimulating further research.

These parallel but do not duplicate Glaser’s fit, work, relevance, modifiability.

Coding procedures comparison (summary table)

Memoing and diagrams

Charmaz treats memoing as core—capturing comparisons, definitions, and emergent logic. Integrative diagrams map relationships among categories and processes.

Reporting

Write process-focused methods sections: how codes arose, how focused coding condensed themes, how interpretive choices were made. Include exemplar quotes and analytic narrative showing how claims were built.

Key references

• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.).
• Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. — Contemporary statements on CGT.
• Glaser, B. G. — Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis; Theoretical Sensitivity (for contrast).

Use this skill when users ask for Charmaz-style GT, constructivist coding, or explicit comparison to Glaser.