A new explanation for the conflict between constructivist and objectivist grounded theory

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to produce a new explanation for the conflict between constructivist grounded theory and objectivist grounded theory. Grounded theory (GT) has drawn much attention because it enables qualitative researchers to produce theoretical explanations about what is going on. Since Glaser and Strauss invented the term "grounded theory," there have been debates about what grounded theory is and what are its components. In this article, epistemological, ontological, and methodological beliefs about constructivist and objectivist grounded theory are explained and compared, and definitional analytical aspects of the two approaches are addressed by emphasizing their paradigmatic roots. As a result, it was concluded that objectivistic grounded theory is an agreement between positivism and the naturalistic approach advocating that researchers can be value laden but must stay as objective as possible. On the other hand, it is proposed that constructivist grounded theory is a value-laden logical operation in producing theoretical explanations.