Grounded Theory Method (GTM) and the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS): a critical analysis of their differences

Abstract

This paper addresses some important differences between Grounded Theory Method (GTM) and the Abductive Research Strategy (ARS). The early parts of the paper review Grounded Theory Method – both Glaser and Strauss’s (Corbin’s) Objectivist Grounded Theory Method (OGTM) and Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory Method (CGTM) – and Blaikie’s Abductive Research Strategy (ARS). It then discusses three distinctive differences between GTM (OGTM and, in particular, CGTM) and the ARS. While the first difference deals with the ontological and epistemological assumptions adopted, the second discusses the issues of scientific accounts and everyday accounts, and the third is about the problems of technical language and lay language. The aim of the paper is to reduce possible misunderstandings about the relationship between GTM, in particular, CGTM and the ARS.

Keywords:

• Grounded Theory Method
• Abductive Research Strategy
• methods
• methodology
• qualitative research

Acknowledgments

I am especially indebted to Dr Norman Blaikie for reading and editing this paper as well as giving me some very useful comments and suggestions to further improve many drafts of this paper. Four anonymous referees have provided many valuable comments, leading to significant improvements of the paper.

Notes

1. ‘Social constructivism' usually refers to a psychological idea in which individuals are seen to construct their own realities, while ‘social constructionism' is sociological as it involves shared (intersubjective) constructions (Blaikie, 2007, pp. 22–23; Crotty, 1998, pp. 57–59; Schwandt, 1994, p. 127; Scott & Marshall, 2009, p. 698). While Charmaz's (2000) did not expound explicitly the relationship between the use of the term ‘constructivist' in her version of grounded theory and the development of the idea of ‘the self' in her empirical work, she seems to hold a constructivist view (Charmaz, 1997, 2006, pp. 146–149). Hence, I use ‘constructivist' in reference to her position but prefer Crotty's (1998, p. 58) view that ‘constructionist' is more appropriate for social constructions. This distinction makes Charmaz's grounded theory and the ARS more obvious.

2. Reactions to the ideas of ARS have still to appear in the literature. My view is based on discussions with practicing qualitative researchers with whom I have discussed it in my university and at local and international conferences where I have presented papers related to it.

3. See Walker and Myrick (2006) for a detailed discussion about the differences between the Glaserian and Straussian approaches.

4. See Charmaz's (2000, 2006, 2008, p. 470, 2009, pp. 137–145) for a detailed discussion of the differences between the two versions of grounded theory.

5. The method of abductive logic was originally used to generate hypotheses in the natural sciences (Blaikie, 1993, pp. 162–168, 2007, pp. 58–59; Peirce, 1934, pp. 121–127; Willer, 1967). However, it is now being used as a method of theory construction in interpretive social science (Blaikie, 2007, pp. 88–89, 2000, p. 114).

6. See Blaikie (1993, pp. 176–193), for a review of their ideas.

7. See Ong (2005, pp. 140–160) for a review of how social actors construct typification and social scientists construct ideal types.

8. See Blaikie (2007, pp. 88–104, 2010, p. 92).

9. See Dunne (2011) for the benefits of conducting an early literature review before commencing data collection and analysis in qualitative research which aims to generate grounded theory. This prior literature review keeps in mind that a researcher should ‘be self aware and be able to appreciate other theories without imposing them on the data’ (p. 117).

10. For a review of the varieties of interpretivism, see Schwandt (1994).

11. See Pidgeon and Henwood (2004, p. 628), Charmaz (2000, pp. 272–281), Corbin and Strauss (2008, p. 9), and Charmaz (2008, pp. 468–470).

12. For a review of these authors' ideas, see Blaikie (2007, pp. 88–104, 2010, pp. 89–92).

13. See Blaikie (2007, pp. 90–91) for a detailed discussion of this idea.