Constructivist Grounded Theory — Charmaz

Classic grounded theory, as Glaser describes it, aims to discover a theory that exists objectively in the data; the researcher is positioned as a neutral observer who lets categories emerge without imposing prior concepts. Constructivist grounded theory, by contrast, holds that the researcher and participants together construct the theory: the analyst's perspective, values, and interpretive choices shape what is seen and how it is theorised. Practically, CGT foregrounds reflexivity, uses more interpretive memo-writing, and tends to present the resulting theory as one plausible account rather than the single correct one.

No — and doing so would violate a core principle. In grounded theory, data collection and analysis are simultaneous and mutually informing. You begin coding and writing memos from your first interview, and what you learn in early analysis guides theoretical sampling decisions: who to interview next, what situations to observe, or which documents to seek. This iterative cycle is what makes the resulting theory genuinely grounded.

Saturation is reached when new data no longer add new properties or dimensions to your core categories and the relationships among categories are fully elaborated. It is assessed category by category, not globally. In practice, researchers typically find saturation emerging between 15 and 30 participants for a focused phenomenon, but complexity of the social process matters more than a fixed number. Keep a running record in your memos of what each new interview contributes; when the contributions become redundant across several consecutive cases, saturation is likely.

Charmaz recommends conducting an initial broad literature review to situate your study and justify the gap, but withholding a deep immersion in substantive theories about your specific topic until your own categories are well developed. This prevents theoretical contamination — the risk that you will see the data through existing frameworks and simply confirm rather than generate theory. The literature then re-enters as a conversation partner: you compare your emerging theory with existing concepts to show where it extends, refines, or challenges them.

CGT can engage documents, archival materials, and online data as primary sources, provided they offer sufficient richness to support iterative coding and theoretical sampling. However, the method is most powerful when the researcher can interact with participants — returning with focused questions as categories develop. Document-only studies may struggle to achieve the conceptual density that theoretical sampling with participants affords. If access to participants is impossible, grounded theory methods can still be applied, but the epistemological claim to co-construction weakens and the analyst should acknowledge this limitation explicitly.