Interpretive Classic Grounded Theory

Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) foregrounds the co-construction of data between researcher and participant and treats categories as constructed rather than discovered. Interpretive classic GT retains Glaser's emphasis on emergence and inductive discovery but adds reflexive transparency about the researcher's interpretive influence without fully abandoning the language of discovery. In practice the difference is one of degree of epistemological explicitness rather than a sharp methodological break.

Yes — the classic GT injunction against extensive pre-study literature review is maintained. The interpretivist stance acknowledges the researcher's existing knowledge as a sensitising resource, but does not license an upfront theoretical framework. A substantive literature review is typically conducted after the core categories have emerged, to situate the theory relative to existing work.

Classic GT does not specify a fixed sample size; adequacy is determined by theoretical saturation — the point at which new data add no further conceptual density to the emerging categories. In practice, 15–30 interviews is a common range for substantive grounded theories, but saturation may come earlier in narrowly scoped phenomena or later in complex social processes.

Open coding is the initial, exploratory pass through data in which every incident or statement is labelled with a concept — typically using in-vivo language from participants. Focused coding then selects and applies the most analytically powerful codes to larger swaths of data, beginning to build the more abstract categories from which the theory emerges. The interpretivist stance requires memos at both stages to document the reasoning behind conceptual choices.

Software can manage and retrieve coded data efficiently, but the intellectual work of constant comparison, memo-writing, and category integration must be performed by the researcher. Classic GT purists (following Glaser) are cautious about software-driven coding because it may encourage surface counting rather than deep conceptual comparison; however, tools used as organisational aids rather than analytic substitutes are acceptable.