Interpretive Straussian Grounded Theory
Also known as: Straussian GT (interpretivist), interpretivist grounded theory, Strauss-Corbin grounded theory, systematic grounded theory
Interpretive Straussian grounded theory combines the systematic coding procedures developed by Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin with an interpretivist epistemological stance. It uses open, axial, and selective coding — structured around a paradigm model of conditions, actions, and consequences — to inductively build a substantive theory from qualitative data, while acknowledging that the researcher actively constructs meaning rather than discovering pre-existing facts.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use interpretive Straussian grounded theory when your research goal is to build a substantive theory that explains a poorly understood social process or phenomenon — not merely to describe it. It is appropriate when existing theories are absent or inadequate, when participants' own meanings and actions are central, and when the researcher accepts and foregrounds their interpretive role. Typical data sources are interviews and observations; a minimum of 15–25 participants is common, though theoretical saturation — not a fixed number — is the criterion for sufficiency. Do not use this approach if you need a theory-neutral descriptive account (choose phenomenology or thematic analysis instead), if an established theory already adequately explains the phenomenon (quantitative testing would be more efficient), or if your epistemological stance is strictly positivist (classic Glaserian grounded theory insists on greater researcher neutrality).
Strengths & limitations
- Produces mid-range substantive theory grounded in participants' own perspectives rather than imported from existing literature.
- The structured coding sequence (open → axial → selective) provides a transparent, teachable analytic pathway that reviewers can follow.
- Theoretical sampling ensures data collection is directly driven by emerging analytical needs, maximising relevance.
- Integrates well with an interpretivist stance that acknowledges researcher subjectivity without abandoning methodological rigour.
- Widely accepted in health sciences, management, education, and social work, with an extensive methodological literature to support novice researchers.
- The paradigm model imposes a particular relational structure (conditions → strategies → consequences) that may not suit all phenomena or disciplines.
- Requires sustained concurrent data collection and analysis over an extended period — resource-intensive compared to fixed-design approaches.
- Theoretical saturation is difficult to judge and is contested in the literature; researchers may stop prematurely or collect far more data than necessary.
- The interpretivist framing creates tension with the original Straussian claim of systematic, verifiable procedures — the philosophical commitments require explicit resolution in the study design.
Frequently asked
How does Straussian grounded theory differ from Glaserian (classic) grounded theory?
The core difference is in analytic procedure and epistemological assumptions. Glaser insists that theory should emerge without imposing pre-specified coding frameworks — he rejects the paradigm model as forcing data into a fixed template. Strauss and Corbin argue that structured coding procedures (open, axial, selective) and the paradigm model are necessary for systematic analysis. In practice, Straussian GT is more procedurally explicit and verifiable; Glaserian GT demands that the researcher enter the field with minimal prior theoretical commitments.
What does 'interpretive' add to Straussian grounded theory?
The 'interpretive' qualifier signals an epistemological commitment: the researcher acknowledges that their disciplinary background, theoretical sensitivity, and relationship with participants actively shape what categories emerge and how the resulting theory is constructed. This contrasts with a naive view in which the theory simply emerges from the data. In an interpretive Straussian study, reflexivity — the researcher's ongoing examination of their own influence — is treated as a methodological resource rather than a source of bias to be eliminated.
How many participants do I need?
Straussian grounded theory does not specify a fixed sample size; the criterion is theoretical saturation — the point at which new data no longer generate new categories or challenge existing ones. In practice this often means 15–25 in-depth interviews for a moderately scoped phenomenon, but some studies require more or fewer depending on data richness and the complexity of the phenomenon. Planning for at least 15 participants and documenting saturation decisions explicitly is advisable.
Can I use Straussian grounded theory if I already have a theoretical framework in mind?
An existing framework can inform your theoretical sensitivity and sensitizing concepts — Strauss and Corbin explicitly allow for this. However, if the framework predetermines your categories or hypotheses, you are no longer doing grounded theory; you are doing deductive qualitative research. The test is whether you remain genuinely open to categories and relationships that challenge or supersede your starting framework.
Is the paradigm model mandatory?
Within Straussian grounded theory, the paradigm model is the canonical tool for axial coding, but Corbin's later revisions (2008, 2015) softened its prescriptive status. Some interpretive Straussian researchers use it as a heuristic rather than a rigid template, adapting it where it does not fit the phenomenon. Departures should be justified explicitly in the methods section.
Sources
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage. ISBN: 978-0803932517
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1412906449
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Interpretive Straussian Grounded Theory. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/qualitative/interpretive-straussian-grounded-theory
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Grounded TheoryQualitative Research↔ compare
- Interpretive classic grounded theoryQualitative↔ compare
- Interpretive Constructivist Grounded TheoryQualitative↔ compare
- Narrative InquiryQualitative Research↔ compare
- PhenomenologyQualitative↔ compare
- Thematic AnalysisQualitative Research↔ compare