Straussian Grounded Theory — Strauss & Corbin Systematic Approach

The primary difference is procedural structure. Glaserian GT favours a more open, emergent process where the analyst reads data broadly and allows categories to surface without a predetermined coding scheme. Straussian GT prescribes three explicit coding levels — open, axial, and selective — and uses a paradigm model to specify causal conditions, context, strategies, and consequences. Glaser argued that the paradigm model imposes a template on data rather than letting theory emerge; Strauss and Corbin countered that explicit procedures make the analysis more teachable, rigorous, and transparent. The choice often depends on the researcher's epistemological stance and institutional context.

Purposive sampling selects participants before data collection based on characteristics judged relevant to the research question. Theoretical sampling is driven by the emerging analysis: after each coding cycle, the researcher identifies which concepts need more development and then seeks data — from new participants, new settings, or new documents — specifically to elaborate those underdeveloped concepts. Theoretical sampling is therefore iterative and data-driven, whereas purposive sampling is fixed and design-driven.

Saturation is reached when new data no longer add new properties, dimensions, or relationships to any of the major categories in the analysis. In practice this means conducting two or three additional interviews or observations after you suspect saturation, finding no conceptual surprises, and documenting this explicitly. Saturation is a theoretical claim supported by evidence, not simply a fatigue-based stopping rule. Strauss and Corbin recommend that each major category and its sub-properties be explicitly checked for saturation before concluding the study.

Yes. The method is not restricted to interviews. Strauss and Corbin explicitly include documents, field observations, and audio-visual material as data sources. Theoretical sampling can extend to archival documents or online texts. The key requirement is that the data must be rich enough to support line-by-line coding and conceptual development. Documents that are highly formulaic or sparse in contextual detail may produce thin categories that are difficult to saturate.

Strauss and Corbin's version sits within a post-positivist rather than a strictly constructivist stance: it assumes that careful systematic analysis can yield a theory that approximates the social processes operating in a setting. Researchers who hold a fully constructivist or interpretivist epistemology often find Charmaz's Constructivist Grounded Theory a better fit, as it explicitly treats categories as jointly constructed by researcher and participant rather than discovered in the data.