Võrdle meetodeid

	Mitme juhtumi põhjal põhinev Straussi teoreetiline lähenemine	Konstruktivistlik põhjendatud teooria – Charmaz
Valdkond	Kvalitatiivne	Kvalitatiivne
Perekond	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Tekkeaasta	1990s (synthesis of Strauss & Corbin 1990 and multi-case design conventions)	2000s (Charmaz 2000–2006; classic GT roots 1967)
Looja	Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin (Straussian GT); multiple-case design formalized by Robert K. Yin and Kathleen Eisenhardt	Kathy Charmaz (building on Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
Tüüp	Qualitative research design and analytic strategy	Qualitative research method
Algallikas	Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage. ISBN: 978-0803932500	Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage. ISBN: 978-0761973539
Rööpnimetused	multi-case Straussian GT, Strauss-Corbin grounded theory across cases, multiple-site Straussian grounded theory, multi-case GT (Strauss & Corbin)	CGT, constructivist GT, Charmaz grounded theory, interpretive grounded theory
Seotud	6	6
Kokkuvõte	Multiple case-based Straussian grounded theory combines Strauss and Corbin's systematic coding procedures — open, axial, and selective coding — with a multiple case design in which the same grounded theory analysis is conducted across two or more purposively selected cases. The approach aims to generate a mid-range theory grounded in rich, cross-case qualitative data while capitalizing on the comparative leverage offered by multiple sites or units, ultimately producing a theory with broader scope and stronger transferability than a single-case grounded theory study.	Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) is a qualitative methodology developed by Kathy Charmaz that systematically builds mid-range theory from empirical data through iterative coding, memo-writing, and theoretical sampling. Unlike the original objectivist version by Glaser and Strauss, CGT treats both data and theory as co-constructed between researcher and participants, acknowledging the researcher's interpretive perspective as an integral part of the analytic process rather than a source of bias to be eliminated.