Methoden vergelijken

	Vergelijkende Straussiaanse Grounded Theory	Constructivist Grounded Theory
Vakgebied	Kwalitatief	Kwalitatief
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	1967 (discovery); systematic Straussian procedures codified 1990/1998	2000s (Charmaz 2000–2006; classic GT roots 1967)
Grondlegger	Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin (Straussian GT); comparative extension built on Glaser & Strauss (1967)	Kathy Charmaz (building on Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
Type	Qualitative comparative research design	Qualitative research method
Oorspronkelijke bron	Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0803959408	Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage. ISBN: 978-0761973539
Aliassen	Strauss-Corbin comparative GT, comparative systematic grounded theory, multi-site Straussian GT, comparative grounded theory (Straussian)	CGT, constructivist GT, Charmaz grounded theory, interpretive grounded theory
Verwant	6	6
Samenvatting	Comparative Straussian Grounded Theory applies the systematic open–axial–selective coding framework of Strauss and Corbin across two or more purposively selected contexts, groups, or sites to generate theory that explains both within-context processes and cross-context variation. The constant comparative method — the analytic engine first described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) — is elevated to a deliberate design-level strategy, allowing researchers to build mid-range theory that accounts for how social processes unfold differently under varying conditions.	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.