Porównaj metody

	Multiple Case-Based Classic Grounded Theory	Konstruktywistyczna teoria ugruntowana
Dziedzina	Metody jakościowe	Metody jakościowe
Rodzina	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Rok powstania	1967 (foundational); multi-case adaptation developed through 1970s–1990s	2000s (Charmaz 2000–2006; classic GT roots 1967)
Twórca	Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss (foundational); Glaser extended for comparative multi-case contexts	Kathy Charmaz (building on Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
Typ	Qualitative inductive theory-generation design	Qualitative research method
Źródło pierwotne	Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine. ISBN: 978-0202302607	Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage. ISBN: 978-0761973539
Inne nazwy	multi-case CGT, classic GT with multiple cases, comparative grounded theory, Glaserian multi-case grounded theory	CGT, constructivist GT, Charmaz grounded theory, interpretive grounded theory
Pokrewne	6	6
Podsumowanie	Multiple case-based classic grounded theory (CGT) extends Glaser and Strauss's original inductive framework by grounding theory development simultaneously across two or more purposefully selected cases. Rather than studying a single site or participant group, the researcher treats each case as a distinct analytic unit while using the constant comparative method to draw cross-case theoretical insights. The goal is the same as in all classic GT: emergence of a substantive theory that explains the main concern of participants — but the multi-case structure broadens the conceptual base and supports more robust theoretical abstraction.	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.