Порівняння методів

	Multiple Case-Based Constructivist Grounded Theory	Конструктивістська обґрунтована теорія
Галузь	Якісні методи	Якісні методи
Родина	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Рік появи	2006 (Charmaz's CGT); multi-case applications prominent from 2010s onward	2000s (Charmaz 2000–2006; classic GT roots 1967)
Автор методу	Kathy Charmaz (constructivist grounded theory); multi-case extension developed through methodological elaboration by Charmaz and subsequent scholars	Kathy Charmaz (building on Glaser & Strauss, 1967)
Тип	Qualitative research design and analytic approach	Qualitative research method
Основоположне джерело	Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage. ISBN: 978-0761973522	Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage. ISBN: 978-0761973539
Інші назви	multi-case CGT, constructivist grounded theory with multiple cases, multiple-site constructivist GT, CGT multiple case design	CGT, constructivist GT, Charmaz grounded theory, interpretive grounded theory
Пов'язані	6	6
Підсумок	Multiple case-based constructivist grounded theory (CGT) combines Kathy Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory framework with a deliberate multi-case design. The researcher collects and analyzes data from two or more purposively selected cases simultaneously, applying iterative coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling across cases to build a grounded theory that accounts for both within-case depth and cross-case variation. The resulting theory is understood as jointly constructed by researcher and participants rather than objectively discovered.	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.