So sánh phương pháp

	Lý thuyết nền tảng cổ điển so sánh	Lý thuyết nền tảng kiến tạo so sánh
Lĩnh vực	Định tính	Định tính
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	1967 (classic GT); comparative application formalised 1970s–1990s	2000s (Charmaz 2000; extended comparatively through 2006–2014)
Người khởi xướng	Barney G. Glaser & Anselm L. Strauss (classic GT); comparative design extended by Glaser	Kathy Charmaz (constructivist strand); comparative application developed in qualitative methodology literature
Loại	Qualitative theory-building design	Qualitative comparative research design
Công trình gốc	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: 978-0761973133
Tên gọi khác	Glaserian comparative grounded theory, classic GT comparative design, comparative CGT, multi-site classic grounded theory	Comparative CGT, cross-group constructivist grounded theory, comparative Charmaz grounded theory, multi-site constructivist grounded theory
Liên quan	6	6
Tóm tắt	Comparative classic grounded theory is a qualitative research design that applies Glaser and Strauss's original Glaserian grounded theory procedures across two or more deliberately selected comparison groups, settings, or time points. The constant comparative method — the analytical engine of classic GT — is extended systematically across sites so that the emerging substantive theory accounts for variation in the phenomenon across different contexts, populations, or conditions.	Comparative Constructivist Grounded Theory combines Kathy Charmaz's constructivist strand of grounded theory with an explicit comparative design, deliberately collecting and analyzing data from two or more groups, settings, or time points to build a theory that accounts for variation and similarity across contexts. The constructivist perspective treats categories and theory as co-constructed between researcher and participants rather than discovered objectively from data.