نظریۀ زمینه‌ای در گسترۀ پژوهش‌های اجتماعی: سفر از عینیت تا ژرفای پسا‌عینیت

Abstract
Although frequent in qualitative research, the history and internal diversity of Grounded Theory has been subject to misconception and confusion. The present study addresses the problematic of disregard for variation in constructs and internal complexity, and treats Grounded Theory as if it were one homogeneous entity. This research aims to determine the variations of Grounded Theory and explain the significance of correctly considering the evolution of Grounded Theory in social research. Many, if not all, researchers uncritically choose a particular variant of Grounded Theory without considering the implications of the philosophy, coding techniques, and analytical strategy. The central research question explores the evolution of Grounded Theory in the various stages of qualitative research and the significance and intricacy of the interrelations among the predominant variants of Grounded Theory. The hypothesis to this question professes that Grounded Theory has shifted from an objectivist, discovery-oriented method to an eclectic family of frameworks inspired by interpretive, constructivist, and post-structural theories. The research takes an analytical and interpretive stance, employing an inductive and comparative study of the foundational texts, methodological discussions, and historical literature. The study examines the evolution of qualitative research across four major periods and analyzes six major versions of Grounded Theory: Classic (Glaser), Straussian (Strauss & Corbin), Modified (M-GTA), Dimensional Analysis (Schatzman), Constructivist (Charmaz), and Situational Analysis (Clarke). The main findings show that each version reflects a different epistemological stance, level of researcher involvement, coding strategy, and view of theory development. The conclusion emphasizes that understanding these differences is essential for selecting an appropriate methodological approach and for improving the quality and credibility of qualitative research. This genealogical perspective also helps researchers position their work within the broader landscape of contemporary qualitative inquiry. 
Keywords: Qualitative Research Methods, Grounded Theory, Genealogy, Interpretive-Critical Turn.
 
1. Introduction
Grounded Theory has become one of the most influential qualitative research traditions in the social sciences. Since its introduction by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, it has provided researchers with a systematic way to build theory directly from empirical data. Unlike quantitative research, which often begins with fixed hypotheses, Grounded Theory starts from the field and aims to discover concepts, categories, and processes as they naturally emerge. Over the past century, qualitative research has passed through several intellectual shifts from early ethnography to modern interpretive and post-structural approaches. These shifts have reshaped the philosophical foundations of Grounded Theory and given rise to multiple versions of it, each with its own assumptions, coding procedures, and epistemological stance.
This article examines the historical evolution of Grounded Theory and explains how it transformed from a single method into a family of approaches. It highlights the major paradigmatic turns in qualitative inquiry and shows how different schools of thought including positivism, symbolic interactionism, pragmatism, constructivism, and post-structuralism have influenced the development of the method. The paper presents a genealogy of Grounded Theory by comparing its classic, evolved, modified, dimensional, constructivist, and situational analysis versions. The purpose is to clarify the similarities and differences among these approaches and explain how each version deals with issues such as coding, theoretical sensitivity, the role of the researcher, and the use of prior literature. This extended abstract summarizes the main arguments and findings of the study.
 
2. Materials and Methods
The article is based on a qualitative, interpretive review of theoretical literature related to Grounded Theory. Rather than conducting fieldwork, the study uses an analytical-interpretive method to examine books, articles, and historical documents written by key scholars such as Glaser, Strauss, Corbin, Charmaz, Clarke, Schatzman, and others. The aim of the review is not to produce a new substantive Grounded Theory but to trace the intellectual development of the method across different periods of qualitative research.
The review follows an inductive and comparative logic by first examining the historical context of qualitative research across four major periods the traditional, modern, interpretive and critical, and postmodern or contemporary eras, and then analyzing how Grounded Theory emerged in the modern period and gradually expanded and diversified in subsequent stages. Through this historical lens, the study compares the major versions of Grounded Theory, including Glaser’s Classic Grounded Theory, Strauss and Corbin’s Straussian or Evolved approach, Kinoshita’s Modified Grounded Theory (M-GTA), Schatzman’s Dimensional Analysis, Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory, and Clarke’s Situational Analysis, highlighting how each version reflects different methodological and philosophical developments within qualitative inquiry.
For each version, the study compares its assumptions regarding coding techniques, theoretical sampling, constant comparison, role of the researcher, use of prior concepts, and the level of interpretation allowed in analysis. Through conceptual comparison, the paper identifies key divergences and convergences that shaped Grounded Theory over time. This methodological framework allows the article to provide a comprehensive genealogy of the method. 
 
3. Data
The “data” of the study consist of written theoretical sources rather than empirical interviews or observations. These textual materials include:
• Foundational books such as The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967);
• Methodological handbooks by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998, 2015);
• Glaser’s later writings defending classic Grounded Theory (1978, 1992, 1998);
• Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory (2006);
• Clarke’s works on Situational Analysis (2003–2018);
• Schatzman’s Dimensional Analysis framework (1991);
• Critical and historical analyses from qualitative methodologists such as Denzin and Lincoln.
These sources were systematically compared to extract conceptual themes regarding the evolution of Grounded Theory. Each source offers unique perspectives on how researchers should treat data, how they should code, and what kind of theory they should aim to produce. The comparison of these sources enables the article to show how Grounded Theory moved from an objectivist, discovery-oriented logic toward increasingly interpretive and constructivist forms. The data highlight the epistemological tension between neutrality versus involvement of the researcher, strict versus flexible coding, and inductive versus adductive reasoning.
 
4. Discussion
The findings demonstrate that Grounded Theory is not a single unified method but a diverse methodological family. The discussion section highlights several major insights:
Although the two scholars jointly introduced Grounded Theory, they soon diverged. Glaser remained committed to a post-positivist tradition influenced by the Columbia School. His classic approach emphasizes objectivity, minimal use of prior literature, and the belief that concepts “emerge” from data. Strauss, however, was influenced by symbolic interactionism and pragmatism at the University of Chicago. His approach gradually became more interpretive, more structured (especially with axial coding), and more open to theoretical frameworks.
Kinoshita’s Modified Grounded Theory criticized the rigidity of both Glaser and Strauss and argued that the researcher must actively interpret data using analytical worksheets. Schatzman’s Dimensional Analysis pushed the method into a more natural analytic form by focusing on dimensions rather than categories, encouraging researchers to examine all components of a situation rather than searching for a single “core process”.
Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory rejected the idea of neutral emergence and emphasized that theory is co-constructed by the researcher and participants. It adopted a postmodern and interpretive stance, arguing that meanings, power relations, and social positions shape all stages of research. This shift aligned Grounded Theory with the broader interpretive and critical turns in qualitative research.
Clarke integrated post- structural ideas especially those of Foucault, Deleuze, and Guattari into Grounded Theory. She introduced new analytical tools such as situational maps, social worlds/arenas maps, and positional maps. This version goes beyond human actors and includes non-human elements, discourses, institutions, and power relations. It allows for the analysis of complexity, heterogeneity, and contradictions, offering a way to study contemporary social conditions that cannot be reduced to a single core category.
Across the decades, Grounded Theory has shifted from objectivist discovery to interpretive construction. Researchers are now seen as part of the research situation, not detached observers. The later approaches acknowledge the importance of context, discourse, power, and social positioning in shaping theory. Instead of searching for universal processes, newer versions focus on situational knowledge, multiple realities, and context-dependent interpretations.
 
5. Conclusion
This article shows that Grounded Theory has undergone deep methodological transformations since its creation. It evolved from a single method introduced by Glaser and Strauss into a diverse set of approaches, each shaped by different philosophical traditions. The genealogy reveals that there is no one “correct” version of Grounded Theory; instead, each version provides tools suitable for specific research goals and epistemological preferences. Classic Grounded Theory suits researchers who value systematic comparison and minimal prior assumptions. The Straussian approach is useful for those who need structured coding and clear analytic procedures. Modified Grounded Theory and Dimensional Analysis offer flexible analytic strategies for capturing complexity. Constructivist Grounded Theory is ideal for studies focusing on meaning making and co-construction. Finally, Situational Analysis is suitable for researchers interested in power, discourse, and complex social ecologies. 
Overall, the evolution of Grounded Theory mirrors the broader shifts in qualitative research from objectivity to interpretation, from simplicity to complexity, and from fixed structures to fluid, situational perspectives. Understanding this genealogy helps researchers choose the most appropriate version for their purposes and strengthens methodological clarity in qualitative research.