Grounded Theory Analysis: Key Differences Between Glaserian and Straussian Approaches

Grounded theory (GT) is a qualitative research methodology for developing theories directly from data, without preconceived hypotheses. It originated in the 1960s from sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. Over time, their collaboration led to a split, resulting in two prominent variants: Glaserian GT (emphasizing Glaser's purist, data-driven approach) and Straussian GT (Strauss's more structured, collaborative version, often adapted by Juliet Corbin). Below, I'll outline the core differences to help with your analysis. These distinctions are based on foundational texts like Glaser's Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) and Strauss & Corbin's Basics of Qualitative Research (1990, 1998 editions).

1. Philosophical Foundations and Goals

• Glaserian GT: Rooted in symbolic interactionism but prioritizes emergence—theory must "emerge" purely from the data without researcher imposition. The goal is a substantive or formal theory that's parsimonious, generalizable, and accounts for variation in behavior (the "main concern" of actors in the data). Glaser views GT as a general methodology applicable beyond sociology, emphasizing trust in the data's natural flow.


• Straussian GT: Also draws from symbolic interactionism but incorporates pragmatism and a more interpretive stance. The goal is to build dense, detailed theories that explain processes, often with an emphasis on practical application (e.g., in nursing or education). It allows for more researcher influence to "fill in" data gaps.

2. Coding Process

• Glaserian GT: Uses a single, fluid process of substantive and theoretical coding. Start with open coding (line-by-line or incident-by-incident to generate concepts), then move to selective coding around a core category. Avoids rigid procedures; coding is intuitive and emerges as you write memos. Glaser warns against "forcing" data—e.g., no preconceived categories.


• Straussian GT: Employs a more systematic, three-stage coding paradigm: open coding (initial breakdown into categories), axial coding (reassembling data around a causal-conditions-phenomenon-context-intervention-consequences framework), and selective coding (integrating into a storyline). This "coding paradigm" provides structure but can feel prescriptive, which Glaser critiques as leading to "overcoding" or preconceived structures.

3. Role of Literature and Preconceptions

• Glaserian GT: Literature review is delayed until after the core category emerges to avoid biasing the data. Researchers should enter with "no preconceptions" (though Glaser acknowledges theoretical sensitivity from experience). The focus is on the data generating the theory, not the reverse.


• Straussian GT: Encourages early literature review and integration to contextualize findings. Researchers actively draw on existing theories to refine concepts, viewing preconceptions as a strength for deeper analysis. This makes it more accessible for applied fields but risks contaminating the "grounded" aspect.

4. Sampling and Data Collection

• Glaserian GT: Theoretical sampling is central—collect data based on emerging concepts until theoretical saturation (no new insights). It's flexible; stop when the theory "saturates" the main concern. Sample size is determined by the data, not quotas.


• Straussian GT: Also uses theoretical sampling but within the structured coding framework. Saturation is achieved by verifying relationships in the paradigm model. It often involves more deliberate strategies, like purposive sampling for diverse cases.

5. Theoretical Output and Writing

• Glaserian GT: Produces a conceptual theory with a core variable explaining the phenomenon. Writing is conceptual and abstract, using gerunds (e.g., "resisting change") for processes. Memos are key for integrating ideas without over-elaborating.


• Straussian GT: Yields process-oriented models, often visualized as diagrams (e.g., conditional matrices). Theories are more descriptive and conditional, emphasizing strategies and consequences. Collaboration is encouraged, making it suitable for teams.

Practical Tips for Your Analysis

• If you're aiming for a purist, emergent theory (e.g., discovering unexpected patterns in interviews or observations), lean Glaserian—focus on constant comparison and memos to let categories arise naturally.


• For a more guided, applicable theory (e.g., in interdisciplinary work), Straussian's structure can help organize complex data, but watch for over-structuring.


• Common Pitfall: Hybrids exist (e.g., Charmaz's constructivist GT), but sticking to one variant ensures rigor. Test your emerging theory against the data iteratively.


• Resources: Read Glaser's The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967, co-authored) for basics, then Doing Grounded Theory (1998) for Glaserian depth, and Strauss & Corbin for the alternative.