Repository logo
 

Choosing a Methodological Path: Reflections on the Constructivist Turn

dc.contributor.authorBreckenridge, Jenna
dc.contributor.authorJones, Derek
dc.contributor.authorElliott, Ian
dc.contributor.authorNicol, Margaret
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-19T13:16:29Z
dc.date.available2018-06-19T13:16:29Z
dc.date.issued2012-06
dc.description.abstractResearchers deciding to use grounded theory are faced with complex decisions regarding which method or version of grounded theory to use: Classic, straussian, feminist or constructivist grounded theory. Particularly for beginning PhD researchers, this can prove challenging given the complexities of the inherent philosophical debates and the ambiguous and conflicting use of grounded theory versions within popular literature. The aim of this article is to demystify the differences between classic and constructivist grounded theory, presenting a critique of constructivist grounded theory that is rooted in the learning experiences of the first author as she grappled with differing perspectives during her own PhD research.
dc.description.eprintid2840
dc.description.facultydiv_BaM
dc.description.facultysch_occ
dc.description.ispublishedpub
dc.description.number1
dc.description.volume11
dc.format.extent64-71
dc.identifierER2840
dc.identifier.citationBreckenridge, J., Jones, D., Elliott, I. & Nicol, M. (2012) Choosing a Methodological Path: Reflections on the Constructivist Turn. The Grounded Theory Review, 11 (1), pp. 64-71.
dc.identifier.urihttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/2840
dc.relation.ispartofThe Grounded Theory Review
dc.titleChoosing a Methodological Path: Reflections on the Constructivist Turn
dc.typearticle
qmu.authorBreckenridge, Jenna
qmu.authorElliott, Ian
qmu.authorNicol, Margaret

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ChoosingaMethodologicalPathVol111.pdf
Size:
30.9 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format