Is grounded theory objectivist or constructivist ?

Neither. Both. Barring a Matrix Moment, grounded theory is a neutral research method which can be used by anyone of any philosophical or theoretical perspective (Glaser, 2005, p.127). One excellent example of which is Vanessa Englert’s theory “Reflecting Out of Soul: A Classic Grounded Theory of Working and Living in Ashramas” which Englert developed from the perspective of an Hindu ontology (Englert, 2024).

What makes grounded theory a neutral research method?

Its design! In “Using Grounded Theory: How to Develop Theory for Managed Change” I explained:

“In developing grounded theory Glaser acknowledged the important influences of his teachers, mentors, peers and supervisors Robert K. Merton, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Hans Zetterberg, Herbert Hyman and Hannan Selvin. Throughout his research training and early career Glaser explored the meaning and uses of many different ideas and research tools. Examples of these include:

• elaboration analysis 
• reason analysis 
• property space and fourfold tables 
• consistency analysis 
• content analysis 
• matrix analysis 
• latent structure analysis 
• conceptual level 
• different types of sociological units versus process 
• interchangeability of indices, concepts and indicators 
• ecological fallacy 
• partial analysis 
• computer sorting (Glaser, 1992, p. 125).

Glaser’s brilliance as a methodological innovator lay in the way in which he developed and transcended these ideas, weaving them together into the grounded theory research method. In particular, Glaser developed the core variable model of Lazarsfeld and Thielens. This model has its basis in qualitative mathematics and relies on Lazarsfeld’s index formation model which generates concepts inductively by summing indicators. Glaser transformed the index formation model into a method to generate concepts by creating indexes with meaning. He named this the constant comparative method (Glaser, 1998, pp. 23 – 25; Glaser, 2006c)” (Scott, 2025, p. 187 – 188).

Whilst Lazersfeld and Thielens’ brilliance was in using the index formation model inductively (subverting the deductive norm of that time). Glaser’s brilliance was in creating a transcending synergy to enable researchers to generate concepts as “indexes of meaning” rather than “truths”. (1998 pp. 23 -25). Thus the grounded theory research method provides a method of generating meaning from qualitative data without prescribing how that meaning should be understood.

The emphasis of stem grounded theory (i.e. Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser 1976) is not on discovering “true” or “objective” theories, nor is it intended to present “facts” about an objective reality, and it is especially not on discovering accurate, factual description. Rather the focus is on generating hypotheses as suggestions.

To summarise: the constant comparative method enables the generation of an index of meaning. That meaning is generated by the analyst(s) in relation to the data. In not prescribing how the meaning is understood, grounded theory can be recognised as a conceptual tool that can be used by any researcher holding any ontological and any epistemological and any theoretical perspective. In relation to the title: it is not the tool that is inherently objectivist or constructivist, it is the perspective of the researcher who uses the tool that embeds a philosophical/theoretical perspective into a grounded theory study.

Whilst not explaining her reasoning, Charmaz concurs when when she writes:

“… diverse researchers can use basic grounded theory strategies such as coding, memo-writing and sampling for theory development with comparative methods because these strategies are, in many ways, transportable across epistemological and ontological gulfs, although which assumptions researchers bring to these strategies and how they use them presupposes epistemological and ontological stances” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 12)

This means that the procedures of grounded theory of:

• Open sampling
• Constant comparison (including open coding and selective coding)
• Theoretical sampling
• Theoretical saturation
• Theoretical completeness
• Memo-sorting for the theoretical code (including Charmaz’ analytic framework and Strauss’ coding paradigm)
• Theory writing
• Sampling the literature (theoretical sampling/constructing analytic framework)
• Further theory writing

can be used by all users of grounded theory be they constructivist, critical realist, post-positivist, symbolic integrationist etc. This further means that grounded theorists of any persuasion can:

1. Collect any data from their substantive area of interest/population
2. Use the analytic procedures of stem grounded theory listed above
3. Generate any shape of theory.

The points to explain by philosophical or theoretical perspective will be:

• which data is collected, in what way and the impact on the grounded theory tenet of emergence (e.g. privilege the participants to maximise the likelihood of finding the strongest patterns v. privileging the researcher’s interest and risking the relevance of the theory to participants
• the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity (their particular combination of their philosophical, theoretical, experiential and other perspectives and characteristics) and how this impacts their ability to conceptualise patterns in their data, and how their theoretical sensitivity develops over the course of the study

In “Using Grounded Theory: How to Develop Theory for Managed Change” I focus on the practical matters of how to generate relevant and useful theory whatever your perspective. Take a look with Book2Look

Copyright © 2025, Helen Scott, Grounded Solutions Ltd. All rights reserved.