Análisis del estado actual de cierre de brechas y metodología de

GTM has been subject to continuous development since its origination in the 1960s in the United States. This led to the development of three distinct versions of GT that vary in their philosophical underpinnings:

 Glaser and Strauss' (such as 1967, 1978) 'classical/traditional GTM',

 Strauss and Corbin's (such as 1990, 1998) 'evolved GTM', and

The Classical GTM

Grounded theory was first articulated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a general qualitative methodology that seeks to generate theory through inductive analysis of data. Their influential work emphasises that the researcher should start collecting data with a 'blank mind'. This means that data-collection is initiated without reviewing literature to avoid preconceptions, and thus ensure an inductive approach to theory- building. This original version of GT, therefore, suggests that theory is contained in the collected data and just needs to be 'discovered. This 'discovery' nature of this classical GT approach assumes "the researcher uncovers something that is already there" (Charmaz, 2008, p. 45). This implies that the researcher should somehow take a passive stance during data analysis; thereby allowing the theory to emerge from the empirical data, without any previous theoretical input that might be of little relevance. According to this stance, the researcher only has to discover the theory inherent in the data by means of appropriate methods and inductive analysis. This perspective, therefore, assumes that different researchers would make same observations to facts in the data and reach same conclusions, as the theory will eventually become apparent to every researcher in some form of objective reality.

Thus, despite the qualitative nature of the classical GTM, it has been criticised by many scholars to remain close to positivism and objectivism paradigms (see for example, Pidgeon 1996; Bryant, 2003; Charmaz, 2008; Reichertz, 2010). However in recent writings by Glaser, he argued that classical GTM does not necessarily assume the objectivity of the researcher, instead the rigorous application of the methodology, for example through writing memos and constant comparisons of incidents, plays a crucial role in revealing biases and enabling the researcher to take corrective actions; thereby reducing as much variation in the data as possible (Glaser 1998). Additionally, Glasser (2002) classified classic grounded theory as a perspective methodology; however perspectives are not explored through an interpretative approach, but with the aim of raising these perspectives and ongoing patterns of behaviour to a conceptual level.

The Evolved GTM

In Strauss and Corbin's (for example 1990, 1994, 1998) writings, they disagreed with Glaser's assumption of a 'pre-existing reality out there'. Instead they developed an evolved version of GT which assumes that 'truth is enacted' (Strauss and Corbin, 1994, p. 279). aAs discussed earlier, the classical GT assumes that 'theory is discovered', and thus the same pattern of facts inherent in the data should appear to every researcher, if the right methods and procedures are utilised. However, the evolved version of GT argues that the researcher has to actively obtain theory from data. In research practice, it is most likely that each researcher will tend to focus on different aspects of the collected data depending on their background, previous experiences and values.

The main differences between the evolved and classical versions of GT seem to be centred around the relationship between GTM and existing literature, and the role of the researcher during data collection and analysis. Classical GT gives significant consideration to ensuring and maintaining theoretical sensitivity during collection and analysis. Thus Glaser argues that researchers should avoid reading relevant literature, as it may influence lead to ‘forcing of data’; thereby limiting the researcher's their innovation while conducting initial coding of data. Once data collection reaches a developed state, extant literature can then be used to validate the emergent theory grounded from the data (Hunter and Kelly, 2008). In contrast, Strauss and his student Corbin believe that researchers construct theory as a result of their interpretation of the participants' words and narratives (Mills et al., 2006). They also argue that "we all bring to the inquiry a considerable background in professional and disciplinary literature" (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 48). Thus, dataverification should be accomplished as an ongoing process, through continuous iteration between data collection and extant literature, until a theory is constructed. Furthermore, Strauss and Corbin (1998) emphasised the need to follow a set of procedures and formal coding schemes that they defined, as a way of reducing bias and ensuring consistency and quality of findings.

It has been argued by various scholar that the evolved version of GT (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) sits into a post-positivism inquiry paradigm, and that it is located in a

mixed philosophical stance: an 'objectivist' approach which aims to inhibit bias during data collection and analysis, and a 'constructivist approach' which acknowledges the researcher's role in concept or theory construction (Charmaz, 2003; Mills et al., 2006). Critics of the evolved GT orientation argue that Strauss and Corbin's (1998) structured approach and heavy emphasis on the application of strict procedures during the coding process, may lead to the ‘searching or imposing of data’, and so by this way distract the GT researcher from the original intent and the emergent and inductive characteristics of GTM (Glaser, 2002a, 2002b).

The Constructivist GTM

Constructivist grounded theory can be implicitly traced from the work of Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994, 1998), as underpinned by their belief that theory is constructed as an outcome of the researcher’s interpretation of the voice of the participants (Mills et al., 2006). However, Charmaz (2000, 2006, and 2008) is the first researcher to explicitly describe and confirm her constructivist intent. This approach to GT acknowledges that theory is constructed through interaction between participants and the researcher rather than being discovered or objectively emerging (Hinton and Hamilton, 2015). According to Charmaz (2006, pp. 130–131):

“The constructivist approach means learning how, when, and to what extent the studied experience is embedded in larger and, often, hidden positions, networks, situations, and relationships”

In line with constructivist paradigms, researchers adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach view truth as becoming apparent through their construction of people’s experiences, interpretations of the experiences and the subjective meanings they give to these experiences (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Thus, this strand of GTM assumes that the interaction process between the researcher and participants “produces the data, and therefore the meanings that the researcher observes and defines” (Charmaz, 1995, p. 35). A constructivist GT approach, therefore, requires researchers to go beyond the surface in terms of seeking meaning in the data, by questioning tacit meanings and searching for underlying values, motives and beliefs (Mills et al., 2006). For this reason,

Charmaz emphasised in her recent writings the importance of adopting abductive reasoning (see for example Charmaz, 2008) as part of a constructivist GTM. According to her:

“Grounded theory begins with inductive analyses of data but moves beyond induction to create an imaginative interpretation of studied life. We adopt abductive logic when we engage in imaginative thinking about intriguing findings and then return to the field to check our conjectures” (Charmaz 2009:137–38).

As such, abduction allows for ‘constant comparison’ recommendations of classical and evolved versions of GT, where researchers are advised to move back and forth between data and theory iteratively. However, Charmaz’s perspective positions abduction as secondary to induction, and thus can be criticised for limiting abduction’s potential to foster theoretical innovation from the beginning of the research inquiry (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012).