Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss.

By H. Heath, S. Cowley. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2004

955 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A Novice Researcher’s First Walk Through the Maze of Grounded Theory: Rationalization for Classical Grounded Theory (2013, positive): “Walker and Myrick, in their detailed analysis on coding and process, concluded that “maybe it is more about the researcher and less about the method” (2006, p. 558), a sentiment shared by Heath and Cowley (2004), Fendt and Sacks (2008), Bryant (2009), and Fernandez (2012).”
Grounded Theory in Software Engineering Research: A Critical Review and Guidelines (2016, background): “Of the three main versions of GT, the difference between classic and Straussian GT has been discussed most extensively [10, 42, 51].”
Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. (2007, background): “This debate (Glaser 1992; Heath and Cowley 2004) centers on whether coding should be more inductive or more deductive.”
The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory (2006, background): “The question of which theorist has broadened the methodology in a way that is faithful to its original intent of developing theory from data has been thoroughly debated (e.g., Boychuk Duchscher & Morgan, 2004; Heath & Cowley, 2004).”