Why RTM Uses Glaserian Classic Grounded Theory

Barney Glaser’s Foundational Contribution to Grounded Theory

Grounded theory did not emerge as a generic qualitative approach. It developed through Barney Glaser’s methodological innovation, particularly his formulation of the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis, articulated in his 1965 solo-authored article, "The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis." This work predated The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967) and provided the methodological backbone of what later became known as grounded theory. 

In that article, Glaser articulated a systematic yet flexible analytic approach grounded in the continual comparison of data with data, data with codes, and codes with emerging categories. This analytic logic, simultaneous data collection and analysis, theoretical sampling, and theory generation grounded in empirical patterns became the defining features of grounded theory as a methodology. These were not simply techniques; they represented a distinct way of theorizing from data.

Glaser continued to develop this methodology over decades through numerous books and articles. His work emphasized emergence, theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, and researcher autonomy, while resisting the imposition of pre-existing frameworks or procedural rigidity. These contributions form the core of what is now referred to as classic grounded theory, and more precisely, Glaserian classic grounded theory.

Why Explicitly Naming Glaser Matters 

Over time, grounded theory has evolved into multiple variants, each reflecting different philosophical assumptions and analytic priorities. While this diversification has added new approaches to qualitative research, it has also led to methodological slippage. Increasingly, published articles and dissertations reference grounded theory without specifying which version is being used or attributing its origins to scholars other than Glaser. When Glaser’s name is not explicitly associated with grounded theory, his central role in developing the methodology and the constant comparative method becomes less visible. This situation is increasingly common as students and researchers cite secondary sources that discuss grounded theory rather than engaging directly with Glaser’s foundational texts. Over time, this practice makes it difficult for readers to identify the original source of key methodological ideas. When sources are cited without clear attribution to Glaser, the origins of the methodology can become blurred. Using the term Glaserian classic grounded theory supports clearer attribution by explicitly linking the methodology to its originator and helping readers distinguish foundational contributions from later interpretations or applications. Using the term Glaserian classic grounded theory clearly situates the methodology within its original intellectual lineage and acknowledges Glaser’s sustained contributions to its development. This is not about elevating one approach over others; it is about accurate attribution and methodological transparency.

Reducing Confusion in a Crowded Methodological Landscape 

A second reason for adopting the term GCGT is to reduce confusion, particularly for novice researchers. Both classic grounded theory and constructivist grounded theory are commonly abbreviated as CGT, which can lead to misinterpretation for those still developing methodological literacy. When distinctions between grounded theory variants are not clearly signaled, researchers may unknowingly blend incompatible assumptions, analytic practices, or evaluative criteria. The use of GCGT provides clearer signaling by indicating that the work is grounded in Glaser’s analytic logic and methodological approach rather than in later reinterpretations or procedural adaptations.

A Community-Endorsed Naming Choice 

Importantly, this was not a unilateral decision. Before adopting the term "Glaserian classic grounded theory," we discussed our reasoning with Bonnie Glaser. Bonnie is one of the late Barney Glaser’s daughters, and she currently manages his publishing company, Sociology Press. She understood the motivations behind the terminology and affirmed that it was appropriate. Her support reinforces that this naming choice aligns with the spirit and intent of preserving Glaser’s work rather than redefining it.

At RTM, using the term Glaserian classic grounded theory is about more than terminology. It reflects a commitment to:

• Honoring intellectual lineage
• Reducing confusion in an increasingly crowded methodological landscape
• Supporting novice researchers in developing methodological competence
• Promoting rigor

By using the term Glaserian classic grounded theory, we aim to contribute to greater clarity, stronger scholarship, and the ongoing vitality of a methodology that has had a profound influence on the field of research.