Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present a plausible framework to initiate discussion regarding the concept of emergence in grounded theory. Using ontological and epistemological positions to develop three research paradigms, and applying these paradigms to various uptakes of grounded theory demonstrates differences in the definition of emergence. Discovery emergence is presented as a unidirectional relationship between the constituent parts (data) and the emergent property (theory) observed by an external postpositivist grounded theorist. Mechanistic emergence is presented as having a bidirectional relationship between the constituent part (data) and the emergent property (theory) observed by an external constructionist grounded theorist. Finally, reflective emergence is presented as having a bidirectional relationship between the constituent parts (data) and the emergent property (theory) interpreted by an interpretivist grounded theorist.

Highlights

  • The purpose of this article is to present a plausible framework to initiate discussion regarding the concept of emergence in grounded theory

  • The article concludes by merging the discussion of paradigms and emergence with three adaptations of grounded theory— Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original version is presented as fitting within the postpositivist paradigm, Charmaz’s (2006) version fitting with the constructionist paradigm, and Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) version fitting with the interpretivist paradigm

  • The intent is to present a plausible framework to initiate discussion regarding the concept of emergence in grounded theory

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to present a plausible framework to initiate discussion regarding the concept of emergence in grounded theory. The article concludes by merging the discussion of paradigms and emergence with three adaptations of grounded theory— Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) original version is presented as fitting within the postpositivist paradigm, Charmaz’s (2006) version fitting with the constructionist paradigm, and Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) version fitting with the interpretivist paradigm. The focus of this discussion is the distinction at the paradigm level and how this influences the conception of emergence. The intent is to present a plausible framework to initiate discussion regarding the concept of emergence in grounded theory

Background
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.