The constant comparative method, rooted in classical Grounded Theory, is a widely used approach for analyzing qualitative data. It involves comparing different data segments to identify similarities and differences, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the underlying phenomena. This article explores the core principles of the constant comparative method and discusses its application in various research contexts. Understanding this method can be crucial when deciding if a methods section comparative analysis is necessary for your research.
Understanding the Constant Comparative Method
At its core, the constant comparative method is a common-sense approach. To understand any piece of data, you need a point of comparison. This could involve comparing interviews from different participants, contrasting responses between groups, or even analyzing segments of data assigned to specific codes or themes. The goal is to uncover patterns and explain the reasons behind observed differences.
As Tesch (1990) emphasizes, comparison is fundamental to developing and refining categories and themes in qualitative research: “Comparing and contrasting is used for practically all intellectual tasks during analysis… The goal is to discern conceptual similarities, to refine the discriminative power of categories, and to discover patterns.”
Beyond a mere analytical technique, the constant comparative method can also serve as a methodology. It guides the entire research process, influencing data collection and participant recruitment. By continuously comparing emerging findings, researchers can identify gaps in their understanding and strategically recruit new participants to address these gaps.
The Origins and Evolution of the Method
Glaser and Strauss (1967) highlighted the Constant Comparative Method in their work on Grounded Theory. It offers a middle ground between comprehensive thematic coding and pure theory generation. The method suggests that continuously revisiting and refining codes as new data emerges facilitates a more systematic and thorough theory development process. This iterative process ensures the analysis stays grounded in the data, avoiding overly abstract interpretations.
alt text describing image of coded qualitative data in Quirkos
While the method emphasizes systematization, it doesn’t aim for a single, definitive interpretation. Glaser (1965) states, “the constant comparative method is not designed (as methods of quantitative analysis are) to guarantee that two analysts working independently with the same data will achieve the same result.” The focus is on generating multiple hypotheses, embracing potential contradictions and refining them through continuous comparison.
Four Stages of Constant Comparison
Glaser (1965) outlines four stages for the constant comparative method:
- Comparing incidents applicable to each category: Identifying and comparing specific instances related to each emerging category.
- Integrating categories and their properties: Refining categories and identifying their key characteristics.
- Delimiting the theory: Defining the scope and boundaries of the emerging theory.
- Writing the theory: Articulating the final theory based on the analysis.
This iterative process underscores the importance of “constant” comparison. It’s not a one-time task but an ongoing activity integrated throughout the analysis.
Constant Comparison and Saturation
The constant comparative method often informs ongoing data collection. New participants are recruited to explore emerging themes and refine hypotheses. This raises the question of saturation—the point at which new data no longer yields significant new insights. While the concept of saturation is debated, theoretical saturation, as described by Glaser, signifies the point where the emerging theory is well-developed and further data collection is unlikely to significantly alter it.
Applicability Beyond Grounded Theory
While originating in Grounded Theory, the constant comparative method can be applied in other qualitative approaches, including thematic analysis, discourse analysis, and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Its core principles of comparison and iterative refinement are valuable across various research contexts.
Do You Need a Methods Section Comparative Analysis?
If your research involves qualitative data and aims to develop a grounded understanding of a phenomenon through the identification of patterns and themes, then incorporating a comparative analysis in your methods section is essential. Clearly articulating how you will employ the constant comparative method will strengthen the rigor and transparency of your research. This includes specifying the levels of comparison (e.g., between participants, within groups), the criteria for comparison, and how the findings will be integrated to develop your overall interpretations. A well-defined comparative analysis demonstrates a systematic approach to data analysis, enhancing the credibility of your research findings.
