ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
This systematic review (SR) takes a Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) turn by modifying the conventional review to mimic the CGT research process–CGT-SR. With the flexibility embedded in CGT, this SR utilises the CGT data collection and analysis process to review the literature. By using initial and focused coding, together with Constant Comparison Analysis (CCA), this review allows the reviewer's subjectivity to be incorporated into the process through a controlled measure. While the debate over reductionism in education is ongoing, quantitative studies with empirical data and the ability to generalise through a positivist lens still dominate the field. Combining the SR with CGT also demonstrates the possibility of conducting a literature review using the GT methodology without compromising the core purposes of doing an SR. This CGT-SR aims to identify the challenges of implementing CGT in educational research by showcasing its potential as a review methodology. After an initial literature review in the ProQuest database, n = 64 articles were identified; upon further inspection, the coding process began with the first article. Theoretical saturation was achieved after coding n = 14 articles. The final constructed synthesis included Primary Challenges (Methodological Trade-offs & Cogency) and Secondary Challenges (Structural Favouritism of Quantitative Measures, Compromises, and Countermeasures). This review also highlights the potential of using CGT as a systematic review framework.
Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(8), Article 141. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj7408141
Baclawski, K. (2018). The observer effect. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Situation Management (CogSIMA) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/COGSIMA.2018.8423983
Benoot, C., Bilsen, J., & Hannes, K. (2016). Using grounded theory methodology for a qualitative meta-synthesis: The case of a literature review about sexuality after cancer treatment. Qualitative Health Research, 26(12), 1731–1743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315616682
Berthelsen, C. B., Grimshaw-Aagaard, S., & Hansen, C. (2018). Developing a guideline for reporting and evaluating grounded theory research studies (GUREGT). International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijhs.v6n1a8
Bobbink, P., Larkin, P., & Probst, S. (2024). Application and challenges of using a constructivist grounded theory methodology to address an under-theorised clinical challenge: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 6, Article 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100199
Boje, D. M. (2018). Organizational Research Methods: Storytelling in action. Routledge.
Bowers, A. W., & Creamer, E. G. (2020). Core principles of grounded theory in a systematic review of environmental education for secondary students. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24(6), 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1818414
Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., ... & Thomson, H. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ, 368, Article l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890
Charmaz, K. (2006; 2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
Che Daud, S., Husaini, H., & Mohd Arif, N. Z. Z. (2023). Exploring the research landscape in Malaysian higher education: A Scopus-based analysis of publications from 2018 to 2022. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 2(Special Issue), 463.
Dylman, A. S., & Zakrisson, I. (2023). The effect of language and cultural context on the BIG-5 personality inventory in bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 46(2), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2186414
Eaves, Y. D. (2001). A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(5), 654–663. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01897
Ejnavarzala, H. (2019). Epistemology–ontology relations in social research: A review. Sociological Bulletin, 68(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022918819369
El Hussein, M. T., Kennedy, A., & Oliver, B. (2017). Grounded theory and the conundrum of literature review: Framework for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22(4), 1198–1210. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2661
El Hussein, M., Hirst, S., & Salyers, V. (2014). Using grounded theory as a method of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19(27), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1209
Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in Positive Economics (pp. 3–43). University of Chicago Press.
Fusch, P., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2018). Denzin’s paradigm shift: Revisiting triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Social Change, 10(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.02
Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177163
Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.211
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967; 2006). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. AldineTransaction.
Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Harper.
Havey, N., & Chang, M. J. (2022). Do journals have preferences? Insights from The Journal of Higher Education. Innovations in Higher Education, 47, 915–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09634-5
Hayek, F. A. (1952). The counter-revolution of science: Studies on the abuse of reason. Free Press.
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102129
Heinrich, E. (2024). Revolutionising educational technology: The imperative for authentic qualitative research. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, Article 101073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101073
Jamie, K., & Rathbone, A. P. (2022). Using theory and reflexivity to preserve methodological rigour. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 3(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843211061302
Kabir, R. (2023). The systematic literature review process: A guide for students. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 11(9), 3498–3506.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaku, M. (2014). The future of the mind: The scientific quest to understand, enhance, and empower the mind. Doubleday.
Koch, C. (2004). The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Roberts and Company Publishers.
Le Fanu, J. (2009). Why us?: How science rediscovered the mystery of ourselves. Pantheon Books.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.my/en/pelan-pembangunan-pendidikan-malaysia-2013-2025
Nyimbili, F., & Nyimbili, L. (2024). Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies. British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies, 5(1), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.37745/bjmas.2022.0419
Ochieng, P. A. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13, 32–45.
Orsucci, F., & Tschacher, W. (2022). Complexity science in human change. Entropy, 24(11), 1670. https://doi.org/10.3390/e24111670
Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Cogency. In Oxford learners’ dictionaries. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/cogency
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pultarova, T. (2022, December 18). The theory of everything. Space.com. Retrieved from https://www.space.com/theory-of-everything-definition.html
Roth, A. (2018, September 20). Why ProQuest created a database of open-access content. ProQuest. https://about.proquest.com/en/blog/2018/Why-ProQuest-Created-a-Database-of-Open-Access-Content/
Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Sage.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1996/2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Thelwall, M., & Nevill, T. (2021). Is research with qualitative data more impactful now? Library & Information Science Research, 43(2), 101094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101094
Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918758086
Wolfswinkel, J., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. (2013). Using grounded theory to review literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51
Wrigley, T. (2019). The problem of reductionism in educational theory. Power and Education, 11(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757743819845121
Wolfswinkel, J., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51
Yang, Z., Huang, Z., Gonzalez-Castillo, J., Dai, R., Northoff, G., & Bandettini, P. (2014). Using fMRI to decode true thoughts independent of intention to conceal. NeuroImage, 99, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.034
Lian, J., & Isa, N. J. M. (2026). Navigating Challenges in Implementing Constructivist Grounded Theory in Educational Research: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Systematic Review Approach. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 15(1), 1371–1404.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode