In Edwards grounded theory study, theoretical sampling led to the inclusion of the partners of women who had presented to the emergency department. ‘In one interview a woman spoke of being aware that the ED staff had not acknowledged her partner. This statement led me to ask other women during their interviews if they had similar experiences, and ultimately to interview the partners to gain their perspectives. The study originally intended to only focus on the women and the nursing staff who provided the care’ (p. 50).
Thus, theoretical sampling is used to focus and generate data to feed the iterative process of continual comparative analysis of the data. 6
Intermediate coding, identifying a core category, theoretical data saturation, constant comparative analysis, theoretical sensitivity and memoing occur in the next phase of the GT process. 6 Intermediate coding builds on the initial coding phase. Where initial coding fractures the data, intermediate coding begins to transform basic data into more abstract concepts allowing the theory to emerge from the data. During this analytic stage, a process of reviewing categories and identifying which ones, if any, can be subsumed beneath other categories occurs and the properties or dimension of the developed categories are refined. Properties refer to the characteristics that are common to all the concepts in the category and dimensions are the variations of a property. 37
At this stage, a core category starts to become evident as developed categories form around a core concept; relationships are identified between categories and the analysis is refined. Birks and Mills 6 affirm that diagramming can aid analysis in the intermediate coding phase. Grounded theorists interact closely with the data during this phase, continually reassessing meaning to ascertain ‘what is really going on’ in the data. 30 Theoretical saturation ensues when new data analysis does not provide additional material to existing theoretical categories, and the categories are sufficiently explained. 6
Birks and Mills 6 described advanced coding as the ‘techniques used to facilitate integration of the final grounded theory’ (p. 177). These authors promote storyline technique (described in the following section) and theoretical coding as strategies for advancing analysis and theoretical integration. Advanced coding is essential to produce a theory that is grounded in the data and has explanatory power. 6 During the advanced coding phase, concepts that reach the stage of categories will be abstract, representing stories of many, reduced into highly conceptual terms. The findings are presented as a set of interrelated concepts as opposed to presenting themes. 28 Explanatory statements detail the relationships between categories and the central core category. 28
Storyline is a tool that can be used for theoretical integration. Birks and Mills 6 define storyline as ‘a strategy for facilitating integration, construction, formulation, and presentation of research findings through the production of a coherent grounded theory’ (p. 180). Storyline technique is first proposed with limited attention in Basics of Qualitative Research by Strauss and Corbin 12 and further developed by Birks et al. 38 as a tool for theoretical integration. The storyline is the conceptualisation of the core category. 6 This procedure builds a story that connects the categories and produces a discursive set of theoretical propositions. 24 Birks and Mills 6 contend that storyline can be ‘used to produce a comprehensive rendering of your grounded theory’ (p. 118). Birks et al. 38 had earlier concluded, ‘storyline enhances the development, presentation and comprehension of the outcomes of grounded theory research’ (p. 405). Once the storyline is developed, the GT is finalised using theoretical codes that ‘provide a framework for enhancing the explanatory power of the storyline and its potential as theory’. 6 Thus, storyline is the explication of the theory.
Theoretical coding occurs as the final culminating stage towards achieving a GT. 39 , 40 The purpose of theoretical coding is to integrate the substantive theory. 41 Saldaña 40 states, ‘theoretical coding integrates and synthesises the categories derived from coding and analysis to now create a theory’ (p. 224). Initial coding fractures the data while theoretical codes ‘weave the fractured story back together again into an organized whole theory’. 18 Advanced coding that integrates extant theory adds further explanatory power to the findings. 6 The examples in Box 2 describe the use of storyline as a technique.
Writing the storyline.
Baldwin describes in her GT study how ‘the process of writing the storyline allowed in-depth descriptions of the categories, and discussion of how the categories of (i) , (ii) and (iii) fit together to form the final theory: ’ (pp. 125–126). ‘The use of storyline as part of the finalisation of the theory from the data ensured that the final theory was grounded in the data’ (p. 201). In Chamberlain-Salaun GT study, writing the storyline enabled the identification of ‘gaps in the developing theory and to clarify categories and concepts. To address the gaps the researcher iteratively returned to the data and to the field and refine the storyline. Once the storyline was developed raw data was incorporated to support the story in much the same way as dialogue is included in a storybook or novel’. |
As presented in Figure 1 , theoretical sensitivity encompasses the entire research process. Glaser and Strauss 5 initially described the term theoretical sensitivity in The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to know when you identify a data segment that is important to your theory. While Strauss and Corbin 12 describe theoretical sensitivity as the insight into what is meaningful and of significance in the data for theory development, Birks and Mills 6 define theoretical sensitivity as ‘the ability to recognise and extract from the data elements that have relevance for the emerging theory’ (p. 181). Conducting GT research requires a balance between keeping an open mind and the ability to identify elements of theoretical significance during data generation and/or collection and data analysis. 6
Several analytic tools and techniques can be used to enhance theoretical sensitivity and increase the grounded theorist’s sensitivity to theoretical constructs in the data. 28 Birks and Mills 6 state, ‘as a grounded theorist becomes immersed in the data, their level of theoretical sensitivity to analytic possibilities will increase’ (p. 12). Developing sensitivity as a grounded theorist and the application of theoretical sensitivity throughout the research process allows the analytical focus to be directed towards theory development and ultimately result in an integrated and abstract GT. 6 The example in Box 3 highlights how analytic tools are employed to increase theoretical sensitivity.
Theoretical sensitivity.
Hoare et al. described how the lead author ‘ in pursuit of heightened theoretical sensitivity in a grounded theory study of information use by nurses working in general practice in New Zealand’. The article described the analytic tools the researcher used ‘to increase theoretical sensitivity’ which included ‘reading the literature, open coding, category building, reflecting in memos followed by doubling back on data collection once further lines of inquiry are opened up’. The article offers ‘an example of how analytical tools are employed to theoretically sample emerging concepts’ (pp. 240–241). |
The meticulous application of essential GT methods refines the analysis resulting in the generation of an integrated, comprehensive GT that explains a process relating to a particular phenomenon. 6 The results of a GT study are communicated as a set of concepts, related to each other in an interrelated whole, and expressed in the production of a substantive theory. 5 , 7 , 16 A substantive theory is a theoretical interpretation or explanation of a studied phenomenon 6 , 17 Thus, the hallmark of grounded theory is the generation of theory ‘abstracted from, or grounded in, data generated and collected by the researcher’. 6 However, to ensure quality in research requires the application of rigour throughout the research process.
The quality of a grounded theory can be related to three distinct areas underpinned by (1) the researcher’s expertise, knowledge and research skills; (2) methodological congruence with the research question; and (3) procedural precision in the use of methods. 6 Methodological congruence is substantiated when the philosophical position of the researcher is congruent with the research question and the methodological approach selected. 6 Data collection or generation and analytical conceptualisation need to be rigorous throughout the research process to secure excellence in the final grounded theory. 44
Procedural precision requires careful attention to maintaining a detailed audit trail, data management strategies and demonstrable procedural logic recorded using memos. 6 Organisation and management of research data, memos and literature can be assisted using software programs such as NVivo. An audit trail of decision-making, changes in the direction of the research and the rationale for decisions made are essential to ensure rigour in the final grounded theory. 6
This article offers a framework to assist novice researchers visualise the iterative processes that underpin a GT study. The fundamental process and methods used to generate an integrated grounded theory have been described. Novice researchers can adapt the framework presented to inform and guide the design of a GT study. This framework provides a useful guide to visualise the interplay between the methods and processes inherent in conducting GT. Research conducted ethically and with meticulous attention to process will ensure quality research outcomes that have relevance at the practice level.
Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Saul Mcleod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
On This Page:
Grounded theory is a useful approach when you want to develop a new theory based on real-world data Instead of starting with a pre-existing theory, grounded theory lets the data guide the development of your theory.
Grounded theory is a qualitative method specifically designed to inductively generate theory from data. It was developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967.
It is important to note that grounded theory is an inductive approach where a theory is developed from collected real-world data rather than trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis like in a deductive scientific approach
You gather information, look for patterns, and use those patterns to develop an explanation.
It is a way to understand why people do things and how those actions create patterns. Imagine you’re trying to figure out why your friends love a certain video game.
Instead of asking an adult, you observe your friends while they’re playing, listen to them talk about it, and maybe even play a little yourself. By studying their actions and words, you’re using grounded theory to build an understanding of their behavior.
This qualitative method of research focuses on real-life experiences and observations, letting theories emerge naturally from the data collected, like piecing together a puzzle without knowing the final image.
Grounded theory research is useful for beginning researchers, particularly graduate students, because it offers a clear and flexible framework for conducting a study on a new topic.
Grounded theory works best when existing theories are either insufficient or nonexistent for the topic at hand.
Since grounded theory is a continuously evolving process, researchers collect and analyze data until theoretical saturation is reached or no new insights can be gained.
The final product of a grounded theory (GT) study is an integrated and comprehensive grounded theory that explains a process or scheme associated with a phenomenon.
The quality of a GT study is judged on whether it produces this middle-range theory
Middle-range theories are sort of like explanations that focus on a specific part of society or a particular event. They don’t try to explain everything in the world. Instead, they zero in on things happening in certain groups, cultures, or situations.
Think of it like this: a grand theory is like trying to understand all of weather at once, but a middle-range theory is like focusing on how hurricanes form.
This terminology reflects the iterative, inductive, and comparative nature of grounded theory, which distinguishes it from other research approaches.
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss first introduced grounded theory in 1967 in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory .
Their aim was to create a research method that prioritized real-world data to understand social behavior.
However, their approaches diverged over time, leading to two distinct versions: Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory.
The different versions of grounded theory diverge in their approaches to coding , theory construction, and the use of literature.
All versions of grounded theory share the goal of generating a middle-range theory that explains a social process or phenomenon.
They also emphasize the importance of theoretical sampling , constant comparative analysis , and theoretical saturation in developing a robust theory
Glaserian grounded theory emphasizes the emergence of theory from data and discourages the use of pre-existing literature.
Glaser believed that adopting a specific philosophical or disciplinary perspective reduces the broader potential of grounded theory.
For Glaser, prior understandings should be based on the general problem area and reading very wide to alert or sensitize one to a wide range of possibilities.
It prioritizes parsimony , scope , and modifiability in the resulting theory
Strauss and Corbin (1990) focused on developing the analytic techniques and providing guidance to novice researchers.
Straussian grounded theory utilizes a more structured approach to coding and analysis and acknowledges the role of the literature in shaping research.
It acknowledges the role of deduction and validation in addition to induction.
Strauss and Corbin also emphasize the use of unstructured interview questions to encourage participants to speak freely
Critics of this approach believe it produced a rigidity never intended for grounded theory.
This version, primarily associated with Charmaz, recognizes that knowledge is situated, partial, provisional, and socially constructed. It emphasizes abstract and conceptual understandings rather than explanations.
Kathy Charmaz expanded on original versions of GT, emphasizing the researcher’s role in interpreting findings
Constructivist grounded theory acknowledges the researcher’s influence on the research process and the co-creation of knowledge with participants
Developed by Clarke, this version builds upon Straussian and Constructivist grounded theory and incorporates postmodern , poststructuralist , and posthumanist perspectives.
Situational analysis incorporates postmodern perspectives and considers the role of nonhuman actors
It introduces the method of mapping to analyze complex situations and emphasizes both human and nonhuman elements .
Grounded theory can be conducted by individual researchers or research teams. If working in a team, it’s important to communicate regularly and ensure everyone is using the same coding system.
Grounded theory research is typically an iterative process. This means that researchers may move back and forth between these steps as they collect and analyze data.
Instead of doing everything in order, you repeat the steps over and over.
This cycle keeps going, which is why grounded theory is called a circular process.
Continue to gather and analyze data until no new insights or properties related to your categories emerge. This saturation point signals that the theory is comprehensive and well-substantiated by the data.
Theoretical sampling, collecting sufficient and rich data, and theoretical saturation help the grounded theorist to avoid a lack of “groundedness,” incomplete findings, and “premature closure.
Begin by considering the phenomenon you want to study and assess the current knowledge surrounding it.
However, refrain from detailing the specific aspects you seek to uncover about the phenomenon to prevent pre-existing assumptions from skewing the research.
Initially, select participants who are readily available ( convenience sampling ) or those recommended by existing participants ( snowball sampling ).
As the analysis progresses, transition to theoretical sampling , involving the deliberate selection of participants and data sources to refine your emerging theory.
This method is used to refine and develop a grounded theory. The researcher uses theoretical sampling to choose new participants or data sources based on the emerging findings of their study.
This could mean recruiting participants who can shed light on gaps in your understanding uncovered during the initial data analysis.
Theoretical sampling guides further data collection by identifying participants or data sources that can provide insights into gaps in the emerging theory
The goal is to gather data that will help to further develop and refine the emerging categories and theoretical concepts.
Theoretical sampling starts early in a GT study and generally requires the researcher to make amendments to their ethics approvals to accommodate new participant groups.
The researcher might use interviews, focus groups, observations, or a combination of methods to collect qualitative data.
Open coding is the first stage of coding in grounded theory, where you carefully examine and label segments of your data to identify initial concepts and ideas.
This process involves scrutinizing the data and creating codes grounded in the data itself.
The initial codes stay close to the data, aiming to capture and summarize critically and analytically what is happening in the data
To begin open coding, read through your data, such as interview transcripts, to gain a comprehensive understanding of what is being conveyed.
As you encounter segments of data that represent a distinct idea, concept, or action, you assign a code to that segment. These codes act as descriptive labels summarizing the meaning of the data segment.
For instance, if you were analyzing interview data about experiences with a new medication, a segment of data might describe a participant’s difficulty sleeping after taking the medication. This segment could be labeled with the code “trouble sleeping”
Open coding is a crucial step in grounded theory because it allows you to break down the data into manageable units and begin to see patterns and themes emerge.
As you continue coding, you constantly compare different segments of data to refine your understanding of existing codes and identify new ones.
For instance, excerpts describing difficulties with sleep might be grouped under the code “trouble sleeping”.
This iterative process of comparing data and refining codes helps ensure the codes accurately reflect the data.
Open coding is about staying close to the data, using in vivo terms or gerunds to maintain a sense of action and process
During open coding, it’s crucial to engage in memo writing. Memos serve as your “notes to self”, allowing you to reflect on the coding process, note emerging patterns, and ask analytical questions about the data.
Document your thoughts, questions, and insights in memos throughout the research process.
These memos serve multiple purposes: tracing your thought process, promoting reflexivity (self-reflection), facilitating collaboration if working in a team, and supporting theory development.
Early memos tend to be shorter and less conceptual, often serving as “preparatory” notes. Later memos become more analytical and conceptual as the research progresses.
Axial coding is the process of identifying connections between codes, grouping them together into categories to reveal relationships within the data.
Axial coding seeks to find the axes that connect various codes together.
For example, in research on school bullying, focused codes such as “Doubting oneself, getting low self-confidence, starting to agree with bullies” and “Getting lower self-confidence; blaming oneself” could be grouped together into a broader category representing the impact of bullying on self-perception.
Similarly, codes such as “Being left by friends” and “Avoiding school; feeling lonely and isolated” could be grouped into a category related to the social consequences of bullying.
These categories then become part of the emerging grounded theory, explaining the multifaceted aspects of the phenomenon.
Qualitative data analysis software often represents these categories as nested codes, visually demonstrating the hierarchy and interconnectedness of the concepts.
This hierarchical structure helps researchers organize their data, identify patterns, and develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between different aspects of the phenomenon being studied.
This process of axial coding is crucial for moving beyond descriptive accounts of the data towards a more theoretically rich and explanatory grounded theory.
During selective coding , the final development stage of grounded theory analysis, a researcher focuses on developing a detailed and integrated theory by selecting a core category and connecting it to other categories developed during earlier coding stages.
The core category is the central concept that links together the various categories and subcategories identified in the data and forms the foundation of the emergent grounded theory.
This core category will encapsulate the main theme of your grounded theory, that encompasses and elucidates the overarching process or phenomenon under investigation.
This phase involves a concentrated effort to refine and integrate categories, ensuring they align with the core category and contribute to the overall explanatory power of the theory.
The theory should comprehensively describe the process or scheme related to the phenomenon being studied.
For example, in a study on school bullying, if the core category is “victimization journey,” the researcher would selectively code data related to different stages of this journey, the factors contributing to each stage, and the consequences of experiencing these stages.
This might involve analyzing how victims initially attribute blame, their coping mechanisms, and the long-term impact of bullying on their self-perception.
Selective coding focuses on developing and saturating this core category, leading to a cohesive and integrated theory.
Through selective coding, researchers aim to achieve theoretical saturation, meaning no new properties or insights emerge from further data analysis.
This signifies that the core category and its related categories are well-defined, and the connections between them are thoroughly explored.
This rigorous process strengthens the trustworthiness of the findings by ensuring the theory is comprehensive and grounded in a rich dataset.
It’s important to note that while a grounded theory seeks to provide a comprehensive explanation, it remains grounded in the data.
The theory’s scope is limited to the specific phenomenon and context studied, and the researcher acknowledges that new data or perspectives might lead to modifications or refinements of the theory
Theoretical coding is a process in grounded theory where researchers use advanced abstractions, often from existing theories, to explain the relationships found in their data.
Theoretical coding often occurs later in the research process and involves using existing theories to explain the connections between codes and categories.
This process helps to strengthen the explanatory power of the grounded theory. Theoretical coding should not be confused with simply describing the data; instead, it aims to explain the phenomenon being studied, distinguishing grounded theory from purely descriptive research.
Using the developed codes, categories, and core category, create a model illustrating the process or phenomenon.
Present your findings in a clear and accessible manner, ensuring the theory is rooted in the data and explains the relationships between the identified concepts and categories.
The end product of this process is a well-defined, integrated grounded theory that explains a process or scheme related to the phenomenon studied.
Grounded Theory Review : This is an international journal that publishes articles on grounded theory.
Home » Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide
Table of Contents
Definition:
Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to generate theories based on data that are grounded in the empirical reality of the research context. The method involves a systematic process of data collection, coding, categorization, and analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data.
The ultimate goal is to develop a theory that explains the phenomenon being studied, which is based on the data collected and analyzed rather than on preconceived notions or hypotheses. The resulting theory should be able to explain the phenomenon in a way that is consistent with the data and also accounts for variations and discrepancies in the data. Grounded Theory is widely used in sociology, psychology, management, and other social sciences to study a wide range of phenomena, such as organizational behavior, social interaction, and health care.
Grounded Theory was first introduced by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s as a response to the limitations of traditional positivist approaches to social research. The approach was initially developed to study dying patients and their families in hospitals, but it was soon applied to other areas of sociology and beyond.
Glaser and Strauss published their seminal book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” in 1967, in which they presented their approach to developing theory from empirical data. They argued that existing social theories often did not account for the complexity and diversity of social phenomena, and that the development of theory should be grounded in empirical data.
Since then, Grounded Theory has become a widely used methodology in the social sciences, and has been applied to a wide range of topics, including healthcare, education, business, and psychology. The approach has also evolved over time, with variations such as constructivist grounded theory and feminist grounded theory being developed to address specific criticisms and limitations of the original approach.
There are two main types of Grounded Theory: Classic Grounded Theory and Constructivist Grounded Theory.
This approach is based on the work of Glaser and Strauss, and emphasizes the discovery of a theory that is grounded in data. The focus is on generating a theory that explains the phenomenon being studied, without being influenced by preconceived notions or existing theories. The process involves a continuous cycle of data collection, coding, and analysis, with the aim of developing categories and subcategories that are grounded in the data. The categories and subcategories are then compared and synthesized to generate a theory that explains the phenomenon.
This approach is based on the work of Charmaz, and emphasizes the role of the researcher in the process of theory development. The focus is on understanding how individuals construct meaning and interpret their experiences, rather than on discovering an objective truth. The process involves a reflexive and iterative approach to data collection, coding, and analysis, with the aim of developing categories that are grounded in the data and the researcher’s interpretations of the data. The categories are then compared and synthesized to generate a theory that accounts for the multiple perspectives and interpretations of the phenomenon being studied.
Here are some general guidelines for conducting a Grounded Theory study:
Grounded Theory Data Collection Methods are as follows:
Grounded Theory Data Analysis Methods are as follows:
Here are some of the key applications of Grounded Theory:
Examples of Grounded Theory in different case studies are as follows:
A Grounded Theory Research Example Would be:
Research question : What is the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process?
Data collection : The researcher conducted interviews with first-generation college students who had recently gone through the college admission process. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Data analysis: The researcher used a constant comparative method to analyze the data. This involved coding the data, comparing codes, and constantly revising the codes to identify common themes and patterns. The researcher also used memoing, which involved writing notes and reflections on the data and analysis.
Findings : Through the analysis of the data, the researcher identified several themes related to the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process, such as feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of the process, lacking knowledge about the process, and facing financial barriers.
Theory development: Based on the findings, the researcher developed a theory about the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process. The theory suggested that first-generation college students faced unique challenges in the college admission process due to their lack of knowledge and resources, and that these challenges could be addressed through targeted support programs and resources.
In summary, grounded theory research involves collecting data, analyzing it through constant comparison and memoing, and developing a theory grounded in the data. The resulting theory can help to explain the phenomenon being studied and guide future research and interventions.
The purpose of Grounded Theory is to develop a theoretical framework that explains a social phenomenon, process, or interaction. This theoretical framework is developed through a rigorous process of data collection, coding, and analysis, and is grounded in the data.
Grounded Theory aims to uncover the social processes and patterns that underlie social phenomena, and to develop a theoretical framework that explains these processes and patterns. It is a flexible method that can be used to explore a wide range of research questions and settings, and is particularly well-suited to exploring complex social phenomena that have not been well-studied.
The ultimate goal of Grounded Theory is to generate a theoretical framework that is grounded in the data, and that can be used to explain and predict social phenomena. This theoretical framework can then be used to inform policy and practice, and to guide future research in the field.
Following are some situations in which Grounded Theory may be particularly useful:
Grounded Theory is a qualitative research method that is characterized by several key features, including:
Advantages of Grounded Theory are as follows:
Limitations of Grounded Theory are as follows:
Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer
Introduction, distinguishing features of grounded theory, the role and timing of the literature review.
Carley Turner, Felicity Astin, Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?, European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2021, Pages 285–289, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaa034
Grounded theory (GT) is both a research method and a research methodology. There are several different ways of doing GT which reflect the different viewpoints of the originators. For those who are new to this approach to conducting qualitative research, this can be confusing. In this article, we outline the key characteristics of GT and describe the role of the literature review in three common GT approaches, illustrated using exemplar studies.
Describing the key characteristics of a Grounded theory (GT) study.
Considering the role and timing of the literature review in different GT approaches.
Qualitative research is a cornerstone in cardiovascular research. It gives insights in why particular phenomena occur or what underlying mechanisms are. 1 Over the past 2 years, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing published 20 qualitative studies. 2–21 These studies used methods such as content analysis, ethnography, or phenomenology. Grounded theory (GT) has been used to a lesser extent.
Grounded theory is both a methodology and a method used in qualitative research ( Table 1 ). It is a research approach used to gain an emic insight into a phenomenon. In simple terms, this means understanding the perspective, or point of view, of an ‘insider’, those who have experience of the phenomenon. 22 Grounded theory is a research approach that originated from the social sciences but has been used in education and health research. The focus of GT is to generate theory that is grounded in data and shaped by the views of participants, thereby moving beyond description and towards theoretical explanation of a process or phenomenon. 23
Grounded theory as a method and methodology
. | Methodology . | Method . |
---|---|---|
Framework of principles on which the methods are based. | Strategy for conducting the research. Methods outline how data will be collected, analysed, and interpreted. | |
GT application | Researcher openness, with an inductive approach to data. Theory can be generated based on data. | Concurrent data collection and analysis, use of codes and memos for data analysis. |
. | Methodology . | Method . |
---|---|---|
Framework of principles on which the methods are based. | Strategy for conducting the research. Methods outline how data will be collected, analysed, and interpreted. | |
GT application | Researcher openness, with an inductive approach to data. Theory can be generated based on data. | Concurrent data collection and analysis, use of codes and memos for data analysis. |
One of the key issues with using GT, particularly for novices, is understanding the different approaches that have evolved as each specific GT approach is slightly different.
The tradition of GT began with the seminal text about classic GT written by Glaser and Strauss, 24 but since then GT has evolved into several different types. The approach to GT chosen by the researcher depends upon an understanding of the epistemological underpinnings of the different approaches, the match with the topic under investigation and the researcher’s own stance. Whilst GT is frequently used in applied health research, very few studies detail which GT approach has been used, how and why. Sometimes published studies claim to use GT methodology but the approaches that form the foundation of GT are not reported. This may be due to the word limit in academic journals or because legitimate GT approaches have not been followed. Either way, there is a lack of clarity about the practical application of GT. The purpose of this article is to outline the distinguishing characteristics of GT and outline practical considerations for the novice researcher regarding the place of the literature review in GT.
There are several distinguishing features of GT, as outlined by Sbaraini et al. 25 The first is that GT research is conducted through an inductive process. This means that the researcher is developing theory rather than testing it and must therefore remain ‘open’ throughout the study. In essence, this means that the researcher has no preconceived ideas about the findings. Taking an inductive approach means that the focus of the research may evolve over time as the researchers understand what is important to their participants through the data collection and analysis process.
With regards to data analysis, the use of coding is initially used to break down data into smaller components and labelling them to capture the essence of the data. The codes are compared to one another to understand and explain any variation in the data before they are combined to form more abstract categories. Memos are used to record and develop the researcher’s analysis of the data, including the detail behind the comparisons made between categories. Memos can stimulate the researcher’s thinking, as well as capturing the researcher’s ideas during data collection and analysis.
A further feature for data analysis in a GT study is the simultaneous data analysis and sampling to facilitate theoretical sampling. This means that as data analysis progresses participants are purposefully selected who may have characteristics or experiences that have arisen as being of interest from data collection and analysis so far. Questions in the topic guide may also be modified to follow a specific line of inquiry, test ideas and interpretations, or fill gaps in the analysis to build an emerging substantive theory. This evolving and non-linear methodology is to allow the evolution of the study as indicated by data, rather than analysing at the end of data collection. This approach to data analysis supports the researcher to take an inductive approach as discussed above.
Theoretical sampling facilitates the construction of theory until theoretical saturation is reached. Theoretical saturation is when all the concepts that form the theory being developed are well understood and grounded in data. Finally, the results are expressed as a theory where a set of concepts are related to one another and provide a framework for making predictions. 26 These key features of GT are summarized in Table 2 .
Distinguishing features of a GT study (adapted from Sbaraini et al. 25 )
Distinguishing feature . | Description . |
---|---|
Openness | Grounded Theory is concerned with the development of theory rather than testing it. The researcher has no preconceived ideas about the findings, and the study evolves over time. |
Concurrent data collection and data analysis | Data analysis occurs at the same time as data collection. |
Coding | Data are broken down into smaller components and assigned a label to capture the essence of the data. |
Memos | Memos are a record of the researcher’s ideas and thoughts during data collection and analysis. Use of memos helps to develop the researcher’s analysis. |
Theoretical sampling | Purposeful selection of participants who may have characteristics or experiences that have arisen as being of interest from data collection and analysis. Theoretical sampling also includes modifications to the topic guide to allow the researcher to explore ideas arising from the interviews or fill gaps in the developing theory. |
Theoretical saturation | When all the concepts that form the theory are well understood and grounded in data. |
Theory generation | The results of the study are expressed as a substantive theory. The key aim of GT is to generate a substantive theory, in other words, a theory to explain specific population experiences of a phenomenon. |
Distinguishing feature . | Description . |
---|---|
Openness | Grounded Theory is concerned with the development of theory rather than testing it. The researcher has no preconceived ideas about the findings, and the study evolves over time. |
Concurrent data collection and data analysis | Data analysis occurs at the same time as data collection. |
Coding | Data are broken down into smaller components and assigned a label to capture the essence of the data. |
Memos | Memos are a record of the researcher’s ideas and thoughts during data collection and analysis. Use of memos helps to develop the researcher’s analysis. |
Theoretical sampling | Purposeful selection of participants who may have characteristics or experiences that have arisen as being of interest from data collection and analysis. Theoretical sampling also includes modifications to the topic guide to allow the researcher to explore ideas arising from the interviews or fill gaps in the developing theory. |
Theoretical saturation | When all the concepts that form the theory are well understood and grounded in data. |
Theory generation | The results of the study are expressed as a substantive theory. The key aim of GT is to generate a substantive theory, in other words, a theory to explain specific population experiences of a phenomenon. |
The identification of a gap in the published literature is typically a requirement of successful doctoral studies and grant applications. However, in GT research there are different views about the role and timing of the literature review.
For researchers using classic Glaserian GT, the recommended approach is that the published literature should not be reviewed until data collection, analysis and theory development has been completed. 24 The rationale for the delay of the literature review is to enable the researcher to remain ‘open’ to discover theory emerging from data and free from contamination by avoiding forcing data into pre-conceived concepts derived from other studies. Furthermore, because the researcher is ‘open’ to whichever direction the data takes they cannot know in advance which aspects of the literature will be relevant to their study. 27
In Glaserian GT, the emerging concepts and theory from data analysis inform the scope of the literature review which is conducted after theory development. 24 This approach to the literature review aligns with the rather positivist stance of Glaser in which the researcher aims to remain free of assumptions so that the theory that emerges from the data is not influenced by the researcher. Reviewing the literature prior to data analysis would risk theory being imposed on the data. Perhaps counterintuitively, Glaser does recommend reading literature in unrelated fields to understand as many theoretical codes as possible. 28 However, it is unclear how this is different to reading literature directly related to the topic and could potentially still lead to the contamination of the theory arising from data that delaying the literature review is intended to avoid. It is also problematic regarding the governance processes around research, whereby funders and ethics committees would expect at least an overview of the existing literature as part of the justification for the study.
A study by Bergman et al. 29 used a classic Glaserian GT approach to examine and identify the motive of power in myocardial infarction patients’ rehabilitation process. Whilst the key characteristics of GT were evident in the way the study was conducted, there was no discussion about how the literature review contributed to the final theory. This may have been due to the word limit but illustrates the challenges that novice researchers may have in understanding where the literature review fits in studies using GT approaches.
In Straussian GT, a more pragmatic approach to the literature view is adopted. Strauss and Corbin 30 recognized that the researcher has prior knowledge, including that of the literature, before starting their research. They did not recommend dissociation from the literature, but rather that the literature be used across the various stages of the research. Published literature could identify important areas that could contribute to theory development, support useful comparisons in the data and stimulate further questions during the analytical process. According to Strauss and Corbin, researchers should be mindful about how published work could influence theory development. Whilst visiting the literature prior to data collection was believed to enhance data analysis, it was not thought necessary to review all the literature beforehand, but rather revisit the literature at later stages in the research process. 30
A study published by Salminen-Tuomaala et al. 31 used a Straussian GT approach to explore factors that influenced the way patients coped with hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. The authors described a reflexive process in which the researcher noted down their preconceived ideas about the topic as part of the data analysis process. The literature review was conducted after data analysis.
The most recent step in the evolution of GT is the move towards a constructivist epistemological stance advocated by Charmaz. 32 In simple terms, this means that the underlying approach reflects the belief that theories cannot be discovered but are instead constructed by the researcher and their interactions with the participants and data. As the researcher plays a central role in the construction of the GT, their background, personal views, and culture will influence this process and the way data are analysed. For this reason, it is important to be explicit about these preconceptions and aim to maintain an open mind through reflexivity. 32 Therefore, engaging in a preliminary literature review and using this information to compare and contrast with findings from the research undertaken is desirable, alongside completing a comprehensive literature review after data analysis with a specific aim to present the GT.
A study published by Odell et al. 33 used the modified GT approach recommended by Charmaz 32 to study patients’ experiences of restenosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The authors described the different GT approaches and key features of GT methodology which clearly informed the conduct of the study. However, there was no detail about how the literature review was used to shape the data analysis process and findings.
Despite the clear differences in the approach to the literature review in GT, there appears to be a lack of precise guidance for novice researchers regarding how in depth or exhaustive a preliminary literature review should be. This lack of guidance can lead to a variety of different approaches as evidenced in the GT studies we have cited as examples, which is a challenge for the novice researcher. This uncertainty is further compounded by the concurrent approach to data collection and analysis which allows for the research focus to evolve as the study progresses. The complexity of the research process and the role and timing of the literature review is summarized in Figure 1 .
Literature review in Grounded Theory.
Taking a pragmatic approach, researchers will need to familiarize themselves with the literature to receive funding and approval for their study. This preliminary literature review can be followed up after data analysis by a more comprehensive review of the literature to help support the theory that was developed from the data. The key is to ensure transparency in reporting how the literature review has been used to develop the theory. The preliminary literature review can be used to set the scene for the research as part of the introduction, and the more extensive literature review can then be used during the discussion section to compare the theory developed from the data with existing literature, as per Probyn et al. 34
Whilst this pragmatic approach aligns with Straussian GT and Charmaz’s constructivist GT, it is at odds with Glaserian GT. Therefore, if Glaserian GT is chosen, the researcher should be explicit about deviation and provide a rationale.
Word count for journal articles is often a limiting factor in how much detail is included in why certain methodologies are used. Submitting detail about the methodology and rationale behind it can be presented as online supplementary material, thereby allowing interested readers to access further information about how and why the research was executed.
The use of GT as a methodology and method can shed light on areas where little knowledge is already known, generating theory directly from data. The traditional format of a published article does not always reflect the iterative approach to the literature review and data collection and analysis in GT. This can generate tension between how the research is presented in relation to how it was conducted. However, one simple way to ensure clarity in reporting is to be transparent in how the literature review is used.
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest : The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Greenhalgh T , Taylor R. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) . Br Med J 1997 ; 315 : 740 – 743 .
Google Scholar
Wilson RE , Rush KL , Reid RC , et al. The symptom experience of early and late treatment seekers before an atrial fibrillation diagnosis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :231--242.
Lauck SB , Achtem L , Borregaard B , et al. Can you see frailty? An exploratory study of the use of a patient photograph in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :252--260.
Sundelin R , Bergsten C , Tornvall P , Lyngå, P. et al. Self-rated stress and experience in patients with Takotsubo syndrome: a mixed methods study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120919387.
Janssen DJ , Ament SM , Boyne J , et al. Characteristics for a tool for timely identification of palliative needs in heart failure: the views of Dutch patients, their families and healthcare professionals . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120918962.
Steffen EM , Timotijevic L , Coyle A. A qualitative analysis of psychosocial needs and support impacts in families affected by young sudden cardiac death: the role of community and peer support . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120922347.
Molzahn AE , Sheilds L , Bruce A , Schick-Makaroff K , Antonio M , Clark AM. Life and priorities before death: a narrative inquiry of uncertainty and end of life in people with heart failure and their family members . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 629 – 637 .
Wistrand C , Nilsson U , Sundqvist A-S. Patient experience of preheated and room temperature skin disinfection prior to cardiac device implantation: a randomised controlled trial . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 529 – 536 .
Widell C , Andréen S , Albertsson P , Axelsson ÅB. Octogenarian preferences and expectations for acute coronary syndrome treatment . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 521 – 528 .
Ferguson C , George A , Villarosa AR , Kong AC , Bhole S , Ajwani S. Exploring nursing and allied health perspectives of quality oral care after stroke: a qualitative study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 505 – 512 .
Sutantri S , Cuthill F , Holloway A. ‘ A bridge to normal’: a qualitative study of Indonesian women’s attendance in a phase two cardiac rehabilitation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 , doi: 10.1177/1474515119864208.
Liu X-L , Willis K , Fulbrook P , Wu C-J(J) , Shi Y , Johnson M. Factors influencing self-management priority setting and decision-making among Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 700 – 710 .
Wingham J , Frost J , Britten N , Greaves C , Abraham C , Warren FC , Jolly K , Miles J , Paul K , Doherty PJ , Singh S , Davies R , Noonan M , Dalal H , Taylor RS. Caregiver outcomes of the REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 611 – 620 .
Olsson K , Näslund U , Nilsson J , Hörnsten Å. Hope and despair: patients’ experiences of being ineligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 593 – 600 .
Heery S , Gibson I , Dunne D , Flaherty G. The role of public health nurses in risk factor modification within a high-risk cardiovascular disease population in Ireland – a qualitative analysis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 584 – 592 .
Brännström M , Fischer Grönlund C , Zingmark K , Söderberg A. Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 577 – 583 .
Haydon G , van der Riet P , Inder K. Long-term survivors of cardiac arrest: a narrative inquiry . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 458 – 464 .
Freysdóttir GR , Björnsdóttir K , Svavarsdóttir MH. Nurses’ Use of Monitors in Patient Surveillance: An Ethnographic Study on a Coronary Care Unit . London, England : SAGE Publications ; 2019 . p 272 – 279 .
Google Preview
Pokorney SD , Bloom D , Granger CB , Thomas KL , Al-Khatib SM , Roettig ML , Anderson J , Heflin MT , Granger BB. Exploring patient–provider decision-making for use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the INFORM-AF study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 280 – 288 .
Instenes I , Fridlund B , Amofah HA , Ranhoff AH , Eide LS , Norekvål TM. ‘ I hope you get normal again’: an explorative study on how delirious octogenarian patients experience their interactions with healthcare professionals and relatives after aortic valve therapy . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 224 – 233 .
Palmar-Santos AM , Pedraz-Marcos A , Zarco-Colón J , Ramasco-Gutiérrez M , García-Perea E , Pulido-Fuentes M. The life and death construct in heart transplant patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 48 – 56 .
De Chesnay M , Banner D. Nursing Research Using Grounded Theory: Qualitative Designs and Methods . New York, NY : Springer Publishing Company ; 2015 .
Corbin J , Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 3rd ed. California : SAGE ; 2007 .
Glaser BG , Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . New York : Aldine ; 1967 .
Sbaraini A , Carter SM , Evans RW , Blinkhorn A. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices . BMC Med Res Methodol 2011 ; 11 : 128 – 128 .
Charmaz K. ‘ Discovering’ chronic illness: using grounded theory . Soc Sci Med 1990 ; 30 : 1161 – 1172 .
Thornberg R , Dunne C. Literature review in grounded theory. In Bryant A , Charmaz K , eds. The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory . London : SAGE Publications ; 2019 .
Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions . California : Sociology Press ; 1998 .
Bergman E , Berterö C. ‘ Grasp Life Again’. A qualitative study of the motive power in myocardial infarction patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2003 ; 2 : 303 – 310 .
Strauss A , Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques . 2nd ed. California : Sage ; 1998 .
Salminen-Tuomaala M , Åstedt-Kurki P , Rekiaro M , Paavilainen E. Coping—seeking lost control . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012 ; 11 : 289 – 296 .
Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory . 2nd ed. Los Angeles : SAGE ; 2014 .
Odell A , Grip L , Hallberg LRM. Restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): experiences from the patients' perspective . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006 ; 5 : 150 – 157 .
Probyn J , Greenhalgh J , Holt J , Conway D , Astin F. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients’ and cardiologists’ experiences of the informed consent process in Northern England: a qualitative study . BMJ Open 2017 ; 7 : e015127 .
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
March 2021 | 36 |
April 2021 | 87 |
May 2021 | 275 |
June 2021 | 217 |
July 2021 | 177 |
August 2021 | 175 |
September 2021 | 167 |
October 2021 | 188 |
November 2021 | 196 |
December 2021 | 137 |
January 2022 | 190 |
February 2022 | 259 |
March 2022 | 345 |
April 2022 | 431 |
May 2022 | 420 |
June 2022 | 260 |
July 2022 | 304 |
August 2022 | 360 |
September 2022 | 385 |
October 2022 | 444 |
November 2022 | 527 |
December 2022 | 517 |
January 2023 | 514 |
February 2023 | 656 |
March 2023 | 777 |
April 2023 | 684 |
May 2023 | 663 |
June 2023 | 493 |
July 2023 | 505 |
August 2023 | 503 |
September 2023 | 698 |
October 2023 | 950 |
November 2023 | 832 |
December 2023 | 709 |
January 2024 | 813 |
February 2024 | 703 |
March 2024 | 1,038 |
April 2024 | 1,139 |
May 2024 | 964 |
June 2024 | 696 |
July 2024 | 379 |
Citing articles via.
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
BMC Medical Research Methodology volume 11 , Article number: 128 ( 2011 ) Cite this article
386k Accesses
206 Citations
43 Altmetric
Metrics details
Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.
We documented a worked example of using grounded theory methodology in practice.
We describe our sampling, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. We explain how these steps were consistent with grounded theory methodology, and show how they related to one another. Grounded theory methodology assisted us to develop a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and to analyse variation in this process in different dental practices.
By employing grounded theory methodology rigorously, medical researchers can better design and justify their methods, and produce high-quality findings that will be more useful to patients, professionals and the research community.
Peer Review reports
Qualitative research is increasingly popular in health and medicine. In recent decades, qualitative researchers in health and medicine have founded specialist journals, such as Qualitative Health Research , established 1991, and specialist conferences such as the Qualitative Health Research conference of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology, established 1994, and the Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research, established 2011 [ 1 – 3 ]. Journals such as the British Medical Journal have published series about qualitative methodology (1995 and 2008) [ 4 , 5 ]. Bodies overseeing human research ethics, such as the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research [ 6 , 7 ], have included chapters or sections on the ethics of qualitative research. The increasing popularity of qualitative methodologies for medical research has led to an increasing awareness of formal qualitative methodologies. This is particularly so for grounded theory, one of the most-cited qualitative methodologies in medical research [[ 8 ], p47].
Grounded theory has a chequered history [ 9 ]. Many authors label their work 'grounded theory' but do not follow the basics of the methodology [ 10 , 11 ]. This may be in part because there are few practical examples of grounded theory in use in the literature. To address this problem, we will provide a brief outline of the history and diversity of grounded theory methodology, and a worked example of the methodology in practice. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.
Founded on the seminal 1967 book 'The Discovery of Grounded Theory' [ 12 ], the grounded theory tradition is now diverse and somewhat fractured, existing in four main types, with a fifth emerging. Types one and two are the work of the original authors: Barney Glaser's 'Classic Grounded Theory' [ 13 ] and Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin's 'Basics of Qualitative Research' [ 14 ]. Types three and four are Kathy Charmaz's 'Constructivist Grounded Theory' [ 15 ] and Adele Clarke's postmodern Situational Analysis [ 16 ]: Charmaz and Clarke were both students of Anselm Strauss. The fifth, emerging variant is 'Dimensional Analysis' [ 17 ] which is being developed from the work of Leonard Schaztman, who was a colleague of Strauss and Glaser in the 1960s and 1970s.
There has been some discussion in the literature about what characteristics a grounded theory study must have to be legitimately referred to as 'grounded theory' [ 18 ]. The fundamental components of a grounded theory study are set out in Table 1 . These components may appear in different combinations in other qualitative studies; a grounded theory study should have all of these. As noted, there are few examples of 'how to do' grounded theory in the literature [ 18 , 19 ]. Those that do exist have focused on Strauss and Corbin's methods [ 20 – 25 ]. An exception is Charmaz's own description of her study of chronic illness [ 26 ]; we applied this same variant in our study. In the remainder of this paper, we will show how each of the characteristics of grounded theory methodology worked in our study of dental practices.
We used grounded theory methodology to investigate social processes in private dental practices in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This grounded theory study builds on a previous Australian Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) called the Monitor Dental Practice Program (MPP) [ 27 ]. We know that preventive techniques can arrest early tooth decay and thus reduce the need for fillings [ 28 – 32 ]. Unfortunately, most dentists worldwide who encounter early tooth decay continue to drill it out and fill the tooth [ 33 – 37 ]. The MPP tested whether dentists could increase their use of preventive techniques. In the intervention arm, dentists were provided with a set of evidence-based preventive protocols to apply [ 38 ]; control practices provided usual care. The MPP protocols used in the RCT guided dentists to systematically apply preventive techniques to prevent new tooth decay and to arrest early stages of tooth decay in their patients, therefore reducing the need for drilling and filling. The protocols focused on (1) primary prevention of new tooth decay (tooth brushing with high concentration fluoride toothpaste and dietary advice) and (2) intensive secondary prevention through professional treatment to arrest tooth decay progress (application of fluoride varnish, supervised monitoring of dental plaque control and clinical outcomes)[ 38 ].
As the RCT unfolded, it was discovered that practices in the intervention arm were not implementing the preventive protocols uniformly. Why had the outcomes of these systematically implemented protocols been so different? This question was the starting point for our grounded theory study. We aimed to understand how the protocols had been implemented, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process. We hoped that such understanding would help us to see how the norms of Australian private dental practice as regards to tooth decay could be moved away from drilling and filling and towards evidence-based preventive care.
Figure 1 illustrates the steps taken during the project that will be described below from points A to F.
Study design . file containing a figure illustrating the study design.
Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact . This shows the influence of symbolic interactionism, a social psychological approach focused on the meaning of human actions [ 39 ]. Grounded theory studies begin with open questions, and researchers presume that they may know little about the meanings that drive the actions of their participants. Accordingly, we sought to learn from participants how the MPP process worked and how they made sense of it. We wanted to answer a practical social problem: how do dentists persist in drilling and filling early stages of tooth decay, when they could be applying preventive care?
We asked research questions that were open, and focused on social processes. Our initial research questions were:
What was the process of implementing (or not-implementing) the protocols (from the perspective of dentists, practice staff, and patients)?
How did this process vary?
In our experience, medical researchers are often concerned about the ethics oversight process for such a flexible, unpredictable study design. We managed this process as follows. Initial ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Sydney. In our application, we explained grounded theory procedures, in particular the fact that they evolve. In our initial application we provided a long list of possible recruitment strategies and interview questions, as suggested by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We indicated that we would make future applications to modify our protocols. We did this as the study progressed - detailed below. Each time we reminded the committee that our study design was intended to evolve with ongoing modifications. Each modification was approved without difficulty. As in any ethical study, we ensured that participation was voluntary, that participants could withdraw at any time, and that confidentiality was protected. All responses were anonymised before analysis, and we took particular care not to reveal potentially identifying details of places, practices or clinicians.
Grounded theory studies are characterised by theoretical sampling, but this requires some data to be collected and analysed. Sampling must thus begin purposively, as in any qualitative study. Participants in the previous MPP study provided our population [ 27 ]. The MPP included 22 private dental practices in NSW, randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. With permission of the ethics committee; we sent letters to the participants in the MPP, inviting them to participate in a further qualitative study. From those who agreed, we used the quantitative data from the MPP to select an initial sample.
Then, we selected the practice in which the most dramatic results had been achieved in the MPP study (Dental Practice 1). This was a purposive sampling strategy, to give us the best possible access to the process of successfully implementing the protocols. We interviewed all consenting staff who had been involved in the MPP (one dentist, five dental assistants). We then recruited 12 patients who had been enrolled in the MPP, based on their clinically measured risk of developing tooth decay: we selected some patients whose risk status had gotten better, some whose risk had worsened and some whose risk had stayed the same. This purposive sample was designed to provide maximum variation in patients' adoption of preventive dental care.
One hour in-depth interviews were conducted. The researcher/interviewer (AS) travelled to a rural town in NSW where interviews took place. The initial 18 participants (one dentist, five dental assistants and 12 patients) from Dental Practice 1 were interviewed in places convenient to them such as the dental practice, community centres or the participant's home.
Two initial interview schedules were designed for each group of participants: 1) dentists and dental practice staff and 2) dental patients. Interviews were semi-structured and based loosely on the research questions. The initial questions for dentists and practice staff are in Additional file 1 . Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The research location was remote from the researcher's office, thus data collection was divided into two episodes to allow for intermittent data analysis. Dentist and practice staff interviews were done in one week. The researcher wrote memos throughout this week. The researcher then took a month for data analysis in which coding and memo-writing occurred. Then during a return visit, patient interviews were completed, again with memo-writing during the data-collection period.
Coding and the constant comparative method.
Coding is essential to the development of a grounded theory [ 15 ]. According to Charmaz [[ 15 ], p46], 'coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data. Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means'. Coding occurs in stages. In initial coding, the researcher generates as many ideas as possible inductively from early data. In focused coding, the researcher pursues a selected set of central codes throughout the entire dataset and the study. This requires decisions about which initial codes are most prevalent or important, and which contribute most to the analysis. In theoretical coding, the researcher refines the final categories in their theory and relates them to one another. Charmaz's method, like Glaser's method [ 13 ], captures actions or processes by using gerunds as codes (verbs ending in 'ing'); Charmaz also emphasises coding quickly, and keeping the codes as similar to the data as possible.
We developed our coding systems individually and through team meetings and discussions.
We have provided a worked example of coding in Table 2 . Gerunds emphasise actions and processes. Initial coding identifies many different processes. After the first few interviews, we had a large amount of data and many initial codes. This included a group of codes that captured how dentists sought out evidence when they were exposed to a complex clinical case, a new product or technique. Because this process seemed central to their practice, and because it was talked about often, we decided that seeking out evidence should become a focused code. By comparing codes against codes and data against data, we distinguished the category of "seeking out evidence" from other focused codes, such as "gathering and comparing peers' evidence to reach a conclusion", and we understood the relationships between them. Using this constant comparative method (see Table 1 ), we produced a theoretical code: "making sense of evidence and constructing knowledge". This code captured the social process that dentists went through when faced with new information or a practice challenge. This theoretical code will be the focus of a future paper.
Throughout the study, we wrote extensive case-based memos and conceptual memos. After each interview, the interviewer/researcher (AS) wrote a case-based memo reflecting on what she learned from that interview. They contained the interviewer's impressions about the participants' experiences, and the interviewer's reactions; they were also used to systematically question some of our pre-existing ideas in relation to what had been said in the interview. Table 3 illustrates one of those memos. After a few interviews, the interviewer/researcher also began making and recording comparisons among these memos.
We also wrote conceptual memos about the initial codes and focused codes being developed, as described by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We used these memos to record our thinking about the meaning of codes and to record our thinking about how and when processes occurred, how they changed, and what their consequences were. In these memos, we made comparisons between data, cases and codes in order to find similarities and differences, and raised questions to be answered in continuing interviews. Table 4 illustrates a conceptual memo.
At the end of our data collection and analysis from Dental Practice 1, we had developed a tentative model of the process of implementing the protocols, from the perspective of dentists, dental practice staff and patients. This was expressed in both diagrams and memos, was built around a core set of focused codes, and illustrated relationships between them.
We have already described our initial purposive sampling. After our initial data collection and analysis, we used theoretical sampling (see Table 1 ) to determine who to sample next and what questions to ask during interviews. We submitted Ethics Modification applications for changes in our question routes, and had no difficulty with approval. We will describe how the interview questions for dentists and dental practice staff evolved, and how we selected new participants to allow development of our substantive theory. The patients' interview schedule and theoretical sampling followed similar procedures.
We now had a detailed provisional model of the successful process implemented in Dental Practice 1. Important core focused codes were identified, including practical/financial, historical and philosophical dimensions of the process. However, we did not yet understand how the process might vary or go wrong, as implementation in the first practice we studied had been described as seamless and beneficial for everyone. Because our aim was to understand the process of implementing the protocols, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process, we needed to understand how implementation might fail. For this reason, we theoretically sampled participants from Dental Practice 2, where uptake of the MPP protocols had been very limited according to data from the RCT trial.
We also changed our interview questions based on the analysis we had already done (see Additional file 2 ). In our analysis of data from Dental Practice 1, we had learned that "effectiveness" of treatments and "evidence" both had a range of meanings. We also learned that new technologies - in particular digital x-rays and intra-oral cameras - had been unexpectedly important to the process of implementing the protocols. For this reason, we added new questions for the interviews in Dental Practice 2 to directly investigate "effectiveness", "evidence" and how dentists took up new technologies in their practice.
Then, in Dental Practice 2 we learned more about the barriers dentists and practice staff encountered during the process of implementing the MPP protocols. We confirmed and enriched our understanding of dentists' processes for adopting technology and producing knowledge, dealing with complex cases and we further clarified the concept of evidence. However there was a new, important, unexpected finding in Dental Practice 2. Dentists talked about "unreliable" patients - that is, patients who were too unreliable to have preventive dental care offered to them. This seemed to be a potentially important explanation for non-implementation of the protocols. We modified our interview schedule again to include questions about this concept (see Additional file 3 ) leading to another round of ethics approvals. We also returned to Practice 1 to ask participants about the idea of an "unreliable" patient.
Dentists' construction of the "unreliable" patient during interviews also prompted us to theoretically sample for "unreliable" and "reliable" patients in the following round of patients' interviews. The patient question route was also modified by the analysis of the dentists' and practice staff data. We wanted to compare dentists' perspectives with the perspectives of the patients themselves. Dentists were asked to select "reliable" and "unreliable" patients to be interviewed. Patients were asked questions about what kind of services dentists should provide and what patients valued when coming to the dentist. We found that these patients (10 reliable and 7 unreliable) talked in very similar ways about dental care. This finding suggested to us that some deeply-held assumptions within the dental profession may not be shared by dental patients.
At this point, we decided to theoretically sample dental practices from the non-intervention arm of the MPP study. This is an example of the 'openness' of a grounded theory study potentially subtly shifting the focus of the study. Our analysis had shifted our focus: rather than simply studying the process of implementing the evidence-based preventive protocols, we were studying the process of doing prevention in private dental practice. All participants seemed to be revealing deeply held perspectives shared in the dental profession, whether or not they were providing dental care as outlined in the MPP protocols. So, by sampling dentists from both intervention and control group from the previous MPP study, we aimed to confirm or disconfirm the broader reach of our emerging theory and to complete inductive development of key concepts. Theoretical sampling added 12 face to face interviews and 10 telephone interviews to the data. A total of 40 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 were recruited. Telephone interviews were of comparable length, content and quality to face to face interviews, as reported elsewhere in the literature [ 40 ].
After theoretical sampling, we could begin coding theoretically. We fleshed out each major focused code, examining the situations in which they appeared, when they changed and the relationship among them. At time of writing, we have reached theoretical saturation (see Table 1 ). We have been able to determine this in several ways. As we have become increasingly certain about our central focused codes, we have re-examined the data to find all available insights regarding those codes. We have drawn diagrams and written memos. We have looked rigorously for events or accounts not explained by the emerging theory so as to develop it further to explain all of the data. Our theory, which is expressed as a set of concepts that are related to one another in a cohesive way, now accounts adequately for all the data we have collected. We have presented the developing theory to specialist dental audiences and to the participants, and have found that it was accepted by and resonated with these audiences.
We have used these procedures to construct a detailed, multi-faceted model of the process of incorporating prevention into private general dental practice. This model includes relationships among concepts, consequences of the process, and variations in the process. A concrete example of one of our final key concepts is the process of "adapting to" prevention. More commonly in the literature writers speak of adopting, implementing or translating evidence-based preventive protocols into practice. Through our analysis, we concluded that what was required was 'adapting to' those protocols in practice. Some dental practices underwent a slow process of adapting evidence-based guidance to their existing practice logistics. Successful adaptation was contingent upon whether (1) the dentist-in-charge brought the whole dental team together - including other dentists - and got everyone interested and actively participating during preventive activities; (2) whether the physical environment of the practice was re-organised around preventive activities, (3) whether the dental team was able to devise new and efficient routines to accommodate preventive activities, and (4) whether the fee schedule was amended to cover the delivery of preventive services, which hitherto was considered as "unproductive time".
Adaptation occurred over time and involved practical, historical and philosophical aspects of dental care. Participants transitioned from their initial state - selling restorative care - through an intermediary stage - learning by doing and educating patients about the importance of preventive care - and finally to a stage where they were offering patients more than just restorative care. These are examples of ways in which participants did not simply adopt protocols in a simple way, but needed to adapt the protocols and their own routines as they moved toward more preventive practice.
There are a number of important assurances of quality in keeping with grounded theory procedures and general principles of qualitative research. The following points describe what was crucial for this study to achieve quality.
1. All interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed in detail and the transcripts checked against the recordings.
2. We analysed the interview transcripts as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice sampled as shown on Figure 1 . This allowed the process of theoretical sampling to occur.
3. Writing case-based memos right after each interview while being in the field allowed the researcher/interviewer to capture initial ideas and make comparisons between participants' accounts. These memos assisted the researcher to make comparison among her reflections, which enriched data analysis and guided further data collection.
4. Having the opportunity to contact participants after interviews to clarify concepts and to interview some participants more than once contributed to the refinement of theoretical concepts, thus forming part of theoretical sampling.
5. The decision to include phone interviews due to participants' preference worked very well in this study. Phone interviews had similar length and depth compared to the face to face interviews, but allowed for a greater range of participation.
1. Detailed analysis records were kept; which made it possible to write this explanatory paper.
2. The use of the constant comparative method enabled the analysis to produce not just a description but a model, in which more abstract concepts were related and a social process was explained.
3. All researchers supported analysis activities; a regular meeting of the research team was convened to discuss and contextualize emerging interpretations, introducing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives.
We developed a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and analysed the variation in this process in different dental practices. Transferring evidence-based preventive protocols into these dental practices entailed a slow process of adapting the evidence to the existing practices logistics. Important practical, philosophical and historical elements as well as barriers and facilitators were present during a complex adaptation process. Time was needed to allow dentists and practice staff to go through this process of slowly adapting their practices to this new way of working. Patients also needed time to incorporate home care activities and more frequent visits to dentists into their daily routines. Despite being able to adapt or not, all dentists trusted the concrete clinical evidence that they have produced, that is, seeing results in their patients mouths made them believe in a specific treatment approach.
This paper provides a detailed explanation of how a study evolved using grounded theory methodology (GTM), one of the most commonly used methodologies in qualitative health and medical research [[ 8 ], p47]. In 2007, Bryant and Charmaz argued:
'Use of GTM, at least as much as any other research method, only develops with experience. Hence the failure of all those attempts to provide clear, mechanistic rules for GTM: there is no 'GTM for dummies'. GTM is based around heuristics and guidelines rather than rules and prescriptions. Moreover, researchers need to be familiar with GTM, in all its major forms, in order to be able to understand how they might adapt it in use or revise it into new forms and variations.' [[ 8 ], p17].
Our detailed explanation of our experience in this grounded theory study is intended to provide, vicariously, the kind of 'experience' that might help other qualitative researchers in medicine and health to apply and benefit from grounded theory methodology in their studies. We hope that our explanation will assist others to avoid using grounded theory as an 'approving bumper sticker' [ 10 ], and instead use it as a resource that can greatly improve the quality and outcome of a qualitative study.
grounded theory methods
Monitor Dental Practice Program
New South Wales
Randomized Controlled Trial.
Qualitative Health Research Journal: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://qhr.sagepub.com/ ]
Qualitative Health Research conference of The International Institute for Qualitative Methodology: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.iiqm.ualberta.ca/en/Conferences/QualitativeHealthResearch.aspx ]
The Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.gcqhr.com/ ]
Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 1995, 311: 182-
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W: Qualitative research: an introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008, 337: a288-10.1136/bmj.a288.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statemen: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . 1998, website accessed on 13 September 2011, [ http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/introduction.cfm ]
Google Scholar
The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm ]
Bryant A, Charmaz K, (eds.): Handbook of Grounded Theory. 2007, London: Sage
Walker D, Myrick F: Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qual Health Res. 2006, 16: 547-559. 10.1177/1049732305285972.
Barbour R: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.
Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ: Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007, 7 (3): 375-422. 10.1177/1468794107078517.
Article Google Scholar
Glaser BG, Strauss AL: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. 1967, Chicago: Aldine
Glaser BG: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs Forcing. 1992, Mill Valley CA, USA: Sociology Press
Corbin J, Strauss AL: Basics of qualitative research. 2008, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3
Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2006, London: Sage
Clarke AE: Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. 2005, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Bowers B, Schatzman L: Dimensional Analysis. Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Edited by: Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE. 2009, Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press, 86-125.
Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE, (eds.): Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. 2009, Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press
Carter SM: Enacting Internal Coherence as a Path to Quality in Qualitative Inquiry. Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies. Edited by: Higgs J, Cherry N, Macklin R, Ajjawi R. 2010, Practice, Education, Work and Society Series. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2: 143-152.
Wasserman JA, Clair JM, Wilson KL: Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qual Res. 2009, 9: 355-381. 10.1177/1468794109106605.
Scott JW: Relating categories in grounded theory analysis: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. The Qualitative Report. 2004, 9 (1): 113-126.
Sarker S, Lau F, Sahay S: Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory about virtual team development. Data Base Adv Inf Sy. 2001, 32 (1): 38-56.
LaRossa R: Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. J Marriage Fam. 2005, 67 (4): 837-857. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x.
Kendall J: Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. WJNR. 1999, 21 (6): 743-757.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Kippen S, Liamputtong P: Doing sensitive research: what challenges do qualitative researchers face?. Qual Res. 2007, 7 (3): 327-353. 10.1177/1468794107078515.
Charmaz K: Discovering chronic illness - using grounded theory. Soc Sci Med. 1990, 30,11: 1161-1172.
Curtis B, Evans RW, Sbaraini A, Schwarz E: The Monitor Practice Programme: is non-surgical management of tooth decay in private practice effective?. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 306-313. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00071.x.
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Featherstone JDB: The caries balance: The basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2004, 2 (S1): 259-264.
PubMed Google Scholar
Axelsson P, Nyström B, Lindhe J: The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. J Clin Periodontol. 2004, 31: 749-757. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00563.x.
Sbaraini A, Evans RW: Caries risk reduction in patients attending a caries management clinic. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 340-348. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00076.x.
Pitts NB: Monitoring of caries progression in permanent and primary posterior approximal enamel by bitewing radiography: A review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983, 11: 228-235. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1983.tb01883.x.
Pitts NB: The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. DentoMaxilloFac Rad. 1996, 25: 5-16.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Pitts NB: Are we ready to move from operative to non-operative/preventive treatment of dental caries in clinical practice?. Caries Res. 2004, 38: 294-304. 10.1159/000077769.
Tan PL, Evans RW, Morgan MV: Caries, bitewings, and treatment decisions. Aust Dent J. 2002, 47: 138-141. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00317.x.
Riordan P, Espelid I, Tveit A: Radiographic interpretation and treatment decisions among dental therapists and dentists in Western Australia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991, 19: 268-271. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1991.tb00165.x.
Espelid I, Tveit A, Haugejorden O, Riordan P: Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries among dentists in Norway. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1985, 13: 26-29. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1985.tb00414.x.
Espelid I: Radiographic diagnoses and treatment decisions on approximal caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986, 14: 265-270. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1986.tb01069.x.
Evans RW, Pakdaman A, Dennison P, Howe E: The Caries Management System: an evidence-based preventive strategy for dental practitioners. Application for adults. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 83-92. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.00004.x.
Blumer H: Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. 1969, Berkley: University of California Press
Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ: Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004, 4 (1): 107-18. 10.1177/1468794104041110.
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/128/prepub
Download references
We thank dentists, dental practice staff and patients for their invaluable contributions to the study. We thank Emeritus Professor Miles Little for his time and wise comments during the project.
The authors received financial support for the research from the following funding agencies: University of Sydney Postgraduate Award 2009; The Oral Health Foundation, University of Sydney; Dental Board New South Wales; Australian Dental Research Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 632715.
Authors and affiliations.
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter & Anthony Blinkhorn
Population Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Alexandra Sbaraini, R Wendell Evans & Anthony Blinkhorn
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Alexandra Sbaraini .
Competing interests.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design of this study. AS carried out data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. SMC made substantial contribution during data collection, analysis and data interpretation. AS, SMC, RWE, and AB have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
12874_2011_640_moesm1_esm.doc.
Additional file 1: Initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. (DOC 30 KB)
Additional file 2: Questions added to the initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing questions added to the initial interview schedule (DOC 26 KB)
Additional file 3: Questions added to the modified interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing questions added to the modified interview schedule (DOC 26 KB)
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions.
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Sbaraini, A., Carter, S.M., Evans, R.W. et al. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 128 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128
Download citation
Received : 17 June 2011
Accepted : 09 September 2011
Published : 09 September 2011
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
ISSN: 1471-2288
Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service
Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve
Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground
Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention
Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth
Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people
Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone
Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts
Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market
Explore the platform powering Experience Management
Popular Use Cases
Market Research
The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.
Your complete guide to grounded theory research.
11 min read If you have an area of interest, but no hypothesis yet, try grounded theory research. You conduct data collection and analysis, forming a theory based on facts. Read our ultimate guide for everything you need to know.
Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then creates a theory ‘grounded’ in the results.
The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book, Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory.
Research teams use grounded theory to analyze social processes and relationships.
Because of the important role of data, there are key stages like data collection and data analysis that need to happen in order for the resulting data to be useful.
The grounded research results are compared to strengthen the validity of the findings to arrive at stronger defined theories. Once the data analysis cannot continue to refine the new theories down, a final theory is confirmed.
Grounded research is different from experimental research or scientific inquiry as it does not need a hypothesis theory at the start to verify. Instead, the evolving theory is based on facts and evidence discovered during each stage.Also, grounded research also doesn’t have a preconceived understanding of events or happenings before the qualitative research commences.
Free eBook: Qualitative research design handbook
Grounded theory research is useful for businesses when a researcher wants to look into a topic that has existing theory or no current research available. This means that the qualitative research results will be unique and can open the doors to the social phenomena being investigated.
In addition, businesses can use this qualitative research as the primary evidence needed to understand whether it’s worth placing investment into a new line of product or services, if the research identifies key themes and concepts that point to a solvable commercial problem.
There are several stages in the grounded theory process:
The researcher decides what area they’re interested in.
They may create a guide to what they will be collecting during the grounded theory methodology. They will refer to this guide when they want to check the suitability of the qualitative data, as they collect it, to avoid preconceived ideas of what they know impacting the research.
A researcher can set up a grounded theory coding framework to identify the correct data. Coding is associating words, or labels, that are useful to the social phenomena that is being investigated. So, when the researcher sees these words, they assign the data to that category or theme.
In this stage, you’ll also want to create your open-ended initial research questions. Here are the main differences between open and closed-ended questions:
Open-ended questions | Closed-ended questions |
---|---|
Qualitative | Quantitative |
Contextual | Data-driven |
Personalized | Manufactured |
Exploratory | Focused |
These will need to be adapted as the research goes on and more tangents and areas to explore are discovered. To help you create your questions, ask yourself:
Data analysis happens at the same time as data collection. In grounded theory analysis, this is also known as constant comparative analysis, or theoretical sampling.
The researcher collects qualitative data by asking open-ended questions in interviews and surveys, studying historical or archival data, or observing participants and interpreting what is seen. This collected data is transferred into transcripts.
The categories or themes are compared and further refined by data, until there are only a few strong categories or themes remaining. Here is where coding occurs, and there are different levels of coding as the categories or themes are refined down:
During analysis, the researcher will apply theoretical sensitivity to the collected data they uncover, so that the meaning of nuances in what they see can be fully understood.
This coding process repeats until the researcher has reached theoretical saturation. In grounded theory analysis, this is where all data has been researched and there are no more possible categories or themes to explore.
The researcher takes the core categories and themes that they have gathered and integrates them into one central idea (a new theory) using selective code. This final grounded theory concludes the research.
The new theory should be a few simple sentences that describe the research, indicating what was and was not covered in it.
One example of how grounded theory may be used in business is to support HR teams by analyzing data to explore reasons why people leave a company.
For example, a company with a high attrition rate that has not done any research on this area before may choose grounded theory to understand key reasons why people choose to leave.
Researchers may start looking at the quantitative data around departures over the year and look for patterns. Coupled with this, they may conduct qualitative data research through employee engagement surveys , interview panels for current employees, and exit interviews with leaving employees.
From this information, they may start coding transcripts to find similarities and differences (coding) picking up on general themes and concepts. For example, a group of excepts like:
Using open coding, a researcher could compare excerpts and suggest the themes of managerial issues, a culture of long hours and lack of traveling routes at night.
With more samples and information, through axial coding, stronger themes of lack of recognition and having too much work (which led people to working late), could be drawn out from the summaries of the concepts and themes.
This could lead to a selective coding conclusion that people left because they were ‘overworked and under-appreciated’.
With this information, a grounded theory can help HR teams look at what teams do day to day, exploring ways to spread workloads or reduce them. Also, there could be training supplied to management and employees to engage professional development conversations better.
Evaluating qualitative research can be tough when there are several analytics platforms to manage and lots of subjective data sources to compare. Some tools are already part of the office toolset, like video conferencing tools and excel spreadsheets.
However, most tools are not purpose-built for research, so researchers will be manually collecting and managing these files – in the worst case scenario, by pen and paper!
Use a best-in-breed management technology solution to collect all qualitative research and manage it in an organized way without large time resources or additional training required.
Qualtrics provides a number of qualitative research analysis tools, like Text iQ , powered by Qualtrics iQ, provides powerful machine learning and native language processing to help you discover patterns and trends in text.
This also provides you with research process tools:
Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, qualitative research questions 11 min read, qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, request demo.
Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?
Home Market Research
In the realm of qualitative research, the grounded theory approach stands as a stalwart methodology that has reshaped how researchers unravel the complexities of the human experience.
This approach, developed by Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss in the 1960s, provides a systematic framework for generating theories from empirical data.
Grounded theory methods involve systematically deriving theories from qualitative data, facilitating a deep understanding of complex phenomena. The grounded theory method empowers researchers to construct concepts and theories directly from the data they collect, fostering a comprehensive and contextually rich analysis.
In this blog, we delve into the core principles of the grounded theory approach and explore how platforms like QuestionPro can enhance its application in qualitative research.
Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology that involves developing theories directly from the data collected during the research process instead of relying on pre-existing theories or hypotheses.
This approach aims to generate insights and understanding about a particular phenomenon by systematically analyzing and coding the data to uncover patterns, relationships, and concepts.
It emphasizes research’s iterative and inductive nature, allowing theories to emerge organically from the data rather than being imposed on it. This methodology is commonly used in social sciences and other fields to explore complex social processes and generate new theories from empirical observations and interviews.
Grounded theory research is particularly well-suited for situations where you want to develop a new theory or gain a deeper understanding of a complex phenomenon that hasn’t been extensively studied before. Here are some scenarios where such theory research can be valuable:
When you’re exploring a new area of research where little prior theory exists, it can help you generate theories and concepts directly from the data.
It can provide insights into the underlying dynamics if you’re studying complex social processes, behaviors, interactions, or cultural phenomena.
When examining a relatively new or rapidly evolving phenomenon, grounded theory can help you uncover the underlying structures and trends driving its emergence.
If you aim to develop a new theoretical framework based on empirical evidence, it provides a systematic approach to theory building grounded in data.
When you want to deeply understand a phenomenon within its specific context, it allows you to capture the nuances and intricacies that more hypothesis-driven methods might miss.
It effectively captures participants’ perspectives and experiences in a detailed and nuanced manner.
It’s useful when you’re working with diverse types of qualitative data, such as interviews, observations, field notes, or textual documents.
Grounded theory allows you to develop insights that contradict or expand upon established knowledge to challenge existing assumptions or theories.
This can be valuable in interdisciplinary research, where you’re attempting to integrate perspectives from multiple disciplines to develop new insights.
In fields like education, healthcare, or social work, where practical solutions are needed, it can help in developing theories that inform real-world applications.
The grounded theory process involves several key steps researchers follow to generate theories from empirical data systematically. While there might be variations and adaptations in different researchers’ approaches, the following steps are commonly associated with the grounded theory methodology:
The foundation of the constructivist grounded theory approach lies in collecting data through methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. This raw data serves as the bedrock for theory construction.
Researchers meticulously dissect the data, assigning initial codes to capture the fundamental concepts present. This stage facilitates unbiased exploration, as researchers do not force-fit data into pre-existing categories.
Building upon the initial codes, researchers start categorizing and interlinking them to form more comprehensive themes. The aim is to identify connections and relationships between these categories.
The process evolves further as a core category central to the phenomenon under study emerges. Researchers refine and establish links between this core category and other concepts.
Throughout the journey, researchers consistently compare new data with existing codes and categories, refining their understanding and allowing the theory to evolve organically.
Researchers strategically select new data sources or participants to enrich the theory’s development and validation, ensuring that the existing theory resonates with diverse perspectives.
The journey reaches its zenith with theoretical sensitivity saturation, where new data ceases to alter the theory significantly. This signifies a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.
Researchers compile their insights into a coherent narrative that encapsulates emerging relationships, patterns, and concepts. This narrative becomes the tangible outcome of the grounded theory study.
Here are some advantages and disadvantages of using grounded theory:
In their study of online community dynamics, the researchers employed grounded theory analysis to uncover emergent patterns of interaction and collaboration among participants. Platforms like QuestionPro offer a range of tools that complement and enhance the grounded theory Approach in qualitative research:
The grounded theory Approach remains a cornerstone in qualitative research, fostering a dynamic interplay between data and emerging theory construction.
QuestionPro’s suite of tools lends a helping hand to researchers embarking on this journey, providing support across data collection, analysis, collaboration, and visualization.
As the landscape of research evolves, the synergy between methodologies like the grounded theory approach and innovative platforms like QuestionPro paves the way for deeper insights into the tapestry of human experiences.
LEARN MORE FREE TRIAL
Jul 17, 2024
Jul 16, 2024
Jul 12, 2024
Jul 11, 2024
Theory development.
Grounded theory proposes that careful observation of the social world can lead to the construction of theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). It is iterative and evolving, aiming to construct new theory from collected data that accounts for those data. It is also known as the “grounded theory method”, although the terms have become interchangeable (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).
Grounded theory characteristics include:
Notably, data collection is cyclical and reflective. This is different from the more linear processes occurring in other methodologies.
Theoretical sampling is a key aspect of the sampling stage of grounded theory. Recruitment continues until the sample finally represents all aspects that make up the theory the data represent (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Participants are recruited based on their different experiences of a phenomenon.
Researchers collect participant data using these methods:
Focus groups and interviews are typically being more practical in health research than observation (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007).
After the initial phase of data collection, researchers repeat the following cycle of steps:
Researchers’ developing understanding of the concepts, categories and relationships informs their actions at each step. These elements result in a theoretical framework explaining the data.
This cycle reflects two crucial components of grounded theory:
Attree, M. (2001). Patients' and relatives' experiences and perspectives of 'Good' and 'Not so Good' quality care . J Adv Nurs , 33(4), 456-466. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01689.x
Lingard, L., Reznick, R., Espin, S., Regehr, G., & DeVito, I. (2002). Team communications in the operating room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices . Acad Med , 77(3), 232-237. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200203000-00013
Pettersson, S., Ekstrom, M. P., & Berg, C. M. (2013). Practices of weight regulation among elite athletes in combat sports: a matter of mental advantage? J Athl Train , 48(1), 99-108. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.04
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory : SAGE Publications Ltd.
Charmaz, K. (2017). An introduction to grounded theory : SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lingard, L., Albert, M., & Levinson, W. (2008). Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research . BMJ , 337, a567. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: a health focus . South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory . Qualitative Health Research , 17(10), 1372-1380. doi: 10.1177/1049732307307031
Chris Drew (PhD)
Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]
Learn about our Editorial Process
Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that involves the construction of theory from data rather than testing theories through data (Birks & Mills, 2015).
In other words, a grounded theory analysis doesn’t start with a hypothesis or theoretical framework, but instead generates a theory during the data analysis process .
This method has garnered a notable amount of attention since its inception in the 1960s by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
A central feature of grounded theory is the continuous interplay between data collection and analysis (Bringer, Johnston, & Brackenridge, 2016).
Grounded theorists start with the data, coding and considering each piece of collected information (for instance, behaviors collected during a psychological study).
As more information is collected, the researcher can reflect upon the data in an ongoing cycle where data informs an ever-growing and evolving theory (Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2017).
As such, the researcher isn’t tied to testing a hypothesis, but instead, can allow surprising and intriguing insights to emerge from the data itself.
Applications of grounded theory are widespread within the field of social sciences . The method has been utilized to provide insight into complex social phenomena such as nursing, education, and business management (Atkinson, 2015).
Grounded theory offers a sound methodology to unearth the complexities of social phenomena that aren’t well-understood in existing theories (McGhee, Marland & Atkinson, 2017).
While the methods of grounded theory can be labor-intensive and time-consuming, the rich, robust theories this approach produces make it a valuable tool in many researchers’ repertoires.
Title: A grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology
Citation: Weatherall, J. W. A. (2000). A grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology. Educational Gerontology , 26 (4), 371-386.
Description: This study employed a grounded theory approach to investigate older adults’ use of information technology (IT). Six participants from a senior senior were interviewed about their experiences and opinions regarding computer technology. Consistent with a grounded theory angle, there was no hypothesis to be tested. Rather, themes emerged out of the analysis process. From this, the findings revealed that the participants recognized the importance of IT in modern life, which motivated them to explore its potential. Positive attitudes towards IT were developed and reinforced through direct experience and personal ownership of technology.
Title: A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study
Citation: Jacobson, N. (2009). A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study. BMC International health and human rights , 9 (1), 1-9.
Description: This study aims to develop a taxonomy of dignity by letting the data create the taxonomic categories, rather than imposing the categories upon the analysis. The theory emerged from the textual and thematic analysis of 64 interviews conducted with individuals marginalized by health or social status , as well as those providing services to such populations and professionals working in health and human rights. This approach identified two main forms of dignity that emerged out of the data: “ human dignity ” and “social dignity”.
Title: A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose
Citation: Bronk, K. C. (2012). A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research , 27 (1), 78-109.
Description: This study explores the development of noble youth purpose over time using a grounded theory approach. Something notable about this study was that it returned to collect additional data two additional times, demonstrating how grounded theory can be an interactive process. The researchers conducted three waves of interviews with nine adolescents who demonstrated strong commitments to various noble purposes. The findings revealed that commitments grew slowly but steadily in response to positive feedback, with mentors and like-minded peers playing a crucial role in supporting noble purposes.
Title: A grounded theory of the flow experiences of Web users
Citation: Pace, S. (2004). A grounded theory of the flow experiences of Web users. International journal of human-computer studies , 60 (3), 327-363.
Description: This study attempted to understand the flow experiences of web users engaged in information-seeking activities, systematically gathering and analyzing data from semi-structured in-depth interviews with web users. By avoiding preconceptions and reviewing the literature only after the theory had emerged, the study aimed to develop a theory based on the data rather than testing preconceived ideas. The study identified key elements of flow experiences, such as the balance between challenges and skills, clear goals and feedback, concentration, a sense of control, a distorted sense of time, and the autotelic experience.
Title: Victimising of school bullying: a grounded theory
Citation: Thornberg, R., Halldin, K., Bolmsjö, N., & Petersson, A. (2013). Victimising of school bullying: A grounded theory. Research Papers in Education , 28 (3), 309-329.
Description: This study aimed to investigate the experiences of individuals who had been victims of school bullying and understand the effects of these experiences, using a grounded theory approach. Through iterative coding of interviews, the researchers identify themes from the data without a pre-conceived idea or hypothesis that they aim to test. The open-minded coding of the data led to the identification of a four-phase process in victimizing: initial attacks, double victimizing, bullying exit, and after-effects of bullying. The study highlighted the social processes involved in victimizing, including external victimizing through stigmatization and social exclusion, as well as internal victimizing through self-isolation, self-doubt, and lingering psychosocial issues.
Suggested Title: “Understanding Interprofessional Collaboration in Emergency Medical Services”
Suggested Data Analysis Method: Coding and constant comparative analysis
How to Do It: This hypothetical study might begin with conducting in-depth interviews and field observations within several emergency medical teams to collect detailed narratives and behaviors. Multiple rounds of coding and categorizing would be carried out on this raw data, consistently comparing new information with existing categories. As the categories saturate, relationships among them would be identified, with these relationships forming the basis of a new theory bettering our understanding of collaboration in emergency settings. This iterative process of data collection, analysis, and theory development, continually refined based on fresh insights, upholds the essence of a grounded theory approach.
Suggested Title: “The Role of Social Media in Political Engagement Among Young Adults”
Suggested Data Analysis Method: Open, axial, and selective coding
Explanation: The study would start by collecting interaction data on various social media platforms, focusing on political discussions engaged in by young adults. Through open, axial, and selective coding, the data would be broken down, compared, and conceptualized. New insights and patterns would gradually form the basis of a theory explaining the role of social media in shaping political engagement, with continuous refinement informed by the gathered data. This process embodies the recursive essence of the grounded theory approach.
Suggested Title: “Transforming Workplace Cultures: An Exploration of Remote Work Trends”
Suggested Data Analysis Method: Constant comparative analysis
Explanation: The theoretical study could leverage survey data and in-depth interviews of employees and bosses engaging in remote work to understand the shifts in workplace culture. Coding and constant comparative analysis would enable the identification of core categories and relationships among them. Sustainability and resilience through remote ways of working would be emergent themes. This constant back-and-forth interplay between data collection, analysis, and theory formation aligns strongly with a grounded theory approach.
Suggested Title: “Persistence Amidst Challenges: A Grounded Theory Approach to Understanding Resilience in Urban Educators”
Suggested Data Analysis Method: Iterative Coding
How to Do It: This study would involve collecting data via interviews from educators in urban school systems. Through iterative coding, data would be constantly analyzed, compared, and categorized to derive meaningful theories about resilience. The researcher would constantly return to the data, refining the developing theory with every successive interaction. This procedure organically incorporates the grounded theory approach’s characteristic iterative nature.
Suggested Title: “Coping Strategies of Patients with Chronic Pain: A Grounded Theory Study”
Suggested Data Analysis Method: Line-by-line inductive coding
How to Do It: The study might initiate with in-depth interviews of patients who’ve experienced chronic pain. Line-by-line coding, followed by memoing, helps to immerse oneself in the data, utilizing a grounded theory approach to map out the relationships between categories and their properties. New rounds of interviews would supplement and refine the emergent theory further. The subsequent theory would then be a detailed, data-grounded exploration of how patients cope with chronic pain.
Grounded theory is an innovative way to gather qualitative data that can help introduce new thoughts, theories, and ideas into academic literature. While it has its strength in allowing the “data to do the talking”, it also has some key limitations – namely, often, it leads to results that have already been found in the academic literature. Studies that try to build upon current knowledge by testing new hypotheses are, in general, more laser-focused on ensuring we push current knowledge forward. Nevertheless, a grounded theory approach is very useful in many circumstances, revealing important new information that may not be generated through other approaches. So, overall, this methodology has great value for qualitative researchers, and can be extremely useful, especially when exploring specific case study projects . I also find it to synthesize well with action research projects .
Atkinson, P. (2015). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid qualitative research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 6 (1), 83-86.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide . London: Sage.
Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2016). Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field Methods, 18 (3), 245-266.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Sage publications.
McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2017). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29 (3), 654-663.
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2017). Adopting a Constructivist Approach to Grounded Theory: Implications for Research Design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 13 (2), 81-89.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
No products in the cart.
Using grounded theory, you can examine a specific process or phenomenon and develop new theories derived from the collected real-world data and their analysis.
Grounded theory research is an inductive approach in which a theory is developed based on data. This is the opposite of the traditional hypothesis-deductive research approaches where hypotheses are formulated and are then tried to be proved or disproved.
In grounded theory, the process of collecting data, and developing theory is a continuous one and should be incorporated in the research design. The process of collecting and analyzing data is repeated until theoretical saturation is reached or no new insights will be gained from additional data.
In Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory with Dr. Adele Clarke, Clarke discusses situational analysis as an extension of grounded theory for analyzing qualitative data including interview, ethnographic, historical, visual, and/or other discursive materials. Clarke describes how it is especially useful for multi-site research, feminist, and critical inquiry. To dive deeper into the messy complexities in data and understand relations among the elements constitutive of the situation, watch Clarke’s webinar Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory.
>> View Webinar: Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory
The grounded theory approach is a qualitative research methodology that attempts to unravel the meanings of people's interactions, social actions, and experiences. In other words, these explanations are grounded in the participants' own interpretations or explanations.
In 1967, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss published the book, The Discovery Of Grounded Theory which introduced this method. Many disciplines have since used grounded theory, including anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, and public health.
Qualitative research using grounded theory was regarded as being groundbreaking upon its introduction. By using the inductive methodology, data (such as interviews and observations, and on rare occasions, historical data, archival data, and more) could be analyzed as they are being collected. They sought to move away from the dominant practice in the 1950s and 60s of starting with a theoretical framework which needed to be verified. They turned that practice on its head by starting with the data to develop theory.
Grounded theory has the following salient features:
Begins with data- Researchers using the grounded theory approach typically start with a case study by observing an individual or group in action. Through an analysis of cases, researchers formulate a tentative definition of their concept. An explanation for the construct is later crafted based on this case analysis.
A personal approach- In this method, researchers study participants as they go about their daily activities, observe them interacting with others, conduct individual or group interviews, and ask participants specific questions about their observations, daily lives, experiences, or other sources relevant to the study.
The application of grounded theory qualitative research is a dynamic and flexible way to answer questions that can't be addressed by other research methods.
A grounded theory is often used in cases where there is no existing theory that explains the phenomenon being studied. It is also possible to use it if there is an existing theory, but it is potentially incomplete because the information wasn’t gathered from the group you intend to research.
Check out ScienceDirect's page for more examples on how grounded theory can be applied .
Grounded theory offers various advantages.
By using grounded theory, one can develop theories that are based on observations and interviews with real subjects in real situations. This results in findings that more closely reflect reality. In contrast, other types of research take place in less natural settings, such as focus groups and lab settings.
The premise of grounded theory is that you discover new theories by inductive means. In other words, you don't assume anything about the outcome and aren't concerned about validating or describing it. Instead, you use the data you collect to inform your analysis and your theoretical construct, resulting in new insights.
Analyzing and collecting data go hand in hand. Data is collected, analyzed, and as you gain insight from analysis, you continue gathering more data. In this way, your data collection will be adequate to explain the results of your analysis.
In grounded theory, the outcome is determined primarily by collected data, so findings are tightly tied to those data. It contrasts with other research methods that are primarily constructed through external frameworks or theories that are so far removed from the data.
Because gathering data and analyzing it are closely intertwined, researchers are truly observing what emerges from data. By having a buffer, you avoid confirming preconceived notions about the topic.
An important aspect of grounded theory is that it provides specific strategies for analysis. Grounded theory may be characterized as an open-ended method, but its analysis strategies keep you organized and analytical throughout the research process.
In addition to the multiple advantages of grounded theory listed above, there are a few disadvantages of grounded theory, and qualitative methods in general, that are important to consider.
Grounded theory is often a time-consuming process that involves collecting data from multiple sources, analyzing the data for patterns and themes, and then finally coding the data – all steps that can take significant time if not using qualitative data analysis software like NVivo.
Additional disadvantages in grounded theory include a researcher’s own biases and assumptions which may impact their data analysis and the quality of their data – whether it’s low quality or simply incomplete.
If you’re ready to start using grounded theory, using tools like NVivo can help!
With NVivo, you can analyze interviews (and occasionally survey) data by visually exploring datasets with the Detail View feature. This ability lets you limit the amount of data you’re viewing and filter to help identify patterns in your data.
Additionally, NVivo can help with transcribing, making connections between themes and participants, and keeping your interview data organized. Learn more about how to use NVivo for interview data in Thematic Analysis of Interview Data: 6 Ways NVivo Can Help .
Learn more about how to use NVivo for grounded theory in this paper Using NVivo to Facilitate the Development of a Grounded Theory Project: An Account of a Worked Example and the video below.
Learn more about how to use NVivo for grounded theory >>
Start transforming your qualitative research by requesting a free demo of NVivo today!
Recent Articles
You may have come across the term “ grounded theory ” in qualitative and quantitative research. Typically, grounded theory is discussed in academic research, though as market researchers, we find that we often use this framework when developing studies. In this post, we’ll try to break grounded theory down for market research usage and help provide an understanding of how impactful this mode of framing research can be for B2B and B2C studies.
Let’s explain grounded theory in non-academic jargon to make this simple to digest:
Use grounded theory methods when you’re not sure what you’re looking for in a study or there is no clear theory as to why certain behaviors or patterns are occurring.
Or to make it even more clear:
Use grounded theory methods when you don’t know what you don’t know.
In typical research methods (both quantitative and qualitative), teams come together with a clear hypothesis about what they’re studying.
For example, “When travelers are booking flights online, they will go for the best prices and flight times.”
That’s a clear hypothesis, likely based on previous data and studies. The research team may be tasked with investigating this hypothesis further and adding more details to it – or even disproving it, to uncover whether there are other factors at play in how people choose and book airline flights. To test the hypothesis, the research team would design a user experience study, where they observe how people book flights online (with screensharing), while asking them questions as the traveler goes through the process. This will help gather essential data that can be analyzed, thematically, to further prove or disprove the initial hypothesis.
However, that’s not what grounded theory would do, because in this case we just described, the hypothesis was set from the beginning.
What if, however, the researchers instead had a situation such as this: A product team wants to understand how people react to working from home exclusively during the pandemic so that they can develop software tools for remote teams.
In this example, the team doesn’t have a clear hypothesis to work from. For this specific case, the study question was posed in early 2020, when working from home for entire teams was new. The pandemic situation was unprecedented in the modern tech age, so the development team wasn’t sure exactly what hypothesis question to pose – or, to put it more simply – they didn’t know what they were looking for exactly, but they did know that there were likely software tools they could develop that could be helpful for remote teams.
This is a perfect example of when to apply grounded theory research. Let’s explore this example further, through the lens of grounded theory.
When you’re not sure exactly what you’re looking for, using grounded theory methods helps you explore themes, in an iterative research style.
So let’s go back to our remote-team software example.
Because the research team wasn’t sure exactly how people were adapting to at-home work, they first assembled a small sample to study. Using mobile ethnographies , the team had a sample of at-home workers record their daily work patterns. They were asked more general questions about highs and lows, efficiencies, and inefficiencies, and where they were feeling frustrated or lost by not having in-person collaboration. They also explored “workarounds” that teams were doing to stay productive.
Once they received the data back and did follow-up in-depth interviews with the participants, the team then sorted the themes into “codes.” Codes essentially sum up patterns in the data that are reoccurring. For example “ workers are less efficient when brainstorming new creative ideas” was a code that came out of the initial round.
From the initial round, some ideas started to take place and patterns emerged. The research team realized they needed to expand their participant pool to also include in-house designers, and not just product managers. The research team then devised a second round of research, also using mobile ethnographies and in-depth interviews, but this time with in-house designers and product managers.
After this second round, even more themes and codes emerged, and the product design team felt like they were getting closer to specific issues that they could develop software to address.
But they needed more data.
After analyzing the second round, the research team decided to hone in on a specific topic: in this case, how to improve brainstorming and enhance the creative process for remote teams. So they developed a third round of research, and they pulled in creative design teams, product managers, and upper-level managers.
The questions the researchers posed in this third round were now quite specific, and they designed exercises around remote creative brainstorming (also using mobile ethnographies and in-depth interviews). This round was especially illuminating because they now were much closer to proving and disproving new hypotheses that had emerged from the initial research rounds.
After analyzing the third round, the product team felt ready to design software prototypes that would address some of the issues they found in the exploratory research phases. In short: They had come up with a hypothesis, which was “Remote teams are struggling to collaborate creatively using their current software.” Now they had a hypothesis (a problem statement) and a mission for their software design work.
We just took you through a real-world example of using grounded theory research methods to uncover patterns and arrive at a hypothesis. Grounded theory, as you can see from this example, is the opposite of typical research projects, where teams know what they’re looking for, so they recruit participants, design specific questions and exercises, and then spend the bulk of the research proving or disproving the hypothesis they’re testing.
In grounded theory, it’s exploratory, from the very beginning. Teams start with some initial ideas, recruit samples to test, and from the early tests, start to see patterns. They then may have to shift and recruit different personas and start to ask questions specific to the themes from the first round of research. In each subsequent round of research, the team uncovers ideas and then tests and poses hypotheses based on what they’re learning.
Grounded theory is best applied when research teams come into a problem with uncertainty about the full landscape and situation. Because it requires multiple rounds of research, it’s more costly and time-consuming than studies where the hypothesis and testing is clear, from the very beginning. However, hopefully as the example we used illustrated, it’s a fantastic method to generate new product ideas. The key is to have an open mind and be able to first cast a wide net of ideas, before narrowing down on emerging themes to test.
Qualitative methods in intergroup communication.
A researcher’s methodological approach is guided by his or her orientation toward three major philosophical assumptions: epistemological assumptions (i.e., what the nature of truth or knowledge is and how it can be pursued), ontological assumptions (i.e., what the nature of reality is and how it can be understood), and axiological assumptions (i.e., what the researcher’s position in the world is and responsibilities to it). Qualitative inquiry is largely guided by methodological beliefs that hold truth and reality as socially constructed, that value subjectivity over objectivity, that explore questions of “how” or “why” over questions of “what,” and that value participants’ voices and experiences. Broadly, qualitative inquiry seeks to describe the world as it is experienced and lived in by the participants under study. With respect to intergroup communication, qualitative inquiry takes an in-depth approach to understanding how members of a community or culture enact the behaviors of everyday life relevant to their group.
Qualitative inquiry comprises several methodologies or methodological approaches including ethnography, autoethnography, and ethnography of communication; narrative paradigm and narrative theory; grounded theory; phenomenology; and case studies. Each methodology employs one method or a combination of methods to collect qualitative data. Methods refer to the tools used to collect data for the purposes of informing research and answering research questions. Qualitative methods include tools for the collection of descriptive, largely non-numeric data, including several types of interviews, observations, and interactions, and the collection of meaningful texts, documents, and objects. The collection of qualitative data often requires the researcher to establish a trusting relationship (rapport) with participants and gain an insider’s (emic) perspective of the context for study. In many cases, this is established through prolonged engagement in the field and carefully crafting interview questions that encourage detailed disclosures. Qualitative data are analyzed through a process of dissection, up-close examination, contrast, and comparison between units of data and then putting pieces back together in a synergetic way that represents data holistically. Most qualitative data analysis involves some form of coding: a process of identifying units of data that are relevant to the research questions, assigning them a short label or code, then clustering similar codes into increasingly abstract thematic categories. Researchers establish trustworthiness in qualitative reports through descriptive writing that preserves the voices of the participants, that reflects the social realities of the participants, and that contextualizes results within broader scholarly discourse by tying findings to previous theory or research. Qualitative research reports can take many forms that range from creative forms of writing and representation including poetry and photographs to more conventional forms of writing that fit expectations of social scientific academic journals. When applied to intergroup contexts, qualitative inquiry can make evident the language and communication patterns and social behaviors that distinguish one group from another. Field observations can reveal identity performance and group behavior. Interviews can solicit information from participants about in-group or out-group perceptions and experiences. And the collection and analysis of texts and documents can establish the means through which group identity is preserved and transferred.
You do not currently have access to this article
Please login to access the full content.
Access to the full content requires a subscription
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 21 July 2024
Character limit 500 /500
Grounded theory analysis is a systematic qualitative research method that involves the collection and analysis of data to develop a theory grounded in the results. This approach is particularly useful for businesses and researchers who want to investigate a topic without preconceived notions or hypotheses. In this article, we will delve into the details of grounded theory analysis, its key stages, and its applications.
Table of Content
Key components of grounded theory, steps in grounded theory analysis, grounded theory analysis in action : step-by-step implementation, step 1: data collection, step 2: data analysis, step 3: memo writing, step 4: theory development, advantages and disadvantages of grounded theory analysis.
Grounded Theory was first introduced by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in their seminal book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967). The method was developed as a response to the limitations of quantitative research methods in capturing the complexity of social phenomena.
Grounded Theory is characterized by its iterative process of data collection and analysis, which continues until theoretical saturation is achieved – the point at which no new information or insights are emerging from the data.
Recognizing and extracting relevant data from the raw data set, understanding nuances, and identifying significant patterns and themes. Enhanced through reading, open coding, category building, and reflecting in memos. | |
Comparing each piece of data with every other piece to identify similarities and differences, ensuring the emerging theory is grounded in the data. | |
Collecting, coding, and analyzing data simultaneously, deciding what data to collect next based on the emerging theory. | |
: Breaking down data into discrete parts, examining and comparing for similarities and differences, labeling concepts, and defining categories. : Reassembling data, making connections between categories, and identifying relationships. : Integrating and refining the theory, selecting the core category, relating it to other categories, validating relationships, and refining categories. |
To illustrate the practical implementation of Grounded Theory Analysis. We will use a random dataset, let’s assume we have gathered data from multiple dental practices. We’ll walk through the steps of data collection, data analysis, memo writing, and theory development using Python and qualitative analysis techniques.
For this example, let’s create a random dataset that simulates interviews with dental practitioners, observations, and relevant documents.
Using the Grounded Theory approach, we perform open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.
2. 1 Open Coding
We identify key concepts from the data.
2.2 Axial Coding
We identify relationships between the open codes to form categories.
2.3 Selective Coding
We integrate categories to form a coherent theory.
During the analysis, we write memos to capture insights and reflections.
Based on the coding and memos, we develop a comprehensive theory.
The example illustrates the advanced implementation of Grounded Theory using simulated data, demonstrating how open coding, axial coding, and selective coding can be applied to develop a comprehensive theory.
Grounded Theory Analysis is a powerful qualitative research methodology that allows researchers to develop theories grounded in real-world data. Its iterative process of data collection and analysis ensures that the emerging theory is comprehensive and relevant. Despite its challenges, Grounded Theory provides a flexible and data-driven approach to understanding complex social phenomena. By maintaining rigor and transparency throughout the research process, researchers can produce high-quality findings that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their field.
Similar reads.
Artificial intelligence and qualitative research: the promise and perils of large language model (llm) ‘assistance’, an examination of the use of large language models to aid analysis of textual data, harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatgpt and beyond, rejecting choices: the problematic origins of researcher-defined paradigms within qualitative research, putting tools in their place: the role of time and perspective in human-ai collaboration for qualitative analysis, embodiment and discourse: dimensions and dynamics of contemporary metaphor theory, metaphor is grounded in embodied experience, methodolatry and qualitative health research, introduction the discipline and practice of qualitative research, related papers.
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
Verify originality of an essay
Get ideas for your paper
Find top study documents
Published 19 Jul 2024
Students in social sciences frequently seek to understand how people feel, think, and behave in specific situations or relationships that evolve over time. To achieve this, they employ various techniques and data collection methods in qualitative research allowing for a deeper exploration of human experiences. Participant observation, in-depth interviews, and other qualitative methods are commonly used to gather rich, detailed data to uncover key aspects of social behavior and relationships. What is qualitative research? This article will answer this question and guide you through the essentials of this methodology, including data collection techniques and analytical approaches.
This inquiry method is helpful for learners interested in how to conduct research . It focuses on understanding human behavior, experiences, and social phenomena from the perspective of those involved. What does qualitative mean? It uses non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis, to understand people’s feelings, thoughts, and actions.
Qualitative analysis is crucial in education, healthcare, social sciences, marketing, and business. It helps gain detailed insights into behaviors, experiences, and cultural phenomena. This approach is fundamental during exploratory phases, for understanding complex issues, and when context-specific insights are required. By focusing on depth over breadth, this approach is often employed when researchers seek to explore complex issues, understand the context of a phenomenon, or investigate things that are not easily quantifiable. It uncovers rich, nuanced data essential for developing theories and evaluating programs.
Now that you know the answer to “Why is qualitative data important?”, let’s consider how this method differs from quantitative. Both studies represent two main types of research methods. The qualitative approach focuses on understanding behaviors, experiences, and perspectives using interviews, observations, and analyzing texts. These studies are based on reflexivity and aim to explore complexities and contexts, often generating new ideas or theories. Researchers analyze data to find patterns and themes, clarifying the details. However, findings demonstrated in the results section of a research paper may not apply broadly because they often use small, specific groups rather than large, random samples.
Quantitative studies, on the other hand, emphasize numerical data and statistical analysis to measure variables and relationships. They use methods such as surveys, experiments, or analyzing existing data to collect structured information. The goal is quantifying phenomena, testing hypotheses, and determining correlations or causes. Statistical methods are used to analyze data, identifying patterns and significance. Quantitative studies produce results that can be applied to larger populations, providing generalizable findings. However, they may lack the detailed context that qualitative methods offer.
To better understand the answer to “What is qualitative research?”, it’s necessary to consider various approaches within this methodology, each with its unique focus, implications, and functions.
This theory aims to understand and describe the lived experiences of individuals regarding a particular phenomenon.
Peculiarities:
Example: Studying the experiences of people living with chronic illness to understand how it affects their daily lives.
The approach involves immersive, long-term observation and participation in particular cultural or social contexts.
Example: Observing and participating in the daily life of a rural village to understand its social structure and cultural practices.
This approach seeks to develop a research paper problem statement and theories based on participant data.
Example: Developing a theory on how people cope with job loss by interviewing and analyzing the experiences of unemployed individuals.
Case studies involve an in-depth examination of a single case or a small number of cases.
Example: One of the qualitative research examples is analyzing a specific company’s approach to innovation to understand its success factors.
This methodology focuses on the stories and personal interpretations of individuals.
Example: Collecting and analyzing the life stories of veterans to understand their experiences during and after military service.
This theoretical model involves a collaborative approach in which researchers and participants work together to solve a problem or improve a situation.
Example: Teachers collaborating with researchers to develop and test new teaching approaches to improve student engagement.
It examines language use in texts, conversations, and other forms of communication.
Example: Analyzing political speeches to understand how leaders construct and convey their messages to the public.
Each of these examples of qualitative research offers unique tools and perspectives, enabling researchers to delve deeply into complex issues and gain a rich understanding of the issue they study.
Various techniques exist to explore phenomena in depth and understand the complexities of human behavior, experiences, and social interactions. Some key methodologies that are commonly used in different sciences include several approaches.
These are informal and open-ended, designed to capture detailed narratives without imposing preconceived notions. Researchers typically start with a broad question and encourage interviewees to share their stories freely.
They involve a core set of questions that allow researchers to explore topics deeply, adapting their inquiries based on responses received. This method of qualitative research design aims to gather rich, descriptive information, such as understanding what qualities make a good teacher.
They differ from closed-ended surveys in that they seek opinions and descriptions through open-ended questions. They allow for gathering diverse viewpoints from a larger group than one-on-one interviews would permit.
It relies on researchers' skills to observe and interpret unbiased behaviors or activities. For instance, in education research, observation might track how students stay focused and manage distractions, recorded through field notes taken during or shortly after the observation.
This involves participants or researchers documenting daily activities or study contexts. Participants might record their social interactions or exercise routines, giving detailed data for later analysis. Researchers may also maintain diaries to document study contexts, helping to explain findings and other information sources.
All types of qualitative research have their strengths for gathering detailed information and exploring the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of exploration topics. Learners often use several methods (triangulation) to confirm their findings and deepen their understanding of complex subjects. If you need assistance choosing the most appropriate method to explore, feel free to contact our website, as we offer essays for sale and support with academic papers.
This approach has unique strengths, making it valuable in many sciences. One of the primary advantages of qualitative research is its ability to capture participants' voices and perspectives accurately. It is highly adaptable, allowing researchers to modify the technique as new questions and ideas arise. This flexibility allows researchers to investigate new ideas and trends without being limited to set methods from the start. While this approach has many strengths, it also has significant drawbacks. A research paper writer faces practical and theoretical limitations when analyzing and interpreting data. Let’s consider all the pros and cons of this methodology in detail.
So, qualitative methodology offers significant benefits, such as adaptability, real-world context, rich insights, and fostering innovation. However, it also presents challenges like unpredictability, bias, limited applicability, or time- and labor-intensive. Understanding these pros and cons helps researchers make informed decisions about when and how to effectively utilize various types of qualitative research designs in their studies.
Qualitative research provides a valuable understanding of complicated human experiences and social situations, making it a strong tool in various areas of study. Despite its challenges, such as unreliability, subjectivity, and limited generalizability, its strengths in flexibility, natural settings, and generating meaningful insights make it an essential approach. If you are one of the students looking to incorporate qualitative methodology into their academic papers, EduBirdie is here to help. Our experts can guide you through the process, ensuring your work is thorough, credible, and impactful.
Thanks for your feedback.
Seasoned academic writer, nurturing students' writing skills. Expert in citation and plagiarism. Contributing to EduBirdie since 2019. Aspiring author and dedicated volunteer. You will never have to worry about plagiarism as I write essays 100% from scratch. Vast experience in English, History, Ethics, and more.
Discover how to compose acknowledgements in research paper.
This post will help you learn about the use of acknowledgements in research paper and determine how they are composed and why they must be present ...
Have you ever got your scholarly task and been unsure how to start research? Are you a first-year student beginning your project? Whatever the case...
More and more students nowadays are faced with the problem: How to write an economics paper. Research papers are one of the main results of researc...
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Grounded theory provided an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to determine truths about the world. 11 Glaser and Strauss 5 challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory.
Grounded theory is a qualitative method specifically designed to inductively generate theory from data. It was developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967. Data shapes the theory: Instead of trying to prove an existing theory, you let the data guide your findings.
Grounded Theory. Definition: Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to generate theories based on data that are grounded in the empirical reality of the research context. The method involves a systematic process of data collection, coding, categorization, and analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data.
Grounded theory is a systematic methodology that has been largely applied to qualitative research conducted by social scientists.The methodology involves the construction of hypotheses and theories through the collecting and analysis of data. Grounded theory involves the application of inductive reasoning.The methodology contrasts with the hypothetico-deductive model used in traditional ...
Even though there is no single approach to grounded theory (GT), and the methodology has undergone many changes since it was first introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 (Cho & Lee, 2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002), it has become the leading qualitative approach across various disciplines (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, as citied in Walsh et al., 2015).
It sets out the principles involved in using grounded theory method and explains the process and theory associated with coding in grounded theory. Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research introduces us to the practicalities of research design, theory building, coding and writing up and gives us the tools to tackle key questions: • What is ...
The logic of grounded theory. Glaser and Strauss (Citation 1967) developed grounded theory by explaining the methods they used to construct their remarkable qualitative studies of death and dying in hospitals (Glaser & Strauss, Citation 1965, Citation 1968).In this methodological treatise, they introduced the innovative and systematic strategy of simultaneous data collection and analysis.
Abstract. Since being developed as a research methodology in the 1960s, grounded theory (GT) has grown in popularity. In spite of its prevalence, considerable confusion surrounds GT, particularly in respect of the essential methods that characterize this approach to research. Misinformation is evident in the literature around issues such as the ...
Abstract. The term "grounded theory" was introduced to the research lexicon by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s, particularly with the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967. The term itself is somewhat misleading since it actually refers to a method that facilitates the development of new theoretical insights—grounded theories.
This paper discusses the usage and application of grounded theory in the administration area.Grounded theory is a research tool under the qualitative paradigm that, since its beginning in ...
Introduction. Qualitative research is a cornerstone in cardiovascular research. It gives insights in why particular phenomena occur or what underlying mechanisms are. 1 Over the past 2 years, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing published 20 qualitative studies. 2-21 These studies used methods such as content analysis, ethnography, or phenomenology.
Background Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for ...
Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then creates a theory 'grounded' in the results. The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book, Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory.
Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology that involves developing theories directly from the data collected during the research process instead of relying on pre-existing theories or hypotheses. This approach aims to generate insights and understanding about a particular phenomenon by systematically analyzing and coding the data to ...
Definition. Grounded theory proposes that careful observation of the social world can lead to the construction of theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). It is iterative and evolving, aiming to construct new theory from collected data that accounts for those data. It is also known as the "grounded theory method", although the terms have become ...
Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that involves the construction of theory from data rather than testing theories through data (Birks & Mills, 2015). In other words, a grounded theory analysis doesn't start with a hypothesis or theoretical framework, but instead generates a theory during the data analysis process.
An Overview of Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research. Using grounded theory, you can examine a specific process or phenomenon and develop new theories derived from the collected real-world data and their analysis. Grounded theory research is an inductive approach in which a theory is developed based on data.
Grounded theory provided an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to determine truths about the world. 11 Glaser and Strauss 5 challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory.
Grounded theory is identified as one of the 'methodologies' or 'strategies of inquiry' of qualitative research (Creswell 2009; Punch 2005) - the other prominent methodologies or strategies of inquiry being ethnography, case study, phenomenology and narrative research. Strauss and Corbin (1997: vii) say that grounded theory methodology is
Grounded theory is a systematic methodology in the social sciences emphasizing generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research. It is mainly used for qualitative research, but is also applicable to other data (e.g., quantitative data; Glaser, 1967, chapter VIII)
Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research. r groun theo.indd 224/04/2012 14:52SAGE has been part of the global academic community since 1965, supporting high quality research and learning that transforms society and our understand. ng of individuals, groups, and cultures. SAGE is the independent, innovative, natural home for authors, editors and ...
Grounded Theory is a qualitative research method introduced by Glaser and Strauss, which emphasizes the construction of theory based on empirical materials (Khan, 2014). Researchers, after ...
Grounded theory is a qualitative method that enables you to study a particular phenomenon or process and discover new theories that are based on the collection and analysis of real world data. Unlike traditional hypothesis-deductive approaches of research, where you come up with a hypothesis and then try to prove/disprove it, grounded theory is ...
Grounded theory is a great method for specific types of research issues. Grounded theory is best applied when research teams come into a problem with uncertainty about the full landscape and situation. Because it requires multiple rounds of research, it's more costly and time-consuming than studies where the hypothesis and testing is clear ...
Summary: "Offering immensely practical advice, Basics of Qualitative Research, Fourth Edition presents methods that enable researchers to analyze, interpret, and make sense of their data, and ultimately build theory from it. Authors Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss (late of the University of San Francisco and co-creator of grounded theory) walk readers step-by-step through the research process ...
Qualitative inquiry comprises several methodologies or methodological approaches including ethnography, autoethnography, and ethnography of communication; narrative paradigm and narrative theory; grounded theory; phenomenology; and case studies. Each methodology employs one method or a combination of methods to collect qualitative data.
Grounded Theory was first introduced by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in their seminal book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967). The method was developed as a response to the limitations of quantitative research methods in capturing the complexity of social phenomena.
A qualitative descriptive study. Methods. Data were collected during 2017 and 2018 using a semi-structured interview method with 10 former homeless people who became housed at the time of the study. The grounded theory method was used to analyse qualitative data. Results
We review discourses about the philosophy of science in qualitative research and evidence from cognitive linguistics in order to ground a framework for discussing the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to support the qualitative analysis process. This framework involves asking two key questions:"is the LLM proposing or refuting a qualitative model?"and"is the human researcher checking the LLM ...
Discover qualitative research methods used in academic papers from this guide. Find qualitative research examples at EduBirdie to improve your writing. ... Grounded theory. This approach seeks to develop a research paper problem statement and theories based on participant data. Peculiarities: