Grounded theory

Grounded theory is a systematic

methodology that has been largely, but not
exclusively, applied to qualitative research
conducted by social scientists. The
methodology involves the construction of
hypotheses and theories through the
collecting and analysis of data.[1][2][3]
Grounded theory involves the application
of inductive reasoning. The methodology
contrasts with the hypothetico-deductive
model used in traditional scientific
research.

A study based on grounded theory is likely

to begin with a question, or even just with
the collection of qualitative data. As
researchers review the data collected,
ideas or concepts become apparent to the
researchers. These ideas/concepts are
said to "emerge" from the data. The
researchers tag those ideas/concepts with
codes that succinctly summarize the
ideas/concepts. As more data are
collected, and re-reviewed, codes can be
grouped into higher-level concepts, and
then into categories. These categories
may become the basis of a hypothesis or
a new theory. Thus, grounded theory is
quite different from the traditional
scientific model of research, where the
researcher chooses an existing theoretical
framework, develops one or more
hypotheses derived from that framework,
and only then collects data for the purpose
of assessing the validity of the
hypotheses.[4]

Background
Grounded theory is a general research
methodology, a way of thinking about and
conceptualizing data. It is used in studies
of diverse populations from areas like
remarriage after divorce[5] and
professional socialization.[6] Grounded
theory methods were developed by two
sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm
Strauss.[7]

While collaborating on research on dying

hospital patients, Glaser and Strauss
developed the constant comparative
method which later became known as the
grounded theory method. They
summarized their research in the book
Awareness of Dying, which was published
in 1965. Glaser and Strauss went on to
describe their method in more detail in
their 1967 book, The Discovery of
Grounded Theory.[7] The three aims of the
book were to:

1. Provide a rationale to justify the idea

that the gap between a social science
theory and empirical data should be
narrowed by firmly grounding a
theory in empirical research;
2. Provide a logic for grounded theory;
3. Legitimize careful qualitative
research, the most important goal,
because, by the 1960s, quantitative
research methods had gained so
much prestige that qualitative
 research had come to be seen as
inadequate.[3]

Grounded theory emerged in a context in

which there was a wave of criticism
directed at fundamentalist and
structuralist theories that were both
deductive and speculative in nature..

A turning point in the acceptance of the

theory came after the publication of
Awareness of Dying. Their work on dying
helped establish the influence of grounded
theory in medical sociology, psychology,
and psychiatry.[3][7] From its beginnings,
grounded theory methods have become
more prominent in fields as diverse as
drama, management, manufacturing, and
education.[8]

Philosophical underpinnings
Grounded theory combines traditions in
positivist philosophy, general sociology,
and, particularly, the symbolic
interactionist branch of sociology.
According to Ralph, Birks and Chapman,[9]
grounded theory is "methodologically
dynamic"[7] in the sense that, rather than
being a complete methodology, grounded
theory provides a means of constructing
methods to better understand situations
humans find themselves in.
Glaser had a background in positivism,
which helped him develop a system of
labeling for the purpose of coding study
participants' qualitative responses. He
recognized the importance of systematic
analysis for qualitative research. He thus
helped ensure that grounded theory
require the generation of codes,
categories, and properties.[10]

Strauss had a background in symbolic

interactionism, a theory that aims to
understand how people interact with each
other in creating symbolic worlds and how
an individual's symbolic world helps to
shape a person's behavior. He viewed
individuals as "active" participants in
forming their own understanding of the
world. Stauss underlined the richness of
qualitative research in shedding light on
social processes and the complexity of
social life.[10]

According to Glaser, the strategy of

grounded theory is to interpret personal
meaning in the context of social
interaction.[11] The grounded theory
system studies "the interrelationship
between meaning in the perception of the
subjects and their action".[12]
Grounded theory constructs symbolic
codes based on categories emerging from
recorded qualitative data. The idea is to
allow grounded theory methods to help us
better understand the phenomenal world
of individuals.[10] According to Milliken and
Schreiber, another of the grounded
theorist's tasks is to understand the
socially-shared meanings that underlie
individuals' behaviors and the reality of the
participants being studied.[10]

Premise
Grounded theory provides methods for
generating hypotheses from qualitative
data. After hypotheses are generated, it is
up to other researchers to attempt to
sustain or reject those hypotheses.
Questions asked by the qualitative
researcher employing grounded theory
include "What is going on?" and "What is
the main problem of the participants, and
how are they trying to solve it?"

Researchers using grounded theory

methods do not aim for the "truth." Rather,
those researchers try to conceptualize
what has been taking place in the lives of
study participants. When applying
grounded theory methods, the researcher
does not formulate hypotheses in advance
of data collection as is often the case in
traditional research, otherwise the
hypotheses would be ungrounded in the
data. Hypotheses are supposed to emerge
from the data.[13]

A goal of the researcher employing

grounded theory methods is that of
generating concepts that explain the way
people resolve their central concerns
regardless of time and place. These
concepts organize the ground-level data.
The concepts become the building blocks
of hypotheses. The hypotheses become
the constituents of a theory.
In most behavioral research endeavors,
persons or patients are units of analysis,
whereas in grounded theory the unit of
analysis is the incident.[13] Typically
several hundred incidents are analyzed in
a grounded theory study because every
participant usually reports many incidents.
When comparing many incidents in a
certain area of study, the emerging
concepts and their inter-relationships are
paramount. Consequently, grounded
theory is a general method that can use
any kind of data although grounded theory
is most commonly applied to qualitative
data.[14][15]
Most researchers oriented toward
grounded theory do not apply statistical
methods to the qualitative data they
collect. The results of grounded theory
research are not reported in terms of
statistically significant findings although
there may be probability statements about
the relationship between concepts.[16]
Internal validity in its traditional research
sense is not an issue in grounded theory.
Rather, questions of fit, relevance,
workability, and modifiability are more
important in grounded theory.[7][17][16] In
addition, adherents of grounded theory
emphasize a theoretical validity rather
than traditional ideas of internal validity or
measurement-related validity.[18] Grounded
theory adherents are "less charitable when
discussing [psychometric] reliability,
calling a single method of observation
continually yielding an unvarying
measurement a quixotic reliability."[18]

A theory that is fitting has concepts that

are closely connected to the incidents the
theory purports to represent; fit depends
on how thoroughly the constant
comparison of incidents to concepts has
been conducted. A qualitative study driven
by grounded theory examines the genuine
concerns of study participants; those
concerns are not only of academic
interest. Grounded theory works when it
explains how study participants address
the problem at hand and related problems.
A theory is modifiable and can be altered
when new relevant data are compared to
existing data.

Methodology
Stage Purpose

Codes Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data to be gathered

Concepts Collections of codes of similar content that allows the data to be grouped

Categories Broad groups of similar concepts that are used to generate a theory

Theory A collection of categories that detail the subject of the research

Once the data are collected, grounded

theory analysis involves the following
basic steps:
1. Coding text and theorizing: In
grounded theory research, the search
for a theory starts with the very first
line of the very first interview that one
codes. Small chunks of the text are
coded line-by-line. Useful concepts
are identified where key phrases are
marked. The concepts are named.
Another chunk of text is then taken
and the above-mentioned steps are
continued. According to Strauss and
Corbin,[19] this process is called open
coding. The process involves
analyzing data such that conceptual
components emerge. The next step
involves theorizing, which partly
 includes pulling concepts together
and thinking through how each
concept can be related to a larger
more inclusive concept. The constant
comparative method plays an
important role here.
2. Memoing and theorizing: Memoing is
the process by which a researcher
writes running notes bearing on each
of the concepts being identified. The
running notes constitute an
intermediate step between coding
and the first draft of the completed
analysis. Memos are field notes
about the concepts and insights that
emerge from the observations.
 Memoing starts with the first concept
identified and continues right through
the processing of all the concepts.
Memoing contributes to theory
building.
3. Integrating, refining and writing up
theories: Once coding categories
emerge, the next step is to link them
together in a theoretical model
constructed around a central
category that holds the concepts
together. The constant comparative
method comes into play, along with
negative case analysis. Negative
case analysis refers to the researcher
looking for cases that are
 inconsistent with the theoretical
model.

Theorizing is involved in all these steps.

One is required to build and test theory all
the way through till the end of a project.[20]

The idea that all is data is a fundamental

property of grounded theory. The idea
means that everything that the researcher
encounters when studying a certain area is
data, including not only interviews or
observations but anything that helps the
researcher generate concepts for the
emerging theory. According to Ralph, Birks,
and Chapman field notes can come from
informal interviews, lectures, seminars,
expert group meetings, newspaper
articles, Internet mail lists, even television
shows, conversations with friends etc.[21]

Coding …

Coding places incidents into categories

and then creates one or more hierarchies
out of these categories in terms of
categories and subcategories or properties
of a categories. A property might be on a
continuum such as from low to high, this
may be referred to as a dimension.[a]
Constant comparison where categories are
continually compared to one another is
used to create both subcategories and
properties.[b] There is some variation in the
meanings of the terms code, concept and
category with some authors viewing a
code as identical to category while others
consider a concept to be more abstract
than a code, which a code being more like
a substantive code.[c] Different researchers
have identified different types of codes
and encourage different methods of
coding, with Struass and Glaser both going
on to extend their work with different
forms of coding.

The core variable explains most of the

participants' main concern with as much
variation as possible. It has the most
powerful properties to picture what's going
on, but with as few properties as possible
needed to do so. A popular type of core
variable can be theoretically modeled as a
basic social process that accounts for
most of the variation in change over time,
context, and behavior in the studied area.
"grounded theory is multivariate. It
happens sequentially, subsequently,
simultaneously, serendipitously, and
scheduled" (Glaser, 1998).

Open coding or substantive coding is

conceptualizing on the first level of
abstraction. Written data from field notes
or transcripts are conceptualized line by
line. In the beginning of a study everything
is coded in order to find out about the
problem and how it is being resolved. The
coding is often done in the margin of the
field notes. This phase is often tedious
since it involves conceptualizing all the
incidents in the data, which yields many
concepts. These are compared as more
data is coded, merged into new concepts,
and eventually renamed and modified. The
grounded theory researcher goes back and
forth while comparing data, constantly
modifying, and sharpening the growing
theory at the same time they follow the
build-up schedule of grounded theory's
different steps.
Strauss and Corbin proposed axial coding
and defined it in 1990 as "a set of
procedures whereby data are put back
together in new ways after open coding, by
making connections between
categories."[19] Glaser proposed a similar
concept called theoretical coding.
Theoretical codes help to develop an
integrated theory by weaving fractured
concepts into hypotheses that work
together. The theory, of which the just-
mentioned hypotheses are constituents,
explains the main concern of the
participants. It is, however, important that
the theory is not forced on the data
beforehand but is allowed to emerge
during the comparative process of
grounded theory. Theoretical codes, like
substantive codes, should emerge from
the process of constantly comparing the
data in field notes and memos.

Selective coding is conducted after the

researcher has found the core variable or
what is thought to be the tentative core.
The core explains the behavior of the
participants in addressing their main
concern. The tentative core is never
wrong. It just more or less fits with the
data. After the core variable is chosen,
researchers selectively code data with the
core guiding their coding, not bothering
about concepts of little relevance to the
core and its sub-cores. In addition, the
researcher now selectively samples new
data with the core in mind, a process that
is called theoretical sampling – a deductive
component of grounded theory. Selective
coding delimits the scope of the study
(Glaser, 1998). Grounded theory is less
concerned with data accuracy than with
generating concepts that are abstract and
general. Selective coding could be
conducted by reviewing old field notes
and/or memos that have already been
coded once at an earlier stage or by
coding newly gathered data.
Strauss and Corbin proposed a "coding
paradigm" that involved "conditions,
context, action/interactional strategies
and consequences." [19]

Memoing …

Theoretical memoing is "the core stage of

grounded theory methodology" (Glaser
1998). "Memos are the theorizing write-up
of ideas about substantive codes and their
theoretically coded relationships as they
emerge during coding, collecting and
analyzing data, and during memoing"
(Glaser 1998).
Memoing is also important in the early
phase of a grounded theory study (e.g.,
during open coding). In memoing, the
researcher conceptualizes incidents,
helping the process along. Theoretical
memos can be anything written or drawn
in the context of the constant comparative
method, an important component of
grounded theory.[23]Memos are important
tools to both refine and keep track of ideas
that develop when researchers compare
incidents to incidents and then concepts
to concepts in the evolving theory. In
memos, investigators develop ideas about
naming concepts and relating them to
each other. They examine relationships
between concepts with the help of
fourfold tables, diagrams, figures, or other
means generating comparative power.

Without memoing, the theory is superficial

and the concepts generated are not very
original. Memoing works as an
accumulation of written ideas into a bank
of ideas about concepts and how they
relate to each other. This bank contains
rich parts of what will later be the written
theory. Memoing is total creative freedom
without rules of writing, grammar or style
(Glaser 1998). The writing must be an
instrument for outflow of ideas, and
nothing else. When people write memos,
the ideas become more realistic, being
converted from thoughts into words, and
thus ideas communicable to the
afterworld.

In grounded theory the preconscious

processing that occurs when coding and
comparing is recognized. The researcher
is encouraged to register ideas about the
ongoing study that eventually pop up in
everyday situations, and awareness of the
serendipity of the method is also
necessary to achieve good results.

Serendipity pattern …
Building on the work of sociologist Robert
K. Merton,[24] his idea of serendipity
patterns has come to be applied in
grounded theory research. Serendipity
patterns refer to fairly common
experiences when observing the world.
Serendipity patterns include unanticipated
and anomalous events. These patterns
can become the impetus for the
development of a new theory or the
extension of an existing theory. Merton
also coauthored (with Elinor Barber) The
Travels and Adventures of Serendipity,[25]
which traces the origins and uses of the
word "serendipity" since it was coined. The
book is "a study in sociological semantics
and the sociology of science," as the
subtitle declares. Merton and Barber
further develop the idea of serendipity as
scientific "method," as contrasted with
purposeful discovery by experiment or
retrospective prophecy.

Sorting …

In the next step memos are sorted, which

is the key to formulating a theory that
could be clearly presented to others.
Sorting puts fractured data back together.
During sorting new ideas can emerge. The
new ideas can, in turn, be recorded in new
memos, giving rise to the memo-on-
memos phenomenon. Sorting memos can
help generate theory that explains the
main action in the studied area. A theory
written from unsorted memos may be rich
in ideas but the connections among
concepts are likely to be weak.

Writing …

Writing up the sorted memos follows the

sorting process. At this stage, a written
theory takes shape. The different
categories are now related to each other
and the core variable. The theory should
encompass the important emergent
concepts and their careful description. The
researcher may also construct tables
and/or figures to optimize readability.

In a later rewriting stage, the relevant

scholarly literature is woven into the
theory. Finally, the theory is edited for style
and language. Eventually, the researcher
submits the resulting scholarly paper for
publication. Most books on grounded
theory do not explain what methodological
details should be included in a scholarly
article; however, some guidelines have
been suggested.[26]

No pre-research literature review

and no talk
…
Grounded theory gives the researcher
freedom to generate new concepts in
explaining human behavior.[7] Research
based on grounded theory, however,
follows a number of rules. These rules
make grounded theory different from most
other methods employed in qualitative
research.

No pre-research literature review. Reviewing

the literature of the area under study is
thought to generate preconceptions about
what to find. The researcher is said to
become sensitized to concepts in the
extant literature. According to grounded
theory, theoretical concepts should
emerge from the data unsullied by what
has come before. The literature should
only be read at the sorting stage and be
treated as more data to code and
compared with what has already been
coded and generated.

No talk. Talking about the theory before it

is written up drains the researcher of
motivational energy. Talking can either
render praise or criticism. Both can
diminish the motivational drive to write
memos that develop and refine the
concepts and the theory.[16] Positive
feedback, according to Glaser, can make
researchers content with what they have
and negative feedback hampers their self-
confidence. Talking about the grounded
theory should be restricted to persons
capable of helping the researcher without
influencing their final judgments.[16]

The use of preexisting theory

Different approaches to grounded theory
reflect different views on how preexisting
theory should be used in research. In The
Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser and
Strauss[7] advanced the view that, prior to
conducting research, investigators should
come to an area of study without any
preconceived ideas regarding relevant
concepts and hypotheses. In this way, the
investigator, according to Glaser and
Strauss, avoids imposing preconceived
categories upon the research endeavor.

Glaser later attempted to address the

tension between not reading and reading
the literature before a qualitative study
begins.[17] Glaser raised the issue of the
use of a literature review to enhance the
researchers' "theoretical sensitivity," i.e.,
their ability to identify a grounded theory
that is a good fit to the data. He suggested
that novice researchers might delay
reading the literature to avoid undue
influence on their handling of the
qualitative data they collect. Glaser
believed that reading the relevant research
literature (substantive literature) could lead
investigators to apply preexisting concepts
to the data, rather than interpret concepts
emerging from the data. He, however,
encouraged a broad reading of the
literature to develop theoretical sensitivity.
Strauss felt that reading relevant material
could enhance the researcher's theoretical
sensitivity.[27]

Split in methodology and

methods
There has been some divergence in the
methodology of grounded theory. Over
time, Glaser and Strauss came to disagree
about methodology and other qualitative
researchers have also modified ideas
linked to grounded theory.[9] This
divergence occurred most obviously after
Strauss published Qualitative Analysis for
Social Scientists (1987).[28] In 1990,
Strauss, together with Juliet Corbin,
published Basics of Qualitative Research:
Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques.[19] The publication of the book
was followed by a rebuke by Glaser (1992),
who set out, chapter by chapter, to
highlight the differences in what he argued
was the original grounded theory and why
what Strauss and Corbin had written was
not grounded theory in its "intended
form."[11] This divergence in methodology
is a subject of much academic debate,
which Glaser (1998) calls a "rhetorical
wrestle".[16] Glaser continues to write
about and teach the original grounded
theory method.

Grounded theory methods, according to

Glaser, emphasize induction or
emergence, and the individual researcher's
creativity within a clear stagelike
framework. By contrast, Strauss has been
more interested in validation criteria and a
systematic approach.[29] According to
Kelle (2005), "the controversy between
Glaser and Strauss boils down to the
question of whether the researcher uses a
well-defined "coding paradigm" and always
looks systematically for "causal
conditions," "phenomena/context,
intervening conditions, action strategies,"
and "consequences" in the data
(Straussian), or whether theoretical codes
are employed as they emerge in the same
way as substantive codes emerge, but
drawing on a huge fund of "coding
families" (Glaserian).[29]
Constructivist grounded theory …

A later version of grounded theory called

constructivist grounded theory, which is
rooted in pragmatism and constructivist
epistemology, assumes that neither data
nor theories are discovered, but are
constructed by researchers as a result of
their interactions with the field and study
participants.[30] Proponents of this
approach include Charmaz[31][32][33][34] and
Bryant.[35]

Data are co-constructed by the researcher

and study participants, and colored by the
researcher's perspectives, values,
privileges, positions, interactions, and
geographical locations. This position
takes a middle ground between the realist
and postmodernist positions by assuming
an "obdurate reality" at the same time as it
assumes multiple perspectives on that
reality. Within the framework of this
approach, a literature review prior to data
collection is used in a productive and data-
sensitive way without forcing the
conclusions contained in the review on the
collected data.[36][37]

Critical realist …

More recently, a critical realist version of

grounded theory has been developed and
applied in research devoted to developing
mechanism-based explanations for social
phenomena.[38][39][40][41] Critical realism
(CR) is a philosophical approach
associated with Roy Bhaskar, who argued
for a structured and differentiated account
of reality in which difference, stratification,
and change are central. A critical realist
grounded theory produces an explanation
through an examination of the three
domains of social reality: the "real," as the
domain of structures and mechanisms;
the "actual," as the domain of events; and
the "empirical," as the domain of
experiences and perceptions.
Use in various disciplines
Grounded theory has been "shaped by the
desire to discover social and
psychological processes."[42] Grounded
theory, however, is not restricted to these
two areas study. As Gibbs points out, the
process of grounded theory can be and
has been applied to a number of different
disciplines, including medicine, law, and
economics. The reach of grounded theory
has extended to nursing, business, and
education.

Grounded theory focuses more on

procedures than on the discipline to which
grounded theory is applied. Rather than
being limited to a particular discipline or
form of data collection, grounded theory
has been found useful across multiple
research areas.[43] Here are some
examples:

1. In psychology, grounded theory is

used to understand the role of
therapeutic distance for adult clients
with attachment anxiety.
2. In sociology, grounded theory is used
to discover the meaning of spirituality
in cancer patients, and how their
beliefs influence their attitude
towards cancer treatments.
3. Public health researchers have used
grounded theory to examine nursing
home preparedness needs in relation
to Hurricane Katrina refugees
sheltered in nursing homes.
4. In business, grounded theory is used
by managers to explain the ways in
which organizational characteristics
explain co-worker support.
5. In software engineering, grounded
theory has been used to study daily
stand-up meetings.[44]
. Grounded theory has also helped
researchers in the field of information
technology to study the use of
 computer technology in older
adults.[45][46]
7. In nursing, grounded theory has been
used to examine how change-of-shift
reports can be used to keep patients
safe.[47]

Benefits
The benefits of using grounded theory
include ecological validity, the discovery of
novel phenomena, and parsimony..

Ecological validity refers to the extent to

which research findings accurately
represent real-world settings. Research
based on grounded theories are often
thought to be ecologically valid because
the research is especially close to the real-
world participants. Although the
constructs in a grounded theory are
appropriately abstract (since their goal is
to explain other similar phenomenon), they
are context-specific, detailed, and tightly
connected to the data.

Because grounded theories are not tied to

any preexisting theory, grounded theories
are often fresh and new and have the
potential for novel discoveries in science
and other areas.
Parsimony refers to a heuristic often used
in science that suggests that when there
are competing hypotheses that make the
same prediction, the hypothesis that relies
on the fewest assumptions is preferable.
Grounded theories aim to provide practical
and simple explanations of complex
phenomena by attempting to link those
phenomena to abstract constructs and
hypothesizing relationships among those
constructs.

Grounded theory has further significance

because:
 It provides explicit, sequential guidelines
for conducting qualitative research.
It offers specific strategies for handling
the analytic phases of inquiry.
It provides ways to streamline and
integrate data collection and analysis
and
It legitimizes qualitative research as
scientific inquiry.

Grounded theory methods have earned

their place as a standard social research
methodology and have influenced
researchers from varied disciplines and
professions.[48]
Criticisms
Grounded theory has been criticized based
on the scientific idea of what a theory is.
Thomas and James,[49] for example,
distinguish the ideas of generalization,
over-generalization, and theory, noting that
some scientific theories explain a broad
range of phenomena succinctly, which
grounded theory does not. Thomas and
James observed that "The problems come
when too much is claimed for [for a
theory], simply because it is empirical;
problems come in distinguishing
generalization from over-generalization,
narrative from induction." They also write
that grounded theory advocates
sometimes claim to find causal
implications when in truth they only find an
association.

There has been criticism of grounded

theory on the grounds that it opens the
door to letting too much researcher
subjectivity enter.[49][50] The authors just
cited suggest that it is impossible to free
oneself of preconceptions in the collection
and analysis of data in the way that Glaser
and Strauss assert is necessary. Popper
also undermines grounded theory's idea
that hypotheses arise from data
unaffected by prior expectations.[51]
Popper wrote that "objects can be
classified and can become similar or
dissimilar, only in this way--by being
related to needs and interests."
Observation is always selective, based on
past research and the investigators' goals
and motives, and that preconceptionless
research is impossible. Critics also note
that grounded theory fails to mitigate
participant reactivity and has the potential
for an investigator steeped in grounded
theory to over-identify with one or more
study participants.[50]

Although they suggest that one element of

grounded theory worth keeping is the
constant comparative method, Thomas
and James point to the formulaic nature of
grounded theory methods and the lack of
congruence of those methods with open
and creative interpretation, which ought to
be the hallmark of qualitative inquiry.[49]

The grounded theory approach can be

criticized as being too empiricist, i.e., that
it relies too heavily on the empirical data.
Grounded theory considers fieldwork data
as the source of theory. Thus the theories
that emerge from a new fieldwork are set
against the theories that preceded the
fieldwork.[52]
Strauss's version of grounded theory has
been criticized in several other ways:[53]

Grounded theory researchers

sometimes have a quasi-objective
focus, emphasizing hypotheses,
variables, reliability, and replicability.
This multi-faceted focus leads to
contradictory findings.
It is inappropriate to ignore the existing
theories by not paying attention to the
literature.
Grounded theory offers a complex
methodology and confusing terminology
rather than providing a practical
 orientation to research and data
analysis.Also see Tolhurst.[54]
Some grounded theory researchers have
produced poorly explained theories;
concept generation rather than the
generation of formal theory may be a
more practical goal for grounded theory
researchers.

Grounded theory was developed during an

era when qualitative methods were often
considered unscientific. But as the
academic rigor of qualitative research
became known, this type of research
approach achieved wide acceptance. In
American academia, qualitative research
is often equated with grounded theory
methods. Such equating of most
qualitative methods with grounded theory
has sometimes been criticized by
qualitative researchers who take different
approaches to methodology (for example,
in traditional ethnography, narratology, and
storytelling).

One alternative to grounded theory is

engaged theory. Engaged theory equally
emphasizes the conducting of on-the-
ground empirical research but linking that
research to analytical processes of
empirical generalization. Unlike grounded
theory, engaged theory derives from the
tradition of critical theory. Engaged theory
locates analytical processes within a
larger theoretical framework that specifies
different levels of abstraction, allowing
investigators to make claims about the
wider world.[55]

Braun and Clarke[56] regard thematic

analysis as having fewer theoretical
assumptions than grounded theory, and
can be used within several theoretical
frameworks. They write that in comparison
to grounded theory, thematic analysis is
freer because it is not linked to any
preexisting framework for making sense
of qualitative data. Braun and Clarke,
however, concede that there is a degree of
similarity between grounded theory and
thematic analysis but prefer thematic
analysis.

See also
Antipositivism
Engaged theory
Formal concept analysis
Grounded practical theory
Qualitative research
Postpositivism
Social research

Notes
a. See the section: "The emergence of
categories and their properties from
the data" in:[22]:p. 193 "It becomes
possible to differentiate incidents in
the data or text passages classified as
dealing with social loss according to
the subcategory ‘degree of social loss’
by forming further subcategories ‘high
social loss,’ ‘medium social loss,’ and
‘low social loss.’ The whole range or
set of these three subcategories then
represents a theoretical property of
the category social loss."
b. "The purpose of constant comparison
is to see if the data support and
continue to support merging
 categories. At the same time, the
process further builds and
substantiates the emerging categories
by defining their properties and
dimensions" [22] :277
c. See the section "Codes, categories,
concepts" of [22]

References
1. Patricia Yancey Martin & Barry A.
Turner, "Grounded Theory and
Organizational Research," The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 22,
no. 2 (1986), 141.
2. Faggiolani, C. (2011). "Perceived
Identity: Applying Grounded Theory in
Libraries" . JLIS.it. University of
Florence. 2 (1). doi:10.4403/jlis.it-
4592 . Retrieved 29 June 2013.
3. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994).
Grounded Theory Methodology: An
Overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln
Handbook of Qualitative Research. 1st
ed. (pp. 273–284).
4. G. Allan, "A Critique of Using Grounded
Theory as a Research Method,"
Electronic Journal of Business
Research Methods, vol. 2, no. 1 (2003)
pp. 1-10.
5. Cauhapé, E. (1983). Fresh starts: Men
and women after divorce. New York:
Basic Books.
. Broadhead, R.S. (1983). The private
lives and professional identity of
medical students. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction
7. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967) The
discovery of grounded theory:
Stretegies for qualitative research.
Chicago: Aldine.
 . Fletcher-Watson, B (2013). "Toward a
Grounded Dramaturgy: Using
Grounded Theory to Interrogate
Performance Practices in Theatre for
Early Years". Youth Theatre Journal. 27
(2): 134.
doi:10.1080/08929092.2013.837706 .
9. Ralph, N.; Birks, M.; Chapman, Y.
(2015). "The methodological
dynamism of grounded theory" (PDF).
International Journal of Qualitative
Methods. 14 (4): 160940691561157.
doi:10.1177/1609406915611576 .
10. Aldiabat, Khaldoun; Navenec, Carole-
Lynne (4 July 2011). "Philosophical
Roots of Classical Grounded Theory:
Its Foundations in Symbolic
Interactionism" (PDF). The Qualitative
Report. 16: 1063–80. Retrieved
5 December 2014.
11. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded
theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
12. "Clarification of the Blurred Boundaries
between Grounded Theory and
Ethnography: Differences and
Similarities" (PDF). Turkish Online
Journal of Qualitative Inquiry. 2. July
2011. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
13. Glaser & Strauss 1967
14. Glaser, B.G. (2001). The grounded
theory perspective I: Conceptualization
contrasted with description. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
15. Glaser, B.G. (2003). The grounded
theory perspective II: Description's
remodeling of grounded theory. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
1 . Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing grounded
theory – Issues and discussions. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
17. Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical
sensitivity: Advances in the
methodology of grounded theory. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
1 . Schonfeld, I. S., & Farrell, E. (2010).
Qualitative methods can enrich
quantitative research on occupational
stress: An example from one
occupational group. In D. C. Ganster &
P. L. Perrewé (Eds.), Research in
occupational stress and wellbeing
series. Vol. 8. New developments in
theoretical and conceptual
approaches to job stress (pp. 137-
197). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
doi:10.1108/S1479-
3555(2010)0000008007
19. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990).
Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010).
Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic
Approaches. California, CA: Sage
Publication.
21. Ralph, N.; Birks, M.; Chapman, Y. (29
September 2014). "Contextual
Positioning: Using Documents as
Extant Data in Grounded Theory
Research" . SAGE Open. 4 (3):
215824401455242.
doi:10.1177/2158244014552425 .
22. Antony Bryant; Kathy Charmaz (23
August 2007). The SAGE Handbook of
Grounded Theory . SAGE Publications.
ISBN 978-1-4462-7572-6.
23. Savin-Baden, M.; Major, C. (2013).
Qualitative Research: The Essential
Guide to Theory and Practice . London
and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-
415-67478-2.
24. Merton, R.K. (1949). Social theory and
social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press.
25. Merton, R.K., & Barber, E. (2003). The
travels and adventures of serendipity:
A study in sociological semantics and
the sociology of science. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
2 . Stol, K., Ralph, P. & Fitzgerald, B. (2016)
Grounded Theory Research in
Software Engineering: A Critical
Review and Guidelines? Proceedings
of the International Conference on
Software Engineering. Austin, Texas:
ACM, May.
27. Thistoll, Tony; Hooper, Val; Pauleen,
David J. (2015-02-03). "Acquiring and
developing theoretical sensitivity
through undertaking a grounded
preliminary literature review". Quality &
Quantity. Springer Science and
Business Media LLC. 50 (2): 619–636.
doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0167-3 .
ISSN 0033-5177 .
2 . Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis
for social scientists. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
29. Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs.
"Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial
Problem of "Grounded Theory"
Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative
Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2),
Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [1]
30. Mills, J.; Bonner, A.; Francis, K. (2006).
"The development of constructivist
grounded theory" . International
Journal of Qualitative Methods. 5: 25–
35.
doi:10.1177/160940690600500103 .
31. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory:
Objectivist and constructivist
methods. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing
grounded theory. London: Sage.
33. Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism
and the grounded theory method. In
J.A. Holstein & J.F. Gubrium (Eds.),
Handbook of constructionist research
(pp. 397–412). New York: The Guilford
Press.
34. Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2012).
Grounded theory. In S. D. Lapan, M.
Quartaroli, & F. Reimer (Eds.),
Qualitative research: An introduction
to methods and designs (pp. 41–67).
San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley/Jossey–Bass.
35. Bryant, A (2002). "Re-grounding
grounded theory". Journal of
Information Technology Theory and
Application. 4: 25–42.
3 . Thornberg, R (2012). "Informed
grounded theory" . Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research. 56
(3): 243–259.
doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 .
37. Ramalho, R.; Adams, P.; Huggard, P.;
Hoare, K. (2015). "Literature Review
and Constructivist Grounded Theory
Methodology". Forum: Qualitative
Social Research. 16 (3): 19.
3 . Kemf)pster, Parry; Parry, Ken (2011).
"Grounded theory and leadership
research: A critical realist perspective".
The Leadership Quarterly. 22: 106–
120.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.010 .
39. Oliver, Carolyn (2012). "Critical Realist
Grounded Theory: A New Approach for
Social Work Research". The British
Journal of Social Work. 42 (2): 371–
387. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr064 .
40. Bunt, Sarah (2016). "Critical realism
and grounded theory: Analysing the
adoption outcomes for disabled
children using the retroduction
framework". Qualitative Social Work.
17 (2): 176–194.
doi:10.1177/1473325016664572 .
41. Hoddy, Eric (2018). "Critical realism in
empirical research: employing
techniques from Grounded theory
methodology". International Journal of
Social Research Methodology. 22:
111–124.
doi:10.1080/13645579.2018.1503400
.
42. Gibbs. "Core Emlements Part 2.
Grounded Theory" .
43. Pettigrew, Simone F. "Ethnography and
Grounded Theory: A Happy
Marriage?" . acrwebsite.org.
44. Stray, Viktoria; Sjøberg, Dag; Dybå, Tore
(2016-01-11). "The daily stand-up
meeting: A grounded theory study".
Journal of Systems and Software. 114:
101–124.
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.01.004 .
hdl:11250/2478996 .
45. "Grounded Theory Research" (PDF).
Archived from the original (PDF) on 10
December 2014.
4 . White, Jo; Weatherall, Ann (2000). "A
grounded theory analysis of older
adults and information technology".
Educational Gerontology. 26 (4): 371–
386. doi:10.1080/036012700407857 .
47. Groves, Patricia S.; Manges, Kirstin A.;
Scott-Cawiezell, Jill (2016-02-08).
"Handing Off Safety at the Bedside".
Clinical Nursing Research. 25 (5):
473–493.
doi:10.1177/1054773816630535 .
ISSN 1054-7738 . PMID 26858262 .
4 . Charmaz, Kathy. "Grounded Theory."
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social
Science Research Methods. 2003.
SAGE Publications. 24 May. 2009.
49. Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006).
Reinventing grounded theory: some
questions about theory, ground and
discovery, British Educational
Research Journal, 32, 6, 767–795.
50. Schonfeld, I.S., & Mazzola, J.J. (2013).
Strengths and limitations of qualitative
approaches to research in
occupational health psychology. In R.
Sinclair, M. Wang, & L. Tetrick (Eds.),
Research methods in occupational
health psychology: State of the art in
measurement, design, and data
analysis (pp. 268-289). New York:
Routledge.
51. Popper, K. (1963). Science:
Conjectures and refutations. In K. R.
Popper (Ed.), Conjectures and
refutations: The growth of scientific
knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
52. Parker, L.D. and Roffey, B.H. (1997)
Methodological themes: Back to the
drawing board: Revisiting grounded
theory and the everyday accountant’s
and manager’s reality. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10,
212-247.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579710
166730
53. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data
analysis and introduction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
54. Tolhurst, E. (2012). Grounded Theory
Method: Sociology's quest for
exclusive items of inquiry , Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 13, 3,
Art.26.
55. See P. James, Globalism, Nationalism,
Tribalism: Bringing theory Back In,
Sage Publications, London, 2006; and
P. James, Y. Nadarajah, K. Haive, and
V. Stead, Sustainable Communities,
Sustainable Development: Other Paths
for Papua New Guinea, Honolulu,
University of Hawaii Press, 2012
5 . Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using
thematic analysis in psychology.
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,
77–101.
doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Aldmouz, R. s. (2009). Grounded theory
as a methodology for theory generation
in information systems research.
European journal of economics, finance
and administrative sciences (15).
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data
analysis and introduction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Charmaz K. (2000) 'Grounded Theory:
Objectivist and Constructivist Methods',
 in Denzin N.K. and Y. S. Lincoln (eds)
Handbook of Qualitative Research,
second edition, London, Sage
Publications.
Strauss A. and J. Corbin (1998) Basics
of Qualitative Research – Techniques
and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory, second edition,
London, Sage Publications
Groves, P. S., Manges, K. A., & Scott-
Cawiezell, J. (2016). Handing Off Safety
at the Bedside. Clinical nursing research,
1054773816630535.

Further reading
Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.) (2007)
The SAGE Handbook of Grounded
Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2015) Grounded
Theory: A practical Guide. London: SAGE
Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructing
Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chun Tie, Ylona, Birks, Melanie, and
Francis, Karen (2019) Grounded theory
research: a design framework for novice
researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7.
pp. 1–8.
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis:
Grounded Theory After the Postmodern
Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded
theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded Theory: A
Practical Guide for Management,
Business and Market Researchers.
London: Sage.
Kelle, Udo (2005). "Emergence" vs.
"Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial
Problem of "Grounded Theory"
Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative
Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2),
Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [2]
Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J.,
Bowers, B., Charmaz, K. & Clarke, A. E.
(Eds.) (2009). Developing Grounded
Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press.
Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (Eds.) (2007).
Grounded Theory Reader. Historical
Social Research, Suppl. 19. 337 pages.
Oktay, J. S. (2012) Grounded Theory.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stebbins, Robert A. (2001) Exploratory
Research in the Social Sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis
for social scientists. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, G.; James, D. (2006). "Re-
inventing grounded theory: some
questions about theory, ground and
discovery" (PDF). British Educational
Research Journal. 32 (6): 767–795.
doi:10.1080/01411920600989412 .
Glaser
Glaser BG, The Constant Comparative
Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 445, 1965.
Glaser BG, Strauss A. Discovery of
Grounded Theory. Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Sociology Press,
1967
Glaser BG. Theoretical Sensitivity:
Advances in the methodology of
Grounded Theory. Sociology Press,
1978.
Glaser BG (ed). More Grounded Theory
Methodology: A Reader. Sociology
Press, 1994.
Glaser BG (ed). Grounded Theory 1984–
1994. A Reader (two volumes).
Sociology Press, 1995.
Glaser BG (ed). Gerund Grounded
Theory: The Basic Social Process
Dissertation. Sociology Press, 1996.
Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory –
Issues and Discussions. Sociology
Press, 1998.
Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory
Perspective I: Conceptualization
Contrasted with Description. Sociology
Press, 2001.
Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory
Perspective II: Description's Remodeling
of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press,
2003.
Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory
Perspective III: Theoretical coding.
Sociology Press, 2005.
Strauss and Corbin
Anselm L. Strauss; Leonard Schatzman;
Rue Bucher; Danuta Ehrlich & Melvin
Sabshin: Psychiatric ideologies and
institutions (1964)
Barney G. Glaser; Anselm L. Strauss: The
Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies
for Qualitative Research (1967)
Anselm L. Strauss: Qualitative Analysis
for Social Scientists (1987)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, Sage (1990)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin:
"Grounded Theory Research:
Procedures, Canons and Evaluative
Criteria", in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19.
Jg, S. 418 ff. (1990)
Anselm L. Strauss: Continual
Permutations of Action (1993)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin:
"Grounded Theory in Practice", Sage
(1997)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: "Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques".
2nd edition. Sage, 1998.
Juliet Corbin; Anselm L. Strauss: "Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques". 3rd
edition. Sage, 2008.
Constructivist grounded theory
Bryant, Antony (2002) 'Re-grounding
grounded theory', Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application,
4(1): 25–42.
Bryant, Antony and Charmaz, Kathy
(2007) 'Grounded theory in historical
perspective: An epistemological
account', in Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K.
(eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
pp. 31–57.
Charmaz, Kathy (2000) 'Grounded
theory: Objectivist and constructivist
methods', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln,
Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. pp. 509–535.
Charmaz, Kathy (2003) 'Grounded
theory', in Smith, J.A. (ed.), Qualitative
Psychology: A Practical Guide to
Research Methods. London: Sage.
pp. 81–110.
Charmaz, Kathy (2006) Constructing
Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Charmaz, Kathy (2008) 'Constructionism
and the grounded theory method', in
Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (eds.),
Handbook of Constructionist Research.
New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 397–
412.
Charmaz, Kathy (2009) 'Shifting the
grounds: Constructivist grounded theory
methods', in J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J.
Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz and A. E.
Clarke (eds.), Developing Grounded
Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press. pp. 127–154.
Charmaz, Kathy (forthcoming)
Constructing Grounded Theory 2nd ed.
London: Sage.
Mills, Jane, Bonner, Ann, & Francis,
Karen (2006) 'Adopting a constructivist
approach to grounded theory:
Implications for research design'
International Journal of Nursing
Practice, 12(1): 8–13.
Mills, Jane, Bonner, Ann, & Francis,
Karen (2006) 'The development of
constructivist grounded theory',
International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 5 (1): 25–35.
Thornberg, Robert (2012) 'Informed
grounded theory', Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 56: 243–259.
 Thornberg, Robert and Charmaz, Kathy
(2011) 'Grounded theory', in Lapan, S.D.,
Quartaroli M.T. and Reimer F.J. (eds.),
Qualitative Research: An Introduction to
Methods and Designs. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley/Jossey–Bass. pp. 41–
67.
Thornberg, Robert & Charmaz, K.
(forthcoming) 'Grounded theory and
theoretical coding', in Flick, U. (ed.), The
SAGE handbook of qualitative analysis.
London: Sage.

External links
The Grounded Theory Institute (Glaser
tradition)
 Grounded Theory Online (Supporting
(Glaserian) grounded theory
researchers)
Grounded Theory Review
Sociology Press
Grounded Theory Research Tutorial

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Grounded_theory&oldid=1000964355"

Last edited 17 days ago by Iss246

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.