Grounded Theory
between grand theories and empirical realities
KATHY CHARMAZ1 and LINDA LISKA
BELGRAVE2
1 SonomaState University, USA, and 2 University of
Miami, USA
Grounded theory is a general methodology
with systematic guidelines for gathering and
analyzing data to generate middle-range the-
ory. The name “grounded theory” mirrors its
fundamental premise that researchers can and
should develop theory from rigorous analyses of
empirical data. The analytic process consists of
coding data; developing, checking, and integrat-
ing theoretical categories; and writing analytic
narratives throughout inquiry. Barney G. Glaser
and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), the originators of
grounded theory, first proposed that researchers
should engage in simultaneous data collection
and analysis, which has become a routine practice
in qualitative research. From the beginning of the
research process, the researcher codes the data,
compares data and codes, and identifies analytic
leads and tentative categories to develop through
further data collection. A grounded theory of a
studied topic starts with concrete data and ends
with rendering them in an explanatory theory.
Glaser and Strauss developed grounded theory
methods when they studied the social organi-
zation of dying in hospitals. They articulated
their methodological strategies in their cutting-
edge book The Discovery of Grounded Theory
(1967). Prior to its publication, field researchers
had learned qualitative methods through an
oral tradition combined with lengthy immer-
sions in fieldwork. Glaser and Strauss revitalized
qualitative research in sociology and brought
new impetus to pursuing it through explicating
systematic methods for analyzing qualitative
data. They called for the qualitative tradition in
sociology to be re-established at a time when
quantification had achieved disciplinary dom-
inance. Quantitative researchers had embraced
a logico-deductive model and derived hypothe-
ses from grand macrosociological theories.
A sharp division of labor between theorists
The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Edited by George Ritzer.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2
and researchers had deepened, while the gap
had widened. Glaser and Strauss argued that
qualitative research could generate theory and
qualitative methodologists could close the gap
between theory and the empirical world. Thus,
they proposed that (1) qualitative inquiry could
make significant theoretical and empirical con-
tributions it its own right, rather than merely
serve as a precursor to quantitative research;
(2) qualitative analysis could be codified in anal-
ogous ways as quantitative analysis had been;
(3) inductive methods could be used to develop
middle-range theory; and (4) the divide between
theory and methods was artificial.
Glaser and Strauss introduced grounded theory
as a comparative method for analyzing basic
social and social psychological processes. Glaser
built on his quantitative training at Columbia
University and aimed to codify qualitative meth-
ods as his mentor Paul Lazarsfeld had successfully
codified quantitative methods. Glaser developed
the language of grounded theory from his quanti-
tative background and imported certain positivist
objectives and assumptions into the method.
Hence, the logic of grounded theory relied on
discovery, externality, neutrality, and parsimony.
Strauss brought Chicago School traditions of
ethnographic fieldwork, pragmatist philosophy,
and symbolic interactionism to grounded theory.
Thus, he emphasized firsthand data, assumed
an agentic actor, viewed social life as emergent
and open-ended, and acknowledged the crucial
role of language, symbols, and culture in shaping
individual and collective meanings and actions.
Early formulations of the method were pred-
icated on discovering theories in an external
empirical world. For Glaser and Strauss, and par-
ticularly Glaser (1978, 1992, 1998, 2001), theory
construction was and is an emergent process
accomplished through systematic engagement
with data. Both Glaser and Strauss viewed knowl-
edge of earlier theories and research as leading to
forcing preconceived ideas on the data, instead of
analyzing them afresh. Therefore, they advocated
delaying the literature review to avoid relying on
extant ideas.
2 G ROUNDED THEORY
Glaser and Strauss and a number of their fol-
lowers adopted roles as neutral scientists who
subjected data to dispassionate, systematic anal-
ysis. Although grounded theory methods inform
the entire research process, both Glaser (1978,
1992, 1998) and Strauss (1987) emphasized the
analytic phases. They assumed that thorough
analyses remedied researchers’ possible biases
and made grounded theory a self-correcting
method.
The originators of grounded theory shared
commitments to analyzing social processes,
using comparative methods, accepting a provi-
sional view of truth, fostering the emergence of
new ideas, and providing tools for constructing
substantive and formal middle-range theories.
Glaser’s (1978) emphasis on the fit, relevance,
modifiability, and usefulness of a grounded the-
ory remained congruent with Strauss’s pragmatist
conceptions of inquiry and truth. Nonetheless,
the marriage of positivism and pragmatism
in grounded theory produces tensions in the
method. Glaser (1978, 1998) stresses objectivist
analyses based on variables, a concept indi-
cator approach, and context-free theoretical
statements. Strauss emphasizes rich contextual
analyses of meaning and action and the devel-
opment of substantive and formal theories of
action.
Since its publication, The Discovery of Grounded
Theory has struck a resonant chord among aspir-
ing qualitative researchers, many of whom
have cited it to legitimize their studies. How-
ever, numerous researchers still misunderstand
grounded theory and relatively few adopt all
of its guidelines. Divisions between Glaser and
Strauss, their separate revisions of grounded
theory, and new variants of it complicate these
misunderstandings. What grounded theory is,
which and whose innovations and revisions are
acceptable, and which version should hold sway
are contested issues.
Despite epistemological and practice differ-
ences, grounded theorists of various persuasions
assume that (1) theory construction is a major
objective of grounded theory; (2) the logic
of grounded theory differs from quantitative
research; and (3) the grounded theory emerges
from rigorous data analysis, not from adopting
preconceived theories. What stands as precon-
ception, however, differs between grounded
theorists. Glaser (2013) remains adamant about
delaying the literature review to avoid forcing
data into preconceived categories. He does not,
however, consider how the researcher’s social
locations, standpoints, and privileges and the
historical, social, and situational conditions of
the research influence the process and products
of inquiry and subsequently import preconceived
ideas. Furthermore, no researcher pursuing a
line of inquiry over multiple studies can possibly
avoid familiarity with the literature. Glaser (2013)
still argues that researchers must come to their
studies without prior influences shaping their
views. In contrast, Dey (1999), Charmaz (2000,
2006), Bryant (2002), and Clarke (2005) contend
that researchers’ interpretive frameworks, situa-
tions, and interests influence what they see and
how they render it. Charmaz emphasizes using
sensitizing concepts to open the research process.
Henwood and Pidgeon (2003) enter the fray with
the sound advice that grounded theorists adopt
the critical stance of “theoretical agnosticism.”
When involved in conducting their studies,
diverse grounded theorists agree on the follow-
ing strategies: (1) collecting and analyzing data
simultaneously; (2) using comparative methods
during each analytic stage; (3) devising ana-
lytic categories early in the research process;
(4) engaging in analytic writing throughout; and
(5) sampling for the purpose of developing ideas.
How researchers interpret and enact these strate-
gies may reveal sharp differences. Yet researchers’
rigorous analytic scrutiny of data can inform
their further data collection and spur developing
successively more abstract interpretations that
explicate what is happening in the field setting.
Currently, most qualitative researchers engage
in early analytic work, but it seldom takes the
systematic form of the grounded theory method.
Coding in grounded theory is at least a two-
phased process: initial and focused. During initial
coding, researchers ask such analytic questions as
“What category does this incident indicate?” and
“What is actually happening in the data?” (Glaser,
1978: 57). Grounded theorists attempt to be open
to all possible answers. Then they define what
is happening by assigning brief codes labeling
each line or incident in the early data to sort,
synthesize, and analyze them. Coding for actions
furthers the grounded theory goal of studying
process. As grounded theorists do initial coding,
 G ROUNDED THEORY
they compare lines of data or incidents to define
the properties of what is happening and to learn
how it developed and what it means. Even during
this early phase of analysis, grounded theorists
move beyond concrete description and take their
data apart. Close examination of data, com-
bined with comparisons between data, prompts
researchers to see their data in new ways. Initial
coding also alerts the researcher to potential in
vivo codes given in the setting or participants’
direct statements.
Focused coding increases a researcher’s ana-
lytic control and precision. As researchers engage
in comparing and coding data, certain codes
assume greater analytic power than others and
often appear more frequently. They select these
codes as focused codes to sift large batches of
data. Through focused coding, researchers can
reassess tacit meanings and actions in earlier
data and generate preliminary categories for the
emerging theory. This coding also provides the
grist to interrogate the data and to contemplate
what’s missing in it.
Memo-writing is the pivotal intermediate strat-
egy that bridges coding and report writing.
Memos are analytic narratives covering all the
researcher’s ideas and questions about the codes
that occur at the moment. From the beginning
of the research, grounded theorists see through
the lens of their codes. Memos commit to writ-
ing what they see. Such writing helps to avoid
meandering data collection and losing flashes of
insight. Early memos record and discuss hunches
and begin taking the data apart to explore mean-
ings and actions. Rather than follow recipes
for writing memos, researchers draw on their
analytic sensibilities and follow the analytic leads
they define in their memos. In early memos,
grounded theorists raise certain codes to prelim-
inary categories and then explore them. In later
memos, they develop specific categories through
making more incisive comparisons and begin to
integrate their categories. Hence, they compare
category with category, as well as compare data
with the relevant category.
After developing tentative analytic categories,
researchers typically find gaps in their data, if
not gaping holes. Then they seek more data to
check their categories through theoretical sam-
pling, a selective, systematic, and strategic way of
gathering specific additional data to develop the
3
emerging theory. Theoretical sampling has been
poorly understood and applied. Many researchers
mistake theoretical sampling with purposive or
representative sampling. In contrast, grounded
theorists use theoretical sampling to elaborate
the properties of a category, to make the category
more precise, and to discover variation in it or
between theoretical categories and make them
more precise. The most basic use of theoretical
sampling is to gather data until the researcher
finds no new properties of the category. Theo-
retical sampling may lead to returning to earlier
research participants and settings. It may mean
seeking new research participants and settings
or returning to earlier ones with new questions.
Given the prevalence of interview studies, how-
ever, in their later interviews many researchers
build questions that focus on their tentative
categories. Through conducting theoretical sam-
pling, researchers can answer analytic questions
about their theoretical categories – and reveal the
relative generality of these categories. Although
many researchers stop short of theoretical sam-
pling, conducting it increases the definitiveness,
generality, and usefulness of their work.
The first major division among grounded theo-
rists occurred after Strauss and Corbin published
Basics of Qualitative Research (1990). They intro-
duced new techniques, treated grounded theory
as a set of procedures, and advocated verification.
The flexible guidelines and comparative meth-
ods of earlier texts are less apparent, although
Strauss and Corbin show how to study contextual
relationships and to specify causes, conditions,
and consequences of social processes. Glaser
(1992) rejected Strauss and Corbin’s innovations
because he saw them as preconceived procedures
that force data into categories. For Glaser, their
approach resulted in conceptual descriptions, not
grounded theories.
Charmaz (2000, 2006) articulated the sec-
ond major division by distinguishing between
constructivist and objectivist grounded theory.
Constructivist grounded theory (1) gives priority
to the studied phenomenon rather than tech-
niques of studying it; (2) takes reflexivity and
research relationships into account; (3) assumes
that both data and analyses are social con-
structions; (4) studies how participants create
meanings and actions; (5) seeks an insider’s view
to the extent possible; and (6) acknowledges that
4 G ROUNDED THEORY
analyses are contextually situated in time, place,
culture, and situation. In this view, researchers
and their participants produce data through
interaction and therefore construct the mean-
ings, actions, and situations that researchers
observe and define. Constructivists realize that
researchers’ lack of awareness of their stand-
points and starting points increases possibilities
of bringing preconceived ideas into their work.
Thus, constructivism fosters researchers’ reflex-
ivity about their interpretations as well as those
of their research participants. In short, con-
structivism moves grounded theory further into
interpretive social science.
In contrast, objectivist grounded theory (1)
seeks discoveries in an external, knowable world;
(2) assumes a neutral, passive observer but an
active analyst; (3) studies the phenomenon from
the outside as an objective external authority;
(4) treats representation of research participants
as unproblematic; (5) distinguishes between facts
and values; and (6) regards completed analyses as
objective reports. Objectivist grounded theorists
learn the parameters of the worlds they study
and analyze processes within them, but do not
become immersed in these worlds. They often aim
for thoroughness and accuracy, although Glaser
(1998) takes a laissez-faire stance toward data col-
lection and rejects quests for accuracy and detail
as derailing the analytic process. Despite some
differences, the objectivist approach contains
inherent positivist assumptions and practices.
Charmaz (2006, 2014) states that most
grounded theory works contain elements of
both constructivism and objectivism; however,
she views both Glaser’s and Strauss and Corbin’s
methodological statements as different forms of
objectivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000).
Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) empirical work,
in contrast, assumes an interpretive approach
and demonstrates its constructivist antecedents.
Moreover, Corbin (Corbin and Strauss, 2008)
writes about changes in her epistemological
position in the most recent revision of Basics of
Qualitative Research that bring her methodology
more clearly into interpretive social science.
These changes also bring her approach close to
constructivist grounded theory.
Glaser (1992, 1998, 2001, 2013) remains in the
objectivist camp. Nonetheless, he has somewhat
altered his earlier grounded theory guidelines
sufficiently to constitute a third revision of the
method. Although his revision leaves the prag-
matist underpinnings behind, Glaser claims his
version represents classic grounded theory and
Gibson and Hartman (2014) have re-examined
the original works in an attempt to return to
Glaserian foundations. Glaser still argues for a
direct and often narrow empiricism consistent
with mid-century positivism, but he has grown
more insistent about opposing a quest for accurate
data. He aims to develop emergent theoretical
categories, and advocates using comparative
methods and constructing abstract theoretical
analyses, all of which have fundamentally defined
the grounded theory method. In a major depar-
ture from earlier statements, however, Glaser
(1998) has abandoned the objective of studying a
basic social process because he views it as forcing
inquiry. Instead, he favors analyzing a core cate-
gory, although criteria for such a category remain
vague. For him, the goal of grounded theory
should be a theoretical analysis of how people
resolve a major concern. Glaser has also revised
his earlier endorsement of line by coding because
he now views it as generating a hodgepodge of
unintegrated codes that clutter and encumber the
analytic process.
Charmaz (2000, 2006, 2014), Bryant (2002),
and Clarke (2005) use grounded theory methods
without allegiance to its earlier positivistic pre-
suppositions. They acknowledge the contextual
positioning of data and theory and encour-
age a reflexive stance on the research process.
Moreover, they each see building on symbolic
interactionism as one way to undermine what
Bryant (2002: 39) views as “any inclination
toward object-centered, mechanistic, and tech-
nicist thinking.” Clarke (2005) and Charmaz
(2006) call for an extending of the direction of
grounded theory inquiry to include theorizing
difference, controversy, and injustice. Clarke
(2003, 2005) argues that grounded theory has
always contained properties now attributed to
postmodernism, such as the provisional, multiple
views grounded theorists routinely take toward
their data. She explicitly aims to integrate post-
modern concerns into grounded theory and to
go beyond them to reposition grounded theory
in a reflexive pragmatism that addresses all kinds
of differences explicitly and maps them in fluid,
abstract forms of theorizing.
 G ROUNDED THEORY
Recent developments in grounded theory
include three methodological shifts: (1) increased
attention to data collection; (2) re-examination of
the literature review; and (3) wider recognition of
the abductive foundation of grounded theory as
part of its pragmatist heritage. Charmaz (2014)
shows how grounded theory’s analytic guidelines
influence modes of data collection and details
how grounded theorists can use interviewing for
their analyses. Increasingly, grounded theorists
question the notion of delaying the literature
review and confirm Ian Dey’s (1999) oft-cited
observation that having an open mind differs
from having an empty head. Thus, they argue
that a critical awareness of relevant literatures
can advance grounded theory without being
swayed by them (see, e.g., Thornberg, 2012).
Theoretical sampling has always made grounded
theory an abductive method and now Charmaz
(2014) explicates using abductive reasoning in
research. Reconstructing grounded theory from
pragmatism holds enormous untapped potential
for revitalizing the practice of theorizing.
Several emerging trends in the use of grounded
theory also hold potential for developing the
method: (1) the turn toward social justice
inquiry; (2) the adoption of grounded theory
in mixed methods research; and (3) the global
spread of the method. The use of grounded
theory is gaining attention in both social justice
inquiry and mixed methods research in diverse
disciplines as well as in sociology. Grounded
theorists can take the pragmatist emphases on
action, meaning, and language and use them with
sensitizing concepts that address power, ideology,
and equity to construct compelling analyses of
social issues. Grounded theory provides tools
for researchers to link subjective experience and
social conditions and to show how structure is
enacted. Social justice inquiry, as well as other
research foci, may be strengthened by mixed
methods research when carefully conducted. The
pressure to assuage review committees drives
much mixed methods research with quantitative
foundations, including those projects that claim
to use grounded theory. However, the method
has much potential for systematic follow-up of
quantitative findings as well as for developing
qualitatively driven mixed methods research.
Last, grounded theory has swept across disci-
plines and professions around the globe. Charmaz
5
(2014) initiates a discussion about how interna-
tional researchers view and use a method that
originated in the United States during a time of
unquestioned capitalism and has been uncriti-
cally exported by some proponents. Diversity of
language, cultures, and societal locations, as well
as local research practices, all hold implications
for using grounded theory across the globe and
pose methodological questions to ponder.
SEE ALSO: Induction and Observation in
Science; Methods, Mixed; Naturalistic Inquiry;
Qualitative Computing.
References
Bryant, A. (2002) Re-grounding grounded theory. Jour-
nal of Information Technology Theory and Applica-
tion, 4 (1), 25–42.
Charmaz, K. (2000) Constructivist and objectivist
grounded theory, in Handbook of Qualitative
Research, 2nd edn (ed. N.K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln),
SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A
Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, SAGE,
London.
Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd
edn, SAGE, London.
Clarke, A.E. (2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded The-
ory After the Postmodern Turn, SAGE, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of Qualitative
Research, SAGE, Los Angeles, CA.
Dey, I. (1999) Grounding Grounded Theory, Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.
Gibson, B. and Hartman, J. (2014) Rediscovering
Grounded Theory, SAGE, London.
Glaser, B.G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity, Sociology
Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis,
Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (1998) Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and
Discussions, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (2001) The Grounded Theory Perspective:
Conceptualization Contrasted with Description, Soci-
ology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. (2013) No Preconceptions: The Grounded
Theory Dictum, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research,
Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Henwood, K. and Pidgeon, N. (2003) Grounded the-
ory in psychological research, in Qualitative Research
6 G ROUNDED THEORY
in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodol-
ogy and Design (ed. P.M. Camic, J.E. Rhodes, and
L. Yardley), American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 131–155.
Strauss, A.L. (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Sci-
entists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualita-
tive Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Tech-
niques, SAGE, Newbury Park, CA.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualita-
tive Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Tech-
niques, 2nd edn, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Thornberg, R. (2012) Informed grounded theory. Scan-
danavian Journal of Educational Research, 55 (1),
1–17.