GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 1

MAPPING GROUNDED THEORY THROUGH A WORKED EXAMPLE

MARIYAH ZUBAIR KHAN

Department of Psychology, University of Delhi

PSY 202: Qualitative Research Methods

Professor Tanya Johri

GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 2

The History of Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory (GT) was first developed by Sociologist Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss
while working together on a study called the Awareness of Dying in 1965. During this period,
they criticized the predominant approach to qualitative research, which they found to be very
limited. Qualitative studies at this time were following traditional methods which basically
involved coming up with a hypothesis and conducting research to validate it.

Glaser and Straus found this approach too narrow and limited for qualitative inquiry and
unsuitable for their work. They argued the need to allow theories to evolve through social
research rather than deducing theories from a priori assumptions.

Driven by this argument and the lack of social theories, Glaser and Strauss pioneered a new
methodology for discovering theory by taking an inductive approach to qualitative research.
They adopted this method for their study and made the first mention of grounded theory in their
book titled Awareness of Dying.

Two years later, Glaser and Strauss decided to formally present their newly developed research
method by publishing a book titled Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative
research (1967). The book discussed grounded theory in more detail, explained the rationale for
their new method, and presented it as a better alternative to the existing qualitative research
methods.

After the first publication, the duo continued to work together on various research projects and
wrote four more books. In 1978, Glaser published another book titled Theoretical Sensitivity:
Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. The book provided more practical insights
into how to generate social theories using grounded theory methodology.

Glaser shed more light on the grounded theory process and explained theoretical coding and
theoretical sampling in more detail. Glaser's work is often considered the Classic Grounded
Theory. In 1987, Strauss also published a book titled Qualitative Analysis for social sciences.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 3

Evolution of Strauss and Corbin’s Version of Grounded Theory

In 1990, Strauss worked with Juliet Corbin to refine some of the original grounded theory
features. Together, they published the book Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques (1990). The duo shifted from the concept of the natural emergence
of theory by designing an analytical coding framework for generating theories from data
systematically.

Strauss and Corbin's book also challenged the original grounded theory tenet that a researcher
should abstain from literature before embarking on a study. Before the book was published,
Glaser criticized their reconfiguration of the original grounded theory and responded by writing
two personal letters to Strass where he articulated his reasons for disapproving of their work.

However, Strauss and Corbin went ahead with the publication. In response to this development,
Glaser published another book in 1992 titled Basics of Grounded Theory: Emergence vs Forcing.
Glaser described his book as a correction of the book published by Strauss and Corbin. In
successive years, both factions continue to develop their version of grounded theory.

The Emergence of Constructivist Grounded Theory

The reformation of grounded theory took a new turn in the 1990s when Kathy Charmaz, a former
student of Strauss and Glaser, published an article that described a new approach to grounded
theory. She described her new approach as constructivist grounded theory and explained how it
differs from Glaser and Strauss' methods.

Charmaz argued that neither data nor theories are discovered but are constructed through the
researchers' past and present experiences. Additionally, she described Strauss's systematic
coding frameworks as highly prescriptive and proposed a more flexible approach. In 2006,
Charmaz published her book titled Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis. This makes her work the third version of grounded theory.

Although three variations of grounded theory have evolved over time, it is important to note that
they all have some familial resemblance and remain within the grounded theory family.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 4

Fig: Roots of Grounded Theory

Goals and Perspectives of Grounded Theory

Grounded theory provides a direction to the researcher and directs them to generate new theories
or modify the existing ones. The interpretation and conclusion of the grounded theory approach is
more reliable as it is based on data collected from multiple sources. The theory takes similar cases
for analysis rather than a variable perspective. The selected cases are similar in the variables, that
is the variables of the cases are similar in nature but the outcomes of these cases are different. The
ground theorists/ researcher take these cases and compare them to analyze the causes and reasons
behind the different outcomes of similar variables of the selected cases.

The basic goals of the grounded theory are:

i) Since the approach consists of a series of systematic steps and the data is collected from
more than one source, it assures to provide a ‘good theory’ as the output.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 5

ii) The grounded theory approach emphasizes on the process by which the theory is
evaluated. This determines the quality of the theory.

iii) Thegroundedtheoryapproachalsoemphasisesonenhancingthetheoretical sensitivity.

iv) One goal of a grounded theory is to formulate hypotheses based on conceptual ideas.

v) On the basis of the questions asked the researcher tries to discover the participants’
main concerns and how they continually try to resolve them.

vi) It also aims to generate those concepts which explain people’s actions regardless of
time and place. The descriptive parts of a GT are there mainly to illustrate the concepts.

In the words of Glaser (1998), “GT (grounded theory) is multivariate. It happens sequentially,
subsequently, simultaneously, serendipitously, and scheduled”.

However, the results of grounded theories are not a reporting of facts but a set of probability
statements about the relationship between concepts, or an integrated set of conceptual hypotheses
developed from empirical data (Glaser 1998).

Key Features
Grounded theory consists of guidelines for conducting data collection, data analysis, and theory
building, which may lead to research that is closely integrated with social reality as represented in
the data.
• Grounded theory is systematic. In other words, the analysis of data to generate theory is
not dependent on a stroke of genius or divine inspiration, but on perspiration and
application of general principles or methods.
• Grounded theory involves inductive guidelines rather than deductive processes. This is
very different from what is often regarded as conventional theory building (sometimes
described as the ‘hypothetico-deductive method’). In the hypothetico-deductive method,
theory is developed from which hypotheses are derived. In turn, these hypotheses may be
put to an empirical test. Research is important because it allows researchers to test these
hypotheses and, consequently, the theory. The hypothetico-deductive method characterised
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 6

psychology for much of its modern history. Without the link between theory building and
hypothesis testing, quantitative research in psychology probably deserves the epithet of
‘empiricism gone mad’. However, grounded theory, itself, was not really a reaction against
the hypothetico-deductive method but one against the overly abstracted and untestable
social theory.
• Grounded theory requires that theory should develop out of an understanding of the
complexity of the subject matter. Theories (that is, coding schemes) knit the complexity
of the data into a coherent whole. Primarily, such theories may be tested effectively only
in terms of the fit between the categories and the data, and by applying the categories to
new data. In many ways this contrasts markedly with mainstream quantitative psychology
where there is no requirement that the analysis fits all of the data closely – merely that there
are statistically significant trends, irrespective of magnitude, which confirm the hypothesis
derived from the theory. The unfitting data are regarded as measurement error rather than
a reason to explore the data further in order to produce a better analysis, as it may be in
qualitative research.
• The theory-building process is a continuous one rather than a sequence of critical tests of
the theory through testing hypotheses. In many ways, it is impossible to separate the
different phases of the research into discrete components such as theory develop- ment,
hypothesis testing, followed by refining the theory. The data collection phase, the
transcription phase, and the analysis phase all share the common intent of building theory
by matching the analysis close to the complexity of the topic of interest.

Table 1: Comparison of Different Qualitative Techniques

Characteristics Narrative Phenomenolog Grounded Ethnograph Case Study
Research y Theory y

Focus Exploring Understanding Developin Describing Developing

the life of the g a theory and an
an essence of the grounded interpreting a in-depth
individual experience in data culture- description
sharing
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 7

from the group and analysis

field of a
case or
multiple
cases

Type of Needing to Needing to Grounding Describing Providing an

problem tell describe a theory and in-depth
best suited for stories of the essence of a in the interpreting understandin
design individual lived views of the g of a
experiences phenomenon participant shared case or cases
s patterns of
culture of a
group

Discipline Drawing Drawing from Drawing Drawing Drawing

background from the philosophy, from from from
humanities psychology, and sociology anthropology psychology,
including education and law,
anthropology sociology political
, science,
literature, medicine
history,
psychology,
and
sociology

Unit of Studying one Studying Studying a Studying a Studying an

analysis or several process, group event, a
more individuals that action, or that shares program, an
individuals have interaction the same
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 8

shared the involving culture activity, more

experience many than
individuals one
individual

Data Using Using primarily Using Using Using

collection primarily interviews with primarily primarily multiple
forms interviews individuals, interviews observations sources, such
and although with 20 – and as
documents documents, 60 interviews, interviews,
observations, individuals but observations,
and art perhaps documents,
may also be collecting artifacts
considered other sources
during
extended
time in
field

Data analysis Analysing Analyzing data Analysing Analysing Analysing

strategies data for for data data data
stories, significant through through through
“restoring” statements, open description description
stories, meaning coding, of culture- of the case
developing units, textural axial sharing and
themes, often and coding, group; themes of the
using structural selective themes about case
a chronology description, coding groups as well as
description of cross-case
the themes
“essence”
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 9

Written report Developing a Describing the Generating Describing Developing a

narrative “essence” of the a theory how a detailed
about the experience illustrated culture- analysis of
stories of an in a sharing one or more
individual’s figure group works cases
life

Source: Modified by Creswell (2007; P. 78-79)

Steps for Grounded Theory

1. Determine initial research questions

2. Recruit and collect data (theoretical sampling)

3. Break transcripts into excerpts (open coding)

4. Group excerpts into codes (open coding)

5. Group codes into categories (axial coding)

6. Analyze more excerpts and compare with codes

7. Repeat steps 2-6 until you reach theoretical saturation

8. Define the central idea (selective coding)

9. Write your grounded theory

Table 2: Fundamental Components of a Grounded Theory Study

COMPONENT STAGE DESCRIPTION

Openness Throughout the Grounded theory methodology emphasises inductive analysis.
study Deduction is the usual form of analytic thinking in medical
research. Deduction moves from the general to the particular:
it begins with pre-existing hypotheses or theories, and collects
data to test those theories. In contrast, induction moves from
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 10

COMPONENT STAGE DESCRIPTION

the particular to the general: it develops new theories or
hypotheses from many observations. Grounded theory
particularly emphasises induction. This means that grounded
theory studies tend to take a very open approach to the process
being studied. The emphasis of a grounded theory study may
evolve as it becomes apparent to the researchers what is
important to the study participants.
Analysing Analysis and In a grounded theory study, the researchers do not wait until
immediately data collection the data are collected before commencing analysis. In a
grounded theory study, analysis must commence as soon as
possible, and continue in parallel with data collection, to
allow theoretical sampling (see below).
Coding and Analysis Data analysis relies on coding - a process of breaking data
comparing down into much smaller components and labelling those
components - and comparing - comparing data with data, case
with case, event with event, code with code, to understand and
explain variation in the data. Codes are eventually combined
and related to one another - at this stage they are more
abstract, and are referred to as categories or concepts.
Memo-writing Analysis The analyst writes many memos throughout the project.
(sometimes also Memos can be about events, cases, categories, or relationships
drawing between categories. Memos are used to stimulate and record
diagrams) the analysts' developing thinking, including
the comparisons made (see above).
Theoretical Sampling and Theoretical sampling is central to grounded theory design. A
sampling data collection theoretical sample is informed by coding, comparison and
memo-writing. Theoretical sampling is designed to serve the
developing theory. Analysis raises questions, suggests
relationships, highlights gaps in the existing data set and
reveals what the researchers do not yet know. By carefully
selecting participants and by modifying the questions asked in
data collection, the researchers fill gaps, clarify uncertainties,
test their interpretations, and build their emerging theory.
Theoretical Sampling, data Qualitative researchers generally seek to reach 'saturation' in
saturation collection and their studies. Often this is interpreted as meaning that the
analysis researchers are hearing nothing new from participants. In a
grounded theory study, theoretical saturation is sought. This is
a subtly different form of saturation, in which all of the
concepts in the substantive theory being developed are well
understood and can be substantiated from the data.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 11

COMPONENT STAGE DESCRIPTION

Production of a Analysis and The results of a grounded theory study are expressed as a
substantive interpretation substantive theory, that is, as a set of concepts that are related
theory to one another in a cohesive whole. As in most science, this
theory is considered to be fallible, dependent on context and
never completely final.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 12
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 13

Figure 1 illustrates the steps taken in the sample study that will be described below from points
A to F.

Case: Study background

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)

1. Determine initial research questions

Start off with your initial research questions. Have an idea for what phenomenon you are trying
to explain. These initial questions will help guide your first steps in recruiting and data analysis
but know that the questions may evolve as you observe and learn more from the data you collect.

Case: 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?

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?

2. Recruit and collect data using theoretical sampling

With grounded theory, recruiting participants is iterative. Instead of pre-determining a specified

recruiting criteria ahead of time, you will practice what is called theoretical sampling. With
theoretical sampling, you start with recruiting a small group of participants loosely based on
your initial research questions.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 14

Once you have some data, such as recordings from in-depth interviews, prepare that data for
analysis by turning them into transcripts.

After you do some initial analysis of that data, you use what you learned from that analysis to
determine whom to recruit next.

Sampling must thus begin purposively, as in any qualitative study. Participants in the previous MPP
study provided our population. 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
We interviewed all consenting staff who had been involved in the MPP (one dentist, and 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.

o Theoretical Sampling

A distinguishing characteristic of GT, theoretical sampling serves as a thread that connects both
forms of GT. Theoretical sampling is a sampling process in which a researcher intentionally and
purposively collects more data from sources that will further develop specific, previously-
observed themes for the refinement of the emergent theory. However, the point at which a
researcher ceases to collect data through theoretical sampling varies among GT researchers and
is known as theoretical saturation.

Case

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
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 15

Theoretical Sensitivity

Theoretical sensitivity encompasses the entire research process. Glaser and Strauss (1967) initially
described the term theoretical sensitivity in The Discovery of Grounded Theory.

In general, theoretical saturation occurs when, upon collecting new data, no new categories or
properties emerge. Researchers such as Glaser and others maintain that “this logic supersedes
sample size”– even if the sample size is quite small. From this positivist perspective, theoretical
saturation focuses more on generalizability across participants, whereas Charmaz agrees with
Bowen’s interpretation of saturation which focuses on “sampling adequacy” and redundancy in
categories. In this constructivist view, sampling should continue until no new knowledge is to
be constructed or interpreted from collected data. However, this logic may provide the researcher
with issues if the sample size becomes too unruly. To balance these issues, researchers have
come to a consensus as a general “rule of thumb” for a GT sample size. In general, a sample size
should consist of 20-30 participants, or other units of analysis; however, this should not be the
sole indicator for ceasing data collection.

3. Break up transcripts into excerpts using open coding

After you have collected some data, such as transcriptions from interviews*, you can begin open
coding. Open coding is when you take your transcripts and break them into individual excerpts.
Then, take the excerpts and continuously compare and contrast them with other excerpts This
act of comparison is part of a core grounded theory method called the constant comparative
method, which you will use throughout various phases of your analysis.

Notice similarities and differences between excerpts.

• Compare different excerpts from the same person

• Compare similar excerpts that occur between different people

• Compare different peoples’ experiences within similar excerpts

• Compare excerpts as they differ from one day to the next

Case
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 16

Raw data Initial coding Focused Theoretical

coding coding

Q. What did you take into account when you Deciding to buy Seeking The process
decided to buy this new technology? based on cost, out of making
What did we... we looked at cost, we looked at reliability evidence sense of
reliability and we sort of, we compared a few Talking to dental Gathering evidence
different types, talked to some people that had colleagues on and and
them. internet sites comparing construction
Q. When you say you talked to some people who Comparing their peers' of
were they? experiences evidence knowledge
Some dental colleagues. There's a couple of Looking at literature to reach a
internet sites that we talked to some people... Doing my own little conclusion
people had tried out some that didn't work very research
well. Not trusting
Q. So in terms of materials either preventive research that comes
materials or restorative materials; what do you with commercial
take in account when you decide which one to products
adopt? Talking to other
Well, that's a good question. I don't know. I dentists about their
suppose we [laughs] look at reliability. I suppose experiences
I've been looking at literature involved in it so I
quite like my own little research about that,
because I don't really trust the research that comes
with the product and once again what other
dentists are using and what they've been using and
they're happy with. I'm finding the internet, some
of those internet forums are actually quite good for
new products.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 17

4. Reflect on thoughts and contradictions by writing memos during analysis

Reflect on your analytical thoughts and write them down in the form of memos. Think of memos
as your “notes to self” to record your train of thought, and to keep a record of your reflections.
The act of writing memos can be a great way to reflect on any contradictions you find in the
data. Your memos may eventually turn into the building blocks for your theory.

Analytical memos are brief notes about the thoughts, ideas, and questions that come to the
researcher's mind during data gathering, coding, or data analysis. Qualitative researchers use
analytical memos to note down their reflections and code them as additional data for their
research. The memo's content may be thoughts about the collected data, plans for their study,
discoveries during the research, or whatever they feel is worth articulating.

In simple terms, analytical memos are recordings of the conversations you are having with your
research data. This process inspires critical thinking and helps you reflect on your data and
challenge your assumptions. There are no standard formats or styles for writing analytical
memos—you can write them in whatever style you like, informal, formal, or conversational.

Case

Believing + Embracing + Developing = Adapting?

In these dental practices the adaptation to preventive protocols was all about believing in this new
approach to manage dental caries and in themselves as professionals. New concepts were embraced
and slowly incorporated into practice. Embracing new concepts/paradigms/systems and abandoning
old ones was quite evident during this process (old concepts = dentistry restorative model; new
concepts = non-surgical approach). This evolving process involved feelings such as anxiety, doubt,
determination, confidence, and reassurance. The modification of practices was possible when
dentists-in-charge felt that perhaps there was something else that would be worth doing; something
that might be a little different from what was done so far. The responsibility to offer the best available
treatment might have triggered this reasoning. However, there are other factors that play an important
role during this process such as dentist's personal features, preconceived notions, dental practice
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 18

Believing + Embracing + Developing = Adapting?

environment, and how dentists combine patients' needs and expectations while making treatment
decisions. Finding the balance between preventive non-surgical treatment (curing of disease) and
restorative treatment (making up for lost tissues) is an every moment challenge in a profitable dental
practice. Regaining profit, reassessing team work and surgery logistics, and mastering the scheduling
art to maximize financial and clinical outcomes were important practical issues tackled in some of
these practices during this process.

These participants talked about learning and adapting new concepts to their practices and finally
never going back the way it was before. This process brought positive changes to participants' daily
activities. Empowerment of practice staff made them start to enjoy more their daily work (they were
recognized by patients as someone who was truly interested in delivering the best treatment for them).
Team members realized that there were many benefits to patients and to staff members in
implementing this program, such as, professional development, offering the best care for each patient
and job satisfaction.

Analytical memos are an essential part of qualitative inductive logic. Here are some of the
reasons why memoing is important in research:

1. It allows the researcher to reflect and record their thoughts on their data, coding process,
coding choices, data analysis methods, and more.

2. Analytical memos can help you remember things you might forget if not written down.

3. Researchers use analytical memos to keep a record of their decision-making trail, i.e.,
keeping records of the decisions made in each phase of the study.

4. Analytical memos make it easy to explore a phenomenon, reflect on the data available,
compare data, examine relationships, and challenge interpretations.

5. Although analytical memos are usually written for the researcher's eye only, you can use
them to share your ideas or get opinions about your study from other persons.

6. Analytical memos can provide supporting documentation for your research

GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 19

5. Group codes into categories using axial coding

As you gradually develop a list of codes that bring together sets of excerpts, you should also
begin to also compare codes with other codes. When you find connections between multiple
codes, you can group them into a ‘category’. This step of grounded theory is called ‘axial
coding’, where you find the axes that connect various codes. If you are using qualitative data
analysis software, these categories are represented by a series of ‘nested codes’ which are stacked
in a hierarchy.

Axial coding in grounded theory is the second step of coding that follows open coding. In
contrast to open coding where you break the data into discrete parts, with axial coding you begin
to draw connections between codes. With axial coding, you organize the codes you developed
in open coding.

With axial coding in qualitative research, you read over your codes and the underlying data to
find how your codes can be grouped into categories. A category could be created based on an
existing code, or a new more abstract category can be developed that encompasses several
different codes.

After conducting axial coding you will have several categories that are supported by a cleaned-
up set of supporting codes. These categories are the “axes” around which its supporting codes
revolve.

6. Analyze more excerpts using the constant comparative method

Remember, grounded theory is a cyclical process! Even after you have created lists of codes,
and grouped codes into categories, you should continue to analyze additional interview
transcripts, and compare the new excerpts to your existing codes categories.

As you make comparisons between your new excerpts to your codes and categories, your
excerpts will generally do one of three things: contradict, expand upon, or support your existing
codes and categories.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 20

• Contradiction: If your new excerpt contradicts a code, this may be a sign that you need
to adjust that code or change it. It likely also means that you need to go back to step 2
and conduct more rounds of data collection through theoretical sampling to help explain
the contradiction.

• Expansion: If your new excerpt expands upon your code, either by adding more
description or explaining more facets of your code, this is a good sign that you are
continuing to learn more and it means that you should continue to collect and analyze
data until your new excerpts simply support your codes rather than expand upon them.

• Support: If your new excerpt generally supports your code without adding additional
information, this means that you may have reached theoretical saturation, which is the
point at which more excerpts do not contribute any additional insight into your codes and
you can move on to a later stage of your research.

With grounded theory, your goal is not to code or keep track of everything that occurs in every
excerpt.

7. Continue collecting data and analyzing until you reach theoretical saturation

With these iterative steps, when do you know that you have analyzed enough? How do you know
when you should stop recruiting or analyzing additional data?

With grounded theory, you want to continue until you reach the point where additional transcript
excerpts do not expand upon your codes and categories. In other words, if you are learning the
same thing over and over again even with additional excerpts, that means that your codes and
categories have become ‘theoretically saturated’. The excerpts you have collected so far address
all relevant aspects of your codes and categories and there is no need to pursue further data
collection or analysis for your particular codes and categories.

8. Define the core category using selective coding

GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 21

Once you feel you have reached theoretical saturation in your codes and categories so far, it is
time to pull your findings together with selective coding. With selective coding, you connect all
your codes and categories under one core category.

This core category represents the central thesis of your research and is the core idea behind your
theory. This core category can be an existing category that you derived earlier, or it can be a new
category that you derive from all your existing findings so far.

This core category will be the basis for your new grounded theory.

Selective coding is the culmination of the grounded theory process and its purpose is to either
define a new theory or modify an existing theory based on your research. Ideally, you will be
able to state your theory simply in just a couple of words or sentences, and should be stated
clearly in your research report.

9. Write your grounded theory

Once you have determined your core category through selective coding, and are confident that
you have reached theoretical saturation, it is time to construct your new theory.
Gather together your coded data, and series of memos and use them to describe your new theory.

• State your new theory in just a couple of words or sentences

• Define the limits or boundaries of your theory

• Summarize and write a description of your theory

• Use your coded data to validate the points you suggest in your theory

• Write an accurate statement of what was studied, and construct your theory in a form that
other researchers can use.

Implications of Grounded Theory

Based on the significance and importance of the research-based grounded theory, the discipline of
research is having many gains and benefits. Following are some of the important implications of
the grounded theory approach –
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 22

i) Grounded theory is often used in the formulation of policies and program evaluation research
since it can more effectively help in solving the unanswered questions,

ii) Grounded theory approach can also be used to analyze the consumers’ demands and preferences
in the existing market.

iii) Theapproachcanalsobeusedtoanalyseproductpositioningandadvertising opportunities.

iv) It is one of the best theoretical approaches that can be used in the field of education,
management, women’s studies, information studies, politics, communities, etc.

v) It helps in understanding, analyzing, and describing human psychology and experience.

Benefits of Using Grounded Theory

o Findings accurately represent real-world settings

The theories developed using grounded theory are derived directly from real-world participants
in real-world settings using methods like in-depth interviews and observation, so your findings
will more accurately represent the real world. This is in contrast to other research approaches
that occur in less natural settings like research labs or focus group tables.

o Findings are tightly connected to the data

Because grounded theory primarily relies on collected data to determine the outcome, the
findings are tightly connected to that data. This is in contrast to other research approaches that
rely more heavily on external research frameworks or theories that are further removed from the
data.

o Great for discoveries

Grounded theory is a strong, inductive research method for discovering new theories. You don’t
go in with any preconceived hypothesis about the outcome and are not concerned with validation
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 23

or description. Instead, you allow the data you collect to guide your analysis and theory creation,
leading to novel discoveries.

o Offers strategies for analysis

The process of grounded theory describes specific strategies for analysis that can be incredibly
helpful. While the grounded theory is a very open-ended methodology, the analysis strategies
enable you to stay structured and analytical in your discovery process.

o Data collection and analysis are streamlined

Data collection and analysis are tightly interwoven. As one collects data, analyzes it, and learns
from analysis, you continue to collect more data. This helps ensure that the data you collect is
sufficient enough to explain the findings that arise from the analysis.

o Buffers against confirmation bias

Because data collection and analysis are tightly interwoven, one is truly following what is
emerging from the data itself. This provides a great buffer against confirming preconceived
beliefs about your topic.

Limitations of Grounded Theory

o Difficulty recruiting

The grounded theory relies on an iterative recruiting process called theoretical sampling where
you continuously recruit and conduct new rounds of interviews with new participants and
previous participants while you analyze data. The recruiting criteria also evolve and change
based on what you learn. Because recruiting is not predefined, it can be challenging to
continuously find the right participants for your study.

o Time-consuming to collect data

GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 24

There is no way to know how much data you will need to collect ahead of time, so you need to
be flexible with your time. With grounded theory, you continuously collect and analyze data
until you reach theoretical saturation, which is the point at which new data does not contribute
new insight to your evolving theory. This means that you are likely to conduct many rounds of
data collection before your theory is complete.

o Challenges in analysis

Data analysis occurs on a rolling basis and involves making constant comparisons between
different excerpts of data. It can be challenging to keep track of your comparisons and findings
as you go. It can be helpful to use to help you stay organized during your analysis.

Conclusion

It can be summed up that, grounded theory is one of the best ways of systematically generating a
theory based on a corpus (that is a collected mass) of data. The data collected by the theorists are
analyzed systematically and their interpretation leads to the formation of reports, which ultimately
leads to the creation of theories. Wherein, theory can be defined as a framework based on which
things, properties, behavior, and events can be interpreted. The basic purpose of the grounded
theory approach is to emphasize the process or method of formulation of a theory. Grounded
theorists, therefore, help in providing a classic theory.

Memoing, sorting, and writing are the systematic steps or stages of the grounded theory. The
researcher needs to take care of the data or the information collected he or she needs to enhance
the sensitivity of the variables. Grounded theory is the only qualitative research that allows the
researcher to take the help of quantitative data as well. The theory has gained much importance
and utilization not only in the field of psychology, but also in management, sociology,
anthropology, information, political science, and several other fields. It has also gained much
popularity in the field of market research.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 25

References

2. Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2013.

3. Birks M. Practical philosophy. In: Mills J, Birks M. (eds) Qualitative methodology: a practical
guide. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2014, pp. 17–29.

4. Crotty M. The foundation of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998.

5. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1967.

6. Birks M, Mills J. Grounded theory: a practical guide. 2nd ed. London: SAGE, 2015.

7. Bryant A, Charmaz K. Grounded theory research: methods and practices. In: Bryant A,
Charmaz K. (eds) The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007,
pp. 1–28.

8. Chamberlain-Salaun J, Mills J, Usher K. Linking symbolic interactionism and grounded

theory methods in a research design: from Corbin and Strauss’ assumptions to action. SAGE
Open. Epub ahead of print 29 September 2013. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013505757

9. Mills J, Birks M, Hoare KJ. Grounded theory. In: Mills J, Birks M. (eds) Qualitative
methodology: a practical guide. London: SAGE, 2014, pp. 107–121.

10. Charmaz K. The power and potential of grounded theory. Med Sociol 2012; 6: 2–15.

11. Bryant A, Charmaz K. Grounded theory in historical perspective: an epistemological

account. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K. (eds) The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007, pp. 31–57.

12. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. The basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1990.

13. Glaser BG. Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 1992.

14. Charmaz K. A constructivist grounded theory analysis of losing and regaining a valued self.
In: Wertz FJ, Charmaz K, Mcmullen LJ, et al. (eds) Five ways of doing qualitative analysis:
phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and
intuitive inquiry. 1st ed. New York: Guilford, 2011, pp. 165–204.

15. Ralph N, Birks M, Chapman Y. The methodological dynamism of grounded theory. Int J
Qual Methods 2015; 14: 1–6.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 26

16. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2006.

17. Bryant A, Charmaz K. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,
2007.

18. Glaser BG. Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 1978.

19. Griffin E. A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

20. Clarke A. Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE, 2005.

21. Charmaz K, Bryant A. Grounded theory and credibility. In: Silverman D. (ed.) Qualitative
research. 3rd ed. London: SAGE, 2011, pp. 291–309.

22. Charmaz K. Grounded theory in the 21st century: application for advancing social justice
studies. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. (eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2005, pp. 207–236.

23. Glaser BG, Holton J. Remodeling grounded theory. Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2004; 5: 1–22.

24. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 1998.

25. Mackenzie N, Knipe S. Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues
Educ Res 2006; 16: 193–205.

26. Ward K, Gott M, Hoare K. Analysis in grounded theory: how is it done? Examples from a
study that explored living with treatment for sleep apnea. SAGE Res Methods Cases Part 2.
2016. DOI: 10.4135/9781473989245 [

27. Stern PN. On solid ground: essential properties for growing grounded theory. In: Bryant A,
Charmaz K. (eds) The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2007, pp.
114–126.

28. Corbin JM, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008.

29. Lempert LB. Asking questions of the data: memo writing in the grounded theory tradition.
In: Bryant A, Charmaz K. (eds) The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE, 2007, pp. 245–264.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 27

30. Glaser BG. Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mills Valley, CA: Sociology
Press, 1998.

31. Ralph N, Birks M, Chapman Y. Contextual positioning: using documents as extant data in
grounded theory research. SAGE Open 2014; 4: 1–7.

32. Kelle U. The development of categories: different approaches in grounded theory. In: Bryant
A, Charmaz K. (eds) The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007,
pp. 191–213.

33. Saldaña J. Coding and analysis strategies. In: Leavy P, Saldaña J. (eds) The Oxford
handbook of qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 581–685.

34. Birks M, Chapman Y, Francis K. Memoing in qualitative research: probing data and
processes. J Res Nurs 2008; 13: 68–75.

35. Chamberlain-Salaun J. Consumers and the social world of health care: outsiders in the
expert’s world: a grounded theory study. PhD Thesis, College of Health Care Sciences, James
Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia, 2015, p. 198.

36. Edwards LS. Bringing together the ‘threads of care’ in possible miscarriage for women, their
partners and nurses in non-metropolitan emergency departments. College of Healthcare Sciences,
James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia, 2016, p. 225.

37. Moghaddam A. Coding issues in grounded theory. Issues Educ Res 2006; 16: 53–61.

38. Birks M, Mills J, Francis K, et al. A thousand words paint a picture: the use of storyline in
grounded theory research. J Res Nurs 2009; 14: 405–417.

39. Evans LE. A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory:
rationalization for classical grounded theory. Ground Theory Rev 2013; 14: 37–55.

40. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE,
2013.

41. Glaser BG. The grounded theory perspective III: theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press, 2005.

42. Baldwin A. Reconciling professional identity: a grounded theory study of nurse academics’
role modelling. PhD Thesis, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University,
Townsville, QLD, Australia, 2016, p. 246.

43. Hoare K, Mills J, Francis K. Dancing with data: an example of acquiring theoretical
sensitivity in a grounded theory study. Int J Nurs Pract 2012; 18(3): 240–245.
GROUNDED METHODOLOGY 28

44. Morse JM. Sampling in grounded theory. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K. (eds) The Sage
handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007, pp. 229–244.