examples of grounded theory research topics brainly

10 Grounded Theory Examples (Qualitative Research Method)

Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that involves the construction of theory from data rather than testing theories through data (Birks & Mills, 2015).

In other words, a grounded theory analysis doesn’t start with a hypothesis or theoretical framework, but instead generates a theory during the data analysis process .

This method has garnered a notable amount of attention since its inception in the 1960s by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). 

Grounded Theory Definition and Overview

A central feature of grounded theory is the continuous interplay between data collection and analysis (Bringer, Johnston, & Brackenridge, 2016).

Grounded theorists start with the data, coding and considering each piece of collected information (for instance, behaviors collected during a psychological study).

As more information is collected, the researcher can reflect upon the data in an ongoing cycle where data informs an ever-growing and evolving theory (Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2017).

As such, the researcher isn’t tied to testing a hypothesis, but instead, can allow surprising and intriguing insights to emerge from the data itself.

Applications of grounded theory are widespread within the field of social sciences . The method has been utilized to provide insight into complex social phenomena such as nursing, education, and business management (Atkinson, 2015).

Grounded theory offers a sound methodology to unearth the complexities of social phenomena that aren’t well-understood in existing theories (McGhee, Marland & Atkinson, 2017).

While the methods of grounded theory can be labor-intensive and time-consuming, the rich, robust theories this approach produces make it a valuable tool in many researchers’ repertoires.

Real-Life Grounded Theory Examples

Title: A grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology

Citation: Weatherall, J. W. A. (2000). A grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology. Educational Gerontology , 26 (4), 371-386.

Description: This study employed a grounded theory approach to investigate older adults’ use of information technology (IT). Six participants from a senior senior were interviewed about their experiences and opinions regarding computer technology. Consistent with a grounded theory angle, there was no hypothesis to be tested. Rather, themes emerged out of the analysis process. From this, the findings revealed that the participants recognized the importance of IT in modern life, which motivated them to explore its potential. Positive attitudes towards IT were developed and reinforced through direct experience and personal ownership of technology.

Title: A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study

Citation: Jacobson, N. (2009). A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study. BMC International health and human rights , 9 (1), 1-9.

Description: This study aims to develop a taxonomy of dignity by letting the data create the taxonomic categories, rather than imposing the categories upon the analysis. The theory emerged from the textual and thematic analysis of 64 interviews conducted with individuals marginalized by health or social status , as well as those providing services to such populations and professionals working in health and human rights. This approach identified two main forms of dignity that emerged out of the data: “ human dignity ” and “social dignity”.

Title: A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose

Citation: Bronk, K. C. (2012). A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research , 27 (1), 78-109.

Description: This study explores the development of noble youth purpose over time using a grounded theory approach. Something notable about this study was that it returned to collect additional data two additional times, demonstrating how grounded theory can be an interactive process. The researchers conducted three waves of interviews with nine adolescents who demonstrated strong commitments to various noble purposes. The findings revealed that commitments grew slowly but steadily in response to positive feedback, with mentors and like-minded peers playing a crucial role in supporting noble purposes.

Title: A grounded theory of the flow experiences of Web users

Citation: Pace, S. (2004). A grounded theory of the flow experiences of Web users. International journal of human-computer studies , 60 (3), 327-363.

Description: This study attempted to understand the flow experiences of web users engaged in information-seeking activities, systematically gathering and analyzing data from semi-structured in-depth interviews with web users. By avoiding preconceptions and reviewing the literature only after the theory had emerged, the study aimed to develop a theory based on the data rather than testing preconceived ideas. The study identified key elements of flow experiences, such as the balance between challenges and skills, clear goals and feedback, concentration, a sense of control, a distorted sense of time, and the autotelic experience.

Title: Victimising of school bullying: a grounded theory

Citation: Thornberg, R., Halldin, K., Bolmsjö, N., & Petersson, A. (2013). Victimising of school bullying: A grounded theory. Research Papers in Education , 28 (3), 309-329.

Description: This study aimed to investigate the experiences of individuals who had been victims of school bullying and understand the effects of these experiences, using a grounded theory approach. Through iterative coding of interviews, the researchers identify themes from the data without a pre-conceived idea or hypothesis that they aim to test. The open-minded coding of the data led to the identification of a four-phase process in victimizing: initial attacks, double victimizing, bullying exit, and after-effects of bullying. The study highlighted the social processes involved in victimizing, including external victimizing through stigmatization and social exclusion, as well as internal victimizing through self-isolation, self-doubt, and lingering psychosocial issues.

Hypothetical Grounded Theory Examples

Suggested Title: “Understanding Interprofessional Collaboration in Emergency Medical Services”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Coding and constant comparative analysis

How to Do It: This hypothetical study might begin with conducting in-depth interviews and field observations within several emergency medical teams to collect detailed narratives and behaviors. Multiple rounds of coding and categorizing would be carried out on this raw data, consistently comparing new information with existing categories. As the categories saturate, relationships among them would be identified, with these relationships forming the basis of a new theory bettering our understanding of collaboration in emergency settings. This iterative process of data collection, analysis, and theory development, continually refined based on fresh insights, upholds the essence of a grounded theory approach.

Suggested Title: “The Role of Social Media in Political Engagement Among Young Adults”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Open, axial, and selective coding

Explanation: The study would start by collecting interaction data on various social media platforms, focusing on political discussions engaged in by young adults. Through open, axial, and selective coding, the data would be broken down, compared, and conceptualized. New insights and patterns would gradually form the basis of a theory explaining the role of social media in shaping political engagement, with continuous refinement informed by the gathered data. This process embodies the recursive essence of the grounded theory approach.

Suggested Title: “Transforming Workplace Cultures: An Exploration of Remote Work Trends”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Constant comparative analysis

Explanation: The theoretical study could leverage survey data and in-depth interviews of employees and bosses engaging in remote work to understand the shifts in workplace culture. Coding and constant comparative analysis would enable the identification of core categories and relationships among them. Sustainability and resilience through remote ways of working would be emergent themes. This constant back-and-forth interplay between data collection, analysis, and theory formation aligns strongly with a grounded theory approach.

Suggested Title: “Persistence Amidst Challenges: A Grounded Theory Approach to Understanding Resilience in Urban Educators”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Iterative Coding

How to Do It: This study would involve collecting data via interviews from educators in urban school systems. Through iterative coding, data would be constantly analyzed, compared, and categorized to derive meaningful theories about resilience. The researcher would constantly return to the data, refining the developing theory with every successive interaction. This procedure organically incorporates the grounded theory approach’s characteristic iterative nature.

Suggested Title: “Coping Strategies of Patients with Chronic Pain: A Grounded Theory Study”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Line-by-line inductive coding

How to Do It: The study might initiate with in-depth interviews of patients who’ve experienced chronic pain. Line-by-line coding, followed by memoing, helps to immerse oneself in the data, utilizing a grounded theory approach to map out the relationships between categories and their properties. New rounds of interviews would supplement and refine the emergent theory further. The subsequent theory would then be a detailed, data-grounded exploration of how patients cope with chronic pain.

Grounded theory is an innovative way to gather qualitative data that can help introduce new thoughts, theories, and ideas into academic literature. While it has its strength in allowing the “data to do the talking”, it also has some key limitations – namely, often, it leads to results that have already been found in the academic literature. Studies that try to build upon current knowledge by testing new hypotheses are, in general, more laser-focused on ensuring we push current knowledge forward. Nevertheless, a grounded theory approach is very useful in many circumstances, revealing important new information that may not be generated through other approaches. So, overall, this methodology has great value for qualitative researchers, and can be extremely useful, especially when exploring specific case study projects . I also find it to synthesize well with action research projects .

Atkinson, P. (2015). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid qualitative research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 6 (1), 83-86.

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide . London: Sage.

Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2016). Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field Methods, 18 (3), 245-266.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Sage publications.

McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2017). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29 (3), 654-663.

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2017). Adopting a Constructivist Approach to Grounded Theory: Implications for Research Design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 13 (2), 81-89.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 5 Top Tips for Succeeding at University
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 50 Durable Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 100 Consumer Goods Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 30 Globalization Pros and Cons

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Grounded Theory

Definition:

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to generate theories based on data that are grounded in the empirical reality of the research context. The method involves a systematic process of data collection, coding, categorization, and analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data.

The ultimate goal is to develop a theory that explains the phenomenon being studied, which is based on the data collected and analyzed rather than on preconceived notions or hypotheses. The resulting theory should be able to explain the phenomenon in a way that is consistent with the data and also accounts for variations and discrepancies in the data. Grounded Theory is widely used in sociology, psychology, management, and other social sciences to study a wide range of phenomena, such as organizational behavior, social interaction, and health care.

History of Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory was first introduced by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s as a response to the limitations of traditional positivist approaches to social research. The approach was initially developed to study dying patients and their families in hospitals, but it was soon applied to other areas of sociology and beyond.

Glaser and Strauss published their seminal book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” in 1967, in which they presented their approach to developing theory from empirical data. They argued that existing social theories often did not account for the complexity and diversity of social phenomena, and that the development of theory should be grounded in empirical data.

Since then, Grounded Theory has become a widely used methodology in the social sciences, and has been applied to a wide range of topics, including healthcare, education, business, and psychology. The approach has also evolved over time, with variations such as constructivist grounded theory and feminist grounded theory being developed to address specific criticisms and limitations of the original approach.

Types of Grounded Theory

There are two main types of Grounded Theory: Classic Grounded Theory and Constructivist Grounded Theory.

Classic Grounded Theory

This approach is based on the work of Glaser and Strauss, and emphasizes the discovery of a theory that is grounded in data. The focus is on generating a theory that explains the phenomenon being studied, without being influenced by preconceived notions or existing theories. The process involves a continuous cycle of data collection, coding, and analysis, with the aim of developing categories and subcategories that are grounded in the data. The categories and subcategories are then compared and synthesized to generate a theory that explains the phenomenon.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

This approach is based on the work of Charmaz, and emphasizes the role of the researcher in the process of theory development. The focus is on understanding how individuals construct meaning and interpret their experiences, rather than on discovering an objective truth. The process involves a reflexive and iterative approach to data collection, coding, and analysis, with the aim of developing categories that are grounded in the data and the researcher’s interpretations of the data. The categories are then compared and synthesized to generate a theory that accounts for the multiple perspectives and interpretations of the phenomenon being studied.

Grounded Theory Conducting Guide

Here are some general guidelines for conducting a Grounded Theory study:

• Choose a research question: Start by selecting a research question that is open-ended and focuses on a specific social phenomenon or problem.
• Select participants and collect data: Identify a diverse group of participants who have experienced the phenomenon being studied. Use a variety of data collection methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis to collect rich and diverse data.
• Analyze the data: Begin the process of analyzing the data using constant comparison. This involves comparing the data to each other and to existing categories and codes, in order to identify patterns and relationships. Use open coding to identify concepts and categories, and then use axial coding to organize them into a theoretical framework.
• Generate categories and codes: Generate categories and codes that describe the phenomenon being studied. Make sure that they are grounded in the data and that they accurately reflect the experiences of the participants.
• Refine and develop the theory: Use theoretical sampling to identify new data sources that are relevant to the developing theory. Use memoing to reflect on insights and ideas that emerge during the analysis process. Continue to refine and develop the theory until it provides a comprehensive explanation of the phenomenon.
• Validate the theory: Finally, seek to validate the theory by testing it against new data and seeking feedback from peers and other researchers. This process helps to refine and improve the theory, and to ensure that it is grounded in the data.
• Write up and disseminate the findings: Once the theory is fully developed and validated, write up the findings and disseminate them through academic publications and presentations. Make sure to acknowledge the contributions of the participants and to provide a detailed account of the research methods used.

Data Collection Methods

Grounded Theory Data Collection Methods are as follows:

• Interviews : One of the most common data collection methods in Grounded Theory is the use of in-depth interviews. Interviews allow researchers to gather rich and detailed data about the experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of participants. Interviews can be conducted one-on-one or in a group setting.
• Observation : Observation is another data collection method used in Grounded Theory. Researchers may observe participants in their natural settings, such as in a workplace or community setting. This method can provide insights into the social interactions and behaviors of participants.
• Document analysis: Grounded Theory researchers also use document analysis as a data collection method. This involves analyzing existing documents such as reports, policies, or historical records that are relevant to the phenomenon being studied.
• Focus groups : Focus groups involve bringing together a group of participants to discuss a specific topic or issue. This method can provide insights into group dynamics and social interactions.
• Fieldwork : Fieldwork involves immersing oneself in the research setting and participating in the activities of the participants. This method can provide an in-depth understanding of the culture and social dynamics of the research setting.
• Multimedia data: Grounded Theory researchers may also use multimedia data such as photographs, videos, or audio recordings to capture the experiences and perspectives of participants.

Data Analysis Methods

Grounded Theory Data Analysis Methods are as follows:

• Open coding: Open coding is the process of identifying concepts and categories in the data. Researchers use open coding to assign codes to different pieces of data, and to identify similarities and differences between them.
• Axial coding: Axial coding is the process of organizing the codes into broader categories and subcategories. Researchers use axial coding to develop a theoretical framework that explains the phenomenon being studied.
• Constant comparison: Grounded Theory involves a process of constant comparison, in which data is compared to each other and to existing categories and codes in order to identify patterns and relationships.
• Theoretical sampling: Theoretical sampling involves selecting new data sources based on the emerging theory. Researchers use theoretical sampling to collect data that will help refine and validate the theory.
• Memoing : Memoing involves writing down reflections, insights, and ideas as the analysis progresses. This helps researchers to organize their thoughts and develop a deeper understanding of the data.
• Peer debriefing: Peer debriefing involves seeking feedback from peers and other researchers on the developing theory. This process helps to validate the theory and ensure that it is grounded in the data.
• Member checking: Member checking involves sharing the emerging theory with the participants in the study and seeking their feedback. This process helps to ensure that the theory accurately reflects the experiences and perspectives of the participants.
• Triangulation: Triangulation involves using multiple sources of data to validate the emerging theory. Researchers may use different data collection methods, different data sources, or different analysts to ensure that the theory is grounded in the data.

Applications of Grounded Theory

Here are some of the key applications of Grounded Theory:

• Social sciences : Grounded Theory is widely used in social science research, particularly in fields such as sociology, psychology, and anthropology. It can be used to explore a wide range of social phenomena, such as social interactions, power dynamics, and cultural practices.
• Healthcare : Grounded Theory can be used in healthcare research to explore patient experiences, healthcare practices, and healthcare systems. It can provide insights into the factors that influence healthcare outcomes, and can inform the development of interventions and policies.
• Education : Grounded Theory can be used in education research to explore teaching and learning processes, student experiences, and educational policies. It can provide insights into the factors that influence educational outcomes, and can inform the development of educational interventions and policies.
• Business : Grounded Theory can be used in business research to explore organizational processes, management practices, and consumer behavior. It can provide insights into the factors that influence business outcomes, and can inform the development of business strategies and policies.
• Technology : Grounded Theory can be used in technology research to explore user experiences, technology adoption, and technology design. It can provide insights into the factors that influence technology outcomes, and can inform the development of technology interventions and policies.

Examples of Grounded Theory

Examples of Grounded Theory in different case studies are as follows:

• Glaser and Strauss (1965): This study, which is considered one of the foundational works of Grounded Theory, explored the experiences of dying patients in a hospital. The researchers used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the social processes of dying, and that was grounded in the data.
• Charmaz (1983): This study explored the experiences of chronic illness among young adults. The researcher used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained how individuals with chronic illness managed their illness, and how their illness impacted their sense of self.
• Strauss and Corbin (1990): This study explored the experiences of individuals with chronic pain. The researchers used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the different strategies that individuals used to manage their pain, and that was grounded in the data.
• Glaser and Strauss (1967): This study explored the experiences of individuals who were undergoing a process of becoming disabled. The researchers used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the social processes of becoming disabled, and that was grounded in the data.
• Clarke (2005): This study explored the experiences of patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy. The researcher used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the factors that influenced patient adherence to chemotherapy, and that was grounded in the data.

Grounded Theory Research Example

A Grounded Theory Research Example Would be:

Research question : What is the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process?

Data collection : The researcher conducted interviews with first-generation college students who had recently gone through the college admission process. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis: The researcher used a constant comparative method to analyze the data. This involved coding the data, comparing codes, and constantly revising the codes to identify common themes and patterns. The researcher also used memoing, which involved writing notes and reflections on the data and analysis.

Findings : Through the analysis of the data, the researcher identified several themes related to the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process, such as feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of the process, lacking knowledge about the process, and facing financial barriers.

Theory development: Based on the findings, the researcher developed a theory about the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process. The theory suggested that first-generation college students faced unique challenges in the college admission process due to their lack of knowledge and resources, and that these challenges could be addressed through targeted support programs and resources.

In summary, grounded theory research involves collecting data, analyzing it through constant comparison and memoing, and developing a theory grounded in the data. The resulting theory can help to explain the phenomenon being studied and guide future research and interventions.

Purpose of Grounded Theory

The purpose of Grounded Theory is to develop a theoretical framework that explains a social phenomenon, process, or interaction. This theoretical framework is developed through a rigorous process of data collection, coding, and analysis, and is grounded in the data.

Grounded Theory aims to uncover the social processes and patterns that underlie social phenomena, and to develop a theoretical framework that explains these processes and patterns. It is a flexible method that can be used to explore a wide range of research questions and settings, and is particularly well-suited to exploring complex social phenomena that have not been well-studied.

The ultimate goal of Grounded Theory is to generate a theoretical framework that is grounded in the data, and that can be used to explain and predict social phenomena. This theoretical framework can then be used to inform policy and practice, and to guide future research in the field.

When to use Grounded Theory

Following are some situations in which Grounded Theory may be particularly useful:

• Exploring new areas of research: Grounded Theory is particularly useful when exploring new areas of research that have not been well-studied. By collecting and analyzing data, researchers can develop a theoretical framework that explains the social processes and patterns underlying the phenomenon of interest.
• Studying complex social phenomena: Grounded Theory is well-suited to exploring complex social phenomena that involve multiple social processes and interactions. By using an iterative process of data collection and analysis, researchers can develop a theoretical framework that explains the complexity of the social phenomenon.
• Generating hypotheses: Grounded Theory can be used to generate hypotheses about social processes and interactions that can be tested in future research. By developing a theoretical framework that explains a social phenomenon, researchers can identify areas for further research and hypothesis testing.
• Informing policy and practice : Grounded Theory can provide insights into the factors that influence social phenomena, and can inform policy and practice in a variety of fields. By developing a theoretical framework that explains a social phenomenon, researchers can identify areas for intervention and policy development.

Characteristics of Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research method that is characterized by several key features, including:

• Emergence : Grounded Theory emphasizes the emergence of theoretical categories and concepts from the data, rather than preconceived theoretical ideas. This means that the researcher does not start with a preconceived theory or hypothesis, but instead allows the theory to emerge from the data.
• Iteration : Grounded Theory is an iterative process that involves constant comparison of data and analysis, with each round of data collection and analysis refining the theoretical framework.
• Inductive : Grounded Theory is an inductive method of analysis, which means that it derives meaning from the data. The researcher starts with the raw data and systematically codes and categorizes it to identify patterns and themes, and to develop a theoretical framework that explains these patterns.
• Reflexive : Grounded Theory requires the researcher to be reflexive and self-aware throughout the research process. The researcher’s personal biases and assumptions must be acknowledged and addressed in the analysis process.
• Holistic : Grounded Theory takes a holistic approach to data analysis, looking at the entire data set rather than focusing on individual data points. This allows the researcher to identify patterns and themes that may not be apparent when looking at individual data points.
• Contextual : Grounded Theory emphasizes the importance of understanding the context in which social phenomena occur. This means that the researcher must consider the social, cultural, and historical factors that may influence the phenomenon of interest.

Advantages of Grounded Theory

Advantages of Grounded Theory are as follows:

• Flexibility : Grounded Theory is a flexible method that can be used to explore a wide range of research questions and settings. It is particularly well-suited to exploring complex social phenomena that have not been well-studied.
• Validity : Grounded Theory aims to develop a theoretical framework that is grounded in the data, which enhances the validity and reliability of the research findings. The iterative process of data collection and analysis also helps to ensure that the research findings are reliable and robust.
• Originality : Grounded Theory can generate new and original insights into social phenomena, as it is not constrained by preconceived theoretical ideas or hypotheses. This allows researchers to explore new areas of research and generate new theoretical frameworks.
• Real-world relevance: Grounded Theory can inform policy and practice, as it provides insights into the factors that influence social phenomena. The theoretical frameworks developed through Grounded Theory can be used to inform policy development and intervention strategies.
• Ethical : Grounded Theory is an ethical research method, as it allows participants to have a voice in the research process. Participants’ perspectives are central to the data collection and analysis process, which ensures that their views are taken into account.
• Replication : Grounded Theory is a replicable method of research, as the theoretical frameworks developed through Grounded Theory can be tested and validated in future research.

Limitations of Grounded Theory

Limitations of Grounded Theory are as follows:

• Time-consuming: Grounded Theory can be a time-consuming method, as the iterative process of data collection and analysis requires significant time and effort. This can make it difficult to conduct research in a timely and cost-effective manner.
• Subjectivity : Grounded Theory is a subjective method, as the researcher’s personal biases and assumptions can influence the data analysis process. This can lead to potential issues with reliability and validity of the research findings.
• Generalizability : Grounded Theory is a context-specific method, which means that the theoretical frameworks developed through Grounded Theory may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. This can limit the applicability of the research findings.
• Lack of structure : Grounded Theory is an exploratory method, which means that it lacks the structure of other research methods, such as surveys or experiments. This can make it difficult to compare findings across different studies.
• Data overload: Grounded Theory can generate a large amount of data, which can be overwhelming for researchers. This can make it difficult to manage and analyze the data effectively.
• Difficulty in publication: Grounded Theory can be challenging to publish in some academic journals, as some reviewers and editors may view it as less rigorous than other research methods.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

ANOVA (Analysis of variance) – Formulas, Types...

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory: Approach And Examples

Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to uncover the meanings of people’s social actions, interactions and experiences….

Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to uncover the meanings of people’s social actions, interactions and experiences. These explanations are called ‘grounded’ because they are grounded in the participants’ own explanations or interpretations.

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss originated this method in their 1967 book, The Discovery Of Grounded Theory . The grounded theory approach has been used by researchers in various disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics and public health.

Grounded theory qualitative research was considered path-breaking in many respects upon its arrival. The inductive method allowed the analysis of data during the collection process. It also shifted focus away from the existing practice of verification, which researchers felt didn’t always produce rigorous results.

  Let’s take a closer look at grounded theory research.

What Is Grounded Theory?

How to conduct grounded theory research, features of grounded theory, grounded theory example, advantages of grounded theory.

  Grounded theory is a qualitative method designed to help arrive at new theories and deductions. Researchers collect data through any means they prefer and then analyze the facts to arrive at concepts. Through a comparison of these concepts, they plan theories. They continue until they reach sample saturation, in which no new information upsets the theory they have formulated. Then they put forth their final theory.

  In grounded theory research, the framework description guides the researcher’s own interpretation of data. A data description is the researcher’s algorithm for collecting and organizing data while also constructing a conceptual model that can be tested against new observations.

  Grounded theory doesn’t assume that there’s a single meaning of an event, object or concept. In grounded theory, you interpret all data as information or materials that fit into categories your research team creates.

  Now that we’ve examined what is grounded theory, let’s inspect how it’s conducted. There are four steps involved in grounded theory research:

• STAGE 1: Concepts are derived from interviews, observation and reflection
• STAGE 2: The data is organized into categories that represent themes or subplots
• STAGE 3: As the categories develop, they are compared with one another and two or more competing theories are identified
• STAGE 4: The final step involves the construction of the research hypothesis statement or concept map

Grounded theory is a relatively recent addition to the tools at a researcher’s disposal. There are several methods of conducting grounded theory research. The following processes are common features:

  Theoretical Memoing

  compile findings.

Data collection in the grounded theory method can include both quantitative and qualitative methods.

By now, it’s clear that grounded theory is unlike other research techniques. Here are some of its salient features:

It Is Personal

It is flexible, it starts with data, data is continually assessed.

Grounded theory qualitative research is a dynamic and flexible approach to research that answers questions other formats can’t.

Grounded theory can be used in organizations to create a competitive advantage for a company. Here are some grounded theory examples:

• Grounded theory is used by marketing departments by letting marketing executives express their views on how to improve their product or service in a structured way
• Grounded theory is often used by the HR department. For instance, they might study why employees are frustrated by their work. Employees can explain what they feel is lacking. HR then gathers this data, examines the results to discover the root cause of their problems and presents solutions
• Grounded theory can help with design decisions, such as how to create a more appealing logo. To do this, the marketing department might interview consumers about their thoughts on their logo and what they like or dislike about it. They will then gather coded data that relates back to the interviews and use this for a second iteration

These are just some of the possible applications of grounded theory in a business setting.

Its flexibility allows its uses to be virtually endless. But there are still advantages and disadvantages that make the grounded theory more or less appropriate for a subject of study. Here are the advantages:

• Grounded theory isn’t concerned with whether or not something has been done before. Instead, grounded theory researchers are interested in what participants say about their experiences. These researchers are looking for meaning
• The grounded theory method allows researchers to use inductive reasoning, ensuring that the researcher views the participant’s perspectives rather than imposing their own ideas. This encourages objectivity and helps prevent preconceived notions from interfering with the process of data collection and analysis
• It allows for constant comparison of data to concepts, which refines the theory as the research proceeds. This is in contrast with methods that look to verify an existing hypothesis only
• Researchers may also choose to conduct experiments to provide support for their research hypotheses. Through an experiment, researchers can test ideas rigorously and provide evidence to support hypotheses and theory development
• It produces a clearer theoretical model that is not overly abstract. It also allows the researcher to see the connections between cases and have a better understanding of how each case fits in with others
• Researchers often produce more refined and detailed analyses of data than with other methods
• Because grounded theory emphasizes the interpretation of the data, it makes it easier for researchers to examine their own preconceived ideas about a topic and critically analyze them.

As with any method, there are some drawbacks too that researchers should consider. Here are a few:

• It doesn’t promote consensus because there are always competing views about the same phenomenon
• It may seem like an overly theoretical approach that produces results that are too open-ended. Grounded theory isn’t concerned with whether something is true/false or right/wrong
• Grounded theory requires a high level of skill and critical thinking from the researcher. They must have a level of objectivity in their approach, ask unbiased, open-minded questions and conduct interviews without being influenced by personal views or agenda.

While professionals may never have to conduct research like this themselves, an understanding of the kinds of analytical tools available can help when there are decisions to be made in the workplace. Harappa’s Thinking Critically course can help with just this. Analytical skills are some of the most sought-after soft skills in the professional world. The earlier managers can master these, the more value they’ll bring to the organization. With our transformative course and inspiring faculty, empower your teams with the ability to think through any problem, no matter how large.

Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics such as Meaning Of Halo Effect , Different Brainstorming Methods , Operant Conditioning Theory of learning and How To Improve Analytical Skills to upgrade your knowledge and skills.

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground

Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

• Free Account
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

• Customer Experience
• Employee Experience
• Employee Exit Interviews
• Net Promoter Score
• Voice of Customer
• Customer Success Hub
• Product Documentation
• Training & Certification
• XM Institute
• Popular Resources
• Customer Stories

Market Research

• Artificial Intelligence
• Partnerships
• Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

• English/AU & NZ
• Español/Europa
• Español/América Latina
• Português Brasileiro
• REQUEST DEMO
• Experience Management
• Grounded Theory Research

Try Qualtrics for free

Your complete guide to grounded theory research.

11 min read If you have an area of interest, but no hypothesis yet, try grounded theory research. You conduct data collection and analysis, forming a theory based on facts. Read our ultimate guide for everything you need to know.

What is grounded theory in research?

Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then creates a theory ‘grounded’ in the results.

The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book, Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory.

Research teams use grounded theory to analyze social processes and relationships.

Because of the important role of data, there are key stages like data collection and data analysis that need to happen in order for the resulting data to be useful.

The grounded research results are compared to strengthen the validity of the findings to arrive at stronger defined theories. Once the data analysis cannot continue to refine the new theories down, a final theory is confirmed.

Grounded research is different from experimental research or scientific inquiry as it does not need a hypothesis theory at the start to verify. Instead, the evolving theory is based on facts and evidence discovered during each stage.Also, grounded research also doesn’t have a preconceived understanding of events or happenings before the qualitative research commences.

Free eBook: Qualitative research design handbook

When should you use grounded theory research?

Grounded theory research is useful for businesses when a researcher wants to look into a topic that has existing theory or no current research available. This means that the qualitative research results will be unique and can open the doors to the social phenomena being investigated.

In addition, businesses can use this qualitative research as the primary evidence needed to understand whether it’s worth placing investment into a new line of product or services, if the research identifies key themes and concepts that point to a solvable commercial problem.

Grounded theory methodology

There are several stages in the grounded theory process:

1. Data planning

The researcher decides what area they’re interested in.

They may create a guide to what they will be collecting during the grounded theory methodology. They will refer to this guide when they want to check the suitability of the qualitative data, as they collect it, to avoid preconceived ideas of what they know impacting the research.

A researcher can set up a grounded theory coding framework to identify the correct data. Coding is associating words, or labels, that are useful to the social phenomena that is being investigated. So, when the researcher sees these words, they assign the data to that category or theme.

In this stage, you’ll also want to create your open-ended initial research questions. Here are the main differences between open and closed-ended questions:

These will need to be adapted as the research goes on and more tangents and areas to explore are discovered. To help you create your questions, ask yourself:

• What are you trying to explain?
• What experiences do you need to ask about?
• Who will you ask and why?

2. Data collection and analysis

Data analysis happens at the same time as data collection. In grounded theory analysis, this is also known as constant comparative analysis, or theoretical sampling.

The researcher collects qualitative data by asking open-ended questions in interviews and surveys, studying historical or archival data, or observing participants and interpreting what is seen. This collected data is transferred into transcripts.

The categories or themes are compared and further refined by data, until there are only a few strong categories or themes remaining. Here is where coding occurs, and there are different levels of coding as the categories or themes are refined down:

• Data collection (Initial coding stage): Read through the data line by line
• Open coding stage: Read through the transcript data several times, breaking down the qualitative research data into excerpts, and make summaries of the concept or theme.
• Axial coding stage: Read through and compare further data collection to summarize concepts or themes to look for similarities and differences. Make defined summaries that help shape an emerging theory.
• Selective coding stage: Use the defined summaries to identify a strong core concept or theme.

During analysis, the researcher will apply theoretical sensitivity to the collected data they uncover, so that the meaning of nuances in what they see can be fully understood.

This coding process repeats until the researcher has reached theoretical saturation. In grounded theory analysis, this is where all data has been researched and there are no more possible categories or themes to explore.

3. Data analysis is turned into a final theory

The researcher takes the core categories and themes that they have gathered and integrates them into one central idea (a new theory) using selective code. This final grounded theory concludes the research.

The new theory should be a few simple sentences that describe the research, indicating what was and was not covered in it.

An example of using grounded theory in business

One example of how grounded theory may be used in business is to support HR teams by analyzing data to explore reasons why people leave a company.

For example, a company with a high attrition rate that has not done any research on this area before may choose grounded theory to understand key reasons why people choose to leave.

Researchers may start looking at the quantitative data around departures over the year and look for patterns. Coupled with this, they may conduct qualitative data research through employee engagement surveys , interview panels for current employees, and exit interviews with leaving employees.

From this information, they may start coding transcripts to find similarities and differences (coding) picking up on general themes and concepts. For example, a group of excepts like:

• “The hours I worked were far too long and I hated traveling home in the dark”
• “My manager didn’t appreciate the work I was doing, especially when I worked late”
• There are no good night bus routes home that I could take safely”

Using open coding, a researcher could compare excerpts and suggest the themes of managerial issues, a culture of long hours and lack of traveling routes at night.

With more samples and information, through axial coding, stronger themes of lack of recognition and having too much work (which led people to working late), could be drawn out from the summaries of the concepts and themes.

This could lead to a selective coding conclusion that people left because they were ‘overworked and under-appreciated’.

With this information, a grounded theory can help HR teams look at what teams do day to day, exploring ways to spread workloads or reduce them. Also, there could be training supplied to management and employees to engage professional development conversations better.

 Advantages of grounded theory

• No need for hypothesis – Researchers don’t need to know the details about the topic they want to investigate in advance, as the grounded theory methodology will bring up the information.
• Lots of flexibility – Researchers can take the topic in whichever direction they think is best, based on what the data is telling them. This means that exploration avenues that may be off-limits in traditional experimental research can be included.
• Multiple stages improve conclusion – Having a series of coding stages that refine the data into clear and strong concepts or themes means that the grounded theory will be more useful, relevant and defined.
• Data-first – Grounded theory relies on data analysis in the first instance, so the conclusion is based on information that has strong data behind it. This could be seen as having more validity.

Disadvantages of grounded theory

• Theoretical sensitivity dulled – If a researcher does not know enough about the topic being investigated, then their theoretical sensitivity about what data means may be lower and information may be missed if it is not coded properly.
• Large topics take time – There is a significant time resource required by the researcher to properly conduct research, evaluate the results and compare and analyze each excerpt. If the research process finds more avenues for investigation, for example, when excerpts contradict each other, then the researcher is required to spend more time doing qualitative inquiry.
• Bias in interpreting qualitative data – As the researcher is responsible for interpreting the qualitative data results, and putting their own observations into text, there can be researcher bias that would skew the data and possibly impact the final grounded theory.
• Qualitative research is harder to analyze than quantitative data – unlike numerical factual data from quantitative sources, qualitative data is harder to analyze as researchers will need to look at the words used, the sentiment and what is being said.
• Not repeatable – while the grounded theory can present a fact-based hypothesis, the actual data analysis from the research process cannot be repeated easily as opinions, beliefs and people may change over time. This may impact the validity of the grounded theory result.

What tools will help with grounded theory?

Evaluating qualitative research can be tough when there are several analytics platforms to manage and lots of subjective data sources to compare. Some tools are already part of the office toolset, like video conferencing tools and excel spreadsheets.

However, most tools are not purpose-built for research, so researchers will be manually collecting and managing these files – in the worst case scenario, by pen and paper!

Use a best-in-breed management technology solution to collect all qualitative research and manage it in an organized way without large time resources or additional training required.

Qualtrics provides a number of qualitative research analysis tools, like Text iQ , powered by Qualtrics iQ, provides powerful machine learning and native language processing to help you discover patterns and trends in text.

This also provides you with research process tools:

• Sentiment analysis — a technique to help identify the underlying sentiment (say positive, neutral, and/or negative) in qualitative research text responses
• Topic detection/categorisation — The solution makes it easy to add new qualitative research codes and group by theme. Easily group or bucket of similar themes that can be relevant for the business and the industry (eg. ‘Food quality’, ‘Staff efficiency’ or ‘Product availability’)

Related resources

Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, qualitative research questions 11 min read, qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

• Correspondence
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2011

How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices

• Alexandra Sbaraini 1 , 2 ,
• Stacy M Carter 1 ,
• R Wendell Evans 2 &
• Anthony Blinkhorn 1 , 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  11 , Article number:  128 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

381k Accesses

189 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.

We documented a worked example of using grounded theory methodology in practice.

We describe our sampling, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. We explain how these steps were consistent with grounded theory methodology, and show how they related to one another. Grounded theory methodology assisted us to develop a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and to analyse variation in this process in different dental practices.

Conclusions

By employing grounded theory methodology rigorously, medical researchers can better design and justify their methods, and produce high-quality findings that will be more useful to patients, professionals and the research community.

Peer Review reports

Qualitative research is increasingly popular in health and medicine. In recent decades, qualitative researchers in health and medicine have founded specialist journals, such as Qualitative Health Research , established 1991, and specialist conferences such as the Qualitative Health Research conference of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology, established 1994, and the Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research, established 2011 [ 1 – 3 ]. Journals such as the British Medical Journal have published series about qualitative methodology (1995 and 2008) [ 4 , 5 ]. Bodies overseeing human research ethics, such as the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research [ 6 , 7 ], have included chapters or sections on the ethics of qualitative research. The increasing popularity of qualitative methodologies for medical research has led to an increasing awareness of formal qualitative methodologies. This is particularly so for grounded theory, one of the most-cited qualitative methodologies in medical research [[ 8 ], p47].

Grounded theory has a chequered history [ 9 ]. Many authors label their work 'grounded theory' but do not follow the basics of the methodology [ 10 , 11 ]. This may be in part because there are few practical examples of grounded theory in use in the literature. To address this problem, we will provide a brief outline of the history and diversity of grounded theory methodology, and a worked example of the methodology in practice. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.

The history, diversity and basic components of 'grounded theory' methodology and method

Founded on the seminal 1967 book 'The Discovery of Grounded Theory' [ 12 ], the grounded theory tradition is now diverse and somewhat fractured, existing in four main types, with a fifth emerging. Types one and two are the work of the original authors: Barney Glaser's 'Classic Grounded Theory' [ 13 ] and Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin's 'Basics of Qualitative Research' [ 14 ]. Types three and four are Kathy Charmaz's 'Constructivist Grounded Theory' [ 15 ] and Adele Clarke's postmodern Situational Analysis [ 16 ]: Charmaz and Clarke were both students of Anselm Strauss. The fifth, emerging variant is 'Dimensional Analysis' [ 17 ] which is being developed from the work of Leonard Schaztman, who was a colleague of Strauss and Glaser in the 1960s and 1970s.

There has been some discussion in the literature about what characteristics a grounded theory study must have to be legitimately referred to as 'grounded theory' [ 18 ]. The fundamental components of a grounded theory study are set out in Table 1 . These components may appear in different combinations in other qualitative studies; a grounded theory study should have all of these. As noted, there are few examples of 'how to do' grounded theory in the literature [ 18 , 19 ]. Those that do exist have focused on Strauss and Corbin's methods [ 20 – 25 ]. An exception is Charmaz's own description of her study of chronic illness [ 26 ]; we applied this same variant in our study. In the remainder of this paper, we will show how each of the characteristics of grounded theory methodology worked in our study of dental practices.

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) [ 27 ]. We know that preventive techniques can arrest early tooth decay and thus reduce the need for fillings [ 28 – 32 ]. Unfortunately, most dentists worldwide who encounter early tooth decay continue to drill it out and fill the tooth [ 33 – 37 ]. The MPP tested whether dentists could increase their use of preventive techniques. In the intervention arm, dentists were provided with a set of evidence-based preventive protocols to apply [ 38 ]; control practices provided usual care. The MPP protocols used in the RCT guided dentists to systematically apply preventive techniques to prevent new tooth decay and to arrest early stages of tooth decay in their patients, therefore reducing the need for drilling and filling. The protocols focused on (1) primary prevention of new tooth decay (tooth brushing with high concentration fluoride toothpaste and dietary advice) and (2) intensive secondary prevention through professional treatment to arrest tooth decay progress (application of fluoride varnish, supervised monitoring of dental plaque control and clinical outcomes)[ 38 ].

As the RCT unfolded, it was discovered that practices in the intervention arm were not implementing the preventive protocols uniformly. Why had the outcomes of these systematically implemented protocols been so different? This question was the starting point for our grounded theory study. We aimed to understand how the protocols had been implemented, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process. We hoped that such understanding would help us to see how the norms of Australian private dental practice as regards to tooth decay could be moved away from drilling and filling and towards evidence-based preventive care.

Designing this grounded theory study

Figure 1 illustrates the steps taken during the project that will be described below from points A to F.

Study design . file containing a figure illustrating the study design.

A. An open beginning and research questions

Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact . This shows the influence of symbolic interactionism, a social psychological approach focused on the meaning of human actions [ 39 ]. Grounded theory studies begin with open questions, and researchers presume that they may know little about the meanings that drive the actions of their participants. Accordingly, we sought to learn from participants how the MPP process worked and how they made sense of it. We wanted to answer a practical social problem: how do dentists persist in drilling and filling early stages of tooth decay, when they could be applying preventive care?

We asked research questions that were open, and focused on social processes. Our initial research questions were:

What was the process of implementing (or not-implementing) the protocols (from the perspective of dentists, practice staff, and patients)?

How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

In our experience, medical researchers are often concerned about the ethics oversight process for such a flexible, unpredictable study design. We managed this process as follows. Initial ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Sydney. In our application, we explained grounded theory procedures, in particular the fact that they evolve. In our initial application we provided a long list of possible recruitment strategies and interview questions, as suggested by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We indicated that we would make future applications to modify our protocols. We did this as the study progressed - detailed below. Each time we reminded the committee that our study design was intended to evolve with ongoing modifications. Each modification was approved without difficulty. As in any ethical study, we ensured that participation was voluntary, that participants could withdraw at any time, and that confidentiality was protected. All responses were anonymised before analysis, and we took particular care not to reveal potentially identifying details of places, practices or clinicians.

C. Initial, Purposive Sampling (before theoretical sampling was possible)

Grounded theory studies are characterised by theoretical sampling, but this requires some data to be collected and analysed. Sampling must thus begin purposively, as in any qualitative study. Participants in the previous MPP study provided our population [ 27 ]. The MPP included 22 private dental practices in NSW, randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. With permission of the ethics committee; we sent letters to the participants in the MPP, inviting them to participate in a further qualitative study. From those who agreed, we used the quantitative data from the MPP to select an initial sample.

Then, we selected the practice in which the most dramatic results had been achieved in the MPP study (Dental Practice 1). This was a purposive sampling strategy, to give us the best possible access to the process of successfully implementing the protocols. We interviewed all consenting staff who had been involved in the MPP (one dentist, five dental assistants). We then recruited 12 patients who had been enrolled in the MPP, based on their clinically measured risk of developing tooth decay: we selected some patients whose risk status had gotten better, some whose risk had worsened and some whose risk had stayed the same. This purposive sample was designed to provide maximum variation in patients' adoption of preventive dental care.

Initial Interviews

One hour in-depth interviews were conducted. The researcher/interviewer (AS) travelled to a rural town in NSW where interviews took place. The initial 18 participants (one dentist, five dental assistants and 12 patients) from Dental Practice 1 were interviewed in places convenient to them such as the dental practice, community centres or the participant's home.

Two initial interview schedules were designed for each group of participants: 1) dentists and dental practice staff and 2) dental patients. Interviews were semi-structured and based loosely on the research questions. The initial questions for dentists and practice staff are in Additional file 1 . Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The research location was remote from the researcher's office, thus data collection was divided into two episodes to allow for intermittent data analysis. Dentist and practice staff interviews were done in one week. The researcher wrote memos throughout this week. The researcher then took a month for data analysis in which coding and memo-writing occurred. Then during a return visit, patient interviews were completed, again with memo-writing during the data-collection period.

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

Coding is essential to the development of a grounded theory [ 15 ]. According to Charmaz [[ 15 ], p46], 'coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data. Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means'. Coding occurs in stages. In initial coding, the researcher generates as many ideas as possible inductively from early data. In focused coding, the researcher pursues a selected set of central codes throughout the entire dataset and the study. This requires decisions about which initial codes are most prevalent or important, and which contribute most to the analysis. In theoretical coding, the researcher refines the final categories in their theory and relates them to one another. Charmaz's method, like Glaser's method [ 13 ], captures actions or processes by using gerunds as codes (verbs ending in 'ing'); Charmaz also emphasises coding quickly, and keeping the codes as similar to the data as possible.

We developed our coding systems individually and through team meetings and discussions.

We have provided a worked example of coding in Table 2 . Gerunds emphasise actions and processes. Initial coding identifies many different processes. After the first few interviews, we had a large amount of data and many initial codes. This included a group of codes that captured how dentists sought out evidence when they were exposed to a complex clinical case, a new product or technique. Because this process seemed central to their practice, and because it was talked about often, we decided that seeking out evidence should become a focused code. By comparing codes against codes and data against data, we distinguished the category of "seeking out evidence" from other focused codes, such as "gathering and comparing peers' evidence to reach a conclusion", and we understood the relationships between them. Using this constant comparative method (see Table 1 ), we produced a theoretical code: "making sense of evidence and constructing knowledge". This code captured the social process that dentists went through when faced with new information or a practice challenge. This theoretical code will be the focus of a future paper.

Memo-writing

Throughout the study, we wrote extensive case-based memos and conceptual memos. After each interview, the interviewer/researcher (AS) wrote a case-based memo reflecting on what she learned from that interview. They contained the interviewer's impressions about the participants' experiences, and the interviewer's reactions; they were also used to systematically question some of our pre-existing ideas in relation to what had been said in the interview. Table 3 illustrates one of those memos. After a few interviews, the interviewer/researcher also began making and recording comparisons among these memos.

We also wrote conceptual memos about the initial codes and focused codes being developed, as described by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We used these memos to record our thinking about the meaning of codes and to record our thinking about how and when processes occurred, how they changed, and what their consequences were. In these memos, we made comparisons between data, cases and codes in order to find similarities and differences, and raised questions to be answered in continuing interviews. Table 4 illustrates a conceptual memo.

At the end of our data collection and analysis from Dental Practice 1, we had developed a tentative model of the process of implementing the protocols, from the perspective of dentists, dental practice staff and patients. This was expressed in both diagrams and memos, was built around a core set of focused codes, and illustrated relationships between them.

E. Theoretical sampling, ongoing data analysis and alteration of interview route

We have already described our initial purposive sampling. After our initial data collection and analysis, we used theoretical sampling (see Table 1 ) to determine who to sample next and what questions to ask during interviews. We submitted Ethics Modification applications for changes in our question routes, and had no difficulty with approval. We will describe how the interview questions for dentists and dental practice staff evolved, and how we selected new participants to allow development of our substantive theory. The patients' interview schedule and theoretical sampling followed similar procedures.

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

We now had a detailed provisional model of the successful process implemented in Dental Practice 1. Important core focused codes were identified, including practical/financial, historical and philosophical dimensions of the process. However, we did not yet understand how the process might vary or go wrong, as implementation in the first practice we studied had been described as seamless and beneficial for everyone. Because our aim was to understand the process of implementing the protocols, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process, we needed to understand how implementation might fail. For this reason, we theoretically sampled participants from Dental Practice 2, where uptake of the MPP protocols had been very limited according to data from the RCT trial.

We also changed our interview questions based on the analysis we had already done (see Additional file 2 ). In our analysis of data from Dental Practice 1, we had learned that "effectiveness" of treatments and "evidence" both had a range of meanings. We also learned that new technologies - in particular digital x-rays and intra-oral cameras - had been unexpectedly important to the process of implementing the protocols. For this reason, we added new questions for the interviews in Dental Practice 2 to directly investigate "effectiveness", "evidence" and how dentists took up new technologies in their practice.

Then, in Dental Practice 2 we learned more about the barriers dentists and practice staff encountered during the process of implementing the MPP protocols. We confirmed and enriched our understanding of dentists' processes for adopting technology and producing knowledge, dealing with complex cases and we further clarified the concept of evidence. However there was a new, important, unexpected finding in Dental Practice 2. Dentists talked about "unreliable" patients - that is, patients who were too unreliable to have preventive dental care offered to them. This seemed to be a potentially important explanation for non-implementation of the protocols. We modified our interview schedule again to include questions about this concept (see Additional file 3 ) leading to another round of ethics approvals. We also returned to Practice 1 to ask participants about the idea of an "unreliable" patient.

Dentists' construction of the "unreliable" patient during interviews also prompted us to theoretically sample for "unreliable" and "reliable" patients in the following round of patients' interviews. The patient question route was also modified by the analysis of the dentists' and practice staff data. We wanted to compare dentists' perspectives with the perspectives of the patients themselves. Dentists were asked to select "reliable" and "unreliable" patients to be interviewed. Patients were asked questions about what kind of services dentists should provide and what patients valued when coming to the dentist. We found that these patients (10 reliable and 7 unreliable) talked in very similar ways about dental care. This finding suggested to us that some deeply-held assumptions within the dental profession may not be shared by dental patients.

At this point, we decided to theoretically sample dental practices from the non-intervention arm of the MPP study. This is an example of the 'openness' of a grounded theory study potentially subtly shifting the focus of the study. Our analysis had shifted our focus: rather than simply studying the process of implementing the evidence-based preventive protocols, we were studying the process of doing prevention in private dental practice. All participants seemed to be revealing deeply held perspectives shared in the dental profession, whether or not they were providing dental care as outlined in the MPP protocols. So, by sampling dentists from both intervention and control group from the previous MPP study, we aimed to confirm or disconfirm the broader reach of our emerging theory and to complete inductive development of key concepts. Theoretical sampling added 12 face to face interviews and 10 telephone interviews to the data. A total of 40 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 were recruited. Telephone interviews were of comparable length, content and quality to face to face interviews, as reported elsewhere in the literature [ 40 ].

F. Mapping concepts, theoretical memo writing and further refining of concepts

After theoretical sampling, we could begin coding theoretically. We fleshed out each major focused code, examining the situations in which they appeared, when they changed and the relationship among them. At time of writing, we have reached theoretical saturation (see Table 1 ). We have been able to determine this in several ways. As we have become increasingly certain about our central focused codes, we have re-examined the data to find all available insights regarding those codes. We have drawn diagrams and written memos. We have looked rigorously for events or accounts not explained by the emerging theory so as to develop it further to explain all of the data. Our theory, which is expressed as a set of concepts that are related to one another in a cohesive way, now accounts adequately for all the data we have collected. We have presented the developing theory to specialist dental audiences and to the participants, and have found that it was accepted by and resonated with these audiences.

We have used these procedures to construct a detailed, multi-faceted model of the process of incorporating prevention into private general dental practice. This model includes relationships among concepts, consequences of the process, and variations in the process. A concrete example of one of our final key concepts is the process of "adapting to" prevention. More commonly in the literature writers speak of adopting, implementing or translating evidence-based preventive protocols into practice. Through our analysis, we concluded that what was required was 'adapting to' those protocols in practice. Some dental practices underwent a slow process of adapting evidence-based guidance to their existing practice logistics. Successful adaptation was contingent upon whether (1) the dentist-in-charge brought the whole dental team together - including other dentists - and got everyone interested and actively participating during preventive activities; (2) whether the physical environment of the practice was re-organised around preventive activities, (3) whether the dental team was able to devise new and efficient routines to accommodate preventive activities, and (4) whether the fee schedule was amended to cover the delivery of preventive services, which hitherto was considered as "unproductive time".

Adaptation occurred over time and involved practical, historical and philosophical aspects of dental care. Participants transitioned from their initial state - selling restorative care - through an intermediary stage - learning by doing and educating patients about the importance of preventive care - and finally to a stage where they were offering patients more than just restorative care. These are examples of ways in which participants did not simply adopt protocols in a simple way, but needed to adapt the protocols and their own routines as they moved toward more preventive practice.

The quality of this grounded theory study

There are a number of important assurances of quality in keeping with grounded theory procedures and general principles of qualitative research. The following points describe what was crucial for this study to achieve quality.

During data collection

1. All interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed in detail and the transcripts checked against the recordings.

2. We analysed the interview transcripts as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice sampled as shown on Figure 1 . This allowed the process of theoretical sampling to occur.

3. Writing case-based memos right after each interview while being in the field allowed the researcher/interviewer to capture initial ideas and make comparisons between participants' accounts. These memos assisted the researcher to make comparison among her reflections, which enriched data analysis and guided further data collection.

4. Having the opportunity to contact participants after interviews to clarify concepts and to interview some participants more than once contributed to the refinement of theoretical concepts, thus forming part of theoretical sampling.

5. The decision to include phone interviews due to participants' preference worked very well in this study. Phone interviews had similar length and depth compared to the face to face interviews, but allowed for a greater range of participation.

During data analysis

1. Detailed analysis records were kept; which made it possible to write this explanatory paper.

2. The use of the constant comparative method enabled the analysis to produce not just a description but a model, in which more abstract concepts were related and a social process was explained.

3. All researchers supported analysis activities; a regular meeting of the research team was convened to discuss and contextualize emerging interpretations, introducing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives.

Answering our research questions

We developed a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and analysed the variation in this process in different dental practices. Transferring evidence-based preventive protocols into these dental practices entailed a slow process of adapting the evidence to the existing practices logistics. Important practical, philosophical and historical elements as well as barriers and facilitators were present during a complex adaptation process. Time was needed to allow dentists and practice staff to go through this process of slowly adapting their practices to this new way of working. Patients also needed time to incorporate home care activities and more frequent visits to dentists into their daily routines. Despite being able to adapt or not, all dentists trusted the concrete clinical evidence that they have produced, that is, seeing results in their patients mouths made them believe in a specific treatment approach.

Concluding remarks

This paper provides a detailed explanation of how a study evolved using grounded theory methodology (GTM), one of the most commonly used methodologies in qualitative health and medical research [[ 8 ], p47]. In 2007, Bryant and Charmaz argued:

'Use of GTM, at least as much as any other research method, only develops with experience. Hence the failure of all those attempts to provide clear, mechanistic rules for GTM: there is no 'GTM for dummies'. GTM is based around heuristics and guidelines rather than rules and prescriptions. Moreover, researchers need to be familiar with GTM, in all its major forms, in order to be able to understand how they might adapt it in use or revise it into new forms and variations.' [[ 8 ], p17].

Our detailed explanation of our experience in this grounded theory study is intended to provide, vicariously, the kind of 'experience' that might help other qualitative researchers in medicine and health to apply and benefit from grounded theory methodology in their studies. We hope that our explanation will assist others to avoid using grounded theory as an 'approving bumper sticker' [ 10 ], and instead use it as a resource that can greatly improve the quality and outcome of a qualitative study.

Abbreviations

grounded theory methods

Monitor Dental Practice Program

New South Wales

Randomized Controlled Trial.

Qualitative Health Research Journal: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://qhr.sagepub.com/ ]

Qualitative Health Research conference of The International Institute for Qualitative Methodology: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.iiqm.ualberta.ca/en/Conferences/QualitativeHealthResearch.aspx ]

The Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.gcqhr.com/ ]

Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 1995, 311: 182-

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W: Qualitative research: an introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008, 337: a288-10.1136/bmj.a288.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statemen: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . 1998, website accessed on 13 September 2011, [ http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/introduction.cfm ]

Google Scholar  

The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm ]

Bryant A, Charmaz K, (eds.): Handbook of Grounded Theory. 2007, London: Sage

Walker D, Myrick F: Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qual Health Res. 2006, 16: 547-559. 10.1177/1049732305285972.

Barbour R: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ: Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007, 7 (3): 375-422. 10.1177/1468794107078517.

Article   Google Scholar  

Glaser BG, Strauss AL: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. 1967, Chicago: Aldine

Glaser BG: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs Forcing. 1992, Mill Valley CA, USA: Sociology Press

Corbin J, Strauss AL: Basics of qualitative research. 2008, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3

Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2006, London: Sage

Clarke AE: Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. 2005, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bowers B, Schatzman L: Dimensional Analysis. Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Edited by: Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE. 2009, Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press, 86-125.

Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE, (eds.): Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. 2009, Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press

Carter SM: Enacting Internal Coherence as a Path to Quality in Qualitative Inquiry. Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies. Edited by: Higgs J, Cherry N, Macklin R, Ajjawi R. 2010, Practice, Education, Work and Society Series. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2: 143-152.

Wasserman JA, Clair JM, Wilson KL: Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qual Res. 2009, 9: 355-381. 10.1177/1468794109106605.

Scott JW: Relating categories in grounded theory analysis: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. The Qualitative Report. 2004, 9 (1): 113-126.

Sarker S, Lau F, Sahay S: Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory about virtual team development. Data Base Adv Inf Sy. 2001, 32 (1): 38-56.

LaRossa R: Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. J Marriage Fam. 2005, 67 (4): 837-857. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x.

Kendall J: Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. WJNR. 1999, 21 (6): 743-757.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Kippen S, Liamputtong P: Doing sensitive research: what challenges do qualitative researchers face?. Qual Res. 2007, 7 (3): 327-353. 10.1177/1468794107078515.

Charmaz K: Discovering chronic illness - using grounded theory. Soc Sci Med. 1990, 30,11: 1161-1172.

Curtis B, Evans RW, Sbaraini A, Schwarz E: The Monitor Practice Programme: is non-surgical management of tooth decay in private practice effective?. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 306-313. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00071.x.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Featherstone JDB: The caries balance: The basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2004, 2 (S1): 259-264.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Axelsson P, Nyström B, Lindhe J: The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. J Clin Periodontol. 2004, 31: 749-757. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00563.x.

Sbaraini A, Evans RW: Caries risk reduction in patients attending a caries management clinic. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 340-348. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00076.x.

Pitts NB: Monitoring of caries progression in permanent and primary posterior approximal enamel by bitewing radiography: A review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983, 11: 228-235. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1983.tb01883.x.

Pitts NB: The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. DentoMaxilloFac Rad. 1996, 25: 5-16.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pitts NB: Are we ready to move from operative to non-operative/preventive treatment of dental caries in clinical practice?. Caries Res. 2004, 38: 294-304. 10.1159/000077769.

Tan PL, Evans RW, Morgan MV: Caries, bitewings, and treatment decisions. Aust Dent J. 2002, 47: 138-141. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00317.x.

Riordan P, Espelid I, Tveit A: Radiographic interpretation and treatment decisions among dental therapists and dentists in Western Australia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991, 19: 268-271. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1991.tb00165.x.

Espelid I, Tveit A, Haugejorden O, Riordan P: Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries among dentists in Norway. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1985, 13: 26-29. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1985.tb00414.x.

Espelid I: Radiographic diagnoses and treatment decisions on approximal caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986, 14: 265-270. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1986.tb01069.x.

Evans RW, Pakdaman A, Dennison P, Howe E: The Caries Management System: an evidence-based preventive strategy for dental practitioners. Application for adults. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 83-92. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.00004.x.

Blumer H: Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. 1969, Berkley: University of California Press

Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ: Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004, 4 (1): 107-18. 10.1177/1468794104041110.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/128/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank dentists, dental practice staff and patients for their invaluable contributions to the study. We thank Emeritus Professor Miles Little for his time and wise comments during the project.

The authors received financial support for the research from the following funding agencies: University of Sydney Postgraduate Award 2009; The Oral Health Foundation, University of Sydney; Dental Board New South Wales; Australian Dental Research Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 632715.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter & Anthony Blinkhorn

Population Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Alexandra Sbaraini, R Wendell Evans & Anthony Blinkhorn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Sbaraini .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design of this study. AS carried out data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. SMC made substantial contribution during data collection, analysis and data interpretation. AS, SMC, RWE, and AB have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

12874_2011_640_moesm1_esm.doc.

Additional file 1: Initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. (DOC 30 KB)

12874_2011_640_MOESM2_ESM.DOC

Additional file 2: Questions added to the initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing questions added to the initial interview schedule (DOC 26 KB)

12874_2011_640_MOESM3_ESM.DOC

Additional file 3: Questions added to the modified interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing questions added to the modified interview schedule (DOC 26 KB)

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sbaraini, A., Carter, S.M., Evans, R.W. et al. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 128 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2011

Accepted : 09 September 2011

Published : 09 September 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• qualitative research
• grounded theory
• methodology
• dental care

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Student Notebook

Developing theory with the grounded-theory approach and thematic analysis.

• Experimental Psychology
• Statistical Analysis
• Stereotypes

Grounded theory is an approach by which theory is extended from qualitative analysis (Charmaz, 1990; Walsh, 2014). It began nearly 5 decades ago (Glaser & Straus, 1967) and has since developed and diversified (Heath & Cowley, 2004). This article outlines a process of thematic analysis directed by the grounded-theory approach and discusses the conditions under which this process is most suitable, using examples from my work with a research team on my master’s thesis about gender-role conceptions among Latinas (Heydarian, 2016).

The use of thematic analysis driven by grounded theory is particularly informative for this area of cultural research. The prominent literature of Latina gender studies in the social sciences promotes a stereotypical image of Latinas as submissive and dependent; the grounded-theory approach to thematic analysis allowed me to explore the detail and nuances of how Latina women themselves describe the Latina experience. From my own analyses, I found that Latinas view the experience of being a woman in Latina culture as a complex identity beyond stereotypes. The study participants noted that their identity changes and evolves in different situations and across the lifespan. These findings have implications for how Latinas are viewed and treated in social-science research, setting the stage for future directions in sociocultural and clinical studies.

Grounded Theory in Data Collection

Grounded theory is an approach whereby the researcher refers back to the literature relevant to the research topic and to qualitative observations throughout data collection and analysis. Review of the literature and qualitative data can help shape subsequent data collection and analysis according to new perspectives that arise from reference to previous research and participants’ observations. During the data-collection stage, the researcher may realize previously unanticipated characteristics of the construct by analyzing participants’ responses and consequently refine subsequent data collection.

Grounded Theory in Thematic Analysis

The grounded-theory approach also may be applied to the data-analysis stage of a study. This process involves the critical review of responses to determine appropriate coding and the formation of themes from those codes. Researchers can conduct thematic analyses on the transcriptions of participants’ responses to interview questions, other dialogue, or responses to open-ended questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Pope & Mays, 1995). I examined responses to the question “What it is like to be ‘feminine’ and ‘motherly?’” from a semistructured interview.

Preparing and Revising the Codebook

The researcher first develops a preliminary codebook — a predetermined set of constructs and their associated definitions and characteristics. (This codebook will be refined throughout analysis.) This is determined a priori from the existing literature, the proposed research questions, and consultations with experts familiar with the constructs of interest. For example, one construct that emerged in my study of Latinas’ perspectives of gender roles was familismo — prioritizing, providing for, and taking care of the family (Castillo, Perez, Castillo, & Ghosheh, 2010; Guzmán, 2011; Heydarian, 2016; Lugo-Steidel & Contreras, 2003). Codes initially assigned to one theme may be moved to another theme during later stages of the analysis.

The researcher then will need to select certain themes to report. This selection is based on what the researcher determines to be the smallest-sized theme of interest for answering the research question (i.e., what is the smallest number of people who gave a response that fits within that theme?) and the practices of the field. The researcher also may choose to highlight themes of particular theoretical interest.

During this final stage of coding, subthemes may be identified. These may emerge when several participants give similar detailed descriptions of a characteristic of the theme. For example, a subtheme of the theme familismo may include taking care of children (Heydarian, 2016).

The Coding Process

The coding process entails reading through the data and list of response codes, referring back to the original interview transcriptions, and reassigning response codes to different themes that best represent them. Ideally, the researcher should analyze the data with a team of two or more research assistants familiar with the codebook and coding procedures.

After response codes are identified, researchers can sort them into themes. Both theory-driven (deductive) and data-driven (inductive) stages of analysis can be used to generate themes from the response codes. The researcher and research assistants independently examine the response-code data for theory-driven themes according to the codebook, then meet to resolve coding discrepancies and identify quotes that did not fit within the theory-driven themes. Then the members of the research team independently can examine the response codes that did not fit within the predetermined deductive themes and identify new, inductively derived themes. It is important for the raters to carry out this stage independently so that their interpretations of the data are not influenced by others. The team constructs new themes that are not described by previous literature, with corresponding definitions to capture the prevalent characteristics described by the participants. For example, one previously unidentified construct associated with marianismo — the constellation of stereotypes associated with women in Latina culture — is empowerment (Heydarian, 2016). Our research team identified an internal empowerment theme and an external empowerment theme. Internal empowerment refers to the sense of a strong identity and self-confidence; external empowerment refers to the desire and self-efficacy to make a positive change in one’s own life and in the community.

The research team will meet again following the second stage of independent coding to consult on the quotes that were not assigned to either the deductive theme or the inductive theme. After the discussion of possible inductive themes, the primary researcher reviews all of the coding and arrives upon a final codebook.

Limitations and Strengths

The grounded-theory approach to qualitative data analysis is heavily directed by the primary researcher. This element of the approach can introduce bias into the analysis. The primary researcher must carefully consider the perspectives of the research-team members and the research participants by revisiting the data several times when revising the codebook. The research team that I worked with for the study on gender-role perspectives of Latinas contributed greatly to shaping the codebook and findings of the study, and ultimately helped contribute to the field.

The grounded-theory approach is useful when the area of study is new. It also is helpful for identifying details of constructs. In addition to themes and subthemes related to familismo and empowerment, we discovered themes capturing perspectives about beauty, interpersonal manners, and human qualities (e.g., being loving and caring). When the researcher carefully considers other perspectives and is well versed in the existing literature related to the research topic, the analysis can make a great contribution to shaping theory. œ

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 , 77–101.

Castillo, L. G., Perez, F. V., Castillo, R., & Ghosheh, M. R. (2010). Construction and initial validation of the Marianismo Beliefs Scale. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 23 , 163–175. doi:10.1080/09515071003776036

Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science Medicine , 30 , 1161–1172.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory . Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.

Guzmán, C. E. (2011). Toward a new conceptualization of marianismo : Validation of the Guzm á n Marianismo Inventory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3534136)

Heydarian, N. M. (2016). Perspectives of feminine cultural gender role values from Latina leaders and community residents (Unpublished master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest.

Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: A comparison of Glasser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 41 , 141–150.

Lugo-Steidel, A. G., & Contreras, J. M. (2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences , 25 , 312–330.

Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995). Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: An introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 311 , 42–45.

Walsh, I. (2014). Using grounded theory to avoid research misconduct in management science. Grounded Theory Review , 13 . Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2014/06/22/using-grounded-theory-to-avoid-research misconduct-in-management-science/

I appreciate your information/data. It reinforced my research materials on grounded theory. Please be informed that your work will be cited in my study. Thank you and keep sharing your work with others.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Author

Nazanin Mina Heydarian is a doctoral candidate in the University of Texas at El Paso’s Health Psychology program. Her research interests include medical decision-making and prejudice as well as attitudes and attributions about people with disabilities and chronic medical conditions.

Careers Up Close: Joel Anderson on Gender and Sexual Prejudices, the Freedoms of Academic Research, and the Importance of Collaboration

Joel Anderson, a senior research fellow at both Australian Catholic University and La Trobe University, researches group processes, with a specific interest on prejudice, stigma, and stereotypes.

Experimental Methods Are Not Neutral Tools

Ana Sofia Morais and Ralph Hertwig explain how experimental psychologists have painted too negative a picture of human rationality, and how their pessimism is rooted in a seemingly mundane detail: methodological choices. 

APS Fellows Elected to SEP

In addition, an APS Rising Star receives the society’s Early Investigator Award.

Privacy Overview

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 The Grounded Theory Method

Antony Bryant, Faculty of Arts, Environment, and Technology, Leeds Metropolitan University

• Published: 01 July 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The term “grounded theory” was introduced to the research lexicon by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s, particularly with the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967. The term itself is somewhat misleading since it actually refers to a method that facilitates the development of new theoretical insights—grounded theories. In this essay, the method is outlined, together with some background to its appearance and subsequent developments. Later sections describe the main features, procedures, outputs, and evaluation criteria.

The term “grounded theory” first came to prominence with the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (hereafter Discovery ) by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967 . Since that time, the term itself has come to encompass a family of related approaches to research that reaches across many disciplines, including the social sciences, psychology, medicine, and many others. Strictly speaking, the term “grounded theory” refers to the outcome of a research process that has used the grounded theory method, but it is quite common for researchers and others to refer to the method simply as “grounded theory,” with the context clarifying the meaning. For instance, when Kathy Charmaz and I were compiling and editing a Handbook on the topic ( Bryant & Charmaz, 2007 a /2010 ), I suggested that the title should be The Sage Handbook of the Grounded Theory Method , a suggestion that was immediately and justifiably rejected by our editor on the grounds that, as far as publishers, librarians, and researchers were concerned, The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory was far more recognizable and perfectly self-explanatory. For the purposes of what follows, however, the term “grounded theory method”—hereafter GTM—will be used to refer to the method, with the term “grounded theory” referring to the outcome.

Prior to the appearance of Discovery, Glaser and Strauss had published several papers and also a book-length study using the GTM, entitled Awareness of Dying ( Glaser & Strauss, 1965 ; hereafter Awareness ). This early work developed from deeply personal experiences for both of them, Glaser and Strauss having each recently suffered the loss of a parent. It is crucial to understand that these deeply personal experiences of key lifecycle events were an important facet of the development of the method. Moreover, similar issues continue to form a key feature of a good deal of research using GTM, with the individual researcher or research team being motivated in their work by personal experiences or specific interests in the area. This is evidenced in many papers and accounts centered on GTM-oriented research, and several of the contributors to chapters in the handbook stress this aspect (e.g., Covan [2007] , Star [2007] , and Stern [2007] ).

Glaser and Strauss were joined in their early research by Jeanne Quint (later Jeanne Quint Benoliel), a nursing specialist who transformed the practice of care for the terminally and chronically ill in the course of her professional career, eventually being admitted to the Nursing Academy of Fame ( Quint Benoliel, 1967 , 1982 , 1996 ). Some of the earliest papers on GTM were co-authored not only by Glaser and Strauss, but also included Quint ( Strauss et al., 1964 ). Indeed, the acknowledgments at the beginning of Discovery include reference to a Public Health Service Research Grant, the funding for which provided the basis for the work leading to publication not only of Awareness and Discovery —and the later book Time for Dying ( Glaser & Strauss 1968 )—but also of Quint’s own book The Nurse and the Dying Patient (1967) . Moreover, Quint’s interest in the outcomes of the work would almost certainly have been centered on the ways in which the research on dying—“awareness” and “time”—afforded a basis for more effective practice, something that has always been a central feature and concern of those developing GTM.

Apart from their own personal experiences of bereavement, the personal trajectories of both Glaser and Strauss are critical in understanding their contributions, joint efforts, and later divergent trajectories with regard to GTM. Anselm Strauss had studied at the University of Chicago as a postgraduate and thereafter held posts at various colleges and universities, until he returned to Chicago in the 1950s. At this stage, he worked with and was influenced by Howard Becker (1963) and Erving Goffman (1959) , continuing the ideas of the earlier Chicago luminaries such as Herbert Blumer (1969) , and George Herbert Mead (1934 , 1938 ). Blumer is credited with coining the term symbolic interactionism , in the 1930s, although its origins are usually linked to the work of Mead. This basis provided Strauss with a background in social sciences that stressed the importance of naturalistic forms of inquiry, and his writings include standard and influential works on social psychology, many of which went through several revisions and reprints. In 1960, Strauss moved to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). There, he was given the responsibility of establishing the teaching of research methods in the new doctoral program in nursing, itself something of a key innovation. By 1968, he had developed his own doctoral program in sociology, with a specific focus on health, illness, and care, and with a clear predilection for qualitative research. As explained later, his early background was critical in the initial articulation of GTM and its later developments, but not always in the ways that might have been expected.

Barney Glaser studied at Columbia University, New York, where the key influences and luminaries were Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton; Merton being ostensibly the supervisor for Glaser’s PhD. The influence of Lazarsfeld was significant, and, to some extent, Glaser might be considered as one of the key adherents and developers of Lazarsfeld’s methodological ideas. Glaser himself makes this clear in his book on Doing Quantitative GT (2008), in which he clarifies the ways in which Lazarsfeld’s ideas influenced and presaged many key aspects of GTM itself.

In a more recent account of his time at Columbia ( Holton, 2011 ), however, Glaser places far more emphasis on the direct influence of Hans Zetterberg in his intellectual and methodological trajectory. The overall impact of his time at Columbia was to imbue Glaser with an agenda that included confidence in pursuing his own research ideas, a suspicion of grand conceptualizations and the grand conceptualizers, and the importance of publishing one’s work—if necessary, self-publishing. In the development of GTM, the influence of Lazarsfeld was particularly important, as will be explained.

In the early 1960s, Glaser moved from New York to California, and, by the mid-1960s, he and Strauss had started to collaborate, producing Awareness in 1965, as well as various earlier papers that can be seen as precursors of GTM. Awareness included a brief appendix entitled “Methods of Collection and Analysis of Data.” This is an important early statement of GTM. It notes that both Strauss and Glaser had experienced bereavements in the years prior to their research. Strauss’s experience in the death of his mother had led him to understand the importance of people’s expectations of the “certainty and timing of dying” (1965, p. 287). He had set up a preliminary study and was later joined in this by Barney Glaser, whose father had recently died. The appendix then offers a succinct summary of the approach that had been used to produce the foregoing chapters, with mention being made of the importance of developing the confidence to plunge into the fieldwork from the outset, generating hypotheses in subsequent stages as the research progresses, and the “blurring and intertwining of coding, data collection and data analysis” (p. 288). Anyone looking for a starting point in reading about GTM would do well to start with this appendix.

The doctoral program at UCSF, founded in 1968, was very much a proving ground for GTM. Those among the first groups undertaking this program were presented with the new research approach, and many of them subsequently became key propagators and developers of the method. Given the settings and context of Glaser and Strauss’s early research, and also that the focus of UCSF was on developing professionals in the areas of medicine, nursing, and what might be termed health support, it was not surprising that much of the work emanating from these GTM pioneers focused on hospital- and health-oriented issues.

Marking the fortieth anniversary of the doctoral program in 2008, a member of its first intake made the following comment:

“I like to refer to this program as The Mouse That Roared,” says Virginia Olesen, professor emerita in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the UCSF School of Nursing. “This has always been a tiny program—never more than six or seven faculty. But, my gosh, the contributions....” (quoted in Schwartz, 2009 )

Strauss can be seen as a pioneer of what would now be termed the sociology of medicine and healthcare. Moreover, this initial anchoring in the healthcare context, combined with the methodological innovations, resulted in a rich and varied series of outputs that have had a significant and continuing influence on social research methods, nursing practices, and palliative care. Schwartz (2009) does not exaggerate in summarizing the contributions as including, “legitimizing the concept of nursing research, establishing today’s most prominent qualitative research methodology and, supplying much of the ammunition informing the most significant public discussions about health and health care over the past half century, from women’s health and health disparities to aging and the impact of science and technology.”

With regard to GTM itself, many of the students from these early years of the program went on to develop and enhance the method, including Kathy Charmaz, Juliet Corbin, and Adele Clarke.

Background and Early Development

Although Discovery is rightly regarded as the founding text of GTM, its role was very much one of a manifesto, rather than an instructional overview or manual. In the opening pages of the book, Glaser and Strauss argue that the book “is directed toward improving social scientists” capacities for generating theories’ (1967, p. vii). They recognize that not everyone can develop this capacity, but this does not mean that it should be seen as something restricted to a few geniuses. Generating “useful theories” requires “a different perspective on the canons derived from vigorous quantitative verification on such issues as sampling, coding, reliability, validity, indicators, frequency distributions, conceptual formulation, construction of hypotheses, and presentation of evidence. We need to develop canons more suited to the discovery of theory ” (p. viii; emphasis added).

Glaser and Strauss contended that research in the social sciences in the United States in the 1960s was largely centered on the grand theorists and their grand theories. Thus, doctoral students in particular were all too often expected to develop proposals that emanated from one or other well-founded, “grand” theoretical position, deriving hypotheses and then concomitant procedures and tests for validating these latter deductions. They saw this as a highly unequal relationship between “theoretical capitalists” and “proletarian testers.” Moreover, this emphasis on verification prevented new and useful theories from being developed. Whether this was quite as widespread as Glaser and Strauss claim is not clear; indeed, Strauss himself had come from a contending orientation—the Chicago School—that had produced significant work from a fairly wide range of different researchers. But whatever the truth of the matter, GTM developed as a reaction against a view of research—quantitative and hypothesis-oriented—which was prevalent among the social science research community in the United States at the time. Conversely, it is important to understand that the method was, from the first, marked far more by its innovative claims and contribution to research practice than it was by its critical position with regard to standard approaches.

Kathy Charmaz (2006) has pointed to the distinctive features of GTM that challenged many of the core assumptions prevalent among US social science researchers in the 1960s:

the “arbitrary divisions between theory and research”; viewing qualitative studies as preparatory for more rigorous quantitative work; viewing qualitative research as illegitimate and devoid of rigour; viewing qualitative studies as impressionistic and unsystematic; the separation of data collection from its analysis; seeing the only possible outcome of qualitative research as “descriptive case studies rather than theory development.”

It is worth dwelling on these since further consideration will be of particular benefit in preparing a GTM-oriented research proposal that often requires engagement with the still conventional hypothesis-oriented “quantitative canon.”

Research Versus Theory

What Charmaz terms the “arbitrary division between theory and research” emanates from Glaser and Strauss’s argument that the social sciences in the 1960s in the United States had become “frozen” theoretically. The work of the European founding fathers of social science—Marx, Weber, Durkheim—had been supplemented by the work of homegrown theorists such as Parsons and Merton. This body of work had then come to be seen as a rich basis for further research, particularly for doctoral students and other, relatively inexperienced researchers, who would enhance existing work through the “canon of verification” to which Glaser and Strauss alluded in the opening section of Discovery .

Whatever the merits might have been for this orthodoxy, Glaser and Strauss individually had taken issue with it, both conceptually and as part of their own intellectual trajectories. Strauss had developed ideas in the field of social psychology and was heavily and directly influenced by the work of relatively unconventional social scientists associated with the various generations of the Chicago School, particularly those linked to symbolic interactionism. Glaser, conversely, had direct experience of the ways in which doctoral research could become a process of “proletarian testing” under the guidance of “theoretical capitalists”: Merton was his doctoral supervisor. In the recent work in which Holton (2011) reports on a series of interviews with Glaser, he makes it clear that although he learned a great deal from Merton and Lazarsfeld, he also consciously trod his own path, with encouragement from Zetterberg, who was only his senior by a few years.

In their early statements on GTM, such as Awareness and Discovery , Glaser and Strauss not only wanted to demonstrate the power of their method, but also to encourage others to follow their example. In particular, they wanted to encourage early-career researchers to branch out on their own, confident that they could and should aim to contribute new theoretical insights. The grounded theory method, with its emphasis on research founded on directly gathered data, rather than initial hypotheses, offered a route whereby researchers could aim to produce novel theoretical insights in the form of substantive theories—that is, conceptual statements or models that provided deep and practical insights into specific contexts, but that required further work if they were to provide the basis for more general purposes (see later discussion).

The overall impact of this means that there are firm justifications for the preparation of research proposals that can indeed eschew hypothesis testing as the starting point of research and instead specify objectives based on developing new conceptual models, framework, or theories. These outcomes can be evaluated using Glaser and Strauss’ criteria of fit, grab, work , and modifiability . Thus, the view that research is something based on existing theories can be challenged, offering the alternative proposition whereby theories and hypotheses can be the results of a research project. This is not to suggest that the latter viewpoint eclipses the former, but rather that the sequence of “theory then hypotheses then research” can be supplemented or replaced by the sequence “research then theory and hypotheses.”

The Status of Qualitative Research

For many researchers and, perhaps more importantly, for many disciplinary and research domain gatekeepers, valid research ought to be quantitative. The epigram of Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson) is often (mis)quoted in this regard: “If you cannot measure it, you cannot (control) improve it.” A more extended version runs as follows

In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science , whatever the matter may be. [PLA, vol. 1, “Electrical Units of Measurement,” 1883-05- 03] available at http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/ . Accessed July 26, 2012

Kelvin also argued, however, that “radio has no future,” “X-rays will prove to be a hoax,” warned the Niagara Falls Power Company that I “trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current”; and stated in his address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1900, that “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” (This last statement is somewhat disputed, since the original source cannot be confirmed.) So much for Lord Kelvin’s prognostications!

All too often, researchers have made the mistake of measuring what can be measured, rather than attending to investigating the key issues—whether or not they are amenable to simple, or not-so-simple, quantification. Glaser and Strauss could have counted the number of patients who died in the various hospital wards they investigated; they could also have looked at the number of days or hours that elapsed between admission to hospital and eventual demise. These might have produced some meaningful outcomes, but the concepts of “awareness” and “time” would not have emanated from such studies.

Kelvin’s longer quote expresses the view that nonquantitative studies are “at best” a preliminary to true knowledge (which must always be quantitative), but the results of the burgeoning of qualitative research that has developed at least since the 1960s indicate something very different. The outcomes of qualitative research can indeed be poor, ill-defined, lacking in rigor, and of little practical use; but so too can the outcomes of quantitative research. Moreover, thanks to the efforts of Glaser and Strauss—as well as many others who have contributed to innovation in research practice in many disciplines—qualitative research can be carried out in accord with clear and coherent criteria, laying a foundation for rigorous claims to knowledge and conceptual and theoretical innovation.

As will be seen in the sections that follow, there is an issue with regard to the distinction between conceptual innovation and impressionistic (re)description, but this is no more problematic for qualitative research than issues around statistical significance and meaningless or ambiguous measurement are for quantitative research. The key point is that Glaser and Strauss’ work in the 1960s and beyond needs to be recognized as forming a significant contribution to the knowledge claims of qualitative research methods and outcomes—many of which are now far more widely accepted if not widely taken for granted.

Data Collection and Analysis

One of Glaser’s teachers at Columbia was Paul Lazarsfeld, now considered to be one of the key influences in the development of investigative and experimental methods in sociology. Many of the existing taken-for-granted methods in applied social research were, in fact, developed by Lazarsfeld and his colleagues, and one of his key concerns was to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches. Before immigrating to the United States, Lazarsfeld lived and worked in Vienna. During this period, he was one of the key researchers and authors of the Marienthal study ( Lazarsfeld et al., 1933/1971 ), which has since become a classic in the sociological canon. The study was an investigation of one Austrian village—Marienthal—and was pioneering in its in-depth analysis, combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches. In his later work, Lazarsfeld developed the methodological insights gained from this and other studies (1972), publishing several key texts on methods (most notably Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg [1955] —and many editions thereafter); and, in these, he warned researchers about the dangers of simple coding and classification techniques, often stressing the need for researchers to analyze their data as it was in the process of being collected and categorized.

Much of this resonates with Glaser and Strauss’ characterization of GTM, albeit in a far less amenable and articulated form. Although there are now several variants of the method, one of the key aspects of any truly grounded method study is the way in which the processes of gathering, sorting, and analyzing the data continue simultaneously and iteratively. At later stages of the research, data will be sorted into or compared against categories or codes, but these will themselves be products of the earlier stages of the research, rather than delineations and distinctions preconceived prior to the start of the study itself.

This intertwining might be thought of as a spiral, with foundations in the early data, gathered in a wide and encompassing manner, then moving upward and inward toward a more focused and directed view of some key aspect or aspects of the research domain. As Glaser and Strauss demonstrated in their early studies, and as many have since demonstrated, this approach can result in detailed models or theories that combine conceptual cogency with relevance and utility.

The Results and Value of Qualitative Research

In some cases, qualitative research can produce outcomes that can be criticized as failing to offer more than impressionistic (re)description—that is, simply taking various accounts or observations of some domain of interest and weaving them into a narrative with little or no conceptual depth or practical relevance. As stated earlier, however, an equivalent failing also haunts the world of quantitative methods: results that are based on incorrect or inaccurate use of statistical methods and meaningless or ambiguous hypotheses (see Goldacre’s vivid and readable account of “Bad Science,” 2009 ; also his blog at http://www.badscience.net/ ). Research is a process fraught with a variety of pitfalls and problems requiring a combination of skill, experience, serendipity, and, sometimes, plain dumb luck. This applies equally to all forms of research, whether predominantly quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of several methods and approaches.

Glaser and Strauss, from the very beginning of their work together, stressed that the outcomes of a grounded theory study—that is, the grounded theory itself—had to adhere to some specific criteria, but ones that were distinct from those often held up as necessary for hypothesis-based, deductive research. They termed these grab, fit, work , and modifiability . At first sight, these might appear to be somewhat vague, but the terms are explained in some detail in the latter chapters of Awareness and sections of Discovery .

As I have explained elsewhere ( Bryant, 2009 ), the use of these terms can best be understood in the light of the work and ideas of the pragmatists, specifically John Dewey (1999) and William James (1904) . Dewey, in particular, promoted the idea of theories as tools—to be judged by their usefulness, rather than their truthfulness. This link between pragmatism and GTM was rarely mentioned by Glaser and Strauss in their joint publications in the 1960s, and Glaser never makes any reference to it in his later, solo writings. Strauss, for his part, does refer to pragmatism as “a red thread running through my work” (1993, p. 22) in his last book, Continual Permutations of Action , which is not regarded as part of his output on GTM and qualitative methods. Strauss was heavily influenced by pragmatism via his contact with G. H. Mead and others associated with the early Chicago School. In Awareness, chapter 14 is entitled “The Practical Use of Awareness Theory” (p. 259), and the footnote on that page does make specific reference to Dewey’s concept of a theory as something that is instrumental. But this is perhaps the only indication in Glaser and Strauss’s work—in concert or individually—of any relationship between GTM and pragmatism. Whatever the actual and acknowledged links between pragmatism and GTM might be, situating these four criteria against pragmatist ideas does shed light on each of the terms, enhancing the ways in which they can be understood as guidelines for evaluating the outcomes of research as follows:

Grab : This is a characteristic of a substantive grounded theory. It relates to Dewey’s idea of a theory being judged in terms of its usefulness, rather than on any abstract principle of veracity. If a grounded theory has grab, this might be demonstrated in the way in which the actors from the research setting respond when it is explained to them—they will understand and engage with it, using it in their activities and practices. Jeanne Quint’s development of innovative nursing practices and the ways in which these were taken up by colleagues and fellow professionals are prime examples of this feature.

Fit : This term refers to the need for theoretical insights to adhere to the substantive context, rather than to the predilections or biases (conscious or unwitting) of the researcher(s). Glaser offers further thoughts on this issue in Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) , stressing that the categories resulting from a GTM study should fit the data. How this is accomplished, and the cogency with which it is demonstrated and argued, will depend on the researcher(s) and the relevant published outputs. It should be thought of as an overarching aim to be striven toward in any GTM-oriented research.

Work : This again builds on the idea of a theory as a tool. Tools are useful within specific contexts or for specific tasks. There are no general-purpose tools suited to all and every situation and job. The anticipated outcome of a GTM-oriented research project ought to be a substantive grounded theory—that is, one that is of use in the context from which it has been drawn and within which it has been grounded. Thus, any such theory ought to be able to offer explanations and insights that perhaps previously were unrecognized or implicit and also provide a basis for consideration of future actions and directions. If such a substantive theory is then enhanced and developed to a wider class of contexts, it can claim formal status. One of the earliest examples of this was Strauss’s work on negotiated orders ( Strauss, 1978 ), which extended some of the aspects of the research that led to Glaser and Strauss’s early writings.

Modifiability : One of Glaser and Strauss’s criticisms of hypothesis-based research was that, far too often, by the time a research project had been completed—passing from derivation and proposal, through investigation, to eventual proof or disproof—things had moved on and, as a consequence, the finding and conclusions proved to be of little or no relevance. Furthermore, the process of conceptual discovery is not to be thought of as a once-and-for-all activity, but rather as a continuing and continuous dialogue. Thus, grounded theories have to be understood as modifiable, rather than as fixed, definitive statements for all time.

Epistemological and Ontological Issues

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. – ( John Maynard Keynes, 1964 , p. 383)

The 1960s witnessed various other challenges to academic orthodoxy, although these seem not to have been of any real concern to Glaser or Strauss, since neither one makes extended reference to them in their writings on GTM and associated methodological matters. One of the key challenges emanated from a variety of critiques of what was perceived as the dominant model of social science research and theorizing in the United States at the time, most notably the structural-functionalist approach exemplified in the work of Talcott Parsons (1949 , 1951 ). Apart from being seen as inherently conservative in its orientation, this stance was also criticized for placing far more emphasis on social structures and stability at the expense of social actors and agency. Part of the reaction to this view came from the work of the Chicago School of sociology, which stressed the importance of social actors’ views in creating and sustaining social contexts and institutions, including, in the 1950s and early 1960s, the work of Strauss himself, as well as others such as Erving Goffman and Howard Becker ( Becker, 1963 ; Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961 ; Goffman, 1959 ).

With hindsight one can see the continuity between this facet of the Chicago School and the development of GTM. A significant aspect of the grounded nature of GTM arises from its focus on direct participation in the research context by the researcher(s), often including observation of and interviews with those involved. As will be explained later, the derivation of initial codes that encapsulate key features of the research context can themselves originate with the outcomes of these early interviews, based on the actual words and phrases used by the interviewees.

As has already been argued, GTM was presented by Glaser and Strauss as a challenge to the orthodoxy of research practice at the time. Moreover, it appears reasonable to argue that another aspect of their challenge drew on the ideas Strauss in particular had encountered, and contributed to, during his time in Chicago. Similarly Glaser had himself taken on, and significantly enhanced, some of the methodological insights on offer from familiarity with Lazarsfeld and colleagues at Columbia. So there is a case to be made for the influence of these lineages in the development of GTM, although this is in no way to detract from the innovative nature of GTM itself.

What is surprising, however, is the lack of any engagement with a further aspect of the range of challenges to academic orthodoxy at the time, as embodied in the work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) created a major stir in the 1960s and is now regarded by many as one of the key works of the twentieth century. Apart from anything else, he challenged widely accepted views of science, scientific research, and the ways in which our knowledge of the world has developed and might be thought of as progressing in the future. His use of the term “paradigm” undermined the view that one could observe the world from a completely neutral position. At around the same time, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman encapsulated a similar set of arguments in their book The Social Construction of Reality (1966) , and both books contributed to what can be termed a constructivist or interpretivist model of knowledge—that is, that our understanding of reality is apprehended and sustained through social processes and interactions.

This position was articulated specifically to challenge various forms of positivism that, broadly understood, assumes the possibility of some neutral form of observation as a basis for discovery, testing of theories, hypotheses, and other claims to knowledge. The 1960s was marked by a variety of attacks on various forms of “conventional wisdom,” and Glaser and Strauss’s work can be seen as one component of this. What is surprising, however, is that neither Glaser nor Strauss makes any extended reference to any of these other, contemporary developments. Kuhn’s argument incorporated what was seen by many as a highly unflattering characterization of science in nonrevolutionary periods—which he termed “normal science”—as “puzzle solving,” rather than what might be termed discovery of new knowledge.

This resonates to a large extent with Glaser and Strauss’s criticism of social science research as “proletarian testing” of the grand conceptions of the “theoretical capitalists.” Conversely, one of the main thrusts of Kuhn’s argument was that scientific revolutions amounted to a paradigm shift, which was not simply an enhancement of previous knowledge but a completely different way of seeing the world. For instance, the shift from a geocentric view of the universe to a heliocentric one involves studying common aspects of the natural world but seeing them in totally different ways. Likewise, someone with a grounding in natural sciences from the late seventeenth or early eighteenth centuries would, quite literally, see things very differently from someone with a grounding in natural sciences from the late eighteenth century onward—something illustrated by Kuhn in his description of the work undertaken by Joseph Priestley in the late eighteenth century. Priestley is now accredited with discovering oxygen, but Kuhn argues that Priestley’s own account of his experimental findings indicates that he continued to adhere to accepted wisdom rather than accept what we would now understand as the idea of air and other materials being composed of basic elements such as oxygen. (Priestley argued to his dying days that his observations were of something called “de-phlogisticated air,” whereas Lavoisier, who heard of and repeated Priestley’s experiments, wrote about his observations of the properties of oxygen.)

One of the key consequences of the ideas of Kuhn and others was that there was no such thing as a neutral standpoint from which to observe and explain the world. Taken further, this leads on to the argument that the ways in which we describe the world, using language, are not neutral or transparent; language is not simply a way of describing reality, it is actually a crucial part of how we constitute reality. Taken as a whole, these developments—many of which actually predate the twentieth century in one form or another—culminated in the 1960s in a concerted attack on simple and straightforward ideas about data and observation. But neither Glaser nor Strauss ever took these up in any way. On the contrary, Glaser and Strauss, whether in their collaborative or separate contributions, consistently treat “data” as an uncomplicated concept. Moreover, in using the term “emergence” in a passive and unembodied sense—as in “the theory emerges from the data”—they cannot help but oversimplify the nature of data and the process of “discovery,” also obscuring the active role of researchers in shaping the development of codes, categories, and concepts.

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, GTM had grown in popularity, particularly following the publication of Strauss’s solo work Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists ( Strauss, 1987 ) and his collaborative work with Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 , 1998 )—now in its third edition ( Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). Many doctoral researchers and others more advanced in their academic and research careers were taking up GTM, presenting proposals and findings that drew on Discovery and Basics in particular. Reviewers and research advisers found themselves presented with proposals that did not emanate from clearly formulated research questions or present hypotheses to be tested but that rather outlined generic areas of concern or specific contexts to be explored prior to articulation of clear objectives or issues. Moreover, research papers reported findings in which categories were derived from the intertwining of simultaneous and iterative processes of data gathering and analysis, with the outcomes often presented as having “emerged from the data.”

This presented evaluators, reviewers, and assessors in general with a number of problems and concerns. Some of these emanated from the innovations in the method itself, others from the ways in which researchers reported their findings and the details of the processes they followed.

Innovations

For those used to assessing research proposals in terms of the hypotheses presented or the clarity of the objectives articulated at the outset, GTM-oriented examples were something of a conundrum. Often, such proposals gave only a very generic and ill-defined account of the nature of the planned research, with little if any overview of the relevant literature, and only the slightest indication of the detailed instruments and methods to be used. This led to GTM proposals being treated as lacking in sufficient detail for any assessments to be made, and the method itself was seen as apparently providing the researchers—particularly doctoral and masters students—with a justification for only a limited amount of preparation prior to embarking on various, often ill-defined, research activities. Thus, the strengths of the method had come to be seen as its inherent weaknesses. In part, this was based on a misunderstanding of GTM by those in positions of authority claiming knowledge of methods, but it was also due to the ways in which the method was described in various texts and the manner in which it was then taken up by enthusiastic but inexperienced researchers keen to use alternative approaches.

Reporting of Findings

Although there may have been misgivings with regard to use of GTM and, as a consequence, some basis for limiting its growth, in many areas—particularly those associated with the pioneering work that emanated from UCSF in the 1960s and early 1970s—a significant proportion of research publications claimed use of GTM. It rapidly became the most widely claimed of any qualitative method, and, in some areas, it eclipsed all other methods—qualitative and quantitative—taken together. Editors and reviewers, however, were often perplexed by some of the GTM-oriented papers that they received. In many cases, these papers seemed to indicate that GTM amounted to nothing much more than stages of data gathering—usually in the form of open-ended interviews—followed by analysis of this data to produce codes or categories, which then mysteriously led to the “emergence” of some end result. This result itself was sometimes termed a “grounded theory,” but often its conceptual or theoretical claims seemed at best weak and often nonexistent. Moreover, the writers of such accounts often stated that they deliberately ignored any literature that might have shed light on the generic research area and had set off on their research “without any preconceptions” or had somehow discounted any potentially relevant experiences, ideas, or preexisting knowledge that might influence their investigations. Terms such as “theoretical sensitivity,” “emergence,” “theoretical sampling,” and “theoretical saturation”—sometimes accompanied by fleeting references to “grab,” “fit,” and “work”—were perhaps mentioned (often merely in passing) to provide some indicators of rigor and substantiation, but the overall effect on many reviewers and their ilk was one of bewilderment and suspicion.

Constructivist GTM

The overall result of these shortcomings was that GTM came to be regarded as methodologically frivolous or near vacuous. Those with positivist inclinations, particularly if they adhered to Lord Kelvin’s assumptions concerning measurement and quantitative techniques, saw GTM as lacking in any firm foundation (no hypotheses at the outset) and deficient in terms of rigor (no measurement or quantitative verification). Conversely, those with interpretivist predispositions regarded the method as naïve and simplistic, given the characterizations offered by its progenitors—and then parroted by users—of terms such as “data,” “emergence,” and “induction.” Lois Wacquant (2002 , p. 1481) encapsulated this when he described the method as one founded on “an epistemological fairy-tale.”

From the 1960s until the mid-1990s, neither Glaser nor Strauss ever engaged with the ways in which the work of Kuhn, Berger and Luckman, and others of a similar ilk undermined conventional ideas about data, observation, and knowledge claims. Given the central role played by “data,” particularly in Glaser’s writings, this seems somewhat strange; after all, Glaser and Strauss had set out to challenge the research orthodoxy, including those who acted as the gatekeepers and evaluators of theoretical legitimacy and authority. Kuhn’s ideas similarly sought to question the basis on which claims to knowledge were based; a critical enterprise that continues to this day. As I have argued elsewhere ( Bryant, 2009 ), this omission was particularly perplexing with regard to Strauss, given his background, steeped in the work of G. H. Mead and pragmatism.

Whatever the rationales behind both Glaser’s and Strauss’s specific failures to engage with these issues and ideas, there was no way that GTM could remain remote from or indifferent to them. By the mid-1990s, Kathy Charmaz had begun to articulate what she termed a “constructivist” form of GTM, and, in the second edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research ( Charmaz, 2000 ), she developed her argument, contrasting “constructivist” GTM with “objectivist” GTM, as espoused by Glaser.

For Charmaz, GTM had to take account of the active role of the researcher in moving from data collection through analysis to coding, then iterating through further stages of collection and analysis and coding. Thus, codes and categories did not “emerge” but were the product of deliberate interpretation by the researcher(s). She contrasted this view of GTM with what she termed Glaser’s “objectivist one,” which treats data as something uncovered by the research process, leading to the unearthing of codes and categories, and virtually effacing the researcher as an active participant. Thus, in her later book, Charmaz (2006) used the title Constructing Grounded Theory , rather than Glaser and Strauss’s Discovery .

Soon after this, in the late 1990s and quite independently, I had begun to develop a similar view. I had been presented with several research proposals that alluded to GTM, and, in many cases, this was no more than a thin veneer, hiding the student’s inability to state any clear ideas regarding specific objectives, lack of familiarity with the literature, or aversion to rigorous methods, particularly quantitative ones—sometimes all three. In most cases, when challenged, the student would agree to revise the proposal, remedying the deficiencies and opting to use some other, more prescriptive method. One student, however, persevered with GTM and was able to respond to the criticisms in a manner that indicated the strengths of the method. My own further examination of texts and sources such as Awareness, Discovery , and Basics , indicated that there were indeed valuable and important features of GTM, but that these needed to be separated from the language within which much of the GTM-oriented literature was based—what I termed “the GTM mantra.”

Writers claiming use of GTM often resort to variations or verbatim quotes of one or more of what might best be termed “the mantras of grounded theorists”—for example, “entering the research domain with an open mind,” “allowing the theory to emerge from the data,” “letting the data speak for themselves/itself.” Invocation of any or all of these should not be seen as inevitably leading to inadequate research, although, as has already been pointed out, such statements inevitably lead many reviewers and evaluators to be suspicious of or discount whatever follows.

In the wake of the work undertaken by Charmaz, myself, and others to develop the method in the light of the critiques of positivism or objectivism—particularly those emanating from a constructivist or interpretivist position—two issues come to the fore for anyone using or evaluating GTM:

Data now becomes a problematic concept and cannot simply be incorporated into research without further consideration. Glaser’s admonition against “immaculate conceptualization” is an indispensable part of the researcher’s mindset, but equally essential is an understanding that although the original meaning of “datum” (plural “data”) is something that is “given”—i.e., obvious and apparent and ready-to- hand—our processes of cognition are not as mechanistic and simple as this.

Developing from this is the argument that participants in research settings will encompass multiple standpoints and conceptions of the specific context. Early statements of GTM clearly incorporate this to some extent; for instance, the work on awareness describes the ways in which different people develop and communicate their awareness across different settings. But this range of viewpoints must also include the researcher or research team—something that is missing in early GTM writings and was not really attended to in any systematic manner until Charmaz’s work from the late 1990s onward.

In 2006, Kathy Charmaz published an extended statement of constructivist GTM— Constructing Grounded Theory, thus contrasting this approach with one oriented around “discovery.” Charmaz argues that taking an explicitly constructivist standpoint does impact on the research itself, since data collection will necessarily involve researchers taking account of people’s meanings, intentions, actions, and interpretations both in terms of actually engaging with participants—using interviews—or for other forms of data collection, such as observation. Moreover, this leads to a specifically reflective position on the part of the researcher who now has to consider his or her own participation and interaction in the research setting.

Since the 1990s, researchers have been faced with a number of possible forms of GTM. Initially, the fundamental distinction was that between Glaser’s work and Strauss’s later writings, particularly his joint work with Corbin. This distinction centers on a number of issues around the process of the method itself, particularly ideas about coding and the use of various frameworks or guidelines for developing concepts. The distinction between Glaser’s “orthodox” or “traditional” or “objectivist” GTM and constructivist GTM relates to the ways in which researchers seek to couch the form of justification for their ideas—constructed or discovered. Although there has been a good deal of debate around this issue, when it comes to carrying out research itself, one’s epistemological stance is often only of passing interest. The most important feature of research is its outcome, and it seems to make little or no difference whether the researcher conducted the research from a positivist/objectivist viewpoint or an interpretivist/constructivist one. Glaser and Strauss were correct to see the criteria of a research outcome—concept, theory, framework, or model—in terms of grab and fit, thereby offering alternative criteria for evaluating research outcomes.

The conclusion with regard to GTM and epistemology is that, although it may be useful for researchers to clarify their own disposition, ultimately, this may not really be a factor of any great import. In which case Wacquant’s jibe evaporates, and the true value of GTM lies in its application and impact on the research contexts in which it has been used.

GTM in Practice

The Grounded Theory Method (GTM) comprises a systematic, inductive, and comparative approach for conducting inquiry for the purpose of constructing theory ( Charmaz, 2006 ; Charmaz & Henwood, 2007 ). The method is designed to encourage researchers’ persistent interaction with their data, while remaining constantly involved with their emerging analyses. Data collection and analysis proceed simultaneously and each informs and streamlines the other. The GTM builds empirical checks into the analytic process and leads researchers to examine all possible theoretical explanations for their empirical findings. The iterative process of moving back and forth between empirical data and emerging analysis makes the collected data progressively more focused and the analysis successively more theoretical. GTM is currently the most widely used and popular qualitative research method across a wide range of disciplines and subject areas. Innumerable doctoral students have successfully completed their degrees using GTM. ( Bryant & Charmaz, 2007 b , p. 1)

GTM is a method for qualitative research. 1 It offers an alternative to hypothesis-based research, stipulating that, at the outset, the researcher(s) should not seek to articulate concepts or hypotheses to be tested, but rather that the initial aim should be to gather data as the basis for developing the research project in its initial stages. This can appear perplexing both to researchers and assessors, since there seems to be little in the way of guidance with regard to the research topic itself. In practice, however, researchers always do have some idea of their topics of interest and should be able to offer some initial characterization of the contexts that they are keen to study. This may be a specific location, a set of practices, or specific issues that have engaged the researcher’s interest.

Glaser and Strauss were keen for researchers to approach their study without having formulated ideas about the nature of the “problem” or the specific research question to be asked. In this way, they wanted researchers to be ready to be surprised by their findings, rather than looking for things based on their preconceived ideas. In some cases, researchers have misunderstood this admonition and have made mysterious and frankly laughable claims along the lines of “ignoring” or somehow disconnecting from their own existing knowledge of potentially relevant ideas, concepts, and other materials. (It is this claim, together with the magical invocation of “theory emerging from the data,” that lies at the heart of accusations of GTM being founded on an epistemological fairytale.) Ian Dey (2007) has provided a pithy corrective to this, which should be remembered by all researchers, whether or not they use GTM: “an open mind is not the same as an empty head.”

Bearing this in mind, a grounded theory study should begin with some characterization of the research context and can then continue with the posing of some open-ended and wide-ranging questions. Glaser and Strauss suggested the following high-level GTM questions:

What is happening here? ( Glaser, 1978 )

What is this data a study of? ( Glaser, 1978 , p. 57, Glaser & Strauss, 1967 )

What theoretical category does this datum indicate? ( Glaser, 1978 ) (“What Is Grounded Theory,” PowerPoint presentation, Kathy Charmaz, 2008   http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/208/1/What_is_Grounded_Theory.ppt )

If researchers are concerned or confused about the term “data,” Glaser has clearly and consistently affirmed that “All is data.” This means that researchers can and should plunge into their research context and start looking for data. This may be in the form of initial, open-ended interviews, but it can also be in the form of observations, texts, documents, and anything else that might be relevant.

One of the developments emanating from the constructivist account of GTM can be seen in the range of basic questions that a researcher should be prepared to pose at the outset of a research project. This is not to say that, prior to this, GTM researchers failed to consider such issues; rather, that the constructivist position necessarily prompts researchers toward such considerations. Thus, Charmaz (2006) offers several further questions that develop GTM in a more specifically constructivist manner than is evident in Glaser’s and Strauss’s work. She stresses that articulations of answers to the “what is happening here?” question lead to consideration of “basic social processes” and/or “basic psychological processes,” which Glaser mentions in Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) . Unlike Glaser, however, who remains silent on such matters, Charmaz stresses that such consideration depends on the assessments and judgments made by the researcher(s) reflecting on the findings, and such reflection may encompass analysis of the data using further questions such as:

From whose viewpoint is a given process fundamental?

How do participants’ actions construct [observed social processes]?

Who exerts control over these processes?

What meanings do different participants attribute to the process? ( Charmaz, 2006 , p. 20)

Taken together, all of this gives some guidance to researchers who are faced with the inevitable and awkward issue of how and where to start the research. But it provides a very different starting point from more traditional methods, particularly those developing from hypotheses. This latter approach has been described as deductive , since the hypotheses are often derived—deduced—from existing theoretical frameworks or models. This allows researchers to frame a specific research question, which then guides later activities such as the initial engagement with the research context, sampling, method, and analysis. Researchers following GTM eschew this strategy in favor of a far more open-ended one that many have described as inductive , since it relies on gathering data from which more generic patterns or conceptualizations can be ascertained.

In an age of formal evaluations and institutional review boards or committees, this can be problematic, since researchers will usually be expected to offer clear and concise research questions or hypotheses at the outset, accompanied by a critical review of the relevant literature, in order to sustain the argument that the proposed research offers some value and validity in terms of novelty or affirmation of existing claims. GTM-based research needs to provide other criteria at these early stages, and this can be problematic. Glaser’s position has always been that GTM researchers should avoid the relevant literature at the outset, but, in practice, this often proves impossible and inadvisable. Review committees expect that researchers can position their proposals against existing work, and this can only be done on the basis of a critical review of the literature. Moreover, GTM researchers themselves often point out that they need to explore existing work in order to have confidence in their own studies and ideas.

In recent years, there has been a burgeoning literature offering guidelines and justifications for many qualitative research methods specifically aimed at assisting reviewers and evaluators, as well as researchers, in assessing proposals oriented around methods such as GTM (see Bryant, 2012 ). This should provide a more supportive basis for consideration of such proposals, particularly GTM, where the initial stages provide such a crucial aspect in guiding the later ones.

Coding, Memoing, Theoretical Sampling, Theoretical Saturation

For many people, GTM is regarded as a method that relies on “coding”; indeed, for some, this is the be-all and end-all of the method. Thus, some research papers claiming use of GTM offer nothing further than reference to interview data, together with some codes that have been developed from that material. The outcome is then presented in the form of a diagrammatic model linking these together in some manner. Partly as a consequence of this, many editors and reviewers have something of a low regard for GTM. Many researchers, however particularly those in the early stages of their careers and undertaking doctoral research, start to use GTM and find themselves overwhelmed by the outcome of early coding exercises on their data. It is not unusual for such researchers to produce several hundred codes from one or two initial interviews and then to double this number for subsequent ones—not so much “saturation” as inundation.

As was pointed out earlier, coding was not unique to Glaser and Strauss’s conception of GTM, although the way in which it is incorporated into the method certainly was, in that codes are developed subsequent to the start of data gathering. For many researchers, GTM relies on interview data, and this forms the source material for coding. But it is worth recalling Glaser’s dictum of “all is data” and understanding this as encompassing many other types of source material, for example, documents, articles, web pages, tweets, and so on.

To illustrate some of the issues around coding and the way in which the method progresses, it is best to use some examples, even if they are somewhat constrained. To start with, Table 7.1 shows an extract from a paper on GTM ( Giske & Artinian, 2007 ); the text on the left-hand side is taken verbatim from an interview, the comments on the right-hand side are the researchers’ initial codes.

These initial codes can be thought of as ways in which the researcher has sought to highlight some key aspects of the “data.” For those writing from a basis in “traditional” GTM, as claimed and exemplified by Glaser’s work, this is seen and described in terms of the initial stages in the process of emergence. But the use of a phrase such as “the theory emerges from the data” is problematic, since it obliterates the active roles of the researcher(s). Different researchers may well look at the same data and produce a range of codes; some may well be common to several or all co-researchers, others may only have been developed by one researcher. The example in Table 7.1 is the work of more than one researcher and so may well have come about in its published form only after discussion and revision among the research team. This is grist to the mill for those working within a constructivist orientation; different people will construct or develop codes as the result of complex interactions between themselves and the “data.” This goes on in a far less formal manner all the time and is readily exemplified by the comments section appended to articles on the web; these often result in such disparate comments from readers that one wonders if they have all read the same article.

In GTM, the coding process is far more rigorous and develops through use of the method, as will be described later. But, to demonstrate the initial stages, readers are invited to look at the brief extract—Table 7.2 —from an article published in the UK newspaper The Guardian in late March 2012 as this essay was first being drafted. The column on the right-hand side has been left blank; in a manner similar to that shown in the earlier extract, try to come up with some initial codes of your own. Details of the full article are given as Doctorow (2012) .

Source : A personal experience of working with classical grounded theory: From beginner to experienced grounded theorist 3

Table 7.3 shows the codes that I have made on the basis of my reading of the “data.” Some of the codes you have produced may be similar to those on the right-hand side, others may well be different. The constructivist orientation clarifies the interactive process that underlies the production—construction—of these codes. Those you have produced will depend not only on the extract itself, but also on a host of other factors bearing on your own experiences, interests, and way of understanding and interpreting the extract itself.

One possible set of codes, differing markedly from those in Table 7.3 , might have come from someone deciding to focus on the extract from a journalistic perspective, one responding to the question “what is happening here?” in the sense of contextualizing the article as something published by a British newspaper generally regarded as taking a liberal, or left-of-center stance on many aspects, particularly those concerning citizens’ privacy and rights. There is no right or wrong set of codes to be derived from this initial process; only codes that might prove to be useful in developing an explanation, a model, a theory of some aspect of social life. Glaser and Strauss exemplified this in their early work, with their first extended GTM publication focusing on “awareness” and their subsequent one focusing on “time.”

There are several ways in which initial codes can be developed, and researchers can and should try several of them when first starting to use GTM. The coder in Table 7.1 broke down the data into smaller units and then summarized each part using terms similar or identical to those used in the original. You may have adopted a similar strategy in developing codes for Table 7.2 . The important point to note is that there is no one, correct way of coding; GTM research is oriented toward the development of a model or theory that is “grounded” in the data in some substantive fashion, so that it has “grab,” “fit,” and the like.

I have deliberately used the plural form—researchers—in order to stress that, although much of the GTM literature implies that research is carried out by a single person, in practice, this not usually the case. Carolyn Wiener, in her chapter on teamwork and GTM, offers some important observations on this issue, illustrating her account with observations from her experience as a member of the team that Strauss set up for a GTM research project in the 1970s ( Wiener, 2007 ). Moreover, even when there is a lone researcher—as in the case of most PhD research—this person should be encouraged to discuss codes and coding with their research advisors and their peers. This is common to all strands of GTM, with Glaser continuing to offer GTM workshops where issues such as coding can be discussed with others.

In these early stages, as well as coding, GTM researchers must record their ideas in the form of memos. Memos are a critical part of GTM, and memoing is an activity that often proves extremely valuable to other forms of research. In the earliest stages, memos may be created in the form of fairly unstructured notes and comments about the developing research, focusing on the researcher’s experiences in using the method, as well as on the early results themselves. Thus, an early memo might be in the form of a researcher, new to GTM, reflecting on the experience of coding. Alternatively, an early memo, related to the extract in Table 7.1 , might add some detail to the context of the two interviews used in the coding—interviews 3 and 9—which then might be used in later stages.

As the research develops, memos become more formal in the sense that they should be written with an eye on a wider readership and perhaps eventual publication and dissemination. Glaser has suggested that researchers should aim to develop a set of memos that can then provide the basis for publications. This may not always be possible, but GTM researchers should certainly bear in mind that memoing is an important component of the method, one that should be undertaken in a serious and consistent fashion throughout the research itself. (Further examples of memos can be found in Charmaz, 2006 , chapter 4.)

All coding in GTM should start with “open coding.” Charmaz defines coding as

the process of defining what the data is about. Unlike quantitative data which applies preconceived categories or codes to the data, a grounded theorist creates qualitative codes by defining what he or she sees in the data. Thus, the codes are emergent—they develop as the researcher studies his or her data. The coding process may take the researcher to unforeseen areas and research questions. Grounded theory proponents follow such leads; they do not pursue previously designed research problems that lead to dead-ends.

Open coding is the first stage of coding and usually involves close scrutiny of data. If the data are in the form of written documentation or verbatim or near-verbatim interview transcripts, then this may be done line-by-line or even word-by-word. The examples given in the Tables 7.1–3 demonstrate this level of analysis. The idea is to capture certain key aspects of the data, reducing the complexity by providing a smaller number of more abstract terms.

Subsequent strategies will depend on what has transpired from these initial efforts and also on the choices made by the researcher or research team. But what all strategies have in common are ways in which they facilitate the move from a large number of codes, often anchored in the actual terms or phrases used in the source data, to a narrower set of high-level codes that encompass the richness of the source materials in some manner. This may involve the researcher choosing one specific aspect of the research context for further development, as exemplified in Glaser and Strauss’s first GTM study that focused on the concept of “awareness.” Only later did they develop a second concept of “time” ( Glaser & Strauss, 1968 ).

If we return to the first example in Table 7.1 , the right-hand side of the table now includes these later codes (Table 7.4 )—classified by these authors as “selective coding.” Note that these codes can be seen to encompass the earlier codes but work at a higher level of abstraction. Again, it is not a case of them being correct or incorrect, but being judged in terms of whether or not they move the process of conceptualization forward in the articulation of a useful, grounded theory.

Glaser has consistently advocated that researchers seek to develop codes based on gerunds, and Charmaz strongly supports this. Gerunds are the verb forms of nouns, so, in English, the gerund form of the noun “interception” is “intercepting.” Using gerunds should focus the attention of the research on the processes and actions that, in part, constitute the social context under investigation. Taking this into account, the more focused codes for the extract from The Guardian might now be revised along the lines shown in Table 7.5 —although several of the original codes were themselves in gerund form.

At this stage, it might be useful to create a memo for “Employer intercepting and monitoring”:

A wide range of employers seek to monitor the use of IT and related technologies by their employees. Increasingly, this monitoring extends to a wide range of communication practices, and the monitoring itself has been taken up by other groups, including school administrators checking up on students’ use of school-issued laptops.

Consider the growth of mobile technologies and the extent to which employers might claim justified monitoring of employees using their work-supplied mobile devices such as smart phones, tablet PCs, etc.

Once a researcher has developed his or her ideas to something akin to this level of conceptualization, there is a basis for “theoretical sampling,” a GTM practice that Glaser and Strauss defined as “the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges” ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 , p. 45).

And Charmaz notes that “when engaging in theoretical sampling, the researcher seeks people, events, or information to illuminate and define the boundaries and relevance of the categories. Because the purpose of theoretical sampling is to sample to develop the theoretical categories, conducting it can take the researcher across substantive areas.”

In effect, this amounts to a more directed and focused search for evidence that might uphold, enhance, or undermine the initial ideas generated from the earlier findings. Researchers using GTM need to make this move clear in reporting the progress of their work, so that there is no misunderstanding about the strategy employed to identify the sample used.

The issue arises of how large a sample is required for the research to provide the basis for any reasonable and justifiable conclusions. GTM deals with this under the heading of “theoretical saturation”: “the point at which gathering more data about a theoretical category reveals no new properties nor yields any further theoretical insights about the emerging grounded theory” ( Charmaz, 2006 ).

This has proved to be an elusive concept in the literature, and many researchers and reviewers, among others, have wondered not only what the term actually means, but how a researcher might know that he or she has reached this position. In straightforward terms, the response to this is that, for instance, in research based on interviews, saturation is reached when responses given in later stages of the interviewing process yield confirmation of earlier findings, but nothing significant or new. In such cases, the researcher can decide that no further interviews are necessary, and the research itself can be moved on to its final stages.

Some commentators have argued that this decision point appears to be somewhat arbitrary and that, all too often in the literature, the researcher simply reports that saturation was reached, with little or no evidence for this. With regard to the former point, the decision to stop further gathering of evidence based on some criterion of sufficiency applies to all forms of research: when does one have enough data to start to draw some conclusions? In quantitative research, this usually takes the form of statements regarding the size and nature of the sample and its relationship to a wider population. In qualitative research, this is less clear cut, but amounts to the same thing. The key is for researchers to clarify the basis on which they made this decision, so that readers and assessors can decide whether this was indeed justified, and subsequent researchers can then ascertain if there might be a basis for developing this research in other areas or with other respondents. In all cases, there is always the possibility of what might be termed the “black swan research event”; that is, a research finding that completely undermines the pattern that seems to have been developing from findings to date. But that is an inescapable aspect of all forms of investigation.

Using the Literature

Researchers are usually expected to have reviewed the literature relevant to their research topic early in the process. In this way, they can justify their proposal in terms of existing research, current issues and concerns, and the like. When Glaser and Strauss introduced the idea of GTM, they were keen to ensure that researchers, particularly early-career doctoral students, were presented with an alternative to the literature-derived form of research that was predominant at the time, in which doctoral students studied the works of the great theorists and developed their research on some aspect of this.

The outcome was that GTM was seen as advocating that researchers should not engage with the literature in the early stages of their work. Glaser, in particular, has constantly advocated that researchers stay away from the relevant literature until much later in their research, although he has also stressed that researchers should not take this as a reason to stop reading; on the contrary, one should read avidly and widely.

There are a number of problems with this position. The main one is that researchers need to have some familiarity with the current status of work that has been carried out in the general area in which they are interested; otherwise, they have no basis on which they can claim novelty or justification for their plans. Indeed, one of the reasons they plan to do their research may well be that they have knowledge and even practical experience of the area and its key issues. Keeping an open mind is certainly important, but either pretending to have an empty head or deliberately making it so by avoiding the literature is not a feasible option, particularly if one has to present one’s proposal to a review board.

The result is that there is no way of avoiding some form of literature review in the early stages of one’s research. But, in the context of GTM, there are a number of issues to take into account. One of these is that the literature itself can be treated as “data,” with the researcher pointing to key issues and concerns and using these as the basis for some initial coding. This may well help in developing a proposal that, although devoid of specific research questions and hypotheses, still provides readers and assessors with an understanding of the general research area, as well as with the basis for some confidence that the research will develop and lead to appropriate outcomes.

In subsequent stages of the research, it may well prove to be the case that the findings lead away from the initial ideas, often quite markedly. Even if they do not, once the researcher has developed the basis for a new model or theory, there is a need to go back to the literature in a far more focused manner, in order to hold up one’s concepts against those most closely related to the eventual findings. So, the response to anyone who criticizes GTM for ignoring the literature is to point out that, on the contrary, the method requires at least two stages of engagement: one at the start and a potentially more rigorous one near the end of the process.

Results, Theories, and Publications

This chapter is designed to give you a brief overview of GTM, rather than a detailed account. The stages from initial coding through to more focused coding can take a great deal of time, effort, and ingenuity, but that is common to all forms of research. The extent to which research can be supported by methodological recommendations is a controversial one. Glaser and Strauss parted company on precisely this point in the 1990s, with Glaser accusing Strauss of undermining their concept of GTM with what Glaser saw as a far too prescriptive account of coding and generation of theories. (Various accounts of this can be found in Glaser, 1992 ; Bryant & Charmaz, 2007 b , 2007 c )

One of the key issues for GTM, however, must be the outcome and its dissemination. Whatever the differences might be between the various approaches to GTM—Glaser and Strauss’s, Strauss and Corbin’s, Glaser’s, Charmaz and Bryant’s—they all share the aim of providing researchers with a series of pointers to guide them from early ideas and insights toward substantive theories or models that have “grab” and “fit” and that “work” in some manner. The way in which these criteria might be assessed will depend on others having access to the account of the research itself, either in the form of published papers or perhaps more directly as a presentation by the researcher to the other participants ( Turner, 1983 ).

Some of these issues can be illustrated using the examples presented earlier. The full table of codes from Giske et al. (2007) is shown in Table 7.6 , with all three stages of coding. There are now three “final concepts,” all in gerund form. If readers refer to the full paper, they will find a very clear and succinct account of the way in which the researchers moved from this to a grounded theory of “preparative waiting.”

Giske et al. (2007) present their results not only in diagrammatic form, but also with textual explanation. This combination is a practice to be strongly encouraged because diagrams are often useful in summarizing lengthy expositions and also in guiding readers in the development of research accounts; however, they rarely, if ever, serve as satisfactory explanations on their own. A picture may well be worth a thousand words, but researchers need to ensure that the thousand words conjured for the reader bear some resemblance to those intended by the writer.

Theoretical Sensitivity

This is in many ways the holy grail of GTM and, indeed, of research in general. Kelle summarizes it as follows: “In developing categories the sociologist should employ theoretical sensitivity , which means the ability to ‘see relevant data’ and to reflect upon empirical data material with the help of theoretical terms.” Glaser’s book of this title (1978) is a “must read” for those interested in GTM, and it should also be on the reading lists for all courses on research methods and research design.

The concept is very much a case of what might be termed “IKIWISI” rather than “WYSIWYG”; that is, I’ll Know It When I See It , rather than What You See Is What You Get . This is not particularly helpful as a response to novice researchers who ask for more information about the term and perhaps even expect some clear and concise guidelines for ensuring this aspect. The term “grab” is relevant here, since it can also be applied to the way in which one’s research findings “grab” the imagination of one’s peers and colleagues in the relevant research community. Moreover, it brings into consideration the ways in which researchers actively participate in shaping or constructing their studies and eventual findings; that is what Kelle (2007) meant by a researcher’s ability to “see relevant data.”

Perhaps it is best to think of theoretical sensitivity as a research horizon; something that is always in front of us, but which inevitably recedes as we approach it. In any case, it will usually be presumptive of a researcher to claim that he or she has this sensitivity; far better to present one’s findings and assess the ways in which one’s colleagues respond, using this as a guide to the extent to which theoretical sensitivity has been demonstrated.

Alternative Approaches

The various exchanges between Glaser and Strauss in the light of their individual accounts of GTM, and the more recent ones focused on “objectivist” and “constructivist” approaches, might lead researchers to believe that there is some fairly strict gatekeeping going on with GTM. To some extent, this is correct, since there are many instances in which use of the method has been claimed in research proposals and publications but amounts to no more than a cursory incorporation of some aspect of GTM—usually the coding of data after some initial phase of collection.

However, there are many cases in which researchers have used GTM in unorthodox ways, but with good reason and producing results with “grab” and “fit.” 2 For instance, one of my PhD students had set out to administer a fairly structured questionnaire among a group of potential respondents but found that their background stories were far more interesting and did not fit into her initial research strategy. Rather than “forcing” these responses into her initial framework or simply ignoring the rich information that she had unearthed, she changed tack and started to analyze her data using GTM techniques. Since she had already gathered her data, I advised her to code one or two of her interviews and then see what transpired. Eventually, she managed to develop a set of codes and applied this to her other interviews and observations, resulting in a model that certainly had grab and fit.

Future Directions: What Is a (Grounded) Theory Anyway?

I have deliberately used terms such a “model, “framework,” “theory” almost interchangeably in the earlier sections. Some writers make specific distinctions between these terms, but I have chosen not to do so. One of the issues with regard to use of GTM is the expectation that the outcome of any such research should result in a theory—but what exactly is a theory, whether of the grounded variety or any other type?

There is currently a good deal of discussion about the status of the term “theory.” Those arguing in favor of some form of “creationism” or “intelligent design” often make statements to the effect that “evolution is only a theory ,” that it is not fully proven and therefore alternative claims to knowledge, however tenuous or problematic, must be granted equal status. This is to confuse the meanings of the term. In cases such as the theory of gravity, or relativity, or evolution, the term refers to a body of knowledge and concepts that have stood both the test of time and an extended time of testing and various forms of rigorous investigation. In more colloquial use, people talk about their own particular “theories” of anything from the origin of the universe, the economic crash of the last decade, or how to pick winners in horse races—in this sense, a theory is no more than a guess or a hunch.

In an earlier paper ( Bryant, 2009 ), I noted that, for pragmatists such as John Dewey and William James (particularly Dewey), a theory was something to be judged in terms of its usefulness rather than its truthfulness. Consequently, a theory should be regarded as a tool, and a tool is only useful for certain tasks. This, in fact, characterizes what Glaser and Strauss mean by the term “substantive theory” as opposed to “formal theory.”

By substantive theory we mean theory developed for a substantive or empirical area of sociological inquiry, such as patient care, geriatric life styles etc.... By formal theory we mean theory developed for a formal or conceptual area of sociological area such as status passage, stigma, deviant behavior, etc. ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 )

So, terms such as “grab,” “fit,” and “work” can then be seen as ways in which research outcomes can be judged, whether these results are regarded as theories, models, frameworks, or something else. In all cases, the outcome can be evaluated in terms of whether it has some use within the context from which it was derived. These criteria should not be restricted to GTM-oriented research, but if this form of research is to be assessed in terms of its “theoretical” outputs, then it is important that the nature of such results is understood.

GTM has developed into a mature family of methods and now provides researchers with a host of possible strategies, techniques, and guidelines. It is important that the intricacies and rich potential of GTM are understood, both by researchers and by those who judge and evaluate research proposals, funding applications, and articles submitted for publication. Use of the method continues to grow and so, too, does the supporting literature on the method itself. The extent to which researchers now have to articulate their methodological strategies is to be welcomed, but not if it starts to obscure the actual research itself. It is important that those involved in research, particularly those in positions of authority whose decisions can encourage or deter research projects, understand the intricacies of the plethora of research methods; and also that researchers themselves clarify and justify their research approaches so that their various audiences can assess the ways in which their efforts have achieved fruition.

Locating GTM within the pragmatist tradition, as I have argued elsewhere ( Bryant, 2009 ), implies an understanding of the process of research as a continuing dialogue. All outcomes must be seen as, at best, provisional, affording the basis for further research and investigation. In the light of this, I conclude by offering some issues for readers to ponder and also a list of sources, to some of which I have added a brief indication or comment.

To what extent is a researcher’s epistemological position important in guiding their research? Has it been an issue in your own research or in the way in which you have framed research proposals with which you have been involved?

There is now a wide variety of software tools available, either specifically aimed at GTM or supporting qualitative research in more general ways. To what extent do such tools impact on the research process, either positively or negatively?

Try to read several articles in which the researchers indicate that they have used GTM. How do these differ from each other? What do they have in common?

GTM-based research does not start out with specific hypotheses; indeed, hypotheses can be the result of this form of research. How should such hypotheses be taken up and used in further research? Can you find any examples in the literature in your field of expertise?

Suggestions for Further Reading

Although the three books published by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s are rightly regarded as the founding texts for GTM, the best introduction to the method itself—together with clearly worked examples of coding, memo-writing, and other key features—is to be found in Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory . Glaser’s Theoretical Sensitivity should be read thoroughly, as should the Appendix to Glaser and Strauss’s Awareness . The Handbook of Grounded Theory provides a valuable overview of many aspects of GTM in recent years, with contributions from Glaser, as well as from many of those who were part of the UCSF doctoral program in the 1960s. There are also chapters from German-speaking contributors who were influenced directly or indirectly by Strauss as he lectured on the method in Germany.

If you contemplate using GTM in your own research, you should use keywords or other searches to review recent journals in your area of study to find examples of the ways in which others have used the method. This seems to go against Glaser’s line that you should not look at the relevant literature until you reach the later stages of your research. But this seems far less feasible with the burgeoning of research and the demand by reviewers and evaluators that a case be made for a research proposal to demonstrate awareness of existing work, together with critical insights regarding prior work and the methods employed. It is worth reiterating Dey’s point about “an open mind not being the same as an empty head”—something that should apply to all forms of research.

This section offers only a brief account of the method—a more detailed exposition will appear in my forthcoming book on GTM ( Bryant, 2014 ).

Several examples of this will be described in my forthcoming book.

Tove Giske, Bergen Deaconess University College Bergen, Norway; Barbara Artinian, School of Nursing Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California © 2007 Giske et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Becker, H. S. ( 1963 ). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Becker, H. S. , Geer, B. , Hughes, E. C. & Strauss, A. ( 1961 ). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berger, P. L. , & Luckmann, T. ( 1966 ). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . Anchor Books.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . New York: Prentice-Hall.

Bryant, A. ( 2009 ). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss.   Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative social research , 10(3). Retrieved August 15, 2012, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1358/2850

Bryant, A. ( 2012 ). The grounded theory method. In A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.), Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences . London: Taylor & Francis.

Bryant, A. ( 2014 ). Grounded theory . Oxford University Press.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. , eds. ( 2007 a /2010). The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. , eds. ( 2007 b ). Editors’ introduction to grounded theory research: Methods and practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . London: Sage.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. , eds. ( 2007 c ). Grounded theory in historical perspective. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

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). London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. ( 2006 ). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. ( 2007 ). Constructionism and grounded theory. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 319–412). New York: Guilford.

Charmaz, K. ( 2008 ). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), The handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–170). New York: Guilford.

Charmaz, K. , & Henwood, K. ( 2007 ). Grounded theory. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology . London: Sage.

Corbin, J. , & Strauss, A. ( 2008 ). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Covan, E. ( 2007 ). The discovery of grounded theory in practice: The legacy of multiple mentors. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Dey, I. ( 2007 ). Grounding categories. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Dewey, J. ( 1999 ). The essential Dewey (two volumes edited by L. Hickman & T. Alexander ). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Doctorow, C. (2012). Protecting your Facebook privacy at work isn’t just about passwords. The Guardian , March 27, 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/27/facebook-privacy-passwords

Giske, T. , & Artinian, B. ( 2007 ). A personal experience of working with classical grounded theory: From beginner to experienced grounded theorist.   International Journal of Qualitative Metelhods , 6 (4).

Glaser, B. ( 1978 ). Theoretical sensitivity . Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. ( 1992 ). Basics of grounded theory: Emergence vs. forcing . Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. , ed. ( 1993 ). Examples of grounded theory: A reader . Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. ( 1965 ). Awareness of dying . New York: Aldine.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. ( 1967 ). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . New York: Aldine.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. ( 1968 ). Time for dying . New York: Aldine.

Goffman, E. ( 1959 ). The Presentation of self in everyday life . New York: Anchor.

Goldacre, B. ( 2009 ). Bad science . London: Harper.

Holton, J. A. ( 2011 ). The autonomous creativity of Barney G. Glaser: Early influences in the emergence of classic grounded theory methodology. In V. B. Martin & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method and work of Barney Glaser . Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press.

James, W. (1904). What is pragmatism. From series of eight lectures dedicated to the memory of John Stuart Mill, A new name for some old ways of thinking , in December 1904, from William James, Writings 1902–1920 , The Library of America. Accessed August 15, 2012, from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm

Kelle, U. ( 2007 ). The development of categories. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Keynes, J. M. ( 1964 ). The general theory of employment, interest and money , New York: Harcourt Brace.

Kuhn. T. ( 1962 ). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. , Jahoda, M. , & Zeisel, H. (1933/ 1971 ). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal: Ein Soziographischer Versuch tiber die Wirkungen langdauernder Arbeitslosigkeit . [Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed community]. Leipzig: Hirzel/Aldine, 1971.

Lazarsfeld, P. ( 1972 ). Qualitative analysis: Historical and critical essays . New York: Allyn & Bacon. [Contains essays first published between 1935 and 1972.]

Lazarsfeld, P. , & Rosenberg, M. ( 1955 ). The language of social research: A reader in the methodology of social research . New York: Free Press.

Mead, G. H. ( 1934 ). Mind, self and society . Chicago: University of Chicago.

Mead, G. H. ( 1938 ). The philosophy of the act . Chicago: University of Chicago.

Parsons, T. ( 1949 ). The structure of social action . New York: Free Press.

Parsons, T. ( 1951 ). The social system . New York: Free Press.

Quint, J. ( 1967 ). The nurse and the dying patient . New York: Macmillan.

Quint Benoliel, J. ( 1982 ). Death education for the health professional . London: Taylor & Francis.

Quint Benoliel, J. ( 1996 ). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge.   Qualitative Health Research , 6 (3), 406–428.

Schwartz, A. (2009). UCSF school of nursing’s doctoral program in sociology celebrates 40 years. Accessed July 26, 2012, from http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/12/3144/ucsf-school-nursings-doctoral-program-sociology-celebrates-40-years

Star, L. ( 2007 ). Living grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Stern, P. ( 2007 ). On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Strauss, A. ( 1987 ). Qualitative analysis for social scientists . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A. ( 1978 ). Negotiations . New York: Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, A. ( 1993 ). Continual permutations of action . New York: Aldine.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. ( 1990 ). Basics of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. ( 1998 ). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Strauss, A. , Glaser, B. , & Quint, J. ( 1964 ). The nonaccountability of terminal care.   Hospitals , January 16(38), 73–87.

Turner, B. ( 1983 ). The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of organizational behaviour.   Journal of Management Studies , 20 (3), 333–348.

Wacquant L. , ( 2002 ). Scrutinizing the street.   American Journal of Sociology , 107 , 1468–1532.

Wiener, C. ( 2007 ). Making teams work in conducting grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Basics of Research Process
• Methodology

Grounded Theory: Guide on Research, Methods and Examples

• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Essay Guides
• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

Grounded theory is a research methodology that involves developing a theory or model based on empirical data. As its name suggests, its primary goal is to devise a theory that is grounded in the data and reflects the perspectives the people being studied. In grounded theory, data is collected through a process of constant analysis. Researchers compare new insights to existing data and revise their understanding until a clear theory emerges.

Want to develop a novice theory, but there is no available literature on the topic? Grounded theory will be your best bet if there are no existing hypotheses. In this guide, we will shed more light on this type of method and walk you through each step of the process. They say, grounded theory is a complex method. However after reading our blog post, you will realize that it’s not rocket science. But first things first, let’s start with a definition!

What Is Grounded Theory: Definition

Grounded theory (GT) is a popular research methodology used to develop a theory based on analysis of collected data. This research method is rather popular and can be applied in various studies. It is primarily used to understand behavioral patterns within a population.  Grounded theory was founded by Glaser and Strauss. They were the first researchers who offered a comparative method for qualitative data analysis. This ‘invention’ was a real breakthrough in the research field since they proved that a theory can be produced inductively. The researchers challenged the traditional viewpoint that only quantitative data can be integrated to generate a hypothesis.

Types of Grounded Theory in Research

There are 3 main types of grounded theory in research:

• Traditional This genre is otherwise known as classical GT. The main idea behind this approach is to develop a new theory after studying data. Coding (categorizing and numbering obtained data) is strictly inductive.
• Evolved Modified GT is more systematic than a classical approach. It focuses more on how to structure data obtained during research. The use of extra literature isn’t common.
• Constructivist Constructivist grounded theory relies more on researchers’ interpretation of the gathered data. This research method is aimed at understanding social patterns when no other study can’t explain it.

Grounded Theory Approach

Grounded theory approach is employed to refine the knowledge base. It helps to get new insights or develop hypotheses through systematic analysis. This approach is used when there is not much information on some phenomenon. Here are several distinct characteristics of a grounded theory approach: 

• Ideas appear from the collected data, not theoretical framework .
• Inductive methods are preferred over deductive ones.
• Codes sum up ideas and form categories.
• Theory is generated on the basis of categories.

As you can see, this method is the exact opposite of traditional studies that use theoretical frameworks. Here, you should first collect the data and then form a hypothesis, not the other way around. 

Grounded Theory Methodology

The grounded theory method begins with observation. As was mentioned earlier, you have to collect data prior to analyzing it. There are several ways of gathering the key information:

• Focus groups
• Participant observation.

Once your data is shovel-ready, you will be all set to code it. Data analysis methods applied in GT include: 

• Coding : determining the key properties to group elements by.
• Categorization : grouping similar ideas to form a hypothesis.
• Theoretical sampling : refining and adjusting categories.
• Memoing : writing down field notes that back up analysis.
• Integration : refined categories lay the basis for theoretical framework.

Important notice : you should collect and analyze data simultaneously. Grounded theory methods are flexible, so you can change a direction at any time. 

Grounded Theory Study: How It Works

Now that you know the main methods, let’s discuss how to build a grounded theory. There is an exact order you should follow. You basically should go all the way from sampling to hypothesis generation. Still, some procedures should take place during the whole course of study. In this regard, GT is more complicated than a simple linear process. So make sure you stick to our guidelines described below to run a successful study.

Purposive Sampling

Before gathering and analyzing data for a grounded theory study, you should conduct a purposive sampling. This type of sampling involves being selective. This way, you will be able to get answers from the right population. Use your own judgment when selecting participants for research. Here, you should pick those individuals that better fit your purpose.  Your results shouldn’t necessarily be statistically representative. However, you should carefully choose members to ensure that your qualitative data can be generalized.

Data Generation & Comparative Analysis in Grounded Theory

As noted above, both data collection and analysis should happen concurrently in grounded theory research. GT was initially designed to promote the idea that qualitative data can also be useful in generating hypotheses. That being said, you can gather both quantitative and qualitative research data. At the same time, you should also make constant comparative analysis. This process involves comparing the codes and categories (more on this below).

Grounded Theory Coding

Coding is the main data analysis technique used in grounded theory study. Coding in GT is an analytical process of assigning labels and categories. This analysis method allows us to structure qualitative data. There are 3 types of coding that make separate stages in GT:

• Initial coding (open coding) At this stage, researchers carefully go through the transcripts trying to recognize the key components. Later, these elements will form subcategories.
• Intermediate coding (axial coding) The main task of this stage is to identify a relationship between the initial codes. You will have to organize the codes and group them into categories.
• Advanced coding (selective coding) Selective coding is the last step in GT where you should find a connection between all categories. You will form a core category for developing a theory.

Once all categories are saturated and you don’t discover any additional details, you will be ready to build a grounded theory. This final point is called theoretical sensitivity. In other words, it’s an insight you get after analyzing all available data.

Theoretical Sampling

Sometimes, during grounded theory development you may need to generate more data. That’s when theoretical sampling comes into play. Theoretical sampling is a process that allows to add more categories or refine the existing ones. You may need it during any stage of data analysis. That’s when you will do data collection again.  For example, you may study participants’ reaction to a new treatment method. Then, you conduct an interview and do initial coding. Then, you notice that participants' overall well-being also improves. At this stage, you want to do theoretical sampling and ask more questions to see if this treatment has other positive effects.

Memoing in Grounded Theory Research

Memoing is an important part of any grounded theory research design . You will be writing the field notes during the entire process. Whether you decide to extract more details or organize your data, you should document each step. Memos, or notes, are written reflective pieces that allow you to track your ideas.

Grounded Theory Example

Let’s have a closer look at a grounded theory research example so you can see a complete picture.

Example Researchers want to observe teenagers’ recovery from anxiety attacks using a special therapy. They decided to do GT, because no qualitative data was considered before. They interviewed each participant and carefully read all the transcripts. Then, they identified similar components that later formed categories. Researchers found a core category that helped to develop a GT.

Grounded Theory Research Pros and Cons

As an alternative to a classical method, GT has many benefits. However, you should also be aware of its limitations. This will ensure that you choose the best strategy.

                               Grounded theory advantages and disadvantages

Grounded Theory: Final Thoughts

By using grounded theory research, you can generate a hypothesis emerging from data. This approach requires that you strictly follow the process and make a comparative analysis. Make sure you go through each stage of coding and you will be awarded with a unique idea on social phenomena.

Leave it to StudyCrumb! Our professional paper writer service is ready to assist you at any stage of your study.

FAQ About Grounded Theory Qualitative Research

1. what topics are better suited for phenomenological and grounded theory.

Grounded theory is better suited to understand social phenomena that haven’t been studied before. This approach allows us to examine understudied social processes and develop a hypothesis on the topic. Phenomenological research deals with all topics related to human experiences from a participant’s perspective.

2. What is the difference between grounded theory and thematic analysis?

Grounded theory is an approach that helps to generate a hypothesis grounded in data though comparative analysis. Thematic analysis is a data analysis method that allows to determine similar patterns during careful reading of transcripts. This method is widely used in GT.

3. Does grounded theory have research questions?

Unlike other types of studies, grounded theory doesn’t have research questions that define the scope of the research process. Here, it is research that produces a question.

4. What is a grounded theory research design?

Grounded theory research design is a method of hypothesis generation with the help of concurrent data collection and analysis. This approach was offered to suggest that qualitative data can also be used to build theoretical knowledge. It’s widely used when there are no existing ideas on the topic.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices

Alexandra sbaraini.

1 Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

2 Population Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Stacy M Carter

R wendell evans, anthony blinkhorn, associated data.

Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.

We documented a worked example of using grounded theory methodology in practice.

We describe our sampling, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. We explain how these steps were consistent with grounded theory methodology, and show how they related to one another. Grounded theory methodology assisted us to develop a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and to analyse variation in this process in different dental practices.

Conclusions

By employing grounded theory methodology rigorously, medical researchers can better design and justify their methods, and produce high-quality findings that will be more useful to patients, professionals and the research community.

Qualitative research is increasingly popular in health and medicine. In recent decades, qualitative researchers in health and medicine have founded specialist journals, such as Qualitative Health Research , established 1991, and specialist conferences such as the Qualitative Health Research conference of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology, established 1994, and the Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research, established 2011 [ 1 - 3 ]. Journals such as the British Medical Journal have published series about qualitative methodology (1995 and 2008) [ 4 , 5 ]. Bodies overseeing human research ethics, such as the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research [ 6 , 7 ], have included chapters or sections on the ethics of qualitative research. The increasing popularity of qualitative methodologies for medical research has led to an increasing awareness of formal qualitative methodologies. This is particularly so for grounded theory, one of the most-cited qualitative methodologies in medical research [[ 8 ], p47].

Grounded theory has a chequered history [ 9 ]. Many authors label their work 'grounded theory' but do not follow the basics of the methodology [ 10 , 11 ]. This may be in part because there are few practical examples of grounded theory in use in the literature. To address this problem, we will provide a brief outline of the history and diversity of grounded theory methodology, and a worked example of the methodology in practice. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.

The history, diversity and basic components of 'grounded theory' methodology and method

Founded on the seminal 1967 book 'The Discovery of Grounded Theory' [ 12 ], the grounded theory tradition is now diverse and somewhat fractured, existing in four main types, with a fifth emerging. Types one and two are the work of the original authors: Barney Glaser's 'Classic Grounded Theory' [ 13 ] and Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin's 'Basics of Qualitative Research' [ 14 ]. Types three and four are Kathy Charmaz's 'Constructivist Grounded Theory' [ 15 ] and Adele Clarke's postmodern Situational Analysis [ 16 ]: Charmaz and Clarke were both students of Anselm Strauss. The fifth, emerging variant is 'Dimensional Analysis' [ 17 ] which is being developed from the work of Leonard Schaztman, who was a colleague of Strauss and Glaser in the 1960s and 1970s.

There has been some discussion in the literature about what characteristics a grounded theory study must have to be legitimately referred to as 'grounded theory' [ 18 ]. The fundamental components of a grounded theory study are set out in Table ​ Table1. 1 . These components may appear in different combinations in other qualitative studies; a grounded theory study should have all of these. As noted, there are few examples of 'how to do' grounded theory in the literature [ 18 , 19 ]. Those that do exist have focused on Strauss and Corbin's methods [ 20 - 25 ]. An exception is Charmaz's own description of her study of chronic illness [ 26 ]; we applied this same variant in our study. In the remainder of this paper, we will show how each of the characteristics of grounded theory methodology worked in our study of dental practices.

Fundamental components of a grounded theory study

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) [ 27 ]. We know that preventive techniques can arrest early tooth decay and thus reduce the need for fillings [ 28 - 32 ]. Unfortunately, most dentists worldwide who encounter early tooth decay continue to drill it out and fill the tooth [ 33 - 37 ]. The MPP tested whether dentists could increase their use of preventive techniques. In the intervention arm, dentists were provided with a set of evidence-based preventive protocols to apply [ 38 ]; control practices provided usual care. The MPP protocols used in the RCT guided dentists to systematically apply preventive techniques to prevent new tooth decay and to arrest early stages of tooth decay in their patients, therefore reducing the need for drilling and filling. The protocols focused on (1) primary prevention of new tooth decay (tooth brushing with high concentration fluoride toothpaste and dietary advice) and (2) intensive secondary prevention through professional treatment to arrest tooth decay progress (application of fluoride varnish, supervised monitoring of dental plaque control and clinical outcomes)[ 38 ].

As the RCT unfolded, it was discovered that practices in the intervention arm were not implementing the preventive protocols uniformly. Why had the outcomes of these systematically implemented protocols been so different? This question was the starting point for our grounded theory study. We aimed to understand how the protocols had been implemented, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process. We hoped that such understanding would help us to see how the norms of Australian private dental practice as regards to tooth decay could be moved away from drilling and filling and towards evidence-based preventive care.

Designing this grounded theory study

Figure ​ Figure1 1 illustrates the steps taken during the project that will be described below from points A to F.

Study design . file containing a figure illustrating the study design.

A. An open beginning and research questions

Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact . This shows the influence of symbolic interactionism, a social psychological approach focused on the meaning of human actions [ 39 ]. Grounded theory studies begin with open questions, and researchers presume that they may know little about the meanings that drive the actions of their participants. Accordingly, we sought to learn from participants how the MPP process worked and how they made sense of it. We wanted to answer a practical social problem: how do dentists persist in drilling and filling early stages of tooth decay, when they could be applying preventive care?

We asked research questions that were open, and focused on social processes. Our initial research questions were:

• What was the process of implementing (or not-implementing) the protocols (from the perspective of dentists, practice staff, and patients)?

• How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

In our experience, medical researchers are often concerned about the ethics oversight process for such a flexible, unpredictable study design. We managed this process as follows. Initial ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Sydney. In our application, we explained grounded theory procedures, in particular the fact that they evolve. In our initial application we provided a long list of possible recruitment strategies and interview questions, as suggested by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We indicated that we would make future applications to modify our protocols. We did this as the study progressed - detailed below. Each time we reminded the committee that our study design was intended to evolve with ongoing modifications. Each modification was approved without difficulty. As in any ethical study, we ensured that participation was voluntary, that participants could withdraw at any time, and that confidentiality was protected. All responses were anonymised before analysis, and we took particular care not to reveal potentially identifying details of places, practices or clinicians.

C. Initial, Purposive Sampling (before theoretical sampling was possible)

Grounded theory studies are characterised by theoretical sampling, but this requires some data to be collected and analysed. Sampling must thus begin purposively, as in any qualitative study. Participants in the previous MPP study provided our population [ 27 ]. The MPP included 22 private dental practices in NSW, randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. With permission of the ethics committee; we sent letters to the participants in the MPP, inviting them to participate in a further qualitative study. From those who agreed, we used the quantitative data from the MPP to select an initial sample.

Then, we selected the practice in which the most dramatic results had been achieved in the MPP study (Dental Practice 1). This was a purposive sampling strategy, to give us the best possible access to the process of successfully implementing the protocols. We interviewed all consenting staff who had been involved in the MPP (one dentist, five dental assistants). We then recruited 12 patients who had been enrolled in the MPP, based on their clinically measured risk of developing tooth decay: we selected some patients whose risk status had gotten better, some whose risk had worsened and some whose risk had stayed the same. This purposive sample was designed to provide maximum variation in patients' adoption of preventive dental care.

Initial Interviews

One hour in-depth interviews were conducted. The researcher/interviewer (AS) travelled to a rural town in NSW where interviews took place. The initial 18 participants (one dentist, five dental assistants and 12 patients) from Dental Practice 1 were interviewed in places convenient to them such as the dental practice, community centres or the participant's home.

Two initial interview schedules were designed for each group of participants: 1) dentists and dental practice staff and 2) dental patients. Interviews were semi-structured and based loosely on the research questions. The initial questions for dentists and practice staff are in Additional file 1 . Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The research location was remote from the researcher's office, thus data collection was divided into two episodes to allow for intermittent data analysis. Dentist and practice staff interviews were done in one week. The researcher wrote memos throughout this week. The researcher then took a month for data analysis in which coding and memo-writing occurred. Then during a return visit, patient interviews were completed, again with memo-writing during the data-collection period.

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

Coding is essential to the development of a grounded theory [ 15 ]. According to Charmaz [[ 15 ], p46], 'coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data. Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means'. Coding occurs in stages. In initial coding, the researcher generates as many ideas as possible inductively from early data. In focused coding, the researcher pursues a selected set of central codes throughout the entire dataset and the study. This requires decisions about which initial codes are most prevalent or important, and which contribute most to the analysis. In theoretical coding, the researcher refines the final categories in their theory and relates them to one another. Charmaz's method, like Glaser's method [ 13 ], captures actions or processes by using gerunds as codes (verbs ending in 'ing'); Charmaz also emphasises coding quickly, and keeping the codes as similar to the data as possible.

We developed our coding systems individually and through team meetings and discussions.

We have provided a worked example of coding in Table ​ Table2. 2 . Gerunds emphasise actions and processes. Initial coding identifies many different processes. After the first few interviews, we had a large amount of data and many initial codes. This included a group of codes that captured how dentists sought out evidence when they were exposed to a complex clinical case, a new product or technique. Because this process seemed central to their practice, and because it was talked about often, we decided that seeking out evidence should become a focused code. By comparing codes against codes and data against data, we distinguished the category of "seeking out evidence" from other focused codes, such as "gathering and comparing peers' evidence to reach a conclusion", and we understood the relationships between them. Using this constant comparative method (see Table ​ Table1), 1 ), we produced a theoretical code: "making sense of evidence and constructing knowledge". This code captured the social process that dentists went through when faced with new information or a practice challenge. This theoretical code will be the focus of a future paper.

Coding process

Memo-writing

Throughout the study, we wrote extensive case-based memos and conceptual memos. After each interview, the interviewer/researcher (AS) wrote a case-based memo reflecting on what she learned from that interview. They contained the interviewer's impressions about the participants' experiences, and the interviewer's reactions; they were also used to systematically question some of our pre-existing ideas in relation to what had been said in the interview. Table ​ Table3 3 illustrates one of those memos. After a few interviews, the interviewer/researcher also began making and recording comparisons among these memos.

Case-based memo

We also wrote conceptual memos about the initial codes and focused codes being developed, as described by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We used these memos to record our thinking about the meaning of codes and to record our thinking about how and when processes occurred, how they changed, and what their consequences were. In these memos, we made comparisons between data, cases and codes in order to find similarities and differences, and raised questions to be answered in continuing interviews. Table ​ Table4 4 illustrates a conceptual memo.

Conceptual memo

At the end of our data collection and analysis from Dental Practice 1, we had developed a tentative model of the process of implementing the protocols, from the perspective of dentists, dental practice staff and patients. This was expressed in both diagrams and memos, was built around a core set of focused codes, and illustrated relationships between them.

E. Theoretical sampling, ongoing data analysis and alteration of interview route

We have already described our initial purposive sampling. After our initial data collection and analysis, we used theoretical sampling (see Table ​ Table1) 1 ) to determine who to sample next and what questions to ask during interviews. We submitted Ethics Modification applications for changes in our question routes, and had no difficulty with approval. We will describe how the interview questions for dentists and dental practice staff evolved, and how we selected new participants to allow development of our substantive theory. The patients' interview schedule and theoretical sampling followed similar procedures.

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

We now had a detailed provisional model of the successful process implemented in Dental Practice 1. Important core focused codes were identified, including practical/financial, historical and philosophical dimensions of the process. However, we did not yet understand how the process might vary or go wrong, as implementation in the first practice we studied had been described as seamless and beneficial for everyone. Because our aim was to understand the process of implementing the protocols, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process, we needed to understand how implementation might fail. For this reason, we theoretically sampled participants from Dental Practice 2, where uptake of the MPP protocols had been very limited according to data from the RCT trial.

We also changed our interview questions based on the analysis we had already done (see Additional file 2 ). In our analysis of data from Dental Practice 1, we had learned that "effectiveness" of treatments and "evidence" both had a range of meanings. We also learned that new technologies - in particular digital x-rays and intra-oral cameras - had been unexpectedly important to the process of implementing the protocols. For this reason, we added new questions for the interviews in Dental Practice 2 to directly investigate "effectiveness", "evidence" and how dentists took up new technologies in their practice.

Then, in Dental Practice 2 we learned more about the barriers dentists and practice staff encountered during the process of implementing the MPP protocols. We confirmed and enriched our understanding of dentists' processes for adopting technology and producing knowledge, dealing with complex cases and we further clarified the concept of evidence. However there was a new, important, unexpected finding in Dental Practice 2. Dentists talked about "unreliable" patients - that is, patients who were too unreliable to have preventive dental care offered to them. This seemed to be a potentially important explanation for non-implementation of the protocols. We modified our interview schedule again to include questions about this concept (see Additional file 3 ) leading to another round of ethics approvals. We also returned to Practice 1 to ask participants about the idea of an "unreliable" patient.

Dentists' construction of the "unreliable" patient during interviews also prompted us to theoretically sample for "unreliable" and "reliable" patients in the following round of patients' interviews. The patient question route was also modified by the analysis of the dentists' and practice staff data. We wanted to compare dentists' perspectives with the perspectives of the patients themselves. Dentists were asked to select "reliable" and "unreliable" patients to be interviewed. Patients were asked questions about what kind of services dentists should provide and what patients valued when coming to the dentist. We found that these patients (10 reliable and 7 unreliable) talked in very similar ways about dental care. This finding suggested to us that some deeply-held assumptions within the dental profession may not be shared by dental patients.

At this point, we decided to theoretically sample dental practices from the non-intervention arm of the MPP study. This is an example of the 'openness' of a grounded theory study potentially subtly shifting the focus of the study. Our analysis had shifted our focus: rather than simply studying the process of implementing the evidence-based preventive protocols, we were studying the process of doing prevention in private dental practice. All participants seemed to be revealing deeply held perspectives shared in the dental profession, whether or not they were providing dental care as outlined in the MPP protocols. So, by sampling dentists from both intervention and control group from the previous MPP study, we aimed to confirm or disconfirm the broader reach of our emerging theory and to complete inductive development of key concepts. Theoretical sampling added 12 face to face interviews and 10 telephone interviews to the data. A total of 40 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 were recruited. Telephone interviews were of comparable length, content and quality to face to face interviews, as reported elsewhere in the literature [ 40 ].

F. Mapping concepts, theoretical memo writing and further refining of concepts

After theoretical sampling, we could begin coding theoretically. We fleshed out each major focused code, examining the situations in which they appeared, when they changed and the relationship among them. At time of writing, we have reached theoretical saturation (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). We have been able to determine this in several ways. As we have become increasingly certain about our central focused codes, we have re-examined the data to find all available insights regarding those codes. We have drawn diagrams and written memos. We have looked rigorously for events or accounts not explained by the emerging theory so as to develop it further to explain all of the data. Our theory, which is expressed as a set of concepts that are related to one another in a cohesive way, now accounts adequately for all the data we have collected. We have presented the developing theory to specialist dental audiences and to the participants, and have found that it was accepted by and resonated with these audiences.

We have used these procedures to construct a detailed, multi-faceted model of the process of incorporating prevention into private general dental practice. This model includes relationships among concepts, consequences of the process, and variations in the process. A concrete example of one of our final key concepts is the process of "adapting to" prevention. More commonly in the literature writers speak of adopting, implementing or translating evidence-based preventive protocols into practice. Through our analysis, we concluded that what was required was 'adapting to' those protocols in practice. Some dental practices underwent a slow process of adapting evidence-based guidance to their existing practice logistics. Successful adaptation was contingent upon whether (1) the dentist-in-charge brought the whole dental team together - including other dentists - and got everyone interested and actively participating during preventive activities; (2) whether the physical environment of the practice was re-organised around preventive activities, (3) whether the dental team was able to devise new and efficient routines to accommodate preventive activities, and (4) whether the fee schedule was amended to cover the delivery of preventive services, which hitherto was considered as "unproductive time".

Adaptation occurred over time and involved practical, historical and philosophical aspects of dental care. Participants transitioned from their initial state - selling restorative care - through an intermediary stage - learning by doing and educating patients about the importance of preventive care - and finally to a stage where they were offering patients more than just restorative care. These are examples of ways in which participants did not simply adopt protocols in a simple way, but needed to adapt the protocols and their own routines as they moved toward more preventive practice.

The quality of this grounded theory study

There are a number of important assurances of quality in keeping with grounded theory procedures and general principles of qualitative research. The following points describe what was crucial for this study to achieve quality.

During data collection

1. All interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed in detail and the transcripts checked against the recordings.

2. We analysed the interview transcripts as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice sampled as shown on Figure ​ Figure1. 1 . This allowed the process of theoretical sampling to occur.

3. Writing case-based memos right after each interview while being in the field allowed the researcher/interviewer to capture initial ideas and make comparisons between participants' accounts. These memos assisted the researcher to make comparison among her reflections, which enriched data analysis and guided further data collection.

4. Having the opportunity to contact participants after interviews to clarify concepts and to interview some participants more than once contributed to the refinement of theoretical concepts, thus forming part of theoretical sampling.

5. The decision to include phone interviews due to participants' preference worked very well in this study. Phone interviews had similar length and depth compared to the face to face interviews, but allowed for a greater range of participation.

During data analysis

1. Detailed analysis records were kept; which made it possible to write this explanatory paper.

2. The use of the constant comparative method enabled the analysis to produce not just a description but a model, in which more abstract concepts were related and a social process was explained.

3. All researchers supported analysis activities; a regular meeting of the research team was convened to discuss and contextualize emerging interpretations, introducing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives.

Answering our research questions

We developed a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and analysed the variation in this process in different dental practices. Transferring evidence-based preventive protocols into these dental practices entailed a slow process of adapting the evidence to the existing practices logistics. Important practical, philosophical and historical elements as well as barriers and facilitators were present during a complex adaptation process. Time was needed to allow dentists and practice staff to go through this process of slowly adapting their practices to this new way of working. Patients also needed time to incorporate home care activities and more frequent visits to dentists into their daily routines. Despite being able to adapt or not, all dentists trusted the concrete clinical evidence that they have produced, that is, seeing results in their patients mouths made them believe in a specific treatment approach.

Concluding remarks

This paper provides a detailed explanation of how a study evolved using grounded theory methodology (GTM), one of the most commonly used methodologies in qualitative health and medical research [[ 8 ], p47]. In 2007, Bryant and Charmaz argued:

'Use of GTM, at least as much as any other research method, only develops with experience. Hence the failure of all those attempts to provide clear, mechanistic rules for GTM: there is no 'GTM for dummies'. GTM is based around heuristics and guidelines rather than rules and prescriptions. Moreover, researchers need to be familiar with GTM, in all its major forms, in order to be able to understand how they might adapt it in use or revise it into new forms and variations.' [[ 8 ], p17].

Our detailed explanation of our experience in this grounded theory study is intended to provide, vicariously, the kind of 'experience' that might help other qualitative researchers in medicine and health to apply and benefit from grounded theory methodology in their studies. We hope that our explanation will assist others to avoid using grounded theory as an 'approving bumper sticker' [ 10 ], and instead use it as a resource that can greatly improve the quality and outcome of a qualitative study.

Abbreviations

GTM: grounded theory methods; MPP: Monitor Dental Practice Program; NSW: New South Wales; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design of this study. AS carried out data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. SMC made substantial contribution during data collection, analysis and data interpretation. AS, SMC, RWE, and AB have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/128/prepub

Supplementary Material

Initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff.

Questions added to the initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the initial interview schedule

Questions added to the modified interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the modified interview schedule

Acknowledgements

We thank dentists, dental practice staff and patients for their invaluable contributions to the study. We thank Emeritus Professor Miles Little for his time and wise comments during the project.

The authors received financial support for the research from the following funding agencies: University of Sydney Postgraduate Award 2009; The Oral Health Foundation, University of Sydney; Dental Board New South Wales; Australian Dental Research Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 632715.

• Qualitative Health Research Journal. http://qhr.sagepub.com/ website accessed on 10 June 2011.
• Qualitative Health Research conference of The International Institute for Qualitative Methodology. http://www.iiqm.ualberta.ca/en/Conferences/QualitativeHealthResearch.aspx website accessed on 10 June 2011.
• The Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research. http://www.gcqhr.com/ website accessed on 10 June 2011. [ PubMed ]
• Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 1995; 311 :182. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. Qualitative research: an introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008; 337 :a288. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a288. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statemen. Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . 1998. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/introduction.cfm website accessed on 13 September 2011.
• The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm website accessed on 10 June 2011.
• Bryant A, Charmaz K, (eds.) Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker D, Myrick F. Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qual Health Res. 2006; 16 :547–559. doi: 10.1177/1049732305285972. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour R. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001; 322 :1115–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007; 7 (3):375–422. doi: 10.1177/1468794107078517. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs Forcing. Mill Valley CA, USA: Sociology Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin J, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage; 2006. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke AE. Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowers B, Schatzman L. In: Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE, editor. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press; 2009. Dimensional Analysis; pp. 86–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE, (eds.) Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter SM. In: Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies. Higgs J, Cherry N, Macklin R, Ajjawi R, editor. Vol. 2. Practice, Education, Work and Society Series. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2010. Enacting Internal Coherence as a Path to Quality in Qualitative Inquiry; pp. 143–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasserman JA, Clair JM, Wilson KL. Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qual Res. 2009; 9 :355–381. doi: 10.1177/1468794109106605. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott JW. Relating categories in grounded theory analysis: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. The Qualitative Report. 2004; 9 (1):113–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarker S, Lau F, Sahay S. Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory about virtual team development. Data Base Adv Inf Sy. 2001; 32 (1):38–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• LaRossa R. Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. J Marriage Fam. 2005; 67 (4):837–857. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendall J. Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. WJNR. 1999; 21 (6):743–757. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Kippen S, Liamputtong P. Doing sensitive research: what challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qual Res. 2007; 7 (3):327–353. doi: 10.1177/1468794107078515. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Discovering chronic illness - using grounded theory. Soc Sci Med. 1990; 30,11 :1161–1172. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis B, Evans RW, Sbaraini A, Schwarz E. The Monitor Practice Programme: is non-surgical management of tooth decay in private practice effective? Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 :306–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00071.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Featherstone JDB. The caries balance: The basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2004; 2 (S1):259–264. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Axelsson P, Nyström B, Lindhe J. The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31 :749–757. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00563.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbaraini A, Evans RW. Caries risk reduction in patients attending a caries management clinic. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 :340–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00076.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitts NB. Monitoring of caries progression in permanent and primary posterior approximal enamel by bitewing radiography: A review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983; 11 :228–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1983.tb01883.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitts NB. The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. DentoMaxilloFac Rad. 1996; 25 :5–16. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitts NB. Are we ready to move from operative to non-operative/preventive treatment of dental caries in clinical practice? Caries Res. 2004; 38 :294–304. doi: 10.1159/000077769. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan PL, Evans RW, Morgan MV. Caries, bitewings, and treatment decisions. Aust Dent J. 2002; 47 :138–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00317.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riordan P, Espelid I, Tveit A. Radiographic interpretation and treatment decisions among dental therapists and dentists in Western Australia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991; 19 :268–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1991.tb00165.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelid I, Tveit A, Haugejorden O, Riordan P. Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries among dentists in Norway. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1985; 13 :26–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1985.tb00414.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelid I. Radiographic diagnoses and treatment decisions on approximal caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986; 14 :265–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1986.tb01069.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans RW, Pakdaman A, Dennison P, Howe E. The Caries Management System: an evidence-based preventive strategy for dental practitioners. Application for adults. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 :83–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.00004.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Berkley: University of California Press; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004; 4 (1):107–18. doi: 10.1177/1468794104041110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]