Grounded theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has
insufficient inline citations.
Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (March 2009)

Grounded theory (GT) is a systematic methodology in the social sciences emphasizing

generation of theory from data in the process of conducting research.[1] It is mainly used for
qualitative research, but is also applicable to other data (e.g., quantitative data; Glaser, 1967,
chapter VIII).

It is a research method that operates almost in a reverse fashion from traditional research and at
first may appear to be in contradiction of the scientific method. Rather than beginning by
researching and developing a hypothesis, the first step is data collection, through a variety of
methods. From the data collected, the key points are marked with a series of codes, which are
extracted from the text. The codes are grouped into similar concepts in order to make them more
workable. From these concepts, categories are formed, which are the basis for the creation of a
theory, or a reverse engineered hypothesis. This contradicts the traditional model of research,
where the researcher chooses a theoretical framework, and only then applies this model to the
studied phenomenon.[2]

Contents
 1 Four stages of analysis
 2 Development
 3 Split in methodology
 4 Glaser's approach
o 4.1 Goals of grounded theory
o 4.2 GT nomenclature
o 4.3 Memoing
o 4.4 Sorting
o 4.5 Writing
o 4.6 No pre-research literature review, no taping and no talk
o 4.7 The Grounded Theory Institute
 5 Strauss's approach
o 5.1 Differences
 6 Criticism
 7 See also
 8 References
 9 External links
 10 Further reading
 o 10.1 Glaser
o 10.2 Strauss

[edit] Four stages of analysis

Stage Purpose
Codes Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data to be gathered
Concepts Collections of codes of similar content that allows the data to be grouped
Categories Broad groups of similar concepts that are used to generate a theory
Theory A collection of explanations that explain the subject of the research

[edit] Development
Grounded theory was developed by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. Their
collaboration in research on dying hospital patients led them to write the book Awareness of
Dying. In this research they developed the constant comparative method later known as
Grounded Theory; see The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

[edit] Split in methodology

Since their original publication in 1967, Glaser and Strauss have disagreed on 'how to do' GT,
resulting in a split in the theory between Straussian and Glaserian paradigms. This split occurred
most obviously after Strauss published Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987).
Thereafter Strauss, together with Juliet Corbin, published Basics of Qualitative Research:
Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques in 1990. This was followed by a rebuke by Glaser
(1992) who set out, chapter by chapter, to highlight the differences in what he argued was
original grounded theory and why, according to Glaser, what Strauss and Corbin had written was
not grounded theory in its "intended form". This divergence in the GT methodology is a subject
of much academic debate, which Glaser (1998) calls a "rhetorical wrestle".

According to Kelle (2005), "the controversy between Glaser and Strauss boils down to the
question of whether the researcher uses a well defined 'coding paradigm' and always looks
systematically for 'causal conditions,' 'phenomena/context, intervening conditions, action
strategies' and 'consequences' in the data, or whether theoretical codes are employed as they
emerge in the same way as substantive codes emerge, but drawing on a huge fund of 'coding
families.' Both strategies have their pros and cons. Novices who wish to get clear advice on how
to structure data material may be satisfied with the use of the coding paradigm. Since the
paradigm consists of theoretical terms which carry only limited empirical content the risk is not
very high that data are forced by its application. However, it must not be forgotten that it is
linked to a certain micro-sociological perspective. Many researchers may concur with that
approach especially since qualitative research always had a relation to micro-sociological action
theory, but others who want to employ a macro-sociological and system theory perspective may
feel that the use of the coding paradigm would lead them astray." [3]
[edit] Glaser's approach
The first book, "The Discovery of Grounded Theory", from 1967, was "developed in close and
equal collaboration" (Strauss, 1993, p. 12) by Glaser and Strauss. Glaser wrote a methodology
"Theoretical Sensitivity" in 1978 and has since then written five more books on the method and
edited five readers with a collection of GT articles and dissertations (see Literature at end). The
Grounded Theory Review [2] is a peer-reviewed journal publishing grounded theories and
articles on different aspects of doing GT.

The Glaserian strategy is not a qualitative research method, but claims the dictum "all is data".
This means that not only interview or observational data but also surveys or statistical analyses
or "whatever comes the researcher's way while studying a substantive area" (Glaser quote) can
be used in the comparative process as well as literature data from science or media or even
fiction. Thus the method according to Glaser is not limited to the realm of qualitative research,
which he calls "QDA" (Qualitative Data Analysis). QDA is devoted to descriptive accuracy
while the Glaserian method emphasizes conceptualization abstract of time, place and people. A
grounded theory concept should be easy to use outside of the substantive area where it was
generated.

[edit] Goals of grounded theory

GT is a systematic generation of theory from data that contains both inductive and deductive
thinking. One goal of a GT is to formulate hypotheses based on conceptual ideas. Others may try
to verify the hypotheses that are generated by constantly comparing conceptualized data on
different levels of abstraction, and these comparisons contain deductive steps. Another goal of a
GT is to discover the participants’ main concern and how they continually try to resolve it. The
questions you keep on asking in GT are "What’s going on?" and "What is the main problem of
the participants and how are they trying to solve it?" These questions will be answered by the
core variable and its subcores and properties in due course (see below). GT does not aim for the
"truth" but to conceptualize what's going on by using empirical data. In a way GT resembles
what many researchers do when retrospectively formulating new hypotheses to fit data.
However, in GT the researcher does not pretend to have formulated the hypotheses in advance
since pr eformed hypotheses are prohibited (Glaser & Strauss 1967).

If your research goal is accurate description, then another method should be chosen since GT is
not a descriptive method. Instead it has the goal of generating concepts that explain people’s
actions regardless of time and place. The descriptive parts of a GT are there mainly to illustrate
the concepts.

In most behavioral research endeavors persons or patients are units of analysis, whereas in GT
the unit of analysis is the incident (Glaser & Strauss 1967). There are normally at least several
hundred incidents analyzed in a GT study since every participant normally reports many
incidents. When comparing many incidents in a certain area, the emerging concepts and their
relationships are in reality probability statements. Consequently, GT is not a qualitative method
but a general method that can use any kind of data even if qualitative at the moment are most
popular (Glaser, 2001, 2003). However, although working with probabilities, most GT studies
are considered as qualitative since statistical methods are not used, and figures not presented.
The results of GT are not a reporting of statistically significant probabilities but a set of
probability statements about the relationship between concepts, or an integrated set of conceptual
hypotheses developed from empirical data (Glaser 1998). Validity in its traditional sense is
consequently not an issue in GT, which instead should be judged by fit, relevance, workability,
and modifiability (Glaser & Strauss 1967, Glaser 1978, Glaser 1998).

Fit has to do with how closely concepts fit with the incidents they are representing, and this is
related to how thoroughly the constant comparison of incidents to concepts was done.

Relevance. A relevant study deals with the real concern of participants, evokes "grab" (captures
the attention) and is not only of academic interest.

Workability. The theory works when it explains how the problem is being solved with much
variation.

Modifiability. A modifiable theory can be altered when new relevant data is compared to
existing data. A GT is never right or wrong, it just has more or less fit, relevance, workability
and modifiability.

[edit] GT nomenclature

A concept is the overall element and includes the categories which are conceptual elements
standing by themselves, and properties of categories, which are conceptual aspects of categories
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The core variable explains most of the participants’ main concern with
as much variation as possible. It has the most powerful properties to picture what’s going on, but
with as few properties as possible needed to do so. A popular type of core variable can be
theoretically modeled as a basic social process that accounts for most of the variation in change
over time, context, and behavior in the studied area. "GT is multivariate. It happens sequentially,
subsequently, simultaneously, serendipitously, and scheduled" (Glaser, 1998).

All is data is a fundamental property of GT which means that everything that gets in the
researcher’s way when studying a certain area is data. Not only interviews or observations but
anything is data that helps the researcher generating concepts for the emerging theory. Field
notes can come from informal interviews, lectures, seminars, expert group meetings, newspaper
articles, Internet mail lists, even television shows, conversations with friends etc. It is even
possible, and sometimes a good idea, for a researcher with much knowledge in the studied area
to interview herself, treating that interview like any other data, coding and comparing it to other
data and generating concepts from it. This may sound silly since you don’t have to interview
yourself to know what you know, but you don’t know it on the conceptual level! And GT deals
with conceptual level data.

Open coding or substantive coding is conceptualizing on the first level of abstraction. Written
data from field notes or transcripts are conceptualized line by line. In the beginning of a study
everything is coded in order to find out about the problem and how it is being resolved. The
coding is often done in the margin of the field notes. This phase is often tedious since you are
conceptualizing all incidents in the data, which yields many concepts. These are compared as
you code more data, and merged into new concepts, and eventually renamed and modified. The
GT researcher goes back and forth while comparing data, constantly modifying, and sharpening
the growing theory at the same time as she follows the build-up schedule of GT’s different steps.

Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) also proposed the axial coding and defined it in 1990 as "a set
of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making
connections between categories." They proposed a "coding paradigm" (also discussed, among
others, by Kelle, 2005) that involved "conditions, context, action/ interactional strategies and
consequences.” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 96)

Selective coding is done after having found the core variable or what is thought to be the core,
the tentative core. The core explains the behavior of the participants in resolving their main
concern. The tentative core is never wrong. It just more or less fits with the data. After having
chosen your core variable you selectively code data with the core guiding your coding, not
bothering about concepts with little importance to the core and its subcores. Also, you now
selectively sample new data with the core in mind, which is called theoretical sampling – a
deductive part of GT. Selective coding delimits the study, which makes it move fast. This is
indeed encouraged while doing GT (Glaser, 1998) since GT is not concerned with data accuracy
as in descriptive research but is about generating concepts that are abstract of time, place and
people. Selective coding could be done by going over old field notes or memos which are
already coded once at an earlier stage or by coding newly gathered data.

Theoretical codes integrate the theory by weaving the fractured concepts into hypotheses that
work together in a theory explaining the main concern of the participants. Theoretical coding
means that the researcher applies a theoretical model to the data. It is important that this model is
not forced beforehand but has emerged during the comparative process of GT. So the theoretical
codes just as substantives codes should emerge from the process of constantly comparing the
data in field notes and memos.

[edit] Memoing

Theoretical memoing is "the core stage of grounded theory methodology" (Glaser 1998).
"Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about substantive codes and their theoretically
coded relationships as they emerge during coding, collecting and analyzing data, and during
memoing" (Glaser 1998).

Memoing is also important in the early phase of a GT study such as open coding. The researcher
is then conceptualizing incidents, and memoing helps this process. Theoretical memos can be
anything written or drawn in the constant comparison that makes up a GT. Memos are important
tools to both refine and keep track of ideas that develop when you compare incidents to incidents
and then concepts to concepts in the evolving theory. In memos you develop ideas about naming
concepts and relating them to each other. In memos you try the relationships between concepts in
two-by-two tables, in diagrams or figures or whatever makes the ideas flow, and generates
comparative power. Without memoing the theory is superficial and the concepts generated not
very original. Memoing works as an accumulation of written ideas into a bank of ideas about
concepts and how they relate to each other. This bank contains rich parts of what will later be the
written theory. Memoing is total creative freedom without rules of writing, grammar or style
(Glaser 1998). The writing must be an instrument for outflow of ideas, and nothing else. When
you write memos the ideas become more realistic, being converted from thoughts in your mind
to words, and thus ideas communicable to the afterworld. In GT the preconscious processing
that occurs when coding and comparing is recognized. The researcher is encouraged to register
ideas about the ongoing study that eventually pop up in everyday situations, and awareness of the
serendipity of the method is also necessary to achieve good results.

[edit] Sorting

In the next step memos are sorted, which is the key to formulate the theory for presentation to
others. Sorting puts fractured data back together. During sorting lots of new ideas emerge, which
in turn are recorded in new memos giving the memo-on-memos phenomenon. Sorting memos
generates theory that explains the main action in the studied area. A theory written from unsorted
memos may be rich in ideas but the connection between concepts is weak.

[edit] Writing

Writing up the sorted memo piles follows after sorting, and at this stage the theory is close to
the written GT product. The different categories are now related to each other and the core
variable. The theoretical density should be dosed so concepts are mixed with description in
words, tables, or figures to optimize readability. In the later rewriting the relevant literature is
woven in to put the theory in a scholarly context. Finally, the GT is edited for style and language
and eventually submitted for publication.

[edit] No pre-research literature review, no taping and no talk

GT according to Glaser gives the researcher freedom to generate new concepts explaining human
behavior. This freedom is optimal when the researcher refrains from taping interviews, doing a
pre research literature review, and talking about the research before it is written up. These rules
makes GT different from most other methods using qualitative data.

No pre-research literature review. Studying the literature of the area under study gives
preconceptions about what to find and the researcher gets desensitized by borrowed concepts.
Instead, grounded theories in other areas, and GT method books increase theoretical sensitivity.
The literature should instead be read in the sorting stage being treated as more data to code and
compare with what has already been coded and generated.

No taping. Taping and transcribing interviews is common in qualitative research, but is

counterproductive and a waste of time in GT which moves fast when the researcher delimits his
data by field-noting interviews and soon after generates concepts that fit with data, are relevant
and work in explaining what participants are doing to resolve their main concern.

No talk. Talking about the theory before it is written up drains the researcher of motivational
energy. Talking can either render praise or criticism, and both diminish the motivational drive to
write memos that develop and refine the concepts and the theory (Glaser 1998). Positive
feedback makes you content with what you've got and negative feedback hampers your self-
confidence. Talking about the GT should be restricted to persons capable of helping the
researcher without influencing his final judgments.

[edit] The Grounded Theory Institute

Glaser founded the Grounded Theory Institute in 1999 as a non-profit web-based organization
(www.groundedtheory.com), which describes itself on its webpage as "dedicated to the evolving
methodology of Dr.Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D.". The Institute provides an online forum for the
discussion of grounded theory, and publishes the journal, "The Grounded Theory Review." The
Institute also includes the Sociology Press, which Dr. Glaser founded in 1970.

[edit] Strauss's approach

Generally speaking, grounded theory is an approach for looking systematically at (mostly)
qualitative data (like transcripts of interviews or protocols of observations) aiming at the
generation of theory. Sometimes, grounded theory is seen as a qualitative method, but grounded
theory reaches farther: it combines a specific style of research (or a paradigm) with pragmatic
theory of action and with some methodological guidelines.

This approach was written down and systematized in the 1960s by Anselm Strauss (himself a
student of Herbert Blumer) and Barney Glaser (a student of Paul Lazarsfeld), while working
together in studying the sociology of illness at the University of California, San Francisco. For
and with their studies, they developed a methodology, which was then made explicit and became
the foundation stone for an important branch of qualitative sociology.

Important concepts of grounded theory are categories, codes and codings. The research principle
behind grounded theory is neither inductive nor deductive, but combines both in a way of
abductive reasoning (coming from the works of Charles Sanders Peirce). This leads to a research
practice where data sampling, data analysis and theory development are not seen as distinct and
disjunct, but as different steps to be repeated until one can describe and explain the phenomenon
that is to be researched. This stopping point is reached when new data does not change the
emerging theory anymore.

In an interview that was conducted shortly before Strauss' death (1994), he named three basic
elements every grounded theory approach should include (Legewie/Schervier-Legewie (2004)).
These three elements are:

 Theoretical sensitive coding, that is, generating theoretical strong concepts from the data
to explain the phenomenon researched;
 theoretical sampling, that is, deciding whom to interview or what to observe next
according to the state of theory generation, and that implies starting data analysis with the
first interview, and writing down memos and hypotheses early;
 the need to compare between phenomena and contexts to make the theory strong.
[edit] Differences

Grounded theory according to Glaser emphasizes induction or emergence, and the individual
researcher's creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Strauss is more interested in
validation criteria and a systematic approach.

[edit] Criticism
Critiques of grounded theory have focused on its status as theory (is what is produced really
'theory'?), on the notion of 'ground' (why is an idea of 'grounding' one's findings important in
qualitative inquiry—what are they 'grounded' in?) and on the claim to use and develop inductive
knowledge. These criticisms are summed up by Thomas and James.[4] These authors also suggest
that it is impossible to free oneself of preconceptions in the collection and analysis of data in the
way that Glaser and Strauss say is necessary. They also point to the formulaic nature of grounded
theory and the lack of congruence of this with open and creative interpretation - which ought to
be the hallmark of qualitative inquiry. They suggest that the one element of grounded theory
worth keeping is constant comparative method.

Grounded theory was developed in a period when other qualitative methods were often
considered unscientific. Of all qualitative methods it achieved the widest acceptance of its
academic rigor. Thus, especially in American academia, qualitative research is often equated to
grounded theory. This equation is sometimes criticized by qualitative researchers[who?] using other
methodologies (for example, traditional ethnography, narratology, and storytelling).

[edit] See also

 Antipositivism
 Grounded Practical Theory
 Phronetic social science
 Positivism
 Social research
 Social science
 Sociology

[edit] References
1. ^ Martin, Patricia Yancey, Turner, Barry A.. (1986). Grounded Theory and Organizational
Research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from
ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1155984).
2. ^ Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method, Electronic Journal
of Business Research Methods. 2(1) pp 1-10
3. ^ Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of
"Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative
Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [1]
 4. ^ Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory,
ground and discovery, British Educational Research Journal, 32, 6, 767–795.

[edit] External links

 The Grounded Theory Institute (Glaser tradition)
 Grounded Theory Online (Supporting (Glaserian) GT researchers)
 Grounded Theory Review
 Sociology Press
 An Introduction to GT by the Action Research Unit, Southern Cross University
Management School

[edit] Further reading

 Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
 Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
 Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 Kelle, Udo (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of
"Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [3]
 Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (Eds.) (2007). Grounded Theory Reader (HSR-Supplement 19).
Cologne: ZHSF. 337 pages
 Thomas, G. & James, D. (2006). Re-inventing grounded theory: some questions about
theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (6), 767–795.
 Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business
and Market Researchers. London: Sage.
 Stebbins, Robert A. (2001) Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

[edit] Glaser

 Glaser BG, Strauss A. Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative

Research. Sociology Press [4], 1967
 Glaser BG. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of Grounded Theory.
Sociology Press [5], 1978.
 Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. Sage, 1990.
 Glaser BG. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs Forcing. Sociology Press
[6], 1992
 Glaser BG (ed). Examples of Grounded Theory: A Reader. Sociology Press [7], 1993.
  Glaser BG (ed). More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader. Sociology Press [8],
1994.
 Glaser BG (ed). Grounded Theory 1984-1994. A Reader (two volumes). Sociology Press
[9], 1995.
 Glaser BG (ed). Gerund Grounded Theory: The Basic Social Process Dissertation.
Sociology Press [10], 1996.
 Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory - Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press [11],
1998.
 Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory Perspective I: Conceptualization Contrasted with
Description. Sociology Press [12], 2001.
 Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description's Remodeling of Grounded
Theory. Sociology Press [13], 2003.
 Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical coding. Sociology Press,
2005.
 Goulding, C. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and
Market Researchers. London: Sage Publications, 2002.

[edit] Strauss

 Anselm L. Strauss; Leonard Schatzman; Rue Bucher; Danuta Ehrlich & Melvin Sabshin:
Psychiatric ideologies and institutions (1964)
 Barney G. Glaser; Anselm L. Strauss: The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for
Qualitative Research (1967)
 Anselm L. Strauss: Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987)
 Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: Basics of Qualitative Research (1990)
 Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and
Evaluative Criteria", in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19. Jg, S. 418 ff. (1990)
 Anselm L. Strauss: Continual Permutations of Action (1993)
 Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: "Grounded Theory in Practice" (1997)
 Legewie, Heiner & Schervier-Legewie, Barbara (September 2004). "Forschung ist harte
Arbeit, es ist immer ein Stück Leiden damit verbunden. Deshalb muss es auf der anderen
Seite Spaß machen". Anselm Strauss interviewed by Heiner Legewie and Barbara
Schervier-Legewie. Forum: Qualitative Social Research On-line Journal, 5(3), Art. 22.
Interview as MP3 audio (english) / edited German translation of interview. Accessed on
May 20, 2005.
What is Grounded Theory?

This section:  What is Grounded Theory | Shape of a Grounded Theory | Classic Grounded Theory ... is it for me |Why we like Grounded Theory 

Grounded Theory is 

 a research method that will enable you to 

 develop a theory which 
 offers an explanation about 
 the main concern of the population of your substantive area and 
 how that concern is resolved or processed. 

 
For example in my study, the main concern of learners is finding the time to
study and temporal integration is the core category which explains how the
concern is resolved or processed. That is: Jugglers and Strugglers employ
successful temporal integration strategies enabling them to study whilst
Fade-aways and Leavers are less successful in devising and adopting temporal
integration strategies. Understanding how temporal integration does or does
not happen has implications for learning design and learner persistence. 

For the nurses of  Nathanial's study, their main concern was moral distress
and the core category which processed their concern was moral reckoning.
For McCallin's' interdisciplinary teams the main concern was client service
delivery and the core category - pluralistic dialoguing. We recommend that
you read these studies to get an idea of what a Grounded Theory is - and is
not. You will find many examples of Grounded Theory in this Reader

Grounded Theory is a general research method (and thus is not owned by any one school or
discipline); which guides you on matters of data collection (where you can use quantitative data
or qualitative data of any type e.g. video, images, text, observations, spoken word etc.); and
details strict procedures for data analysis. 

Grounded Theory is a research tool which enables you to seek out and conceptualise the latent
social patterns and structures of your area of interest through the process of constant
comparison. (A bit like being the x-ray machine of the social world? Though just take the quick
idea from that metaphor as it doesn't bear too much examination!) Initially you will use an
inductive approach to generate substantive codes from your data, later your developing theory
will suggest to you where to go next to collect data and which, more-focussed, questions to
ask; which is the deductive phase of the Grounded Theory process. (See page 37 of Theoretical
Sensitivity)

Grounded Theory is first and foremost a research method

But the term 'Grounded Theory' is used in two ways; (1) if you adhere to the strictures of Grounded-
Theory-the-research-method you will engage in a research process that will produce (2) a theory-which-
is-grounded-in-data ie. a Grounded Theory. Thus both the research method and the output of the
research process have the same name - which can be confusing! 

How do you do Grounded Theory?

The methodological stages are:

1. Identify your substantive area - your area of interest. Examples of substantive areas included
dying (Glaser, 1967), online learning (Scott, 2007), a cafe (Rosenbaum, 2006), nursing practice
(Nathanial,2007), management studies (Holton, 2007), work processes (Gynnild, 2007),
interdisciplinary teams (McCallin, 2007).  Your study will be about the perspective of one (or
more) of the groups of people of the substantive area who will comprise your substantive
population e.g. patients, doctors, nurses and social workers (Glaser 1967), online learners (Scott
2007), nurses who have practiced in direct contact with patients (Nathanial, 2007),  knowledge
workers (Holton, 2007 ) journalists (Gynnild, 2006), health professionals (McCallin, 2007).
2. Collect data pertaining to the substantive area. A Grounded Theory may use qualitative data,
quantitative data (e.g. Glaser 1964 and Glaser 2008) or a mixture of the two. Thus data types
include but are not restricted to
o collecting observations of the substantive area itself and activities occurring within the
substantive area; 
o accessing public or private record irrespective of form (e.g.  photograph, diary, painting,
sculpture, biography, television broadcast, news report, survey, government or
organisational document, etc.);
o conversing with individuals or a group of individuals,  face-to-face or remotely
[synchronously (e.g telephone, text chat) or asynchronously (e.g. email or wiki)]. 
3. Open code your data as you collect it. Open coding and data collection are integrated activities
thus the data collection stage and open coding stage occur simultaneously and continue until the
core category is recognised/selected. (Note: there may be more than one potential core
category).  Open coding simply means code everything for everything – more on that in the
getting started section. Eventually the core category and the main concern become apparent;
where the core category explains the behaviour in the substantive area i.e. it explains how the
main concern is resolved or processed. For example in my study the main concern was finding
time to study and the core category was ‘temporal integration’. See Chapter 4 of Theoretical
Sensitivity and Chapter 9 of Doing Grounded Theory for guidance on open coding (1).
4. Write memos throughout the entire process; The development of your theory is captured in
your memos; few memos = thin theory. Method memos chronicle tussles with the method and
help write the chapter on method. But most importantly theoretical memos are written about
codes and their (potential) relationships with other codes. It's a low risk activity, so don't be
concerned about writing 'bad' memos; your memos will mature as your skill and your theory
develop. For excellent guidance on how to write memos see Chapter 5 of Theoretical Sensitivity
and in particular page 89. 
5. Conduct selective coding and theoretical sampling; Now that the core category and main
 concern are recognised; open coding stops and selective coding – coding only for the core
category and related categories – begins. Further sampling is directed by the developing theory
(who do I need to ask to learn more about these issues?) and used to saturate the core category
and related categories. . See page 141 of Doing Grounded Theory for an explanation of when a
code can be considered saturated and page 52 of Discovery for a discussion on comparison
groups.  When your categories are saturated:
6. Sort your memos and find the Theoretical Code(s) which best organises your substantive
codes. (See Chapter 4 of Theoretical Sensitivity and Grounded Theory Perspectives III) When
you feel the theory is well formed
7. Read the literature and integrate with your theory through selective coding. 
8. Write up your theory. Job done!

If you follow the method as Glaser describes, you will end up with a theory. The quality of that
theory will depend upon your skills and the skills you develop as you research. You can read more about
the terms used and the shape of a grounded theory here. 

Web definitions
o Grounded theory (GT) is a systematic qualitative research methodology in the
social sciences emphasizing generation of theory from data in the process of conducting
research.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory

o Any theory that is based on observation of social phenomena

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grounded_theory

o Practice of developing other theories that emerge from observing a group.

Theories are grounded in the group's observable experiences, but researchers add their own
insight into why those experiences exist.
writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/glossary/

o A method formulated by Strauss and Corbin (Basics of qualitative research,

Sage, 1990) that categorises empirically collected data to build a general theory to fit the data.
(Used in several research projects, particularly in the thesis of Marcia Pinto). ...
www.warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Tall/themes/glossary.html
o Grounded theory is an analytical approach to which theories are allowed to
emerge from data, as opposed to previously formulated hypotheses which are 'tested' against
data. For further description, see:
isotope.open.ac.uk/

o An iterative approach for coding qualitative data into categories; requires that
researchers examine the relationships between the data and its category as well as the
relationships among categories.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073049506/student_view0/glos…