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]

[edit]Four stages of analysis

Stage Purpose

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

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

Concepts
grouped

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

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 betweenStraussian 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 preformed 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 calledtheoretical 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 ormemos 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 codesjust 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 neitherinductive 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]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. discussion drawn from:

 Glaser and Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory.

 Strauss and Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research.

 
Goals and Perspective

The phrase "grounded theory" refers to theory that is developed inductively from a
corpus of data. If done well, this means that the resulting theory at least fits one dataset
perfectly. This contrasts with theory derived deductively from grand theory, without the
help of data, and which could therefore turn out to fit no data at all.

Grounded theory takes a case rather than variable perspective, although the distinction
is nearly impossible to draw. This means in part that the researcher takes different
cases to be wholes, in which the variables interact as a unit to produce certain
outcomes. A case-oriented perspective tends to assume that variables interact in
complex ways, and is suspicious of simple additive models, such as ANOVA with main
effects only.

Part and parcel of the case-orientation is a comparative orientation. Cases similar on

many variables but with different outcomes are compared to see where the key causal
differences may lie. This is based on John Stuart Mills' (1843, A system of logic:
Ratiocinative and Inductive) method of differences -- essentially the use of (natural)
experimental design. Similarly, cases that have the same outcome are examined to see
which conditions they all have in common, thereby revealing necessary causes.

The grounded theory approach, particularly the way Strauss develops it, consists of a
set of steps whose careful execution is thought to "guarantee" a good theory as the
outcome. Strauss would say that the quality of a theory can be evaluated by the process
by which a theory is constructed. (This contrasts with the scientific perspective that how
you generate a theory, whether through dreams, analogies or dumb luck, is irrelevant:
the quality of a theory is determined by its ability to explain new data.)

Although not part of the grounded theory rhetoric, it is apparent that grounded theorists
are concerned with or largely influenced by emic understandings of the world: they use
categories drawn from respondents themselves and tend to focus on making implicit
belief systems explicit.

Methods

The basic idea of the grounded theory approach is to read (and re-read) a textual
database (such as a corpus of field notes) and "discover" or label variables (called
categories, concepts and properties) and their interrelationships. The ability to perceive
variables and relationships is termed "theoretical sensitivity" and is affected by a
number of things including one's reading of the literature and one's use of techniques
designed to enhance sensitivity.
Of course, the data do not have to be literally textual -- they could be observations of
behavior, such as interactions and events in a restaurant. Often they are in the form of
field notes, which are like diary entries. An example is here.

Open Coding

Open coding is the part of the analysis concerned with identifying, naming, categorizing
and describing phenomena found in the text. Essentially, each line, sentence,
paragraph etc. is read in search of the answer to the repeated question "what is this
about? What is being referenced here?"

These labels refer to things like hospitals, information gathering, friendship, social loss,
etc. They are the nouns and verbs of a conceptual world. Part of the analytic process is
to identify the more general categories that these things are instances of, such as
institutions, work activities, social relations, social outcomes, etc.

We also seek out the adjectives and adverbs --- the properties of these categories. For
example, about a friendship we might ask about its duration, and its closeness, and its
importance to each party. Whether these properties or dimensions come from the data
itself, from respondents, or from the mind of the researcher depends on the goals of the
research.

It is important to have fairly abstract categories in addition to very concrete ones, as the
abstract ones help to generate general theory.

Consider what is implied in the following passage of text (Strauss and Corbin pg. 78):

Text Fragment 1

Pain relief is a major problem when you have arthritis. Sometimes, the pain is
worse than other times, but when it gets really bad, whew! It hurts so bad, you
don't want to get out of bed. You don't feel like doing anything. Any relief you
get from drugs that you take is only temporary or partial.

One thing that is being discussed here is PAIN. Implied in the text is that the speaker
views pain as having certain properties, one of which is INTENSITY: it varies from a
little to a lot. (When is it a lot and when is it little?) When it hurts a lot, there are
consequences: don't want to get out of bed, don't feel like doing things (what are other
things you don't do when in pain?). In order to solve this problem, you need PAIN
RELIEF. One AGENT OF PAIN RELIEF is drugs (what are other members of this
category?). Pain relief has a certain DURATION (could be temporary), and
EFFECTIVENESS (could be partial).
One can see that this sort of analysis has a very emic cast to it, even though I think that
most grounded theorists believe they are theorizing about how the world *is* rather than
how respondents see it. 

The process of naming or labeling things, categories, and properties is known as

coding. Coding can be done very formally and systematically or quite informally. In
grounded theory, it is normally done quite informally. For example, if after coding much
text, some new categories are invented, grounded theorists do not normally go back to
the earlier text to code for that category. However, maintaining an inventory of codes
with their descriptions (i.e., creating a codebook) is useful, along with pointers to text
that contain them. In addition, as codes are developed, it is useful to write memos
known as code notes that discuss the codes. These memos become fodder for later
development into reports.

An example of a code note is found here.

Axial Coding

Axial coding is the process of relating codes (categories and properties) to each other,
via a combination of inductive and deductive thinking. To simplify this process, rather
than look for any and all kind of relations, grounded theorists emphasize causal
relationships, and fit things into a basic frame of generic relationships. The frame
consists of the following elements:

Element Description
This is what in schema theory might be called the name of the
schema or frame. It is the concept that holds the bits together.
Phenomenon
In grounded theory it is sometimes the outcome of interest, or
it can be the subject.
These are the events or variables that lead to the occurrence
Causal
or development of the phenomenon. It is a set of causes and
conditions
their properties.
Hard to distinguish from the causal conditions. It is the
specific locations (values) of background variables. A set of
conditions influencing the action/strategy. Researchers often
Context make a quaint distinction between active variables (causes)
and background variables (context). It has more to do with
what the researcher finds interesting (causes) and less
interesting (context) than with distinctions out in nature.
Similar to context. If we like, we can identify context
Intervening with moderating variables and intervening conditions
conditions with mediatingvariables. But it is not clear that grounded
theorists cleanly distinguish between these two.
 Action The purposeful, goal-oriented activities that agents perform in
strategies response to the phenomenon and intervening conditions.
These are the consequences of the action strategies,
Consequences
intended and unintended.

In the text segment above, it seems obvious that the phenomenon of interest is pain,
the causal conditions are arthritis, the action strategy is taking drugs, and the
consequence is pain relief. Note that grounded theorists don't show much interest in the
consequences of the phenomenon itself.

It should be noted again that a fallacy of some grounded theory work is that they take
the respondent's understanding of what causes what as truth. That is, they see the
informant as an insider expert, and the model they create is really the informant's folk
model. 

Selective Coding

Selective coding is the process of choosing one category to be the core category, and
relating all other categories to that category. The essential idea is to develop a single
storyline around which all everything else is draped. There is a belief that such a core
concept always exists.

I believe grounded theory draws from literary analysis, and one can see it here. The
advice for building theory parallels advice for writing a story. Selective coding is about
finding the driver that impels the story forward.

Memos

Memos are short documents that one writes to oneself as one proceeds through the
analysis of a corpus of data. We have already been introduced to two kinds of memos,
the field note and the code note (see above). Equally important is the theoretical note.
A theoretical note is anything from a post-it that notes how something in the text or
codes relates to the literature, to a 5-page paper developing the theoretical implications
of something. The final theory and report is typically the integration of several theoretical
memos. Writing theoretical memos allows you to think theoretically without the pressure
of working on "the" paper.

An example of a theoretical memo is here.

Process

Strauss and Corbin consider that paying attention to processes is vital. It is important to
note that their usage of "process" is not quite the same as Lave and March, who use
process as a synonym for "explanatory mechanism". Strauss and Corbin are really just
 concerned with describing and coding everything that is dynamic -- changing, moving,
or occurring over time -- in the research setting.

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
category which explains how the concern is resolved or processed. That is: Jugglers and Strugglers e
successful temporal integration strategies enabling them to study whilst Fade-aways and Leavers are
successful in devising and adopting temporal integration strategies. Understanding how temporal integration
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 processe
concern was moral reckoning. For McCallin's' interdisciplinary teams the main concern was client service de
and the core category - pluralistic dialoguing. We recommend that you read these studies to get an idea of w
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 g
you on matters of data collection (where you can use quantitative data or qualitative data of any type e.g.
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 pattern
structures of your area of interest through the process of constant comparison. (A bit like being the x-ray ma
of the social world? Though just take the quick idea from that metaphor as it doesn't bear too much examin
Initially you will use an inductive approach to generate substantive codes from your data, later your deve
theory will suggest to you where to go next to collect data and which, more-focussed, questions to ask; wh
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-Theor
research-method you will engage in a research process that will produce (2) a theory-which-is-grounded-i
ie. a Grounded Theory. Thus both the research method and the output of the research process have the
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 (G
1967), online learning (Scott, 2007), a cafe (Rosenbaum, 2006), nursing practice (Nathanial,2007), manag
studies (Holton, 2007), work processes (Gynnild, 2007), interdisciplinary teams (McCallin, 2007).  Your stu
be about the perspective of one (or more) of the groups of people of the substantive area who will compris
substantive population e.g. patients, doctors, nurses and social workers (Glaser 1967), online learners
2007), nurses who have practiced in direct contact with patients (Nathanial, 2007),  knowledge workers (H
2007 ) journalists (Gynnild, 2006), health professionals (McCallin, 2007).
2. Collect data pertaining to the substantive area. A Grounded Theory may use qualitative data, quant
data (e.g. Glaser 1964 and Glaser 2008) or a mixture of the two. Thus data types include but are not restricte
o collecting observations of the substantive area itself and activities occurring within the substantive ar
o accessing public or private record irrespective of form (e.g.  photograph, diary, painting, scu
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 [synchronousl
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 ofDoing 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 concer
recognised; open coding stops and selective coding – coding only for the core category and related catego
 begins. Further sampling is directed by the developing theory (who do I need to ask to learn more about
issues?) and used to saturate the core category and related categories. . See page 141 of Doing Gro
Theory for an explanation of when a code can be considered saturated and page 52 ofDiscovery for a discu
on comparison groups.  When your categories are saturated:
6. Sort your memos and find the Theoretical Code(s) which best organises your substantive codes
Chapter 4 of Theoretical Sensitivity andGrounded Theory Perspectives III) When you feel the theory i
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 d
upon your skills and the skills you develop as you research. You can read more about the terms use
the shape of a grounded theory here. 

Please let us know if something on this page is not clear and we will amend the page.

We tried using Google Ads to support the free pages but the ads weren't sufficiently relevant for our users. If you
found these pages helpful, acontribution, to their upkeep however small, would be much appreciated. 

Footnotes
(1) These are just two examples of where Glaser discusses open coding ... there are others, these are offered
guide.

Contents

1. 1 Grounded Theory is 

2. 2 Grounded Theory is first and foremost a research method
3. 3 How do you do Grounded Theory?
1. 3.1 Footnotes

© helen scott 2009

Grounded theory as a qualitative research methodology - Brief Article

by Michelle Byrne

Qualitative research methods reflect an inductive mode of analysis or a process of

moving from specific observations to a general theory.(1) This mode of analysis is in
contrast to quantitative research methods, which rely on deductive thinking or a process
of moving from a general theory to specific observations. Grounded theory, a mode of
inductive analysis, can be thought of as a theory that is derived from or "grounded" in
everyday experiences. Grounded theory strategies first were reported and attributed to
sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967.(2) The foundations of
 grounded theory are embedded in symbolic interactionism, which assumes that one's
communications and actions express meaning.

MoreArticles of Interest
 Qualitative Methods: What Are They and Why Use Them?
 Ethnography as a qualitative research method
 Some similarities and differences among phenomenological and other methods
of...
 DOING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN EDUCATION SETTINGS
 Understanding life experiences through a phenomenological approach to
research

Grounded theorists assume that meaning is dynamic and shared by group members.
According to one author,

researchers' purpose in using the grounded theory method is to explain a

given social situation by identifying the core and subsidiary processes

operating in it. The core process is the guiding principle underlying what

is occurring in the situation and dominates the analysis because it links

most of the other processes involved in an explanatory network.(3)

Examples of perioperative social situations that could be researched using grounded

theory include nurse and patient interaction, discharge planning, physician and nurse
communication, and management styles.

RESEARCH METHOD

Grounded theory's data sources include all resources that yield information regarding
social interaction. Data may be collected by observing and recording interactions,
examining written documentation and literature, or obtaining perspectives from various
people involved in the social interaction. How and when a review of literature is
performed is debated by grounded theory scholars.(4)

The method used to reach a grounded theory is termed the constant comparative
method. During data collection, data usually are analyzed concurrently. As the data are
analyzed, the researcher searches for a core variable, which will serve as the
foundation for theory generation. The core variable usually has some of the following
characteristics:

* recurs frequently,

* links various data,

* has an explanatory function,

* has implications for formal theory,

* becomes more detailed, and

* permits maximum variation (ie, inclusion of people from various backgrounds).(5)

Data typically are coded at three levels. At the first level, the researcher examines data
line by line, and at the second level, he or she compares and contrasts the data to
create categories or clusters. At the third or final level, the researcher moves from data
analysis to concept and theory development. Theory emerges with data reduction (ie,
filtering information relevant to the topic and discarding extraneous information) and
selective sampling. Data usually are collected until no further new information is found.
This process is termed saturation and signals the end of data collection.

RESEARCH REPORT

A research report has many purposes, including communicating research findings. For
grounded theory research, the report also describes the theory derived from research.
The report should include information regarding how data were collected and analyzed,
as well as the concepts that were generated. Guidelines for critiquing grounded theory
research have been outlined by researchers.(6) The following eight categories should
be addressed in a grounded theory report:

* statement of the phenomenon of interest;

* purpose;

* method;

* sampling;

* data generation;

* data analysis;

* empirical grounding of the study (ie, findings); and conclusions, implications, and
recommendations.

Many investigations of nursing practice have used grounded theory.(7) The grounded
theory method has been used to study how people live with HIV and manage their
illness. It also has been used to explore how parents whose children are hospitalized in
an intensive care unit cope with their feelings of uncertainty. Additional study topics
have included postpartum depression; communication processes; or living with
diabetes, dialysis, or bone marrow transplantation.

SUMMARY

Grounded theory as a qualitative research approach provides nurses with strategies to

build theories in areas previously unexplored or under explored. Although similar to
other inductive processes, this methodology differs in that it emerges from the discipline
of sociology. In addition, strategies for data analysis differ according to each
methodologist. As with other qualitative methods, the researcher must link philosophy,
methodology, and research method for rigorous and credible scholarship.