State of the Methods

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Volume 20: 1–10
Interviewing as a Vehicle for Theoretical ª The Author(s) 2021
DOI: 10.1177/1609406920980957
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq
Sampling in Grounded Theory

Geraldine Foley1 , Virpi Timonen2, Catherine Conlon2,

and Catherine Elliott O’Dare3

Abstract
Interviewing is a frequently deployed data collection method in grounded theory research. Theoretical sampling is a core feature
of the grounded theory method. Theoretical sampling is commonly understood as a means for sampling participants with a set of
theoretical considerations in mind. However, theoretical sampling also occurs in the actual data generating process, for example
through interviewing. Here, we illustrate how interviewing can be used as a vehicle for theoretical sampling. We discuss how to
set up an interview study for it to be amenable to theoretical sampling. We show how interviewing and theoretical sampling align
as the study proceeds and how interviewing in grounded theory can steer the course for theoretical sampling. We demonstrate
how co-construction of data in grounded theory interviewing fuels theoretical sampling. Finally, we show that proceeding with
questions for the purpose of theoretical sampling requires reflexivity and flexibility on the part of the researcher. We conclude
that generating and analyzing data through the course of interviewing allows the researcher to probe into, expand on, and saturate
key concepts and categories which collectively steer the inquiry and subsequent sampling. In the absence of theoretical sampling, it
is not possible to grasp the basis for modifying interview questions or to decipher what or how questions should be asked, and for
what purpose.

Keywords
theoretical sampling, grounded theory, interviewing, theoretical saturation, qualitative

Introduction and compilation of documents and texts; Bryant & Charmaz,

2019; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The method
Interviewing is the most widely used tool for collecting data in
comprises a set of procedures and techniques used to build
qualitative research (Green & Thorogood, 2014). The form and
concepts and theory so that they are “grounded” in the data
style of interviewing in qualitative research is shaped by mul-
(Bryant, 2017; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Data collection and
tiple factors including the overall approach and purpose of the
analysis proceed in tandem and ongoing analysis steers the
study (e.g., explanatory or descriptive), the research premise of
course of the inquiry in grounded theory. Emergent concepts
the study (e.g., inductive, abductive, deductive), and the rela-
in the data being generated are used to guide where to go to for
tional context between the researcher and participants of the
more data, from whom more data should be collected, and for
study (e.g., the degree of co-construction between the
what purpose (Bagnasco et al., 2014). This form of sampling—
researcher and participants; O’Reilly & Kiyimba, 2015). Qua-
litative interviewing is not only focused on capturing experi-
ences and perspectives from participants. It also allows for the
1
interpretation and in some cases explanation of those experi- School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
2
School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
ences—in relation to each other and the contexts in which they 3
School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice, University College
arise (Edwards & Holland, 2013). Dublin, Ireland
Grounded theory is a commonly used approach in qualita-
tive research (Creswell & Poth, 2018) and interviewing is the Corresponding Author:
most frequently deployed data collection method in grounded Geraldine Foley, Discipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Medicine,
Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, James’s Street,
theory (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012), either alone or in con- Dublin 8, Ireland.
junction with other data collection methods (e.g., observation Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and
Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

directed toward building concepts and theory from data—is patterns in data, and to build concepts and theory from data
known as theoretical sampling. (Birks & Mills, 2015; Stewart, 2007).
Theoretical sampling is a core feature of the grounded the- The inherent flexibility of qualitative interviewing is useful
ory method, originating in the early work of the founders of the for grounded theory because—as data collection and analysis
method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967/2012). It functions in all var- proceed in tandem—new questions can be asked of research
iants of the method including classical (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & participants and data when the analysis begins to yield concepts
Holton, 2004), Corbin/Strauss (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss and later when a theoretical framework is constructed. Issues
& Corbin, 1998), constructivist (Charmaz, 2014), situational particularly pertinent to the emerging inquiry, can where nec-
analysis (Clarke et al., 2017), and critical realist (Hodd, essary and fruitful, be pursued through interview questions that
2018; Oliver, 2012) grounded theory. The researcher moves elicit additional insights to achieve a thorough conceptualiza-
from purposive sampling (or other forms of non-probability tion of the data. Interviewing is envisaged differently by vari-
sampling) to sampling for concepts that are emergent in the ous grounded theory schools—for example, aiding the process
data (Bryant, 2020; Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; of “discovery” in the original conception (Glaser & Strauss,
Glaser, 1992). The conscious pursuit of key concepts in data 1967/2012) versus being a vehicle for the “journey” of
generation signals that a researcher has begun to theoretically co-construction by constructivist grounded theory practitioners
sample (Charmaz, 2014) and it is the relationships between (Charmaz, 2014). However, whether or not as researchers we
these concepts that may ultimately constitute theory. Theore- are trying to “get at” processes “out there” (for instance, as
tical sampling is not just a discrete stage of sampling in a realists or objectivists) or are more focused on allowing
grounded theory study. It also works in parallel with and/or accounts of lived experiences, processes and practices to be
is interspersed among other sampling methods when concep- co-constructed during the interview, interviewing in all var-
tual categories (more encompassing concepts) emerge at dif- iants of grounded theory involves putting emergent concepts
ferent stages of the study and where the researcher needs to in dialogue with each other. Remaining open to new data but
generate the comparative data to build concepts and categories also searching for and clarifying key processes and patterns in
the data calls for extensive probing and possibly modification
constitutive of theoretical constructs and patterns in the data
of the interview guide during the process of data collection (as
(Conlon et al., 2020).
explained below). As a grounded theory study progresses,
Interviews in grounded theory (as in other qualitative
questions become more focused viz. aimed at understanding
approaches) take forms such as individual/dyadic interviews
what is “going on here” and how key events, incidents, beha-
and focus groups (Hennick, 2014; Mitchell, 2014; Morse &
viors, and processes in the data are shaped by context(s) and are
Clark, 2019). Although interviews and focus groups have tra-
constitutive of categories.
ditionally been conducted face-to-face in qualitative research,
The goal of any grounded theory study is to reach theoretical
online interviews and focus groups are now commonplace in
saturation of the data—the point at which all key categories are
qualitative research (Kite & Phongsavan, 2017; Salmons,
fully contextualized and dimensionalized to substantially
2015). Given the primary function of grounded theory to build
explain the emergent theoretical construct. Theoretical satura-
concepts and theory “from the ground up,” interviewing in tion in all variants of grounded theory necessitates flexibility,
grounded theory can never be standardized or formulaic. This creativity and reflexivity in the interview process in order to
is because emergent concepts in the data prompt the researcher build concepts, categories and theory. Hence, the interviewer is
to steer the interviewing to elicit the meaning and dimensions to varying degrees a “co-constructor” (with interviewees) of
of those concepts. Unstructured interviews (where there is no the data because the researcher has the capacity to deploy
specific “set” of questions at the outset) are suitable in a knowledge and insight to sensitize concepts in data and to steer
grounded theory study when little is known about the phenom- the course of the inquiry (Timonen et al., 2018). Apart from
enon or process under study and when the intention is to extract classical grounded theory which contends that theory emerges
the basic parameters of that phenomenon/process with maxi- from data viz. is discovered by the researcher (Glaser, 2002),
mum openness to what aspects of it matter most (Foley & the process of data collection in grounded theory situates both
Timonen, 2015). Semi-structured interviews are more suitable the interviewer and interviewees as active in the construction of
for a grounded theory study when the researcher has identified, knowledge.
albeit tentatively, some domains that have already situated the Our previous work has illustrated theoretical sampling in
inquiry which interviewing can then begin to expand upon action in grounded theory studies (Conlon et al., 2020). Com-
(Conlon et al., 2015). Interviews in a grounded theory study monly understood as a means to sample for additional partici-
can move from being unstructured to semi-structured when the pants with a set of theoretical considerations in mind,
process of theory building directs the researcher to hone in on theoretical sampling can also “be progressed through a variety
emerging concepts and build theoretical categories to explain of means and techniques in the actual data collection process.
the phenomenon under study (Bluff, 2005). While the format Most commonly, this happens through interviewing, for
and process of focus groups do differ to one-to-one interviews, instance, steering questions in the direction of emergent theo-
the purpose of data collection and analysis through focus rizing” where “the focus of data collection, including the ques-
groups in grounded theory is also to identify processes and tions asked, can change in the theoretical sampling process”
Foley et al. 3

(Conlon et al., 2020, p. 949). Here, we take an in-depth look at will make theoretical sampling more difficult or even impos-
interviewing as a vehicle for theoretical sampling. Researchers sible. Interviewing with the goal of accomplishing theoretical
who embark on a grounded theory study intending to use inter- sampling and subsequently theoretical saturation is not a “fact-
viewing as a tool for data collection need to decipher: How do I finding mission”—it is not about ticking one box after another
set up my interview study with the view to being able to do in the manner of racing through a list of questions but rather
theoretical sampling? How do theoretical sampling and inter- should serve the function of “opening up” the inquiry so as to
viewing align as the study proceeds? How does interviewing be able to progress toward building theoretically oriented
steer theoretical sampling in the theory building process? How accounts (Sbaraini et al., 2011).
does co-construction of data through interviewing help to Third, it is important for the grounded theory researcher to
accomplish theoretical sampling? In some cases, can interview- take great care in formulating the small number of questions in
ing impose restrictions on researchers to pursue theoretical the interview guide with the view to it serving as the device that
sampling? Here, with the aid of examples of how we used launches the data collection. The researcher is tasked with
interviewing in our grounded theory research, we answer these thinking through the pros and cons of posing questions in a
questions and outline how interviewing in grounded theory can particular way and piloting them if possible. However, the
be used as a vehicle to theoretically sample. Our overall aim guide is merely the starting point for interviewing, and the
here is to make interviewing as a tool for theoretical sampling focus of interviewing needs to evolve as the study progresses
in grounded theory accessible to researchers who are new to the if it is to accomplish theoretical sampling and reach theoretical
grounded theory method. Each study conducted by us which is saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The guide should not be
used to illustrate interviewing as means to theoretically sample approached as “cast in stone” but rather as something that can
had ethical approval from a research ethics committee. be adapted and complemented through extensive prompting
(where needed) and probing in directions that are conducive
to theoretical sampling. Indeed, inherent to theoretical sam-
How Do I Set Up My Interview Study With pling is the expectation that interview guides would evolve
as insights in the inquiry deepen. The interview guide can and
the View to Being Able to Do Theoretical
should be informed by the literature on the area of the inquiry
Sampling? but not in a deductive manner (Timonen et al., 2018). In other
Some preliminary steps and reflections are necessary when words, both the interview guide and the literature that informs
setting out to use interviewing with the view to theoretical it should be viewed as a launch pad, not a straitjacket.
sampling in a grounded theory study. First, the researcher Some studies in grounded theory are highly conceptual in
should ask: can I “get at” the interviewees and data that I might their intellectual origin, necessitating a lot of “translating” of
need? In other words, when envisaging possible paths and concepts into everyday language. This illustrates how literature
directions for both initial (more encompassing, heterogeneous) can play a part in theoretical sampling from the very beginning
and subsequent (theoretical) sampling, is it likely or will it be of a study. For instance, in a study by Timonen and Conlon
possible to follow these? If not, it is necessary to consider focused on intergenerational solidarity, key concepts of
adjusting the research design/focus so that it is more amenable “solidarity” and “justice” (and ideas underpinning them) which
to theoretical sampling. As outlined above, theoretical sam- had informed the study, had to be expressed as “give and take”
pling is a process that evolves in the course of the study, and and “help and support” at the level of the research instrument
this first step can be challenging due to the unpredictability of i.e. the interview guide (Conlon et al., 2015). The research
the precise course of theoretical sampling. Indeed, this step participants’ responses to the interview questions moved the
should be seen as the first stage of an ongoing practice of process of theoretical sampling in theoretically germane direc-
reflecting on sampling throughout the study. Conducting online tions, resulting in a new conceptualization where social class
interviewing (e.g., via Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc.; Archibald underpins many forms of intergenerational solidarity at both
et al., 2019; Gray et al., 2020; Microsoft, 2020) or telephone family and societal levels (Timonen et al., 2013). This illus-
interviews can increase the sources available to the researcher trates the dynamic, iterative interaction between conceptual-
to theoretically sample in interviewing because remote inter- theoretical and everyday language in the process of planning,
viewing eliminates many issues to do with accessing partici- conducting and steering the interviews that serve the purposes
pants who are not proximate to the researcher. of theoretical sampling.
Second, the interview guide should be so succinct that going
out to do the first few interviews might even seem a little
How Do Theoretical Sampling and
intimidating: the researcher should be wondering—is the inter-
view guide sufficient to go by? If the researcher sets out with a Interviewing Align as the Study Proceeds?
large number of questions, the interviews are likely to run into The researcher should not rush the grounded theory interview
too many distinct directions, and the researcher will feel under process. As explained, theoretical sampling is not simply about
pressure to “cover” all the questions. This kind of “scattergun” sampling for more participants or more “varied” participants; it
approach risks rushed, superficial interviews that cover numer- is first and foremost about saturating concepts and ultimately,
ous “topics” but prove conceptually unsatisfactory. This in turn building theory through the practice of theoretical sampling
4 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

(Timonen et al., 2018). Hence, the researcher should not be 2018). Actively probing into these divergent practices led to
“just interviewing” and “getting data.” The challenge of pro- the development of the core categories of grandparental choice
ceeding in a grounded theory study arises from the fact that the (to be involved in caring for grandchildren, or not) and con-
researcher is constantly asking: where do I go now, what do I straint (need to be involved in provision of grandchild care
want and need to understand better, and how do I go about regardless of personal preferences).
filling out (or rejecting) the concepts that are emergent in the The “pull” in grounded theory interviewing comes from
data? This is all in the interest of initiating and furthering becoming attuned to a line of inquiry that may or may not prove
theoretical sampling. Interviewing in grounded theory is never to be productive in the sense of leading to conceptual develop-
only focused on expanding upon the emergent concepts. ment. The “pull” can arise quite spontaneously when conduct-
Rather, it also necessitates deciphering the relevance (or not) ing interviews on topics and discovering the data is veering in
of concepts to move data generation forward. novel directions not reflected in the literature or in the research-
When the researcher initiates and progresses the process of er’s own prior research in that area. For example, in Conlon’s
interviewing, there are (very broadly speaking) two modes that current study on women’s experiences of abortion care in Ire-
she can enter and move interchangeably between. These can be land, novel and surprising talk featured in interviews centering
labeled as the “push” and the “pull” of theoretical sampling in on processes of the embodied experience of abortion and an
grounded theory interviewing. The “push” refers to the more emerging concept of “unquestioning entitlement” to reproduc-
active interviewing style, when the researcher has identified a tive autonomy. Conlon had previously interviewed women
potentially productive and illuminating line of inquiry in the from Ireland proximate to them accessing abortion services
data which then triggers theoretical sampling. Recall that the in England on two occasions (Conlon, 2005; Mahon et al.,
direction of a grounded theory study can be somewhat open at 1998) when abortion was illegal in Ireland and had not heard
the outset, and this calls for careful attention to what the data this vein of talk in either of those studies. Drawing on theore-
“tells” the researcher. The “push” is oriented toward develop- tical sampling, Conlon is exploring whether the recent con-
ing a fuller understanding of the relevance and dimensions of textual shift wherein Ireland had a referendum on abortion
these initial patterns. However, while “pushing” in line with that yielded a strong vote in favor of changing the legal posi-
theoretical sampling, the researcher must remain aware of the tion to allow for abortion is the catalyst for this new vein in
major pitfalls of forcing data for instance by asking leading women’s talk about abortion in the current research. The the-
questions that might steer the interview(s) in directions that oretical sampling question this raises is: has the debate about
would not have unfolded, had more open questions been asked. abortion in Ireland, acknowledged as having been dominated
In grounded theory, it is essential to grasp the overall concep- by a position in favor of “Repeal” of the constitutional ban on
tual development of the data and then orientate the interview abortion, opened up new discourses and broken longstanding
style that serves conceptual development best (Corbin & taboos in how women communicate in research interviews
Strauss, 2015). The “push” of theoretical sampling is not about about abortion? In theoretical sampling, Conlon is carefully
merely “confirming hunches” or looking for what the navigating data collection so as to tap into this novel openness
researcher wants to find. Instead, the researcher must remain and vein in women’s talk signaled in openness in the talk to
attuned to the “negative cases” and avoid confirmation bias. discuss processes and aspects of the abortion experience (e.g.,
Interviewing must remain a rigorous, reflexive and open endea- embodied experience of the aborting pregnancy, acknowled-
vor throughout the course of a study where the researcher is ging feelings of sadness and loss while still wanting to termi-
attuned to the complexity of the phenomenon/process under nate the pregnancy) to get a handle on “what is going on
investigation. here.”
For instance, when interviewing grandparents from higher The “pull” in grounded theory interviewing that comes from
socioeconomic groups, Timonen developed the category of becoming attuned to a line of inquiry also requires remaining
choice, relating to grandparents who chose not to be closely open to the full dimensions of that line of inquiry. For example,
involved in the care of their grandchildren (Timonen & Doyle, when Foley conducted unstructured interviews with amyo-
2012)—something that seemed particularly marked among the trophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients about their experiences
(higher socioeconomic) groups with the resources to pursue of healthcare services, participants spoke openly about how
“Third Age” interests. However, Timonen also came across being a parent influenced their decisions about care. Partici-
and sought out grandparents from higher socioeconomic pants’ concerns were underpinned by the concept obligation to
groups who were involved in grandchild care. Investigation family. Foley resisted the temptation of only asking questions
of these grandparents revealed an additional dimension of about care in the context of parenthood to participants who had
choice, namely the choice to be involved for instance because children. Rather, she also posed open-ended questions about
the grandparents believed it to be politic from the point of view obligation and parenthood to participants who did not have
of staying in touch with the grandchild where the parents had children. Data generated from these participants found that
divorced; or because they were highly committed to the child’s having no children alleviated the burden of obligation to family
early education (Timonen & Doyle, 2012). This contrasted to (Foley et al., 2014a). Not being a parent in ALS also became an
the lack of choice among grandparents whose adult children important dimension to understanding the significance of par-
were unable to afford formal childcare (McGarrigle et al., enthood for decisions participants made about care and how
Foley et al. 5

obligation to family among people with ALS as they engage P#31: . . . I’m terrified of my life being in everybody
with healthcare services can vary depending on parenthood else’s hands except my own . . . the thought of
status. like sitting in a wheelchair paralyzed and
depending on other people to do for
me . . . that’s a total nightmare, that is my worst
How Does Interviewing Steer Theoretical nightmare. I would hope before I got to that
Sampling in the Theory Building Process? condition that I would die . . . . It’s very difficult
and already I’m losing control over all of that.
As stated earlier, grounded theory is not only about generating (F): Though you feel less in control, are you aware
concepts that are grounded in the data. Of equal importance is of any strategies you might use to try and get
how the concepts generated are understood in relation to each that control back or try and be in control?
other. Interviewing in grounded theory is used to generate con- P#31: Well I still try and do whatever I can myself but
cepts and tease out the relationships between these concepts to I’m beginning to realize I’m not going to be
build theory (Morse & Clark, 2019). Grounded theory also able to control all these things and I really don’t
involves interrogating emergent concepts and categories in light like the fact that I will depend so totally on
of relevant insights from outside of the study (Glaser & Strauss, people to do things for me.
1967/2012). Articles reporting empirical data by their nature are
limited in their capacity to illustrate what sampling for concepts This interviewee’s commentary about loss of control indi-
looks like in the process of data generation (e.g., interviewing) cated to Foley that participant #31 did not feel he was regaining
and theory building. Next, we illustrate how interviewing in a control but anticipated more loss including more loss of con-
grounded theory study can be used to effectively steer theoretical trol. The participant’s communication at the outset of the inter-
sampling in the theory building process (i.e., when interviewing view had already suggested that loss in ALS was
proceeds in the direction of emergent theorizing). insurmountable. There seemed little or no possibility for parti-
In the above-mentioned ALS study, Foley had sought to iden- cipant #31 to overcome his loss because of the uncontrollable
tify key processes that underpin how people with ALS engage nature of ALS and increased reliance on others including ser-
with healthcare services. The sample comprised 34 people in vices. This was consistent with Foley’s earlier theorization (in
total. By the 30th interview of the study, the primary category theoretical memos) of the relationship between loss and control
of loss had been identified and dimensionalized. Loss encom- in ALS based on data from other participants who had talked
passed multiple dimensions including the loss of control. The about loss in ALS. She then probed more into why participant
category of control had been constructed and part of it, processes #31 felt loss in ALS was insurmountable:
constitutive of exerting control in healthcare services. Subse-
(F): Why do you think there is such loss in MND?
quent interviewing sought to generate an understanding of the
P#31: . . . [Because] you lose everything, absolutely every-
relationship between these categories (i.e., loss and control) in
thing . . . may not be [all] due only to the physical condi-
order to fully saturate them and build theory. At the outset of the
tion of MND, but it most certainly is related
31st interview, participant #31 spoke at length about loss in ALS psychologically. I used to love in the evening to sit down
including loss of control, for example: and have a glass of wine, bit of cheese, no real desire now.
P#31: I find myself in a constant battle, day after day because I’ve no feeling of wanting to do stuff like that [any-
this MND [ALS] alien that has taken over my body and more] . . . . Personally, I think my own body is withdraw-
that I have not too much defence against. Normally in a ing from my old life into this new situation and I’m
war you win some battles; I’m losing all the battles and I discarding all the things that I used to do, used to enjoy.
know for a fact I’m going to lose the war. The war is lost I’m not doing it deliberately . . . my body is saying you
already because MND is going to take me anyhow, but know, pull back from that and that is what happening.
I’m not winning any battles, because I feel the arms that
I’m provided with in no way, can in any way defeat or The data indicated that people living with ALS needed to
even hold back this alien that is taking me over. come to terms with loss rather than attempt to control the
incurring loss. Foley proceeded to probe:
The literature on loss and adaptation in ALS had pointed to
how people with ALS can regain control and restore normality (F): Is it the potential of not being in control that frightens you
in their lives. In order to further interrogate the relationship most . . . as you progress with MND, you give some more
between loss and control, Foley continued through probing and control over to services to look after you?
clarifying questions to generate data on how participant #31 P#31: . . . The balance [of power] is changed even now, because
perceived loss of control and the strategies that participant #31 when I’m using that walker [walking aid], if [spouse] not
here I can’t even make a cup of tea for myself . . . . [But]
used to cope with loss of control:
it’s still important [for services] to be available, when I
Interviewer (F): You mentioned at the beginning of the inter- need somebody that they are available . . . . [and] to make
view . . . that you feel absolutely no control over decisions when you are in control, when you can pick a
the condition? room [for end-of-life care] that you like, when you can
6 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

tell them what you want to do, what you want them to do
advanced in their condition (Foley, 2004, 2007). Early inter-
for you. viewing in the study had not featured any questions around
acceptance (or not) of healthcare services or indeed acceptance
This participant’s preferences for care indicated that he was (or not) of ALS. However, as the study proceeded, data
still striving to exert control in his interactions with healthcare reflected varying degrees of acceptance of ALS and on some
services even though he had strongly communicated that he occasions refusal to accept ALS. Multiple incidents were also
was losing control and anticipated further loss of control. identified whereby patients felt conflicted between recognizing
Together with earlier theorizing about how participants were the need for services and wanting to avoid or delay services.
engaging with healthcare services in the context of loss, Foley Foley reflected on her prior experience of ALS patients and
theorized the process of exerting control in healthcare services proceeded to ask questions of participants that could help tease
as a means of coming to terms with loss (Foley & Timonen, out how varying degrees of acceptance of ALS or indeed non-
2016; Foley et al., 2014b). This example of interviewing illus- acceptance in ALS, might frame how participants balanced
trates how interviewing in a grounded theory study can steer between accepting, resisting or declining assistance from
theoretical sampling to build theory. Questions followed a line healthcare services.
of inquiry based on the data generated and proceeded to tease In a study conducted by Elliott O’Dare on how older people
out the relationship between key concepts and categories. Teas- forge and maintain intergenerational friendships (Elliott
ing out the relationship between key concepts and categories in O’Dare et al., 2020), co-construction of data in interviewing
interviewing helped to saturate categories (in this case, loss and was key to theoretical sampling. In the initial semi-structured
control). Moreover, sampling for concepts and categories both interviews, Elliott O’Dare had attempted to “get at” the nuan-
in and outside of the dataset and then probing in the context of ces and complexities in the processes of forming and maintain-
similarities and anomalies between the interview data and what ing an intergenerational friendship. She posed the open
was already known about loss and control in ALS, was key to question “can you tell me about any downsides or difficulties
the theory building process. Examination of the relationship to having a younger friend?” because her own experience and
between loss and control for people with ALS resulted in novel some extant literature had indicated that in same-age friend-
theory about how people with ALS adapt to loss (Foley et al., ships, downsides or difficulties between friends could lead to
2014b). unhappiness within a friendship or cessation of a friendship.
However, participants perceived no downsides or difficulties to
having a younger friend and instead spoke extensively about
How Does Co-Construction of Data Through commonalities between them and their younger friend(s).
Elliott O’Dare reflected on her standpoint from which she had
Interviewing Help to Accomplish Theoretical
posed the open question and honed her theoretical sensitivity to
Sampling? what were in many cases, unexpected dimensions to interge-
How co-construction of data occurs in grounded theory is a nerational friendship formation and maintenance for older peo-
matter of debate (O’Connor et al., 2018). In constructivist ple. In subsequent interviews, the category of “difference”
grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014), researchers actively engage emerged whereby participants judged “difference” between
with strategies that reveal their preconceptions which can them and their younger friends not as a downside or difficulty,
become part of the analysis. In contrast, in classical grounded but rather as an interesting and valued part of their intergenera-
theory, the researcher seeks to bracket her preconceptions and tional friendships. The emergence of the category of
so the researcher’s preconceptions become subjected to the “differences” seemed at first contradictory to participants’ ear-
same analytical process as for any concepts emerging from the lier descriptions of commonalities with younger friends. Elliott
data (Glaser, 2002). We take a general view that data genera- O’Dare then proceeded in subsequent interviews to theoreti-
tion in grounded theory is a co-constructive process because the cally sample for the dimensions and variance of “differences”
theoretical sensitivity (i.e., the ability to give meaning to data to decipher how “differences” in intergenerational friendships
and to understand what has relevance to the inquiry) that is also serve to maintain friendships for older people. On com-
needed for theoretical sampling implicates the researcher and pletion of interviewing, “difference” emerged a key construct
participants in every stage of generating data. Here, we illus- for understanding the process of intergenerational friendship
trate with examples how sensitivity to the positions adopted by maintenance for older people (Elliott O’Dare et al., 2020).
both the researcher and participants in grounded theory inter- The theoretical sampling process entailed in Conlon’s work
viewing facilitates theoretical sampling. described earlier involves the researcher looking out for talk
As mentioned, in the ALS study, data had pointed to the that was previously silenced and tracking novelty in this data
importance for participants to feel in control of their care. Prior particularly aligned with notions of autonomy and new fram-
to conducting the study, Foley had worked as a clinical spe- ings of abortion discourse. This is not only a process of co-
cialist occupational therapist with people with neurological constructing meaning but also a process of co-constructing
disorders including people with ALS. She had observed prior space for talk. Forms this careful exploration is taking include
to the study how people with ALS balanced between accepting, for example, listening and watching out carefully for often non-
resisting, and declining assistance from services as they verbal (gestural) clues to the embodied processes, remarking on
Foley et al. 7

gestures to the participants, allowing space in the interaction terminated. Judgment about whether to close a line of inquiry
for non-verbal gestures to evolve into talk, and sharing hunches or keep it open is highly contextualized and depends on mul-
with participants about emerging insights from earlier inter- tiple factors. For example, in the study focused on how inter-
views with women in subsequent interviews. Careful tuning generational solidarity is constructed across generations as
into women’s openness to taking this direction in the talk is mentioned earlier (Timonen et al., 2013), an interviewee by
required however and this entails researchers carefully parsing the pseudonym of “Iris” (age 87) associated being in need of
and analyzing each interview through fieldnotes and tran- care with being a burden, and proudly declared her intention
scribed talk. The challenge in this work is steering a course not to become a “burden” on her adult children. At this point,
between longstanding social science conventions for qualita- the interviewer could have probed further into feelings behind
tive interviews (e.g., be neutral and do not make participants this strongly expressed determination “not to be a burden.”
uneasy) and creating a safe space where previously taboo topics However, principles of non-maleficence suggested that lines
and silenced discussions are allowed to be brought out into the of probing that might give rise to intensely uncomfortable feel-
open. Shifting to online interviewing for a proportion of data ings (in this case, possibly fear and anxiety) were to be avoided.
collection under restrictions arising from the evolving Covid- Instead of probing further into the notion of “burden,” the
19 pandemic (Jowett, 2020) will provide insight into how interview proceeded in a closely related direction of theoretical
online interviewing shapes further the co-construction of open- sampling in this study (strategies in cultivating self-care and
ness and “space” to talk. Participants’ consent to audio-visual independence in view of perceived “busyness” of adult chil-
recording provides opportunities to further examine participant dren’s lives; see Conlon et al., 2014).
expression in the course of both interview formats including the In contrast, the context of interviewing people with ALS
role played by researcher and participant in the co-construction about their experience of healthcare services was very differ-
of data and subsequently, in the process of theoretical ent. Not only were participants informed that interviews could
sampling. result in a degree of emotional distress, participants’ accounts
In this section, we have shown how theoretical sampling via in of themselves were embedded in the context of living with a
interviewing in grounded theory necessitates sensitivity to the rapidly progressive and terminal condition. For example, some
positions of both the researcher and participants. We have also participants had in the early stages of data collection voiced
shown that meanings constructed by both the researcher and uncertainty about end-of-life care. Foley pursued this line of
participants drive theoretical sampling in the process of inter- inquiry and in places, looked for conditions that provoked
viewing. In a novel direction, we also discuss the co- uncertainty or conversely reassured participants about end-of-
construction of space to talk. In our examples, the researcher’s life care. Asking questions of participants about their expecta-
insight about data and context combined with procedures to tions of end-of-life care found that uncertainty for participants
sample for concepts based on participants’ accounts and was alleviated when they had trust in healthcare professionals
experiences, meant that both the researcher and participants who they felt had the capacity and expertise to deliver on their
shaped how interviews progressed toward theoretical sampling. preferred choices for end-of-life care (Foley et al., 2014c).
Grounded theory interviews on sensitive topics can proceed
in directions that the data has sensitized the research to go. For
Can Interviewing Impose Restrictions on
example, in conducting interviews with women on the experi-
Researchers to Pursue Theoretical Sampling? ence of abortion, Conlon has found that an open-ended
Interviews are overtly language-based research instruments. approach to interviewing allowed the parameters of the inquiry
The use of language is central to the process of interviewing on a research topic that is highly fraught in broader social and
(Polkinghorne, 2005) and, in grounded theory, to the process of political discourses to emerge from the interview data itself. As
theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2014). This is the case for face- illustrated, creating conditions for where the interview is a safe
to-face and remote real-time interviewing. For example, it is space to talk and where talk did not have to be so carefully
possible to steer questions in online interviews in a manner that mediated by discourses that usually prevail abortion was con-
is similar to steering questions in face-to-face interviews ducive to theoretical sampling. Here, the opportunity to talk
because it is first and foremost about what happens in the freely without being concerned about sensitivities of others that
course of the interview that facilitates theoretical sampling. participants were in a dependent relationship with, or about
Interviewing in grounded theory is an evolving process and being judged or stigmatized for having an abortion is allowing
so the language used by the interviewer needs to be highly novel concepts not featured in literature on this topic to date
responsive, reflexive and adaptable in order to phrase questions emerge in interviews.
and probe in a manner that serves the purpose of theoretical In some cases, difficult emotions such as fear might also
sampling. However, the researcher’s reflexivity and ability to emerge quite spontaneously in interview accounts and can be
adapt questioning are tested in interview situations where the probed into. For example, when using focus groups to inter-
desirability of theoretical sampling is questionable. The inter- view key stakeholders (service users, home-care workers, nur-
viewer needs to be attuned to, for example, the importance of sing and other health professionals, and policy makers) about
silences or potential distress on the part of participants and their experiences, expectations and delivery of home-care ser-
judge how the line of inquiry might best proceed—or be vices, Timonen and a colleague (Lolich) found that service
8 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

users felt fortunate in having home-care services but also the positions of both the interviewer and interviewees in data
feared the possibility of losing these services. Explicit expres- collection and the wider contexts framing the inquiry and anal-
sions of fear by older adults led Lolich and Timonen to probe ysis aids theoretical sampling.
further into participants’ accounts to identify key conditions in The purpose of this article was to make interviewing as a
home-care services that can provoke concern for service users. tool for theoretical sampling in grounded theory accessible to
Subsequent probing during focus group interviews identified researchers who are new to the grounded theory method. We
that unpredictability and ambiguity surrounding funding and are also motivated (along with other instruction on theoretical
allocation of services were among the reasons for service users’ sampling and interviewing—the wealth of scholarship refer-
fear of losing services. Service users’ fears surrounding access enced in and beyond this article on these topics) by the wish
to services also included the fear of not being able to regain to make theoretical sampling in grounded theory very accessi-
access to services if discharged from services. In some cases, it ble to all researchers. Here, we have illustrated with examples,
emerged that older adults had continued to hold onto services the merit and feasibility of interviewing as a vehicle for theo-
even if their care needs had diminished for fear that services retical sampling and how effective interviewing can be to fuel
could be difficult or impossible to re-access in the future theoretical sampling. We have also demonstrated how we
(Lolich & Timonen, 2020). anticipate interviewing having a place in theoretical sampling
There is of course the question of how far theoretical sam- and grounded theory for some time to come. Being clear about
pling can go in interview-based research. Theoretical sampling the emphasis in theoretical sampling on sampling for concepts
for concepts via analysis of interview text on its own might not over and above sampling to generate more data from more
always capture key incidents and conditions that are ripe for participants, is key to generating highly conceptualized data
elaboration. Indeed, talk-dependent qualitative methodologies through interviewing in grounded theory.
can have limitations because they do not routinely incorporate
attention to affect or materiality (Lather & St. Pierre, 2013; St. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Pierre, 2017). Conlon’s work reported here particularly raises The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
questions about how to resolve the limitations of talk as data. the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
We have shown that while there may be some occasions when
specific questions may change in the interest of participants, Funding
interviewing even in the most sensitive of topics is an effective The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
means to pursue theoretical sampling. Focused attention on the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
participants’ affect and behavior in addition to what is commu- was supported in part by the Health Research Board of Ireland (HPF/
nicated by “talk,” can progress theoretical sampling in a 2011/1), the Irish Research Council (GOIPG/2016/525), the Health
grounded theory study. In our experience, interviewing has not Service Executive, Ireland (HSE 12128), the Atlantic Philanthropies
limited our scope for theoretical sampling. (20309), and Horizon 2020 (European Union’s 8th Framework Pro-
gramme for Research and Innovation, 769975). Virpi Timonen wants
to acknowledge support by the Ministry of Education of the Republic
Conclusion of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-
2016S1A3A2924563).
We have in this article shown how interviewing can be
employed effectively as a vehicle for theoretical sampling in
ORCID iD
grounded theory, even when words are hard to find to fit
experiences being researched. We have also shown how sam- Geraldine Foley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7952-9246
pling for concepts and categories through grounded theory
interview-based studies, extends well beyond sampling for par- References
ticipants to generate concepts, categories and theory. Generat- Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M.
ing and analyzing data through the course of interviewing (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collec-
allows the researcher to probe into, expand on, and saturate tion: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants.
key concepts and categories which collectively steer the course International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–18. https://doi.
of the inquiry and subsequent sampling. org/10.1177/1609406919874596
Theoretical sampling is not limited to generating data Bagnasco, A., Ghirotto, L., & Sasso, L. (2014). Theoretical sampling.
through active interviewing. However, in the absence of theo- Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(11), e6–7. https://doi.org/10.
retical sampling, it is not possible to grasp the basis for mod- 1111/jan.12450
ifying interview questions in the course of interviewing or to Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd
decipher what or how questions should be asked, and for what ed.). Sage.
purpose. It is a valuable exercise to consider the amenability of Bluff, R. (2005). Grounded theory: The methodology. In I. Holloway
a prospective grounded theory interview-based study to theo- (Ed.), Qualitative research in health care (pp. 147–167). Open
retical sampling at the design stage of the study. Reflexivity University Press.
and adaptability on the part of the researcher is required for Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Prag-
formulating questions at all stages of the inquiry. Sensitivity to matism in research practice. Oxford University Press.
Foley et al. 9

Bryant, A. (2020). Continual permutations of misunderstanding: The Foley, G., Timonen, V., & Hardiman, O. (2014a). Acceptance and
curious incidents of the grounded theory method. Qualitative decision making in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from a life-
Inquiry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ course perspective. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 67–77.
1077800420920663 https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313516545
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2019). The SAGE handbook of Foley, G., Timonen, V., & Hardiman, O. (2014b). Exerting control
current developments in grounded theory. Sage. and adapting to loss in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Social Sci-
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage. ence & Medicine, 101, 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socs
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and cimed.2013.11.003
grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Foley, G., Timonen, V., & Hardiman, O. (2014c). Understanding
Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of inter- psycho-social processes underpinning engagement with services
view research. The complexity of the craft. Sage. in motor neurone disease: A qualitative study. Palliative Medicine,
Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2017). Situational anal- 28(4), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216313512013
ysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn. Sage. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the metho-
Conlon, C. (2005). Mixed methods research of crisis pregnancy coun- dology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.
selling and support services. Crisis Pregnancy Agency. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence
Conlon, C., Carney, G., Timonen, V., & Scharf, T. (2015). “Emergent vs forcing. Sociology Press.
reconstruction” in grounded theory: Learning from team-based Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Quali-
interview research. Qualitative Research, 15(1), 39–56. https:// tative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3),
doi.org/10.1177/1468794113495038 Art. 12. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.825
Conlon, C., Timonen, V., Carney, G., & Scharf, T. (2014). Women Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodelling grounded theory.
(re)negotiating care across family generations: Intersections of Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
gender and socioeconomic status. Gender & Society, 28(5), Research, 5(2), Art. 4. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (2012). The discovery of grounded theory.
729–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214536466
Aldine Transaction (Seventh paperback printing). (Original work
Conlon, C., Timonen, V., Elliott O’Dare, C., O’Keeffe, S., & Foley, G.
published 1967)
(2020). Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical
Gray, L. M., Wong-Wylie, G., Rempel, G. R., & Cook, K. (2020).
sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health
Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: Zoom
Research, 30(6), 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323
video communications. The Qualitative Report, 25(5),
19899139
1292–1301. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss5/9
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Tech-
Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2014). Qualitative methods for health
niques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.).
research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Sage.
Hennink, M. M. (2014). Focus group discussions: Understanding
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and
qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Hodd, E. (2018). Critical realism in empirical research: Employing
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing?
techniques from Grounded theory methodology. International
Bloomsbury.
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(1), 111–124.
Elliott O’Dare, C., Timonen, V., & Conlon, C. (2020). “Doing” inter-
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1503400
generational friendship: Challenging the dominance of age homo- Jowett, A. (2020). Carrying out qualitative research under lock-
phily in friendship. Canadian Journal on Aging. Advance online down—Practical and ethical considerations. https://blogs.lse.ac.
publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980819000618 uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/20/carrying-out-qualitative-
Foley, G. (2004). Quality of life for people with motor neurone dis- research-under-lockdown-practical-and-ethical-considerations/
ease: A consideration for occupational therapists. British Journal Kite, J., & Phongsavan, P. (2017). Insights for conducting real-time
of Occupational Therapy, 67(12), 551–553. https://doi.org/10. focus groups online using a web conferencing service.
1177/030802260406701206 F1000Research, 6, 122. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.
Foley, G. (2007). What are the care needs of people with motor neu- 10427.2
rone disease and how can occupational therapists respond to meet Lather, P., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2013). Post-qualitative research. Inter-
these needs? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70(1), national Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6),
32–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260707000108 629–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788752
Foley, G., & Timonen, V. (2015). Using grounded theory method to Lolich, L., & Timonen, V. (2020). Fortunate and fearful: Emotions
capture and analyze health care experiences. Health Services evoked by home-care polices for older people in Ireland. Emotions
Research, 50(4), 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773. and Society, 2(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1332/263
12275 169020X15843025702815
Foley, G., & Timonen, V. (2016). Between control and surrender in Mahon, E., Conlon, C., & Dillon, L. (1998). Women and crisis preg-
terminal illness. In J. F. Gubrium, T. Alm Andreassen, & P. Koren nancy in Ireland. Department of Health.
Solvang (Eds.), Reimagining the human service relationship (pp. McGarrigle, C., Timonen, V., & Layte, R. (2018). Choice and con-
123–139). Columbia University Press. straint in the negotiation of the grandparent role: A mixed-methods
10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

study. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 4, 1–12. https://doi. Sbaraini, A., Carter, S. M., Evans, R. W., & Blinkhorn, A. (2011).
org/10.1177/2333721417750944 How to do a grounded theory study: A worked example of a study
Microsoft. (2020). Conduct and transcribe interviews with Microsoft of dental practices. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 128.
Teams. https://news.microsoft.com/microsoft365forjournalists/ https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128
learning-tools/conducting-interviews-in-microsoft-teams/ Stewart, J. (2007). Grounded theory and focus groups: Reconciling
Mitchell, D. (2014). Advancing grounded theory: using theoretical methodologies in indigenous Australian education research. Aus-
frameworks within grounded theory studies. The Qualitative tralian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36(S1), 32–37. https://
Report, 19(36), 1–11. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss36/3 doi.org/10.1017/S1326011100004671
Morse, J. M., & Clark, L. (2019). The nuances of grounded theory St. Pierre, E. A. (2017). Haecceity: Laying out a plane for post qua-
sampling and the pivotal role of theoretical sampling. In A. Bryant litative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(9), 686–698. https://doi.
& K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current develop- org/10.1177/1077800417727764
ments in grounded theory (pp. 145–166). Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques
O’Connor, A., Carpenter, B., & Coughlan, B. (2018). An exploration and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
of key issues in the debate between classic and constructivist Timonen, V., Conlon, C., Scharf, T., & Carney, G. (2013). Family,
grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 17(1), 90–103. state, class and solidarity: Re-conceptualising intergenerational
http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2018/12/27/ solidarity through the grounded theory approach. European
Oliver, C. (2012). Critical realist grounded theory: A new approach for Journal of Ageing, 10, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-
social work research. British Journal of Social Work, 42(2), 013-0272-x
371–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr064 Timonen, V., & Doyle, M. (2012). Grandparental agency after adult
O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced qualitative research: children’s divorce. In S. Archer & V. Timonen (Eds.), Contempo-
A guide to using theory. Sage. rary grandparenting: Changing family relationships in global con-
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in texts (pp. 159–180). Policy Press.
qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using
137–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137 grounded theory: A pragmatic introduction to doing GT research.
Salmons, J. (2015). Qualitative online interviews: Strategies, design, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10. https://doi.
and skills (2nd ed.). Sage. org/10.1177/1609406918758086