Definitions and meanings

Types

Methods

Examples

Definition:

Grounded theory characteristics include:

 Data collection and analysis occurring simultaneously, with one informing the other.

 Data grouped into concepts, categories and themes.

 A data collection process influenced by the simultaneous development of those concepts,

categories and themes.

Notably, data collection is cyclical and reflective. This is different from the more linear processes
occurring in other methodologies.

Example studies

Attree, M. (2001). Patients' and relatives' experiences and perspectives of 'Good' and 'Not so Good'
quality care. J Adv Nurs, 33(4), 456-466. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01689.x

Lingard, L., Reznick, R., Espin, S., Regehr, G., & DeVito, I. (2002). Team communications in the operating
room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices. Acad Med, 77(3), 232-237. doi:
10.1097/00001888-200203000-00013

Pettersson, S., Ekstrom, M. P., & Berg, C. M. (2013). Practices of weight regulation among elite athletes
in combat sports: a matter of mental advantage? J Athl Train, 48(1), 99-108. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-
48.1.04

DEFINITION-----------------------------

What is grounded theory in research?

Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then
creates a theory ‘grounded’ in the results and is useful for businesses when a researcher wants to look
into a topic that has existing theory or no current research available. This means that the qualitative
research results will be unique and can open the doors to the social phenomena being investigated.

The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book,
Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory. In 1967, Barney
Glaser and Anselm Strauss published the book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory which introduced this
method. Many disciplines have since used grounded theory, including anthropology, sociology,
economics, psychology, and public health.

Research teams use grounded theory to analyze social processes and relationships because of the
important role of data, there are key stages like data collection and data analysis that need to happen in
order for the resulting data to be useful.

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

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

In order to establish the validity of the conclusions and develop more precisely defined hypotheses, the
outcomes of the grounded study are contrasted. A final hypothesis is confirmed when the data analysis
can no longer be used to further hone the new hypotheses.
Unlike experimental research or scientific inquiry, grounded research does not require an initial
hypothesis theory to be verified. Rather, the developing theory is predicated on information and proof
that are unearthed at every phase. Additionally, prior to the start of the qualitative study, there is no
predetermined notion of events or happenings in grounded research.

Grounded theory characteristics include:

 Data collection and analysis occurring simultaneously, with one informing the other.

 Data grouped into concepts, categories and themes.

 A data collection process influenced by the simultaneous development of those concepts,

categories and themes.

Notably, data collection is cyclical and reflective. This is different from the more linear processes
occurring in other methodologies.

When should you use grounded theory research?

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

Grounded theory proposes that careful observation of the social world can lead to the construction of
theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). It is iterative and evolving, aiming to construct new theory from collected
data that accounts for those data. It is also known as the “grounded theory method”, although the
terms have become interchangeable (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).

The grounded theory approach is a qualitative research methodology that attempts to unravel the
meanings of people's interactions, social actions, and experiences. In other words, these explanations
are grounded in the participants' own interpretations or explanations.

Qualitative research using grounded theory was regarded as being groundbreaking upon its
introduction. By using the inductive methodology, data (such as interviews and observations, and on
rare occasions, historical data, archival data, and more) could be analyzed as they are being collected.
They sought to move away from the dominant practice in the 1950s and 60s of starting with a
theoretical framework which needed to be verified. They turned that practice on its head by starting
with the data to develop theory.

TYPES-------------------------------------------

IGT

(Interpretive Grounded Theory) The Philosophical Influence of Interpretive Grounded Theory is

Interpretivism and The researcher is engaged with and actively interprets the data.

Contrary to Classical Grounded Theory where the researcher and research must remain neutral. In IGT
prior knowledge to the subject could be used to strengthen the overall research and data collection.
Referred to as 'sensitivity' and includes having insight on relevant issues.

IGT Allows literature review prior to and during the data collection process. Can be used for data
comparisons, enhance sensitivity, stimulate observations, and confirm or explain results. Kept partially
vague for flexibility; will become clearer as data emerges. Each additional question can reference
another topic of interest.

For the Theory Creation and Verification IGT focuses on a Creation of a substantive or formal theory for
the completion of a research study. Verification occurs through multiple perspectives confirming the
same data.
-------------------------------------METHOD-----------------------------------

Researchers’ developing understanding of the concepts, categories and relationships informs their
actions at each step. These elements result in a theoretical framework explaining the data.

This cycle reflects two crucial components of grounded theory:

 The process of coding, sorting and organizing data. This aims to increasingly move towards more
abstract terms in order to develop a related theory for the data

 The principle of constant comparison. This refers to the process of noting issues of interest in
data and comparing them to other examples to identify similarities and differences.

Stage 1: Research Problem

Stage 1 in Figure 1 involves identifying the research problem. Glaser & Strauss (1967) advocate starting
with a broad substantive area. Others advocate identifying a specific research problem and research
question (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Suddaby, 2006). This might involve a preliminary review of the
literature and/or drawing on professional experience. Once researchers identify the research problem,
they select a research methodology.

Stage 2: Field Research 1

Stage 2 in Figure 1 involves entering the field and the simultaneous collection and analysis of data, such
as interview or other types of data. This stage should begin with a general target population. With
interview data, researchers conduct and transcribe the first interview and then analyse the transcript
line-by-line (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The analytical process in grounded theory involves
the use of coding strategies (known as open coding). Researchers analyse data for meaning and
disaggregate them into units of meaning, labelled (coded) to generate concepts (Goulding, 2006).
Concepts are the foundation for Corbin & Strauss’s (2008, p. 51) analytic method: “the categories for
which data are sought and in which data are grouped; they usually become the chief means for
establishing relations between data; and they are the anchor points in interpretation of finding ... The
use of concepts provides a way of grouping/organizing the data that a researcher is working with”.
Codes denote participants’ words or incidents as concepts derived from observation. Researchers use
memos throughout the analytical process (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Memos
comprise written records of analysis that depict relationships between analytical concepts. As such,
when researchers identify codes in the data, they record their thought processes around identification in
memo format. Memo writing begins with the first analysis of data and continues throughout the
analytical process. Memos might include short quotes of data as a reminder of what generated a
concept or idea. When it comes to writing up, researchers use much of this memo writing to illustrate
the concepts. Researchers regularly update memos on individual concepts as the analysis progresses,
thereby evolving into memos of greater depth and complexity (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

Stage 3: Conceptual Development

Corbin & Strauss (2008) offer techniques for analysing data for concepts. Table 1 summarises the
analytical tools in the coding/analysis process, describing each tool and its benefits. The first technique
involves the use of questioning. When analysing the data line-by-line, researchers ask questions of the
data: Who, what, when, where, how and with what consequences. As concepts become more
developed, researchers might question whether there is a relationship between one category and
another. The second technique involves making comparisons. The process of constant comparison
involves comparing each incident in the data with other incidents for similarities and differences .
Incidents are then placed under the same or different codes. In subsequent interviews, incidents
labelled under the same code are compared for similarities and differences (within-code comparison) to
uncover the different properties and dimensions of the concept. The third technique involves drawing
on personal experience. This is used when the researcher has life experiences similar to those of the
participants and can use this experience as a comparative case to stimulate thinking about various
properties and dimensions of concepts. The fourth technique is the flip-flop technique, which Grounded
Theory: Description, Divergences and Application Accounting, Finance & Governance Review
involves looking at the opposite or extreme range of a concept to bring out its significant properties and
dimensions. The fifth technique looks at the language used by interview participants. On occasion, the
language used can be so expressive it can translate as a code. This is called an in-vivo code, indicating
the term comes from the data. Finally, researchers can look for words that indicate time (e.g., when,
after, since, before, in case, if). Such words can denote a change or a shift in perception, thoughts,
events or interpretations of events.

Stage 4: Category Development

Concepts vary in levels of abstraction. There are basic-level concepts and higher-level concepts that
Corbin & Strauss (2015) call categories. Categories have wider explanatory power than concepts.
Researchers initially cluster concepts into descriptive categories. As the research progresses, researchers
reevaluate the concepts for their interrelationships (Stage 4 in Figure 1). Corbin & Strauss (2015) call the
process of cross-cutting or relating concepts to each other axial coding. Through a series of analytical
steps, researchers gradually aggregate the concepts into higher-order categories, including one
underlying central or core category. These higher-order categories and the core category suggest an
emergent theory. At this point, researchers may conduct a second round of field research to further
validate or elaborate on the categories developed (Goulding, 2006).

Stage 5: Theoretical Integration

With grounded theory, it is vital to lift the analysis to a more abstract level, beyond description, to
theory development (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Theoretical integration involves linking categories around
a central or core category and refining the resulting theoretical formulation. Categories pull together all
the identified concepts into a theoretical framework. Researchers may decide to present a preliminary
theoretical framework to a group of interview participants (Stage 5 in Figure 1) and/or colleagues for
feedback. At this stage, researchers reflect on the framework, identify any gaps in the theory and refine
as required. Stage 4 describes the development of theoretical categories. We describe the
methodological process of integrating these categories (as presented in Table 4) in this section.
“Integrating means choosing a core category, then retelling the story around that core category using
the other categories and concepts derived during the research”

Stage 6: Contextualize in Literature

Stage 6 in Figure 1 involves contextualizing the theoretical framework within the existing literature.
Doing so assists in identifying the similarities and differences between the constructed theoretical
framework and prior theoretical frameworks. It also serves to highlight the contribution (theoretical
significance) of the study.

Stage 7: Present Core Category and Theory

The final stage involves presenting the core category and the theoretical framework in its final form.
Grounded-theory research assumes that attitudes, beliefs, norms and processes within the social world
under investigation are capable of being observed and that “it is possible to generate knowledge about
and evidence for them” (Mason, 2002, p. 17). Researchers can construct concepts and theories out of
stories framed by research participants. Research participants try to explain and make sense of their
experiences/lives, both to researchers and themselves. Out of these multiple constructions, researchers
and participants together create knowledge or understanding.
 -------------------------------------EXAMPLES--------------------------------------

Pettersson, S., Ekstrom, M. P., & Berg, C. M. (2013). Practices of weight regulation among elite athletes
in combat sports: a matter of mental advantage? J Athl Train, 48(1), 99-108. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-
48.1.04

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study

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

Description: This study aims to develop a taxonomy of dignity by letting the data create the taxonomic
categories, rather than imposing the categories upon the analysis. The theory emerged from the textual
and thematic analysis of 64 interviews conducted with individuals marginalized by health or social
status, as well as those providing services to such populations and professionals working in health and
human rights. This approach identified two main forms of dignity that emerged out of the data: “ human
dignity” and “social dignity”.
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357

Connor, J., Flenady, T., Dwyer, T., & Massey, D. (2023). Application of classic grounded theory in nursing
studies: A qualitative systematic review protocol. BMJ Open, 13(7), e068588.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068588

Cullen, M. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2021). Grounded Theory: Description, Divergences and Application.
Accounting, Finance & Governance Review, 27. https://doi.org/10.52399/001c.22173

Grounded Theory Research: The Complete Guide. (n.d.). Qualtrics. Retrieved August 31, 2024, from
https://www.qualtrics.com/experience-management/research/grounded-theory-research/

History of Grounded Theory. (2021, September 2). Delve. https://delvetool.com/blog/history-gt

Librarians, H. L. (n.d.). LibGuides: Qualitative study design: Grounded theory. Retrieved August 31, 2024,
from https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs/grounded-theory

lumivero. (2023, December 1). Overview of Grounded Theory Qualitative Research and Approach.
Lumivero. https://lumivero.com/resources/blog/an-overview-of-grounded-theory-qualitative-research/

Pettersson, S., Ekström, M. P., & Berg, C. M. (2013). Practices of Weight Regulation Among Elite Athletes
in Combat Sports: A Matter of Mental Advantage? Journal of Athletic Training, 48(1), 99–108.
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.04