grounded theory research topic examples

10 Grounded Theory Examples (Qualitative Research Method)

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

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

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

Grounded Theory Definition and Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real-Life Grounded Theory Examples

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

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

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

Title: A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Victimising of school bullying: a grounded theory

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

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

Hypothetical Grounded Theory Examples

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

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Coding and constant comparative analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Constant comparative analysis

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

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

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Iterative Coding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Drew (PhD)

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

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

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Grounded Theory

Definition:

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

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

History of Grounded Theory

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

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

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

Types of Grounded Theory

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

Classic Grounded Theory

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

Constructivist Grounded Theory

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

Grounded Theory Conducting Guide

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

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

Data Collection Methods

Grounded Theory Data Collection Methods are as follows:

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

Data Analysis Methods

Grounded Theory Data Analysis Methods are as follows:

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

Applications of Grounded Theory

Here are some of the key applications of Grounded Theory:

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

Examples of Grounded Theory

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

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

Grounded Theory Research Example

A Grounded Theory Research Example Would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of Grounded Theory

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

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

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

When to use Grounded Theory

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

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

Characteristics of Grounded Theory

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

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

Advantages of Grounded Theory

Advantages of Grounded Theory are as follows:

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

Limitations of Grounded Theory

Limitations of Grounded Theory are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

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

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory: Approach And Examples

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

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

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

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

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

What Is Grounded Theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Theoretical Memoing

  compile findings.

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

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

It Is Personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

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

Popular Use Cases

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

Market Research

• Artificial Intelligence
• Partnerships
• Marketplace

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

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

Try Qualtrics for free

Your complete guide to grounded theory research.

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

What is grounded theory in research?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free eBook: Qualitative research design handbook

When should you use grounded theory research?

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

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

Grounded theory methodology

There are several stages in the grounded theory process:

1. Data planning

The researcher decides what area they’re interested in.

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

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

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

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

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

2. Data collection and analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Data analysis is turned into a final theory

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

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

An example of using grounded theory in business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Advantages of grounded theory

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

Disadvantages of grounded theory

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

What tools will help with grounded theory?

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

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

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

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

This also provides you with research process tools:

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

Related resources

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

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

Grounded Theory

• First Online: 02 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Thomas Ndame 4  

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

4035 Accesses

1 Citations

Grounded Theory (GT) was designed by two American sociologists, Barney Glaser (1930–) and Anselm Strauss (1916–1996), who presented in their seminal work entitled The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research in 1967. They aimed to show how “a theory can be generated from data systematically collected and analyzed in social research” (Glaser ad Strauss in The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Weidenfield and Nicolson. p. 1, 1967). However, after Glaser and Strauss set the basic tenet of this research methodology in the 60 s, three decades later in the 90 s, new development and adaptation emerged from different authors known as contemporary “grounded theorists.” Their GT versions were completely different from the original one of Glaser and Strauss, mainly in refining coding data techniques. Besides the modified versions, some critics of the original GT ruled out the idea that it is a theory (Thomas & James in 2006, as cited in Lambert, Practical research methods in education: An early researcher critical guide, Routledge, 2019, p. 133).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Briggs, A. R. J., Coleman, M., & Morrison, M. (2012). Research methods in educational leadership and management (3rd ed.). Sage.

Google Scholar  

Charmaz, K. (1996). The search for meanings-grounded Theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory . Sage.

Creswell, W. J. (2002). Educational research-planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research . Pearson Education, Inc.

Creswell, W. J. (2005). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Weidenfield and Nicolson.

Lambert, M. (2019). Practical research methods in education: An early researcher critical guide . Routledge.

Ndame, T. (2012). Whole school inclusion: A case study of two secondary schools in Cameroon. Graduate School of Education. College of Social Sciences and International Studies, University of Exeter, UK (EdD Thesis). http://hdl.handle.net/10036/3900

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Sage.

Additional Readings

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory . Sage Publications Ltd.

Levitt, H., M. (2021). Essentials of critical-constructivist grounded theory research . American Psychological Association (APA).

McMcreaddie, M., & Payne, S. (2009). Evolving grounded theory methodology: Towards a discursive approach. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47 , 781–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.11.006

Article   Google Scholar  

Gonzalez-Teruel, A., & Abad-Garcia, M. F. (2012). Grounded theory for generating theory in the study of behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 34 , 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.02.006

Online Resources

1. Grounded Theory (7.40 Minutes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2DyB-hGX-Q

2. Grounded Theory—Core Elements. Part 1 (4.58Minutes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SZDTp3_New

3. Grounded Theory—Core Elements. Part 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbntk_xeLHA

4. Grounded Theory—Open Coding Part 3 (7.02). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-EomYWkxcA

5. Grounded theorists and some critiques of grounded Theory (7.52minutes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hik-NKtI_vY

6. Grounded theory | Qualitative Methods | Qualitative Analysis | UvA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6f1GHjD5JQ

7. Versions of grounded theory | Qualitative Methods | Qualitative Analysis | UvA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX42ld18kao

8. How to code qualitative research document, including grounded theory, and create themes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHv3RzKWNcQ

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Buea, Buea, Cameroon

Thomas Ndame

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Ndame .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Janet Mola Okoko

Scott Tunison

Department of Educational Administration, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Keith D. Walker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ndame, T. (2023). Grounded Theory. In: Okoko, J.M., Tunison, S., Walker, K.D. (eds) Varieties of Qualitative Research Methods. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_33

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_33

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-04396-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-04394-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Glob Qual Nurs Res
• v.5; Jan-Dec 2018

Selecting a Grounded Theory Approach for Nursing Research

Shaminder singh.

1 University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Andrew Estefan

Grounded theory is a commonly used research methodology. There are three primary approaches to grounded theory in nursing research: those espoused by Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz. All three approaches use similar procedures, yet there are important differences among them, which implies that researchers need to make careful choices when using grounded theory. Researchers new to grounded theory need to find the most appropriate approach that fits their research field, topic, and researcher position. In this article, we compare the three grounded theory approaches. Choices of a grounded theory approach will depend on the researcher’s understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of all three approaches. Practical aspects of grounded theory approaches should match the information processing styles and analytical abilities of the researcher and the intended use of the theory. We illustrate key aspects of decision making about which method to select by drawing upon the first author’s experiences in his doctoral research.

Introduction

Grounded theory is a research approach that appeals to nurses for several reasons. Grounded theory helps nurses to understand, develop, and utilize real-world knowledge about health concerns ( Nathaniel & Andrews, 2007 ). In practice, grounded theories enable nurses to see patterns of health in groups, communities, and populations and predict health and practice concerns in nursing care. Conducting useful and informative grounded theory research in nursing is not as simple, however, as just “doing a grounded theory.” When deciding to use grounded theory to inform nursing practice, researchers must be cognizant of different approaches to grounded theory that the research approach matches the research aims, researcher intent and position, and that the resultant theory is potent and useful.

In this article, we explore key aspects of grounded theory that intersect with deciding which approach best fits nursing research. Classical grounded theory was developed first by both Glaser and Strauss in 1967 ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ), although Strauss has since modified his perspective on grounded theory. Over time, three distinct perspectives on grounded theory have emerged. These are the perspectives of (a) Barney Glaser, (b) Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, and (c) Kathy Charmaz. These approaches use similar procedures and vocabulary, yet there are also important differences among them. Researchers who wish to use grounded theory methodology face challenges in making the decision of selecting a most appropriate approach for their specific research situation. A nursing researcher’s critical reflection on the three different grounded theory approaches is crucial to make an informed methodological choice that fits with the researcher’s philosophical position, research question, and research objectives.

The aim of this article is to inform nursing researchers, particularly those who may be new to grounded theory, about different grounded theory perspectives for their research. We draw upon the first author’s experiences of selecting a grounded theory method for his doctoral research project focused on understanding how South Asian men manage their hypertension. In this article, we describe and explain the three grounded theory approaches and, specifically, why Charmaz’s grounded theory approach was selected for the project. We begin with an overview of grounded theory philosophy and method, and move to considerations about application of grounded theory to nursing research. The article concludes with recommendations for nurse researchers who are new to using grounded theory in their work.

Why Are the Different Grounded Theory Perspectives Worth Considering?

Some researchers use coding and categorizing as a way to organize, analyze, and present data and refer to this process as grounded theory. Grounded theory is, however, more than the process of coding data and naming themes. Grounded theory is a systematic research methodology used to construct an explanatory model or theory about a phenomenon of interest ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 , 1998 ). A grounded theory encompasses the interconnections of concepts and categories to interpret and explain patterns or process (es) of a psychosocial phenomenon ( Charmaz, 2014 ).

Schreiber (2001) asserted that grounded theory is “useful for research in areas . . . where there are major gaps in our understanding, and where a new perspective might be beneficial” (p. 57). Nurses require new knowledge to address the challenges of meeting the dynamic health care needs of society. Studies using grounded theory methodology can generate new nursing knowledge derived from real interactions with patients as well as other key aspects of nursing practice. A grounded theory is constructed through a process of developing an understanding of participants’ experiences, as well as by interpreting how participants make sense of their perceptions and actions ( Charmaz, 2014 ).

Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz’s approaches to grounded theory have important philosophical and methodological similarities as well as differences. These similarities and differences among the approaches can lead to confusion and uncertainty about how best to proceed in conceptualizing and designing a grounded theory study. It may be challenging for researchers to understand how to select the most appropriate approach for their specific research situation. Nursing researchers must reflect on the different methodological approaches to grounded theory to determine the best fit for the substantive topic, the research question, and the researcher.

Similarities and Differences Between Grounded Theory Approaches

In the following section, we discuss similarities and differences between Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz’s grounded theory approaches. First, we explain philosophical differences, and then we explicate the theoretical and practical differences of the three approaches.

Glaser’s approach, referred to as classical grounded theory is most closely aligned with the original grounded theory methodology ( Glaser, 1978 ). Later, Strauss, along with Juliet Corbin, developed their approach in a different way. Strauss and Corbin introduced further systematic procedures for data analysis to the grounded theory methodology ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 , 1998 ). Charmaz introduced a constructivist perspective to grounded theory methodology ( Charmaz, 2006 , 2014 ).

Philosophical Underpinnings of Grounded Theory Methods

While the three perspectives proffered by these grounded theorists possess similar methods and vocabulary, they also have key differences that need to be delineated. The different grounded theorists agree on the need to develop theoretical understanding of psychosocial phenomena ( Charmaz, 2014 ; Glaser, 1978 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ), but they differ in the way they engage with aspects of being and reality (ontology) and how knowledge is acquired (epistemology; Charmaz, 2014 ; Crotty, 2011 ). Crotty (2011) asserted that there is an affinity between one’s beliefs about what constitutes reality (the things and experiences that are present in the world) and the choices one makes about methods that will develop and advance knowledge about that reality. Therefore, to choose an appropriate grounded theory approach, one must understand the philosophical beliefs that differentiate the three grounded theory perspectives. Table 1 demarcates philosophical considerations of the three grounded theory perspectives and their usefulness in the respective approaches.

Differences in Philosophical Considerations and Their Usefulness Among Three Grounded Theory Perspectives.

Glaser’s grounded theory is both positivist and objectivist; to discover a grounded theory, he positioned researchers as distant observers. Glaser rejected other perspectives on grounded theory because, in his view, all other perspectives forced a bias on emerging theory ( Glaser & Holton, 2004 ). Strauss and Corbin (1998) shifted to a more postpositivist position, acknowledging the possibility of multiple viewpoints, while maintaining an objectivist perspective on a knowable, external reality. Charmaz’s (2014) grounded theory represents more of a departure from objectivism. Charmaz espoused a constructivist–interpretivist perspective to acknowledge researchers’ active engagement in coconstruction of knowledge alongside research participants. Charmaz also took a distinct position from the other two grounded theory perspectives by advocating for researchers to be integral rather than “at a distance” during data analysis and interpretation.

Glaser’s philosophical orientation

Glaser denied having any philosophical orientation associated with his grounded theory perspective. He argued that the “quest for an ontology and epistemology for justifying GT [grounded theory] is not necessary” ( Glaser, 2005 , p. 5). Instead, Glaser believed that the specific context and research question would shape any philosophical dimensions of the research ( Glaser, 2005 ). Glaser’s rejection of the researcher taking a philosophical position has been criticized as naïve because Glaser’s advocacy for and use of pure induction—letting data speak for themselves—is grounded in positivism ( Thornberg, 2012 ).

Glaser goes further in his positivist philosophical inclinations. He contended that there is a social process underlying a phenomenon of interest ( Glaser, 1978 ). This positions grounded theory as a quest for the “reality” of a phenomenon that is considered to exist, perhaps covertly, somewhere in the research field. The reality, which lies in the field and remains independent of the researcher, can be discovered if the researcher holds aside their personal and professional bias (remains objective) and lets data speak for themselves. Glaser viewed the grounded theory researcher as a neutral inquirer and observer (objectivist) who recognizes patterns in data (distant observer) and “discovers” the theory that describes the “reality” existing in the field (realist).

Glaser’s classical grounded theory can, then, be suitable for those researchers who (a) believe that there is a reality to be uncovered about a phenomenon of interest, and it is within human capacity to understand the reality, and (b) believe that reality can manifest itself if researchers minimize personal bias and let data speak.

Strauss and Corbin’s philosophical orientation

Like Glaser, Strauss and Corbin (1990) did not articulate an initial philosophical orientation. However, their writing and approach to grounded theory methodology and research methods implies a more postpositivist position than Glaser’s classical grounded theory.

Strauss and Corbin did not contradict the realist idea that an independent reality exists. Unlike Glaser, however, Strauss and Corbin were cautious of researchers’ ability to apprehend reality ( Strauss & Corbin, 1994 , 1998 ) As a result, Strauss and Corbin called into question a researcher’s ability to build theory that describes a phenomenon as it “really” is. Instead, Strauss and Corbin aimed to depict a close representation of reality through maintaining a practical and “objective stance” ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ), while accepting the inevitable influence of researchers’ subjectivity of the research process. Strauss and Corbin thus espoused a systematic approach to conducting grounded theory research to minimize subjective bias of researchers and to achieve maximum objectivity.

Strauss and Corbin’s perspective can be suitable for those researchers who (a) recognize human, practical, and pragmatic limitations to fully understand reality as it “really” is; (b) accept the inevitability of personal bias of the researcher, while also seeking to limit personal bias; and (c) maintain an objectivist perspective by (as far as possible) controlling the inquiry and systematizing it.

Charmaz’s philosophical orientation

Charmaz (2014) espoused a constructivist perspective, in which “reality” is a function and outcome of interpretation and human interaction around a given phenomenon. As such, Charmaz embraced an interpretive approach to grounded theory. Unlike Glaser, Charmaz (2014) believed there is always a possibility of multiple and even competing perspectives of phenomena in a highly complex social world. Although Charmaz (as well as Strauss and Corbin) accepted the possibility of multiple perspectives of reality, Charmaz differed with Strauss and Corbin (as well as Glaser) on how to go about acquiring knowledge about reality. Charmaz viewed research as a collective process involving researchers and the participants. Therefore, her work encourages researchers to engage with multiple interpretations of the phenomenon of interest. Charmaz also encourages researchers to check how participants make sense of their own and the researcher’s interpretations.

Charmaz (2014) believed that reality is dynamic, and that people construct local meaning about reality to understand and act on it within their immediate context. She, thus, strived for local and contextual knowledge about phenomena. Charmaz’s approach to grounded theory considers previous personal and professional experiences of the researcher as well as existing knowledge such as extant literature (which may be held in abeyance using Glaser’s approach) to challenge established viewpoints or to aid to a new understanding of a phenomenon under study.

Charmaz’s grounded theory perspective can be useful to understand local issues, which may change over time as conditions change. The interpretive aspect of Charmaz’s approach can benefit researchers who see value in and cannot separate themselves from their personal and professional experiences as well as from existing knowledge that informs their inquiry.

Theoretical and Practical Considerations of Grounded Theory Methods

Although the three grounded theory perspectives differ philosophically, they contain similarities derived from the common origin of the methodology. The similarities are more prominent in the practical aspects as compared to the philosophical underpinnings of the three grounded theory approaches. All grounded theory researchers rely on data, such as interview data, gathered directly from people in natural settings. All approaches primarily utilize induction as an analytic tool for theoretical sampling—that is to say, sampling people and events based on the direction of the emerging theory—collecting and analyzing data. In all approaches, data collection and analysis occur concurrently. Here, we explicate practical (data collection) and theoretical (logical and analytical) similarities and differences of the three grounded theory perspectives.

Theoretical considerations

Theoretical considerations extend from the philosophical positions of researchers ( Crotty, 2011 ). In grounded theory, theoretical perspectives of the theorists shape the ways they approach collecting and analyzing field data.

Glaser’s classical grounded theory

Induction is the main analytic tool used by Glaser. In classical grounded theory, induction involves the researcher moving to a general theory of how something happens based on an inquiry into and observation of specifics in the research field. Glaser (2002) emphasized that the researcher should approach the field without any hypothesis or preconceived ideas of what they will find ( Glaser, 2002 ). He wished to hold in abeyance personal experiences and knowledge, including extant literature, to let data themselves speak and to let the theory be “discovered.”

In professions like nursing, not all experience can be held in abeyance because nurses conduct research in areas where they practice or otherwise have expertise ( Reay, Bouchal, & Rankin, 2016 ). Glaser (2002) asserted, “data are rendered objective to a high degree by . . . looking at many cases of the same phenomenon, when jointly collecting and coding data, to correct for bias and to make the data objective” (para. 24). Glaser encouraged researchers to take a neutral and passive position—to attend to emerging data inductively and identify patterns—and by doing so having trust in the process that the theory will be “discovered.”

In a recent study of nurse–patient collaboration, Sørensen, Frederiksen, Groefte, and Lomborg (2013) described a meticulous inductive process of working with data to develop their grounded theory. The first author, Sørensen, also a nurse, collected all data wearing a nursing uniform to keep her position neutral in the research setting. She made field observations and interviewed participants in the same natural setting to collect data. Participant observation helped Sørensen to discover what was happening in the field. Field interviews helped her to constantly compare her observations with participants’ perceptions of their experiences in the setting. To keep the analysis objective and avoid biases, Sørensen recorded her observations and memos immediately after completion of the data collection sessions.

Strauss and Corbin’s grounded theory

Strauss and Corbin shared many of Glaser’s theoretical tenets, yet took a different stance while developing a grounded theory. One common theoretical tenet shared by Glaser, as well as Strauss and Corbin, is that a grounded theory resembles the research field from which it is developed ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). However, unlike Glaser, Strauss and Corbin did not use pure induction to develop a grounded theory. They also included deduction (testing abstract ideas against emerging data) in their analysis ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 , 1998 ). This process was used by Roberts and Bowers (2015) as they developed their grounded theory of relationship development in nursing homes. They illustrated how they tested hypothetical ideas against emerging data before accepting them into a developing theory. When using Strauss and Corbin’s method, personal experience and existing literature can be used to gain theoretical sensitivity (understanding nuances of data), however, they are not used in data analysis ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 , 1998 ).

Strauss and Corbin (1998) developed procedures to build a grounded theory while maintaining a balance between objectivity and creativity. They guided others on how to systematically gather and analyze grounded data ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). Their systematic approach drives their coding and sampling procedures (discussed later) and the use of what is called a conditional matrix. A conditional matrix is a coding tool used to account for complex interrelationship of actions and interactions; it uses visual representations to assist in data collection and analysis, and as a means to maintain rigor and integrity of the research ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 ). The visual representation in a conditional matrix, which helps researchers see an emerging theory and interconnections of categories.

Strauss and Corbin’s approach has been criticized for being overly systematic and too technical to allow researchers to engage creatively in the research process ( Melia, 1996 ). Yet, their systematic approach guides researchers to develop theory in a clear, systematic fashion. This aspect of Strauss and Corbin’s approach has been cited as useful for those who are new to grounded theory research and who would benefit from more structure to guide their analysis ( de Beer & Brysiewicz, 2016 ).

Charmaz’ constructivist grounded theory

Charmaz maintained that the iterative processes of data collection and analysis, and the intimate connection that researchers and participants have with data and the emerging theory, makes grounded theory development a coconstructed endeavor ( Charmaz, 2014 ). Both induction and deduction are used when and where needed to make sense of the grounded data. Charmaz encouraged researchers to engage in a creative process of theory coconstruction and to use other analytic tools such as abduction ( Charmaz, 2014 ). Abduction involves engaging intuitive and creative ideas that may explain unanswered or unexpected observations ( Bruscaglioni, 2016 ; Charmaz, 2014 ). For Charmaz (2014) , abductive reasoning enriches theory construction by facilitating reexamination of data or prompting collection of more data to explain unanswered or unexpected observations. In a study of nurses’ “wisdom in action” in an emergency room setting, Matney, Staggers, and Clark (2016) used diagramming as a way to reexamine data when they noticed that the category of “knowledge” (p. 4) was missing from their theory. This allowed for reevaluation, refinement, and substantiation of categories. Abductive reasoning is informed by personal and professional knowledge and experiences of the researcher. Charmaz advocated for this type of knowledge, believing that an informed researcher enriches theory construction.

In contrast, Strauss and Corbin (1998) viewed the interconnection of researcher and participants as biased and labeled interpretation as “speculation” (p. 12). They maintained that “theory derived from data is more likely to resemble the “reality” than . . . [a theory that is] derived by putting together a series of concepts based on experience or solely through speculation” ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 , p. 12). Charmaz maintained that the scope of grounded theory is limited if researchers only attend to objective data while ignoring expertise and experiences of the researcher ( Charmaz, 2014 ). Put another way, experience and expertise become reference points to ask relevant questions and can enhance the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity, that is, the ability to see, define, and express phenomena and their interrelationships in abstract form ( Charmaz, 2014 ). She further advocated using the researcher’s full interpretive potential to explore the data grounded in the field, coconstruct a theory with participants, and check back in the field to determine if the theory makes sense to research participants and other knowledge users such as nurses ( Charmaz, 2014 ).

Practical considerations

Participant interviewing is a frequent data collection method in grounded theory ( Charmaz, Thornberg, & Keane, 2017 ). Interview data are then coded (a label is given to a set of data) and memos (the researcher’s notes on interactions with the data) are written to aid ongoing analysis. The coding process is the major practical endeavor in grounded theory approaches. Practical actions (such as theoretical sampling, coding, constant comparison, identification of data saturation) are integral to the coding process.

Coding process

Codes are “the building blocks” in a grounded theory ( Glaser, 1978 , p. 55). Coding is a way to make sense of field data ( Charmaz, 2014 ). Coding breaks data into small pieces and forms concepts: abstract ideas that account for data ( Charmaz, 2014 ). Coding further identifies similar concepts from coded data and relates them to each other to build abstract categories that fit together to develop a comprehensive theory ( Charmaz, 2014 ; Glaser, 1978 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). For example, Rose, Mallinson, and Walton-Moss (2002) conducted a study by interviewing 23 participants to understand their responses to mental illness of a family member. The researchers coded, linked, and grouped the interview data in concepts and categories, which resulted in a comprehensive theory of how families responded to mental illness.

For Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz, coding is an initial opportunity for researchers to pause and ponder on social processes of interest. Coding is an ongoing process to break down, analyze, and synthesize data as a theory is being built. As with other aspects of grounded theory, there are similarities and differences in how Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz addressed coding processes.

Early stage of coding

The initial coding process is similar in the three grounded theory approaches ( Charmaz, 2014 ; Glaser, 1978 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). The three theorists begin the coding process by breaking data into smaller segments (word-by-word or line-by-line) and by analytically attending to each piece of datum. In the beginning stage of all three approaches, small pieces of data are grouped and labeled based on their properties or characteristics. Glaser and Strauss and Corbin named this beginning phase of coding as “open coding” ( Glaser, 1978 ; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ), whereas Charmaz referred to it as “initial coding” ( Charmaz, 2006 ).

When the initial or open coding phase is complete, researchers begin to see the “direction” of emerging data. Some codes begin to form concepts while others loosely float between the emerging concepts. That is to say, some codes do not immediately fit within a particular concept. Eventually, through ongoing coding, all codes relevant to the emerging theory integrate into concepts. Concepts begin to synthesize into categories at an advanced stage of open or initial coding. This process of codes to concepts and concepts to categories and formation of their interrelations is iterative and continued in further coding stages. Major concepts and categories are formed in the initial phase and continue to develop in further stages of analysis regardless of an approach being followed. The emerging concepts and categories of a developing theory guide the researcher to begin theoretical sampling, looking for data that may be pertinent to and further inform the emerging categories.

Selective or focused coding

Data collection and analysis flow into the next phase of coding with some similarities and differences among the three approaches. A researcher begins to pinpoint relevant data regardless of the grounded theory approach being followed. Researchers select major categories based on what is relevant to the emerging theory. For example, a selected category is relevant if it stands to explain part of an underlying process or pattern of the phenomenon. Researchers collect more data pertinent to select categories (selective or focused coding) through an inductive process known as constant comparison in which the researcher compares data to data, incident to incident, and category to category ( Charmaz, 2014 ).

Glaser proposed to hold progression to selective coding until a core category is found during the open coding phase ( Glaser, 1978 ). The core category is a broad and overarching conceptual category, which can incorporate all data including other emerging concepts and categories: as such, the core category is expressed at a higher level of abstraction as compared to other emerging categories. Using Glaser’s approach, the process of relating emerging concepts with categories begins during open coding and carries forward to the selective coding phase, when a core category emerges. Selective coding is used to refine the core category and raise it to a high level of abstraction where all data fit. Glaser recommended researchers attend to the theoretical gaps and continue to ask and explain “how the main concern [problem or the phenomenon] is resolved” ( Glaser & Holton, 2004 , para. 54) until no new data emerge (data saturation) and theory is formed.

Unlike Glaser, Strauss and Corbin (1998) proposed an extensive scheme of coding for the selective phase and added an intermediate stage of “axial coding,” which overlaps between the open coding and selective coding phases in the other two perspectives. Axial coding is “reassembling” ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ) the fractured data that have started to make sense during open coding.

Reassembling is done by exploring and articulating clear and complete conceptual relationships of emerging “categories to subcategories along the lines of their properties and dimensions” ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 , p. 123). The fractured data are reviewed during axial coding through the lens of an organizational scheme that Strauss and Corbin called a “paradigm” ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). The researcher explores structure and process related to a phenomenon under study to develop a paradigm. A structure is set of conditions where the phenomenon happens and participants’ “action/interactional strategies and [related] consequences” ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 , p. 99) form the process. The structure and process are revealed by asking “questions about the phenomenon such as when, where, why, who, how, and with what consequences” ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 , p. 125). It is at this stage that researchers start to piece together what matters and what happens in a process.

Subsequently, analysis moves into the selective coding phase where data are further refined until “no new properties, dimensions, or relationships emerge during analysis” (data saturation; Strauss & Corbin, 1998 , p. 143). Categories, subcategories, and their interrelations are raised to higher level of abstraction that is described and explained in a comprehensive and figurative model or theory.

Charmaz, like other grounded theorists, guided researchers to move into the focused coding phase by attending to the most significant codes appeared during the open coding phase. However, Charmaz’s scheme of selective or focused coding is not as elaborate as that of Strauss and Corbin’s axial and selective coding. Charmaz claimed that moving to focused coding is spontaneous when the researcher begins to “synthesize, analyze and conceptualize larger segments of [line-by-line] data” of the open coding phase ( Charmaz, 2014 , p. 138). Frequently occurring codes that conceptually merge into each other begin to emerge as core or central categories and provide the direction for further theoretical sampling. An iterative process of coding continues until the developing theory takes shape, data saturation occurs, and all data fit.

Eventually, in all approaches, the researchers select a “core category” that emerges as central to explaining all relevant data around which a theory is developed. This takes the concepts and categories to a high level of abstraction, building a concise and comprehensive understanding that accounts for all data.

Similarities between grounded theory methods are related to vocabulary and process. All grounded theorists utilize constant comparison as a tool to (a) gain theoretical sensitivity, (b) facilitate theoretical sampling, (c) refine the categories and raise them to increasingly higher level of abstraction, and (d) link abstraction back to source data. Methods and their technical vocabulary (such as coding, memo writing, theoretical sampling, and data saturation) are similar in all the approaches, and all generate theories (or models) to explain the phenomena under investigation.

Differences between the grounded theory approaches are located in distinctions in philosophical and theoretical assumptions. While using the same grounded theory methods (such as coding and theoretical sampling), all three engage in different analytical processes. Glaser’s objective, inductive, passive approach would produce a different grounded theory than would Strauss and Corbin’s procedural approach or Charmaz’s interpretive, coconstructed approach. An appreciation of the similarities and differences in the different grounded theory approaches can help nurse researchers to decide on an appropriate grounded theory to use.

Selecting an Appropriate Grounded Theory Approach

Each grounded theory perspective is more suitable for some contexts than others. In Table 2 , we have summarized key components of grounded theory that influence researchers’ choices about which method to select. We now turn to apply these choices to a study to understand how 55 years and older South Asian men manage their hypertension in a Canadian health care setting. The focus of the inquiry is to (a) understand patterns of people’s behavior (what they do), (b) understand how they interpret their experiences, and (c) develop theory that calls forth rather than suppresses or obscures participants’ voices.

Considerations of Choosing an Appropriate Grounded Theory Approach.

Reflection on the Philosophy

The first author of this article identifies as a South Asian man, licensed to practice as a registered nurse (RN), and as someone diagnosed with hypertension. This identity has been instrumental in shaping his interest in the research topic as well as subsequent conversations with other South Asian people and health professionals about health in this population. As such, the first author was already grounded in subjective experiences related to the phenomenon, which guided the shaping of his study. The first author was quickly aware that, for him, hypertension in South Asian people was not an objectifiable phenomenon; in fact, he was deeply embedded in the fields of experience and health care practice already, as a patient and as a practicing RN. For these reasons, Glaser’s as well as Strauss and Corbin’s grounded theory approaches did not seem like an appropriate choice because both emphasized a distance from the phenomenon that did not seem achievable. Charmaz’s perspective was an obvious choice that acknowledged the value of the embedded researcher.

Focus of the Inquiry

In our example, the focus of the inquiry is to coconstruct a grounded theory to fill a gap in knowledge about how 55 years and older South Asian men manage their hypertension. The literature points to hypertension management being problematic in this population ( Leenen et al., 2008 ; Quan et al., 2013 ). As well, from his own experiences of being an RN and a patient, the first author noticed gaps in care. Because he felt already embedded in the research field, with a vested interest in this topic, the first author occupied an interesting insider–outsider position that pointed toward adopting a coconstructed approach to grounded theory.

Reflecting Upon the Research Context

In our example, the research context is Alberta’s South Asian Communities as well as Alberta’s health care system. In these contexts, people of South Asian origin are nearly three times more likely to develop hypertension as compared to their Caucasian counterparts ( Leenen et al., 2008 ; Quan et al., 2013 ). For this reason, we wanted to inquire into the phenomenon in the local context. By following Charmaz’s method we were able to attend to the immediate context for the research by reviewing the scholarly literature (if needed) as well as exploring local contexts from where data would be collected and with whom the theory would be coconstructed.

Attending to Analytic Styles

Because the first author had personal and professional insights into managing hypertension for a South Asian man in Canada, intuition and imagination were already at play. Charmaz’s approach with its capacity for abductive reasoning seemed a good fit to facilitate the first author’s and participants’ engagement around the topic. Charmaz’s approach made room for intuitive and imaginative explanations, which could guide further direction of data collection and analysis.

We felt that Charmaz’s approach could allow the first author to attend to unpredicted or unexplained observations by drawing inferences from his insights, but we also felt it might help him to reassess and challenge prior knowledge by comparing and contrasting with emerging data. Charmaz’s approach best suited the first author’s work because it provides analytical tools of abductive thinking and interpretive reasoning to make use of all accounts including participants’ and the researcher’s own experiences or interpretations.

Intended Application of the Research

The intention of the research in this example is to develop an in-depth understanding of how South Asian men manage their hypertension and apply that knowledge to the local context, particularly in relation to health care. Charmaz’s (2014) approach is exploratory, interactive, interpretive, and coconstructive, and enables understanding of the breadth and depth of a phenomenon in its local context. As a South Asian man with hypertension, the first author was well positioned to engage with the South Asian community in ways that permitted exploration, and coconstruction. As well, given that little is known about how South Asians in Canada manage hypertension, Charmaz’s interpretivist and exploratory approach fits well.

While Glaser encouraged researchers to “discover” a broader theory to generalize across substantive areas of interest ( Glaser, 2006 ), classical grounded theory remains “abstract of time, place and people [context]” ( Glaser & Holton, 2004 , para. 4). For example, a study of hypertension among 55 years and older South Asians can be transferrable to study chronic illnesses across populations ( Glaser, 2006 ). However, it may take years to develop a theory to this higher level of abstraction and, as such, could complicate and fall outside of the scope of manageable PhD work.

Strauss and Corbin were also proponents of achieving maximum generalizability and predictive power of the theory through precisely structuring the research process in a framework ( Strauss & Corbin, 1998 ). However, the first author engaged intimately with research participants who have shared similar experiences; the unexpected and unpredictable nature of the research relationship does not lend itself well to structure. Therefore, Charmaz’s approach was an obvious choice for allowing the researcher’s full engagement as well as attending to local context.

Grounded theory methodology is a promising approach to develop theoretical understanding of psychosocial phenomena. There are three major grounded theory perspectives espoused by Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz. Selecting a grounded theory approach is not a straightforward decision-making process because the similarities and distinctions can be unclear. All three major grounded theory perspectives can be instrumental to enhance conceptual understanding of a phenomenon. Making an appropriate choice of methodology is complex and requires understanding of all the three major approaches in nursing. Therefore, researchers should carefully select an approach that is the best fit to a specific research context.

Choice of a grounded theory approach will depend on the researchers’ philosophical inclinations and their understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the three major grounded theory approaches. Philosophical positioning helps researchers to decide how to position the research amid existing knowledge and scholarship, as well as to decide on what counts as useful knowledge to inform the development of a grounded theory. Practical aspects of grounded theory approaches should match the information processing and analytical styles of the researcher and the intended use of the theory.

Acknowledgments

We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Kathryn King-Shier for her feedback and support in writing this article.

Author Biographies

Shaminder Singh , RN, MSc (Psychology), is a doctoral candidate at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Nursing in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Andrew Estefan , RPN, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Nursing, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge funding for the research and authorship of this article from the University of Calgary, Faculty of Nursing, Graduate Student Knowledge Translation Assistantship to Shaminder Singh. We also acknowledge funding for publication of this article from University of Calgary, Libraries and Cultural resources.

• Bruscaglioni L. (2016). Theorizing in grounded theory and creative abduction . Quality & Quantity , 50 , 2009–2024. doi: 10.1007/s11135-015-0248-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K., Thornberg R., Keane E. (2017). Evolving grounded theory and social justice inquiry . In Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 411–443). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crotty M. (2011). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Beer J., Brysiewicz P. (2016). The needs of family members of intensive care unit patients: A grounded theory study . Southern African Journal of Critical Care , 32 , 44–49. doi: 10.7196/SAJCC.2016.v32i2.298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 3 ( 3 ). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/825/1793 [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B. G. (2005). The Impact of symbolic interaction on grounded theory . The Grounded Theory Review , 4 ( 2 ), 1–22. Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/GT-Review_vol4-no2.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B. G. (2006). Generalizing: The descriptive struggle . The Grounded Theory Review , 6 , 1–28. Available from http://groundedtheoryreview.com [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B. G., Holton J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory . Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 5 ( 2 ). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245 [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago: Aldine. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leenen F. H. H., Dumais J., Mclnnis N. H., Turton P., Stratychuk L., Nemeth K., . . .Fodor G. (2008). Results of the Ontario survey on the prevalence and control of hypertension . Canadian Medical Association Journal , 178 , 1441–1449. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.071340 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Matney S. A., Staggers N., Clark L. (2016). Nurses’ wisdom in action in the emergency department . Global Qualitative Nursing Research , 3 , 1–10. doi: 10.1177/2333393616650081 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melia K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser . Qualitative Health Research , 6 , 368–378. Retrieved from http://qhr.sagepub.com/content/6/3/368.full.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Nathaniel A. K., Andrews T. (2007). How grounded theory can improve nursing care quality . Journal of Nursing Care Quality , 22 , 350–357. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/jncqjournal/Fulltext/2007/10000/How_Grounded_Theory_Can_Improve_Nursing_Care.11.aspx [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quan H., Chen G., Walker R. L., Wielgosz A., Dai S., Tu K., . . . Khan N. (2013). Incidence, cardiovascular complications and mortality of hypertension by sex and ethnicity . Heart , 99 , 715–721. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-303152 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reay G., Bouchal S. R., Rankin J. A. (2016). Staying theoretically sensitive when conducting grounded theory research . Nurse Researcher , 24 , 26–30. doi: 10.7748/nr.2016.e1445 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts T., Bowers B. (2015). How nursing home residents develop relationships with peers and staff: A grounded theory study . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 52 , 57–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.07.008 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rose L., Mallinson R. K., Walton-Moss B. (2002). A grounded theory of families responding to mental illness . Western Journal of Nursing Research , 24 , 516–536. doi: 10.1177/019394590202400505 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreiber R. S. (2001). The “how to” of grounded theory: Avoiding the pitfalls . In Schreiber R. S., Stern P. N. (Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 55–83). New York: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sørensen D., Frederiksen K., Groefte T., Lomborg K. (2013). Nurse–patient collaboration: A grounded theory study of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on non-invasive ventilation . International Journal of Nursing Studies , 50 , 26–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.013 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A., Corbin J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A., Corbin J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview . In Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Retrieved from https://www.depts.ttu.edu/education/our-people/Faculty/additional_pages/duemer/epsy_5382_class_materials/Grounded-theory-methodology.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Strauss A., Corbin J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornberg R. (2012). Informed grounded theory . Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 56 , 243–259. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

All about higher education & research

How to Structure Grounded Theory Research Design with Useful Examples?

In the vast landscape of qualitative research, Grounded Theory stands as a methodological beacon, offering researchers a unique lens through which they can explore, analyze, and understand complex phenomena. Developed by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s, Grounded Theory has since evolved, captivating researchers across disciplines with its focus on building theories from the ground up, grounded in the data itself.

In this blog post, we briefly discuss how to structure grounded theory research design with some hypothetical examples from different disciplines such as Education, Psychology and Nursing.  The post is mainly focused on the following important areas:

• What types of researchers utilize grounded theory research in their work?
• What is the common format or structure of a grounded theory Research Study?

Example of a grounded theory research design in the field of Psychology

Example of a grounded theory research design in Education.

• Example of grounded theory research design in Nursing
• Example of a grounded theory research design focusing on understanding the experience of individuals transitioning to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These topics are discussed here one by one in detail.

What types of researchers utilize grounded theory in their research work?

Grounded theory research is utilized by a diverse range of researchers across various disciplines and fields. The flexible and inductive nature of grounded theory makes it applicable to numerous areas of study where there is a need to generate theories grounded in empirical data. Here are some examples of who utilizes grounded theory research:

• Sociologists: Sociologists often use grounded theory to explore social phenomena, interactions, and structures. It is particularly well-suited for investigating the processes and meanings that individuals attach to their experiences in different social contexts. Social work researchers employ grounded theory to explore social issues, interventions, and the experiences of individuals and communities. It is valuable for developing theories that inform social work practice.
• Psychologists: Psychologists utilize grounded theory to explore the lived experiences of individuals, understand psychological processes, and develop theories grounded in qualitative data. It is commonly employed in areas such as clinical psychology, counseling, and health psychology.
• Nurses and healthcare professionals: Grounded theory is frequently used in nursing research to explore healthcare experiences, patient interactions, and issues related to healthcare delivery. It is valuable for gaining insights into the perspectives of both healthcare providers and patients.
• Educators: Educators and researchers in the field of education use grounded theory to investigate various aspects of teaching and learning. This may include understanding student experiences, exploring effective teaching strategies, or examining educational policies.
• Management and organizational researchers: Grounded theory is employed by researchers in management and organizational studies to explore workplace dynamics, organizational change, leadership, and other aspects of organizational behavior. Researchers in business and marketing may use grounded theory to explore consumer behavior, market trends, and organizational strategies. It helps in developing theories that are grounded in the experiences and behaviors of stakeholders.
• Anthropologists: Anthropologists utilize grounded theory to study cultures, social structures, and human behaviors. It is particularly useful for capturing the richness and complexity of cultural phenomena.
• Communication Scholars: Grounded theory is applied in communication research to explore the ways individuals communicate, construct meaning, and navigate interpersonal relationships. It is used to develop theories grounded in communicative practices.

In essence, grounded theory is a versatile qualitative research approach that is utilized by researchers across disciplines when there is a need to systematically explore, understand, and develop theories from the data itself. The method’s flexibility makes it applicable to a wide range of research questions and contexts. Overall, it is a valuable tool for anyone who wants to gain a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon, develop new theories, and inform practical action. Its flexibility and adaptability make it suitable for a wide range of disciplines and applications.

What is the common format or structure of a grounded theory research study?

While the specific format or structure of a grounded theory research study can vary depending on the research topic and researcher’s preferences, grounded theory research studies generally follow a common format. There are some common elements widely used that are typically included in the final report. Here’s a general outline of the common format or structure of a grounded theory research study:

• Provide a concise and informative title that reflects the essence of the research.
• Summarize the key aspects of the study, including the research problem, methods, findings, and implications. The abstract should provide a brief overview of the entire research, the methodology used and the findings of the study.
• Introduce the research problem and the context in which it is situated. Provide a rationale for using grounded theory and clearly state the research question or objective. Briefly introduce the research topic, highlighting its significance and existing knowledge gaps. Explain the study’s objectives and expected outcomes.
• While grounded theory often begins with minimal preconceptions, some studies may include a brief literature review to contextualize the research problem and identify any existing gaps. Provide a critical analysis of relevant literature, identifying key concepts, theoretical frameworks, and areas for further investigation.
• In some cases, researchers may articulate a broad theoretical framework that informs the study. This could include concepts or ideas relevant to the research problem.
• Describe the research design, data collection methods, and data analysis procedures. Explain how theoretical sampling was used and provide details about the participants, setting, and any ethical considerations. Briefly describe the chosen grounded theory approach and justify its selection for the research question and context. Describe the methods used to collect data (e.g., interviews, observations, documents), including the rationale for choosing each method and the data collection instruments or protocols.
• Present the process of data analysis, including open coding, constant comparison, axial coding, and selective coding. Discuss the emergence of categories, themes, and the development of the grounded theory. Explain the procedures for data coding, analysis, and theory development, including specific coding techniques (e.g., open, axial, selective) and how constant comparison is used throughout the process.
• Explain how the grounded theory was integrated and refined through ongoing analysis. Discuss the core category and its relationships with other categories.
• Report on the point of saturation, indicating when data collection ceased because no new information or insights were emerging.
• If applicable, discuss any validation strategies employed, such as member checking or peer debriefing, to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
• Present the major findings of the study, including the core category, key categories, and their relationships. Use quotes and examples from the data to illustrate concepts. Present the key themes, concepts, and categories identified through data analysis. Explain the relationships between these categories and how they contribute to the development of a grounded theory. Discuss the limitations of the study and how they might influence the interpretation of the results.
• Interpret the findings in the context of existing literature, theoretical perspectives, and the broader implications of the grounded theory. Discuss how the developed theory contributes to understanding the phenomenon.  Analyze the findings in relation to the existing literature and established theories, highlighting significant contributions and novel insights. Discuss the implications of the research and future research directions. Summarize the key conclusions of the study and emphasize the theoretical significance of the grounded theory developed. Summarize the main findings, contributions, and implications of the study.
• Include a comprehensive list of references, citing relevant literature and sources that informed the study.
• Include any additional materials, such as interview guides, coding manuals, or supplementary data, in the appendices.

By following this comprehensive format, researchers can ensure that their grounded theory research studies are well-structured, transparent, and effectively communicate the research process, findings, and theoretical contributions. It’s important to note that the specific format may vary based on the requirements of the academic institution, the publication venue, or the preferences of the researcher. Researchers should carefully follow any guidelines provided by the target publication or academic institution.

Let us discuss a hypothetical example of a grounded theory research design in the field of psychology. In this suppositional study, we will focus on understanding the coping mechanisms of individuals who have experienced traumatic events. Remember that this example is for illustrative purposes only. The novice researchers and students shall take help from it while designing their research studies in any field of interest.

Title: “Navigating the Abyss: A Grounded Theory Exploration of Coping Mechanisms in Survivors of Traumatic Events”

Abstract: This research aims to develop a grounded theory of coping mechanisms employed by individuals who have experienced traumatic events. Grounded theory methodology will guide data collection and analysis. Participants will be selected through purposeful sampling, and in-depth interviews will be conducted to explore their experiences. Open coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling will be employed to analyze the data, with the goal of identifying core categories and relationships. The emerging grounded theory will contribute to the understanding of adaptive coping strategies in the aftermath of trauma.

Introduction: The introduction will provide background information on trauma, the relevance of understanding coping mechanisms, and the rationale for employing grounded theory methodology. The research problem, objectives, and significance will be clearly articulated.

Literature Review (Optional): While grounded theory often starts with minimal preconceptions, a brief literature review may be included to highlight existing theories of coping with trauma. This review would not be exhaustive but would set the stage for the study.

Methodology:

• Research Design: Grounded theory methodology will guide the study.
• Participants: Purposeful sampling will be used to select individuals who have experienced various types of traumatic events.
• Data Collection: In-depth interviews will be conducted to gather rich, qualitative data.
• Data Analysis: Open coding, constant comparison, axial coding, and selective coding will be applied to analyze the data.
• Theoretical Sampling: Theoretical sampling will guide additional data collection based on emerging insights.
• Ethical Considerations: Ethical guidelines will be followed to ensure participant well-being and confidentiality.

Data Analysis: This section will detail the step-by-step process of data analysis, including examples of codes, categories, and the development of the emerging grounded theory. It will emphasize the iterative nature of the analysis, with constant comparison and theoretical sensitivity.

Theoretical Integration: The theoretical integration section will present the synthesized grounded theory, highlighting the core category and its relationships with supporting categories. The researcher will discuss how the theory emerged from the data and contributes to the understanding of coping mechanisms post-trauma.

Saturation: The saturation point will be discussed, indicating when data collection ceased due to the richness and depth of the insights gathered.

Validation Strategies (Optional): If applicable, this section will discuss validation strategies, such as member checking, employed to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.

Findings: The findings section will present key themes and insights derived from the data, supported by quotes and examples from the participants.

Discussion: The discussion will interpret the findings in relation to existing literature, theoretical frameworks, and the broader implications for psychology and trauma research. It will explore the contributions of the developed grounded theory.

Conclusion: The conclusion will summarize the main findings, contributions, and potential avenues for future research in the field of trauma and coping.

References: A comprehensive list of references will be included, citing relevant literature and theoretical frameworks that informed the study.

This example illustrates how a grounded theory research design could be structured in a professional and comprehensive manner. Researchers should tailor the structure based on specific guidelines from academic institutions or publications.

Let us explore a comprehensive example of a grounded theory research design in the field of education. In this hypothetical study, we will focus on understanding the process of student engagement in online learning environments. You must understand that this example/skeleton is for illustrative purposes only. The novice researchers and students shall take help from it while designing their research studies in any field of interest.

Title: “Unveiling Virtual Dynamics: A Grounded Theory Exploration of Students’ Engagement in Online Learning Environments”

Abstract: This research seeks to develop a grounded theory illuminating the dynamics of student engagement in online learning environments. Grounded theory methodology will guide data collection and analysis. A diverse sample of online learners will be purposefully selected, and in-depth interviews, virtual observations, and document analysis will be employed to gather data. Open coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling will drive the analysis, revealing patterns and relationships. The resulting grounded theory aims to inform educational practices in the evolving landscape of virtual learning.

Introduction: The introduction will provide an overview of the increasing prevalence of online learning, the significance of student engagement, and the need for a grounded understanding of how students engage in virtual classrooms. The research problem, objectives, and relevance will be articulated.

Literature Review (Optional): A concise literature review may be included to contextualize the study within existing theories of student engagement and online learning. This section will not be exhaustive but will provide a foundation for the research.

• Participants: Purposeful sampling will be used to select a diverse group of online learners.
• Data Collection: In-depth interviews, virtual observations, and document analysis will be employed to collect rich, qualitative data.
• Data Analysis: Open coding, constant comparison, axial coding, and selective coding will be applied iteratively to analyze the data.
• Ethical Considerations: Ethical guidelines will be followed to protect participant privacy and uphold research integrity.

Data Analysis: This section will detail the systematic process of data analysis, providing examples of initial codes, evolving categories, and the emergence of the grounded theory. The iterative nature of the analysis will be emphasized.

Theoretical integration: The theoretical integration section will present the synthesized grounded theory, highlighting the core category and its connections to supporting categories. The researcher will discuss how the theory is grounded in the data and its implications for understanding student engagement in online learning environments.

Saturation: The researcher will discuss the point of data saturation, indicating when data collection concluded due to the comprehensive exploration of the phenomenon.

Validation strategies (Optional): If applicable, this section will discuss validation strategies, such as member checking, used to enhance the trustworthiness of the study.

Findings: The findings section will present key themes and insights derived from the data, supported by quotes and examples from participants.

Discussion: The discussion will interpret the findings in relation to existing literature, theoretical frameworks, and the broader implications for online education. It will explore how the grounded theory contributes to the field.

Conclusion: The conclusion will summarize the main findings, contributions, and potential areas for further research, emphasizing the practical applications for enhancing student engagement in online learning.

This example demonstrates how a grounded theory research design in education could be structured in a professional and comprehensive manner. Researchers should adapt the structure based on specific guidelines from academic institutions or publications.

Example of a grounded theory research design in Nursing

Let us consider another example of a grounded theory research design in the field of nursing. In this hypothetical study, we will focus on understanding the coping strategies employed by nurses in managing emotional stress in critical care settings. Remember that this example is for illustrative purposes only.

Title: “Resilience in Crisis: A Grounded Theory Exploration of Coping Strategies among Critical Care Nurses in Managing Emotional Stress”

Abstract: This research seeks to develop a grounded theory illuminating the coping strategies utilized by critical care nurses in navigating emotional stress within their demanding work environment. Grounded theory methodology will guide data collection and analysis. Purposeful sampling will be employed to select critical care nurses with diverse experiences, and data will be collected through in-depth interviews and reflective journal analysis. Open coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling will be applied iteratively to analyze the data and derive a grounded theory that informs the development of targeted interventions to support nurse well-being.

Introduction: The introduction will provide an overview of the challenging nature of critical care nursing, the importance of understanding nurses’ coping strategies, and the need for a grounded exploration of their experiences. The research problem, objectives, and significance will be clearly articulated.

Literature Review (Optional): A concise literature review may be included to contextualize the study within existing theories of nurse resilience, coping in healthcare, and the unique stressors faced by critical care nurses. This section will not be exhaustive but will provide a foundation for the research.

• Participants: Purposeful sampling will be used to select critical care nurses with varying levels of experience.
• Data Collection: In-depth interviews and reflective journal analysis will be employed to gather comprehensive qualitative data.
• Ethical Considerations: Ethical guidelines will be followed to ensure participant confidentiality and research integrity.

Theoretical Integration: The theoretical integration section will present the synthesized grounded theory, emphasizing the core category and its relationships with supporting categories. The researcher will discuss how the theory is grounded in the experiences of critical care nurses and contributes to the development of targeted support strategies.

Saturation: The researcher will discuss the point of data saturation, signifying when data collection concluded due to the comprehensive exploration of nurses’ coping strategies.

Validation Strategies (Optional): If applicable, this section will discuss validation strategies, such as member checking or peer debriefing, employed to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.

Findings: The findings section will present key themes and insights derived from the data, supported by quotes and examples from critical care nurses.

Discussion: The discussion will interpret the findings in relation to existing literature, theoretical frameworks, and the broader implications for nursing practice. It will explore how the grounded theory contributes to improving nurse well-being in critical care settings.

Conclusion: The conclusion will summarize the main findings, contributions, and potential areas for further research, emphasizing the practical applications for enhancing coping strategies among critical care nurses.

This example illustrates how a grounded theory research design in nursing could be structured in a professional and comprehensive manner. Researchers should adapt the structure based on specific guidelines from academic institutions or publications.

Example of a grounded theory research design in Nursing focusing on understanding the experience of individuals transitioning to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Let us create a comprehensive and professional example of a grounded theory research design focusing on understanding the experiences of individuals transitioning to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Title: “Navigating the Shift: A Grounded Theory Exploration of Nurses’ Experiences in Transitioning to Remote Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic”

Abstract: This research aims to develop a grounded theory shedding light on the experiences of nurses transitioning to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Grounded theory methodology will guide data collection and analysis. Purposive sampling will be employed to select nurses with varying roles, and data will be collected through virtual interviews and document analysis. Open coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling will be applied iteratively to analyze the data, generating a grounded theory that contributes to understanding the challenges and successes in the remote work transition for nurses.

Introduction: The introduction will provide context for the study by discussing the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the necessity for remote work in healthcare, and the need for a grounded exploration of nurses’ experiences in this transition. The research problem, objectives, and significance will be clearly articulated.

Literature Review (Optional): A concise literature review may be included to contextualize the study within existing theories of remote work in healthcare, the impact of the pandemic on nursing practice, and the unique challenges faced by nurses in virtual work settings. This section will not be exhaustive but will provide a foundation for the research.

• Participants: Purposive sampling will be used to select nurses with diverse roles and experiences.
• Data Collection: Virtual interviews and document analysis (e.g., communications, policies) will be employed to gather comprehensive qualitative data.

Theoretical Integration: The theoretical integration section will present the synthesized grounded theory, emphasizing the core category and its relationships with supporting categories. The researcher will discuss how the theory is grounded in the experiences of nurses transitioning to remote work during the pandemic and contributes to the understanding of virtual work in healthcare.

Saturation: The researcher will discuss the point of data saturation, indicating when data collection concluded due to the comprehensive exploration of nurses’ experiences.

Findings: The findings section will present key themes and insights derived from the data, supported by quotes and examples from nurses.

Discussion: The discussion will interpret the findings in relation to existing literature, theoretical frameworks, and the broader implications for nursing practice. It will explore how the grounded theory contributes to improving the understanding of remote work challenges and successes for nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion: The conclusion will summarize the main findings, contributions, and potential areas for further research, emphasizing the practical applications for supporting nurses in virtual work settings.

Conclusion:

Understanding how to structure a grounded theory research design is pivotal for researchers aiming to delve into the rich complexities of their chosen phenomena. By following the systematic steps outlined in this post, from open coding to theoretical saturation, researchers can establish a robust framework that allows emergent themes to guide the study. Moreover, the accompanying hypothetical examples offer a practical glimpse into the application of grounded theory across various disciplines. As you embark on your own research journey, remember that the flexibility of grounded theory allows for an organic exploration, fostering deep insights and contributing valuable knowledge to your chosen field.

Dr Syed Hafeez Ahmad

You Might Also Like

How to begin with the research?

How to select a fascinating research topic?

How to Develop Ethnographic Research Design? A step-by-step Guide

Writing a theoretical framework for a PhD thesis: How important it is?

How to choose the best Theoretical Framework for Phenomenological Research in Nursing Care?

The 05 important tips to the successful completion of PhD quickly?

What do you think cancel reply.

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

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments Yet.

Recent Posts

Philanthropy in higher education in pakistan: learning to donate, how to overcome inordinate delays in recruitment and selection in universities in pakistan, appointment of new vice chancellors: demands urgent attention of the government in pakistan, how the graduates, medical professionals and healthcare system in pakistan shall be benefited from pm&dc accreditation by the wfme.

• How to undertake a Case Study Research: Explained with practical examples.

Recent Comments

• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2021
• November 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• February 2020
• January 2020
• December 2019
• November 2019
• October 2019
• September 2019
• August 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• August 2018
• Academic Integrity
• Academic Leadership
• Book Review
• Critical Thinking
• Data Analysis
• Enterprising skillset
• Ethnography
• Grounded Theory
• Historical Research
• Innovations
• Leadership Theories
• Medical Education
• Personalities
• Phenomenology
• Public Policy
• Public Sector
• Research Proposal
• Universities Governance
• University-Industry Collaboration
• Work from Home

About Author

Hi, my name is Dr. Hafeez

I am a research blogger, YouTuber and content writer. This blog is aimed at sharing my knowledge, experience and insight with the academics, research scholars and policy makers about universities' governance and changing dynamics of higher education landscape in Pakistan.

Choosing the Right Research Philosophy for Grounded Theory Research Design

Qualitative Research Methods

• Gumberg Library and CIQR
• Qualitative Methods Overview
• Phenomenology
• Case Studies

Grounded Theory

• Narrative Inquiry
• Oral History
• Feminist Approaches
• Action Research
• Finding Books
• Getting Help

The goal of grounded theory is to develop/discover theory from data. The theory that is developed is "grounded" in the data/information. There are different perspectives within grounded theory, including systematic (Strauss and Corbin) and constructivist (Charmaz) . Constructivist grounded theory emphasizes the perspective of the researcher, and encourages the researcher to co-construct theory with research participants.

Online Resources

• Grounded Theory Research: A Design Framework for Novice Researchers A SAGE Open Medicine article laying out the basics of grounded theory.

• << Previous: Case Studies
• Next: Narrative Inquiry >>
• Last Updated: Aug 18, 2023 11:56 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/qualitative_research

• Correspondence
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2011

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

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

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

381k Accesses

189 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

Study background

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

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

Designing this grounded theory study

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

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

A. An open beginning and research questions

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

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

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

How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

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

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

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

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

Initial Interviews

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

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

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

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

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

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

Memo-writing

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quality of this grounded theory study

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

During data collection

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

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

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

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

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

During data analysis

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

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

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

Answering our research questions

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

Concluding remarks

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

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

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

Abbreviations

grounded theory methods

Monitor Dental Practice Program

New South Wales

Randomized Controlled Trial.

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-publication history

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter & Anthony Blinkhorn

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, R Wendell Evans & Anthony Blinkhorn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Sbaraini .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

Electronic supplementary material

12874_2011_640_moesm1_esm.doc.

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM2_ESM.DOC

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM3_ESM.DOC

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

Authors’ original submitted files for images

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

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2011

Accepted : 09 September 2011

Published : 09 September 2011

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• qualitative research
• grounded theory
• methodology
• dental care

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Basics of Research Process
• Methodology

Grounded Theory: Guide on Research, Methods and Examples

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

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

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

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

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

What Is Grounded Theory: Definition

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

Types of Grounded Theory in Research

There are 3 main types of grounded theory in research:

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

Grounded Theory Approach

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

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

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

Grounded Theory Methodology

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

• Focus groups
• Participant observation.

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

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

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

Grounded Theory Study: How It Works

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

Purposive Sampling

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

Data Generation & Comparative Analysis in Grounded Theory

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

Grounded Theory Coding

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

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

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

Theoretical Sampling

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

Memoing in Grounded Theory Research

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

Grounded Theory Example

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

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

Grounded Theory Research Pros and Cons

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

                               Grounded theory advantages and disadvantages

Grounded Theory: Final Thoughts

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

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

FAQ About Grounded Theory Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

3. Does grounded theory have research questions?

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

4. What is a grounded theory research design?

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

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

You may also like