qualitative research grounded theory

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
• SAGE Open Med

Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers

Ylona chun tie.

1 Nursing and Midwifery, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

Melanie Birks

Karen francis.

2 College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Australia, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Background:

Grounded theory is a well-known methodology employed in many research studies. Qualitative and quantitative data generation techniques can be used in a grounded theory study. Grounded theory sets out to discover or construct theory from data, systematically obtained and analysed using comparative analysis. While grounded theory is inherently flexible, it is a complex methodology. Thus, novice researchers strive to understand the discourse and the practical application of grounded theory concepts and processes.

The aim of this article is to provide a contemporary research framework suitable to inform a grounded theory study.

This article provides an overview of grounded theory illustrated through a graphic representation of the processes and methods employed in conducting research using this methodology. The framework is presented as a diagrammatic representation of a research design and acts as a visual guide for the novice grounded theory researcher.

Discussion:

As grounded theory is not a linear process, the framework illustrates the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and iterative and comparative actions involved. Each of the essential methods and processes that underpin grounded theory are defined in this article.

Conclusion:

Rather than an engagement in philosophical discussion or a debate of the different genres that can be used in grounded theory, this article illustrates how a framework for a research study design can be used to guide and inform the novice nurse researcher undertaking a study using grounded theory. Research findings and recommendations can contribute to policy or knowledge development, service provision and can reform thinking to initiate change in the substantive area of inquiry.

Introduction

The aim of all research is to advance, refine and expand a body of knowledge, establish facts and/or reach new conclusions using systematic inquiry and disciplined methods. 1 The research design is the plan or strategy researchers use to answer the research question, which is underpinned by philosophy, methodology and methods. 2 Birks 3 defines philosophy as ‘a view of the world encompassing the questions and mechanisms for finding answers that inform that view’ (p. 18). Researchers reflect their philosophical beliefs and interpretations of the world prior to commencing research. Methodology is the research design that shapes the selection of, and use of, particular data generation and analysis methods to answer the research question. 4 While a distinction between positivist research and interpretivist research occurs at the paradigm level, each methodology has explicit criteria for the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. 2 Grounded theory (GT) is a structured, yet flexible methodology. This methodology is appropriate when little is known about a phenomenon; the aim being to produce or construct an explanatory theory that uncovers a process inherent to the substantive area of inquiry. 5 – 7 One of the defining characteristics of GT is that it aims to generate theory that is grounded in the data. The following section provides an overview of GT – the history, main genres and essential methods and processes employed in the conduct of a GT study. This summary provides a foundation for a framework to demonstrate the interplay between the methods and processes inherent in a GT study as presented in the sections that follow.

Glaser and Strauss are recognised as the founders of grounded theory. Strauss was conversant in symbolic interactionism and Glaser in descriptive statistics. 8 – 10 Glaser and Strauss originally worked together in a study examining the experience of terminally ill patients who had differing knowledge of their health status. Some of these suspected they were dying and tried to confirm or disconfirm their suspicions. Others tried to understand by interpreting treatment by care providers and family members. Glaser and Strauss examined how the patients dealt with the knowledge they were dying and the reactions of healthcare staff caring for these patients. Throughout this collaboration, Glaser and Strauss questioned the appropriateness of using a scientific method of verification for this study. During this investigation, they developed the constant comparative method, a key element of grounded theory, while generating a theory of dying first described in Awareness of Dying (1965). The constant comparative method is deemed an original way of organising and analysing qualitative data.

Glaser and Strauss subsequently went on to write The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967). This seminal work explained how theory could be generated from data inductively. This process challenged the traditional method of testing or refining theory through deductive testing. Grounded theory provided an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to determine truths about the world. 11 Glaser and Strauss 5 challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory. After publishing The Discovery of Grounded Theory , Strauss and Glaser went on to write independently, expressing divergent viewpoints in the application of grounded theory methods.

Glaser produced his book Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) and Strauss went on to publish Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987). Strauss and Corbin’s 12 publication Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques resulted in a rebuttal by Glaser 13 over their application of grounded theory methods. However, philosophical perspectives have changed since Glaser’s positivist version and Strauss and Corbin’s post-positivism stance. 14 Grounded theory has since seen the emergence of additional philosophical perspectives that have influenced a change in methodological development over time. 15

Subsequent generations of grounded theorists have positioned themselves along a philosophical continuum, from Strauss and Corbin’s 12 theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism, through to Charmaz’s 16 constructivist perspective. However, understanding how to position oneself philosophically can challenge novice researchers. Birks and Mills 6 provide a contemporary understanding of GT in their book Grounded theory: A Practical Guide. These Australian researchers have written in a way that appeals to the novice researcher. It is the contemporary writing, the way Birks and Mills present a non-partisan approach to GT that support the novice researcher to understand the philosophical and methodological concepts integral in conducting research. The development of GT is important to understand prior to selecting an approach that aligns with the researcher’s philosophical position and the purpose of the research study. As the research progresses, seminal texts are referred back to time and again as understanding of concepts increases, much like the iterative processes inherent in the conduct of a GT study.

Genres: traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory

Grounded theory has several distinct methodological genres: traditional GT associated with Glaser; evolved GT associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke; and constructivist GT associated with Charmaz. 6 , 17 Each variant is an extension and development of the original GT by Glaser and Strauss. The first of these genres is known as traditional or classic GT. Glaser 18 acknowledged that the goal of traditional GT is to generate a conceptual theory that accounts for a pattern of behaviour that is relevant and problematic for those involved. The second genre, evolved GT, is founded on symbolic interactionism and stems from work associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that relies on the symbolic meaning people ascribe to the processes of social interaction. Symbolic interactionism addresses the subjective meaning people place on objects, behaviours or events based on what they believe is true. 19 , 20 Constructivist GT, the third genre developed and explicated by Charmaz, a symbolic interactionist, has its roots in constructivism. 8 , 16 Constructivist GT’s methodological underpinnings focus on how participants’ construct meaning in relation to the area of inquiry. 16 A constructivist co-constructs experience and meanings with participants. 21 While there are commonalities across all genres of GT, there are factors that distinguish differences between the approaches including the philosophical position of the researcher; the use of literature; and the approach to coding, analysis and theory development. Following on from Glaser and Strauss, several versions of GT have ensued.

Grounded theory represents both a method of inquiry and a resultant product of that inquiry. 7 , 22 Glaser and Holton 23 define GT as ‘a set of integrated conceptual hypotheses systematically generated to produce an inductive theory about a substantive area’ (p. 43). Strauss and Corbin 24 define GT as ‘theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analysed through the research process’ (p. 12). The researcher ‘begins with an area of study and allows the theory to emerge from the data’ (p. 12). Charmaz 16 defines GT as ‘a method of conducting qualitative research that focuses on creating conceptual frameworks or theories through building inductive analysis from the data’ (p. 187). However, Birks and Mills 6 refer to GT as a process by which theory is generated from the analysis of data. Theory is not discovered; rather, theory is constructed by the researcher who views the world through their own particular lens.

Research process

Before commencing any research study, the researcher must have a solid understanding of the research process. A well-developed outline of the study and an understanding of the important considerations in designing and undertaking a GT study are essential if the goals of the research are to be achieved. While it is important to have an understanding of how a methodology has developed, in order to move forward with research, a novice can align with a grounded theorist and follow an approach to GT. Using a framework to inform a research design can be a useful modus operandi.

The following section provides insight into the process of undertaking a GT research study. Figure 1 is a framework that summarises the interplay and movement between methods and processes that underpin the generation of a GT. As can be seen from this framework, and as detailed in the discussion that follows, the process of doing a GT research study is not linear, rather it is iterative and recursive.

Research design framework: summary of the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and processes.

Grounded theory research involves the meticulous application of specific methods and processes. Methods are ‘systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection and analysis of data’. 25 While GT studies can commence with a variety of sampling techniques, many commence with purposive sampling, followed by concurrent data generation and/or collection and data analysis, through various stages of coding, undertaken in conjunction with constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling and memoing. Theoretical sampling is employed until theoretical saturation is reached. These methods and processes create an unfolding, iterative system of actions and interactions inherent in GT. 6 , 16 The methods interconnect and inform the recurrent elements in the research process as shown by the directional flow of the arrows and the encompassing brackets in Figure 1 . The framework denotes the process is both iterative and dynamic and is not one directional. Grounded theory methods are discussed in the following section.

Purposive sampling

As presented in Figure 1 , initial purposive sampling directs the collection and/or generation of data. Researchers purposively select participants and/or data sources that can answer the research question. 5 , 7 , 16 , 21 Concurrent data generation and/or data collection and analysis is fundamental to GT research design. 6 The researcher collects, codes and analyses this initial data before further data collection/generation is undertaken. Purposeful sampling provides the initial data that the researcher analyses. As will be discussed, theoretical sampling then commences from the codes and categories developed from the first data set. Theoretical sampling is used to identify and follow clues from the analysis, fill gaps, clarify uncertainties, check hunches and test interpretations as the study progresses.

Constant comparative analysis

Constant comparative analysis is an analytical process used in GT for coding and category development. This process commences with the first data generated or collected and pervades the research process as presented in Figure 1 . Incidents are identified in the data and coded. 6 The initial stage of analysis compares incident to incident in each code. Initial codes are then compared to other codes. Codes are then collapsed into categories. This process means the researcher will compare incidents in a category with previous incidents, in both the same and different categories. 5 Future codes are compared and categories are compared with other categories. New data is then compared with data obtained earlier during the analysis phases. This iterative process involves inductive and deductive thinking. 16 Inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning can also be used in data analysis. 26

Constant comparative analysis generates increasingly more abstract concepts and theories through inductive processes. 16 In addition, abduction, defined as ‘a form of reasoning that begins with an examination of the data and the formation of a number of hypotheses that are then proved or disproved during the process of analysis … aids inductive conceptualization’. 6 Theoretical sampling coupled with constant comparative analysis raises the conceptual levels of data analysis and directs ongoing data collection or generation. 6

The constant comparative technique is used to find consistencies and differences, with the aim of continually refining concepts and theoretically relevant categories. This continual comparative iterative process that encompasses GT research sets it apart from a purely descriptive analysis. 8

Memo writing is an analytic process considered essential ‘in ensuring quality in grounded theory’. 6 Stern 27 offers the analogy that if data are the building blocks of the developing theory, then memos are the ‘mortar’ (p. 119). Memos are the storehouse of ideas generated and documented through interacting with data. 28 Thus, memos are reflective interpretive pieces that build a historic audit trail to document ideas, events and the thought processes inherent in the research process and developing thinking of the analyst. 6 Memos provide detailed records of the researchers’ thoughts, feelings and intuitive contemplations. 6

Lempert 29 considers memo writing crucial as memos prompt researchers to analyse and code data and develop codes into categories early in the coding process. Memos detail why and how decisions made related to sampling, coding, collapsing of codes, making of new codes, separating codes, producing a category and identifying relationships abstracted to a higher level of analysis. 6 Thus, memos are informal analytic notes about the data and the theoretical connections between categories. 23 Memoing is an ongoing activity that builds intellectual assets, fosters analytic momentum and informs the GT findings. 6 , 10

Generating/collecting data

A hallmark of GT is concurrent data generation/collection and analysis. In GT, researchers may utilise both qualitative and quantitative data as espoused by Glaser’s dictum; ‘all is data’. 30 While interviews are a common method of generating data, data sources can include focus groups, questionnaires, surveys, transcripts, letters, government reports, documents, grey literature, music, artefacts, videos, blogs and memos. 9 Elicited data are produced by participants in response to, or directed by, the researcher whereas extant data includes data that is already available such as documents and published literature. 6 , 31 While this is one interpretation of how elicited data are generated, other approaches to grounded theory recognise the agency of participants in the co-construction of data with the researcher. The relationship the researcher has with the data, how it is generated and collected, will determine the value it contributes to the development of the final GT. 6 The significance of this relationship extends into data analysis conducted by the researcher through the various stages of coding.

Coding is an analytical process used to identify concepts, similarities and conceptual reoccurrences in data. Coding is the pivotal link between collecting or generating data and developing a theory that explains the data. Charmaz 10 posits,

codes rely on interaction between researchers and their data. Codes consist of short labels that we construct as we interact with the data. Something kinaesthetic occurs when we are coding; we are mentally and physically active in the process. (p. 5)

In GT, coding can be categorised into iterative phases. Traditional, evolved and constructivist GT genres use different terminology to explain each coding phase ( Table 1 ).

Comparison of coding terminology in traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory.

Adapted from Birks and Mills. 6

Coding terminology in evolved GT refers to open (a procedure for developing categories of information), axial (an advanced procedure for interconnecting the categories) and selective coding (procedure for building a storyline from core codes that connects the categories), producing a discursive set of theoretical propositions. 6 , 12 , 32 Constructivist grounded theorists refer to initial, focused and theoretical coding. 9 Birks and Mills 6 use the terms initial, intermediate and advanced coding that link to low, medium and high-level conceptual analysis and development. The coding terms devised by Birks and Mills 6 were used for Figure 1 ; however, these can be altered to reflect the coding terminology used in the respective GT genres selected by the researcher.

Initial coding

Initial coding of data is the preliminary step in GT data analysis. 6 , 9 The purpose of initial coding is to start the process of fracturing the data to compare incident to incident and to look for similarities and differences in beginning patterns in the data. In initial coding, the researcher inductively generates as many codes as possible from early data. 16 Important words or groups of words are identified and labelled. In GT, codes identify social and psychological processes and actions as opposed to themes. Charmaz 16 emphasises keeping codes as similar to the data as possible and advocates embedding actions in the codes in an iterative coding process. Saldaña 33 agrees that codes that denote action, which he calls process codes, can be used interchangeably with gerunds (verbs ending in ing ). In vivo codes are often verbatim quotes from the participants’ words and are often used as the labels to capture the participant’s words as representative of a broader concept or process in the data. 6 Table 1 reflects variation in the terminology of codes used by grounded theorists.

Initial coding categorises and assigns meaning to the data, comparing incident-to-incident, labelling beginning patterns and beginning to look for comparisons between the codes. During initial coding, it is important to ask ‘what is this data a study of’. 18 What does the data assume, ‘suggest’ or ‘pronounce’ and ‘from whose point of view’ does this data come, whom does it represent or whose thoughts are they?. 16 What collectively might it represent? The process of documenting reactions, emotions and related actions enables researchers to explore, challenge and intensify their sensitivity to the data. 34 Early coding assists the researcher to identify the direction for further data gathering. After initial analysis, theoretical sampling is employed to direct collection of additional data that will inform the ‘developing theory’. 9 Initial coding advances into intermediate coding once categories begin to develop.

Theoretical sampling

The purpose of theoretical sampling is to allow the researcher to follow leads in the data by sampling new participants or material that provides relevant information. As depicted in Figure 1 , theoretical sampling is central to GT design, aids the evolving theory 5 , 7 , 16 and ensures the final developed theory is grounded in the data. 9 Theoretical sampling in GT is for the development of a theoretical category, as opposed to sampling for population representation. 10 Novice researchers need to acknowledge this difference if they are to achieve congruence within the methodology. Birks and Mills 6 define theoretical sampling as ‘the process of identifying and pursuing clues that arise during analysis in a grounded theory study’ (p. 68). During this process, additional information is sought to saturate categories under development. The analysis identifies relationships, highlights gaps in the existing data set and may reveal insight into what is not yet known. The exemplars in Box 1 highlight how theoretical sampling led to the inclusion of further data.

Examples of theoretical sampling.

Thus, theoretical sampling is used to focus and generate data to feed the iterative process of continual comparative analysis of the data. 6

Intermediate coding

Intermediate coding, identifying a core category, theoretical data saturation, constant comparative analysis, theoretical sensitivity and memoing occur in the next phase of the GT process. 6 Intermediate coding builds on the initial coding phase. Where initial coding fractures the data, intermediate coding begins to transform basic data into more abstract concepts allowing the theory to emerge from the data. During this analytic stage, a process of reviewing categories and identifying which ones, if any, can be subsumed beneath other categories occurs and the properties or dimension of the developed categories are refined. Properties refer to the characteristics that are common to all the concepts in the category and dimensions are the variations of a property. 37

At this stage, a core category starts to become evident as developed categories form around a core concept; relationships are identified between categories and the analysis is refined. Birks and Mills 6 affirm that diagramming can aid analysis in the intermediate coding phase. Grounded theorists interact closely with the data during this phase, continually reassessing meaning to ascertain ‘what is really going on’ in the data. 30 Theoretical saturation ensues when new data analysis does not provide additional material to existing theoretical categories, and the categories are sufficiently explained. 6

Advanced coding

Birks and Mills 6 described advanced coding as the ‘techniques used to facilitate integration of the final grounded theory’ (p. 177). These authors promote storyline technique (described in the following section) and theoretical coding as strategies for advancing analysis and theoretical integration. Advanced coding is essential to produce a theory that is grounded in the data and has explanatory power. 6 During the advanced coding phase, concepts that reach the stage of categories will be abstract, representing stories of many, reduced into highly conceptual terms. The findings are presented as a set of interrelated concepts as opposed to presenting themes. 28 Explanatory statements detail the relationships between categories and the central core category. 28

Storyline is a tool that can be used for theoretical integration. Birks and Mills 6 define storyline as ‘a strategy for facilitating integration, construction, formulation, and presentation of research findings through the production of a coherent grounded theory’ (p. 180). Storyline technique is first proposed with limited attention in Basics of Qualitative Research by Strauss and Corbin 12 and further developed by Birks et al. 38 as a tool for theoretical integration. The storyline is the conceptualisation of the core category. 6 This procedure builds a story that connects the categories and produces a discursive set of theoretical propositions. 24 Birks and Mills 6 contend that storyline can be ‘used to produce a comprehensive rendering of your grounded theory’ (p. 118). Birks et al. 38 had earlier concluded, ‘storyline enhances the development, presentation and comprehension of the outcomes of grounded theory research’ (p. 405). Once the storyline is developed, the GT is finalised using theoretical codes that ‘provide a framework for enhancing the explanatory power of the storyline and its potential as theory’. 6 Thus, storyline is the explication of the theory.

Theoretical coding occurs as the final culminating stage towards achieving a GT. 39 , 40 The purpose of theoretical coding is to integrate the substantive theory. 41 Saldaña 40 states, ‘theoretical coding integrates and synthesises the categories derived from coding and analysis to now create a theory’ (p. 224). Initial coding fractures the data while theoretical codes ‘weave the fractured story back together again into an organized whole theory’. 18 Advanced coding that integrates extant theory adds further explanatory power to the findings. 6 The examples in Box 2 describe the use of storyline as a technique.

Writing the storyline.

Theoretical sensitivity

As presented in Figure 1 , theoretical sensitivity encompasses the entire research process. Glaser and Strauss 5 initially described the term theoretical sensitivity in The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to know when you identify a data segment that is important to your theory. While Strauss and Corbin 12 describe theoretical sensitivity as the insight into what is meaningful and of significance in the data for theory development, Birks and Mills 6 define theoretical sensitivity as ‘the ability to recognise and extract from the data elements that have relevance for the emerging theory’ (p. 181). Conducting GT research requires a balance between keeping an open mind and the ability to identify elements of theoretical significance during data generation and/or collection and data analysis. 6

Several analytic tools and techniques can be used to enhance theoretical sensitivity and increase the grounded theorist’s sensitivity to theoretical constructs in the data. 28 Birks and Mills 6 state, ‘as a grounded theorist becomes immersed in the data, their level of theoretical sensitivity to analytic possibilities will increase’ (p. 12). Developing sensitivity as a grounded theorist and the application of theoretical sensitivity throughout the research process allows the analytical focus to be directed towards theory development and ultimately result in an integrated and abstract GT. 6 The example in Box 3 highlights how analytic tools are employed to increase theoretical sensitivity.

Theoretical sensitivity.

The grounded theory

The meticulous application of essential GT methods refines the analysis resulting in the generation of an integrated, comprehensive GT that explains a process relating to a particular phenomenon. 6 The results of a GT study are communicated as a set of concepts, related to each other in an interrelated whole, and expressed in the production of a substantive theory. 5 , 7 , 16 A substantive theory is a theoretical interpretation or explanation of a studied phenomenon 6 , 17 Thus, the hallmark of grounded theory is the generation of theory ‘abstracted from, or grounded in, data generated and collected by the researcher’. 6 However, to ensure quality in research requires the application of rigour throughout the research process.

Quality and rigour

The quality of a grounded theory can be related to three distinct areas underpinned by (1) the researcher’s expertise, knowledge and research skills; (2) methodological congruence with the research question; and (3) procedural precision in the use of methods. 6 Methodological congruence is substantiated when the philosophical position of the researcher is congruent with the research question and the methodological approach selected. 6 Data collection or generation and analytical conceptualisation need to be rigorous throughout the research process to secure excellence in the final grounded theory. 44

Procedural precision requires careful attention to maintaining a detailed audit trail, data management strategies and demonstrable procedural logic recorded using memos. 6 Organisation and management of research data, memos and literature can be assisted using software programs such as NVivo. An audit trail of decision-making, changes in the direction of the research and the rationale for decisions made are essential to ensure rigour in the final grounded theory. 6

This article offers a framework to assist novice researchers visualise the iterative processes that underpin a GT study. The fundamental process and methods used to generate an integrated grounded theory have been described. Novice researchers can adapt the framework presented to inform and guide the design of a GT study. This framework provides a useful guide to visualise the interplay between the methods and processes inherent in conducting GT. Research conducted ethically and with meticulous attention to process will ensure quality research outcomes that have relevance at the practice level.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

• 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

Probability Histogram – Definition, Examples and...

Substantive Framework – Types, Methods and...

Factor Analysis – Steps, Methods and Examples

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

Narrative Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

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?

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Grounded Theory: What It Is + Approach in Qualitative Research

In the realm of qualitative research, the grounded theory approach stands as a stalwart methodology that has reshaped how researchers unravel the complexities of the human experience. 

This approach, developed by Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss in the 1960s, provides a systematic framework for generating theories from empirical data.

Grounded theory methods involve systematically deriving theories from qualitative data, facilitating a deep understanding of complex phenomena. The grounded theory method empowers researchers to construct concepts and theories directly from the data they collect, fostering a comprehensive and contextually rich analysis.

In this blog, we delve into the core principles of the grounded theory approach and explore how platforms like QuestionPro can enhance its application in qualitative research.

Understanding the Grounded Theory Approach

Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology that involves developing theories directly from the data collected during the research process instead of relying on pre-existing theories or hypotheses. 

This approach aims to generate insights and understanding about a particular phenomenon by systematically analyzing and coding the data to uncover patterns, relationships, and concepts. 

It emphasizes research’s iterative and inductive nature, allowing theories to emerge organically from the data rather than being imposed on it. This methodology is commonly used in social sciences and other fields to explore complex social processes and generate new theories from empirical observations and interviews.

The Importance of Grounded Theory Research?

Grounded theory research is particularly well-suited for situations where you want to develop a new theory or gain a deeper understanding of a complex phenomenon that hasn’t been extensively studied before. Here are some scenarios where such theory research can be valuable:

Exploratory Studies

When you’re exploring a new area of research where little prior theory exists, it can help you generate theories and concepts directly from the data.

Complex Social Processes

It can provide insights into the underlying dynamics if you’re studying complex social processes, behaviors, interactions, or cultural phenomena.

Emergent Phenomena

When examining a relatively new or rapidly evolving phenomenon, grounded theory can help you uncover the underlying structures and trends driving its emergence.

Theory Building

If you aim to develop a new theoretical framework based on empirical evidence, it provides a systematic approach to theory building grounded in data.

Contextual Understanding

When you want to deeply understand a phenomenon within its specific context, it allows you to capture the nuances and intricacies that more hypothesis-driven methods might miss.

Understanding Participant Perspectives

It effectively captures participants’ perspectives and experiences in a detailed and nuanced manner.

Diverse Data Types

It’s useful when you’re working with diverse types of qualitative data, such as interviews, observations, field notes, or textual documents.

Challenging Assumptions

Grounded theory allows you to develop insights that contradict or expand upon established knowledge to challenge existing assumptions or theories.

Interdisciplinary Research

This can be valuable in interdisciplinary research, where you’re attempting to integrate perspectives from multiple disciplines to develop new insights.

Theory Development in Practical Fields

In fields like education, healthcare, or social work, where practical solutions are needed, it can help in developing theories that inform real-world applications.

Key steps of the grounded theory approach

The grounded theory process involves several key steps researchers follow to generate theories from empirical data systematically. While there might be variations and adaptations in different researchers’ approaches, the following steps are commonly associated with the grounded theory methodology:

Data Collection

The foundation of the constructivist grounded theory approach lies in collecting data through methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. This raw data serves as the bedrock for theory construction.

Open Coding

Researchers meticulously dissect the data, assigning initial codes to capture the fundamental concepts present. This stage facilitates unbiased exploration, as researchers do not force-fit data into pre-existing categories.

Axial Coding

Building upon the initial codes, researchers start categorizing and interlinking them to form more comprehensive themes. The aim is to identify connections and relationships between these categories.

Selective Coding

The process evolves further as a core category central to the phenomenon under study emerges. Researchers refine and establish links between this core category and other concepts.

Constant Comparison

Throughout the journey, researchers consistently compare new data with existing codes and categories, refining their understanding and allowing the theory to evolve organically.

Theoretical Sampling

Researchers strategically select new data sources or participants to enrich the theory’s development and validation, ensuring that the existing theory resonates with diverse perspectives.

The journey reaches its zenith with theoretical sensitivity saturation, where new data ceases to alter the theory significantly. This signifies a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.

Writing the Theory

Researchers compile their insights into a coherent narrative that encapsulates emerging relationships, patterns, and concepts. This narrative becomes the tangible outcome of the grounded theory study.

Advantages and disadvantages of grounded theory

Here are some advantages and disadvantages of using grounded theory:

Advantages:

• Emergent Theory: Theories are developed from data, allowing for fresh insights.
• Flexibility: Adaptable to various research contexts and dynamic phenomena.
• Holistic Understanding: In-depth immersion in data leads to comprehensive insights.
• Conceptualization: Generates new concepts and theoretical frameworks.
• Contextual Insight: Focuses on understanding phenomena within their social and cultural context.

Disadvantages:

• Time-Consuming: Iterative process requires significant time and effort.
• Subjectivity: Interpretation influenced by researcher bias.
• Lack of Reproducibility: Lack of standardized procedure can hinder replication.
• Initial Data Collection Challenges: Open-ended data collection may need clearer stopping criteria.
• Theory Ambiguity: Generated theories might be open to varied interpretations.
• Less Quantitative Emphasis: Not suitable for producing quantitative or statistical results.

QuestionPro’s role in enhancing the grounded theory approach

In their study of online community dynamics, the researchers employed grounded theory analysis to uncover emergent patterns of interaction and collaboration among participants. Platforms like QuestionPro offer a range of tools that complement and enhance the grounded theory Approach in qualitative research:

• Survey Design: Design your survey in QuestionPro to collect open-ended responses. These could be in the form of text answers, comments, or even multimedia content.
• Data Collection: Distribute the survey to your participants. You can target specific groups or populations based on your research objectives.
• Data Analysis: Once you collect the qualitative data, you can export the responses from QuestionPro. Then, you can follow the steps of the grounded theory procedures, including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, using specialized qualitative analysis software like NVivo, Dedoose, or even manual methods.
• Theory Development: Analyze the data and identify emergent concepts and patterns. Through iterative coding and constant comparative method, you can develop grounded theory research that explains the phenomenon you’re investigating.

The grounded theory Approach remains a cornerstone in qualitative research, fostering a dynamic interplay between data and emerging theory construction. 

QuestionPro’s suite of tools lends a helping hand to researchers embarking on this journey, providing support across data collection, analysis, collaboration, and visualization. 

As the landscape of research evolves, the synergy between methodologies like the grounded theory approach and innovative platforms like QuestionPro paves the way for deeper insights into the tapestry of human experiences.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Unlocking Creativity With 10 Top Idea Management Software

Mar 23, 2024

20 Best Website Optimization Tools to Improve Your Website

Mar 22, 2024

15 Best Digital Customer Experience Software of 2024

15 Best Product Experience Software of 2024

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 The Grounded Theory Method

Antony Bryant, Faculty of Arts, Environment, and Technology, Leeds Metropolitan University

• Published: 01 July 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The term “grounded theory” was introduced to the research lexicon by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s, particularly with the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967. The term itself is somewhat misleading since it actually refers to a method that facilitates the development of new theoretical insights—grounded theories. In this essay, the method is outlined, together with some background to its appearance and subsequent developments. Later sections describe the main features, procedures, outputs, and evaluation criteria.

The term “grounded theory” first came to prominence with the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (hereafter Discovery ) by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967 . Since that time, the term itself has come to encompass a family of related approaches to research that reaches across many disciplines, including the social sciences, psychology, medicine, and many others. Strictly speaking, the term “grounded theory” refers to the outcome of a research process that has used the grounded theory method, but it is quite common for researchers and others to refer to the method simply as “grounded theory,” with the context clarifying the meaning. For instance, when Kathy Charmaz and I were compiling and editing a Handbook on the topic ( Bryant & Charmaz, 2007 a /2010 ), I suggested that the title should be The Sage Handbook of the Grounded Theory Method , a suggestion that was immediately and justifiably rejected by our editor on the grounds that, as far as publishers, librarians, and researchers were concerned, The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory was far more recognizable and perfectly self-explanatory. For the purposes of what follows, however, the term “grounded theory method”—hereafter GTM—will be used to refer to the method, with the term “grounded theory” referring to the outcome.

Prior to the appearance of Discovery, Glaser and Strauss had published several papers and also a book-length study using the GTM, entitled Awareness of Dying ( Glaser & Strauss, 1965 ; hereafter Awareness ). This early work developed from deeply personal experiences for both of them, Glaser and Strauss having each recently suffered the loss of a parent. It is crucial to understand that these deeply personal experiences of key lifecycle events were an important facet of the development of the method. Moreover, similar issues continue to form a key feature of a good deal of research using GTM, with the individual researcher or research team being motivated in their work by personal experiences or specific interests in the area. This is evidenced in many papers and accounts centered on GTM-oriented research, and several of the contributors to chapters in the handbook stress this aspect (e.g., Covan [2007] , Star [2007] , and Stern [2007] ).

Glaser and Strauss were joined in their early research by Jeanne Quint (later Jeanne Quint Benoliel), a nursing specialist who transformed the practice of care for the terminally and chronically ill in the course of her professional career, eventually being admitted to the Nursing Academy of Fame ( Quint Benoliel, 1967 , 1982 , 1996 ). Some of the earliest papers on GTM were co-authored not only by Glaser and Strauss, but also included Quint ( Strauss et al., 1964 ). Indeed, the acknowledgments at the beginning of Discovery include reference to a Public Health Service Research Grant, the funding for which provided the basis for the work leading to publication not only of Awareness and Discovery —and the later book Time for Dying ( Glaser & Strauss 1968 )—but also of Quint’s own book The Nurse and the Dying Patient (1967) . Moreover, Quint’s interest in the outcomes of the work would almost certainly have been centered on the ways in which the research on dying—“awareness” and “time”—afforded a basis for more effective practice, something that has always been a central feature and concern of those developing GTM.

Apart from their own personal experiences of bereavement, the personal trajectories of both Glaser and Strauss are critical in understanding their contributions, joint efforts, and later divergent trajectories with regard to GTM. Anselm Strauss had studied at the University of Chicago as a postgraduate and thereafter held posts at various colleges and universities, until he returned to Chicago in the 1950s. At this stage, he worked with and was influenced by Howard Becker (1963) and Erving Goffman (1959) , continuing the ideas of the earlier Chicago luminaries such as Herbert Blumer (1969) , and George Herbert Mead (1934 , 1938 ). Blumer is credited with coining the term symbolic interactionism , in the 1930s, although its origins are usually linked to the work of Mead. This basis provided Strauss with a background in social sciences that stressed the importance of naturalistic forms of inquiry, and his writings include standard and influential works on social psychology, many of which went through several revisions and reprints. In 1960, Strauss moved to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). There, he was given the responsibility of establishing the teaching of research methods in the new doctoral program in nursing, itself something of a key innovation. By 1968, he had developed his own doctoral program in sociology, with a specific focus on health, illness, and care, and with a clear predilection for qualitative research. As explained later, his early background was critical in the initial articulation of GTM and its later developments, but not always in the ways that might have been expected.

Barney Glaser studied at Columbia University, New York, where the key influences and luminaries were Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton; Merton being ostensibly the supervisor for Glaser’s PhD. The influence of Lazarsfeld was significant, and, to some extent, Glaser might be considered as one of the key adherents and developers of Lazarsfeld’s methodological ideas. Glaser himself makes this clear in his book on Doing Quantitative GT (2008), in which he clarifies the ways in which Lazarsfeld’s ideas influenced and presaged many key aspects of GTM itself.

In a more recent account of his time at Columbia ( Holton, 2011 ), however, Glaser places far more emphasis on the direct influence of Hans Zetterberg in his intellectual and methodological trajectory. The overall impact of his time at Columbia was to imbue Glaser with an agenda that included confidence in pursuing his own research ideas, a suspicion of grand conceptualizations and the grand conceptualizers, and the importance of publishing one’s work—if necessary, self-publishing. In the development of GTM, the influence of Lazarsfeld was particularly important, as will be explained.

In the early 1960s, Glaser moved from New York to California, and, by the mid-1960s, he and Strauss had started to collaborate, producing Awareness in 1965, as well as various earlier papers that can be seen as precursors of GTM. Awareness included a brief appendix entitled “Methods of Collection and Analysis of Data.” This is an important early statement of GTM. It notes that both Strauss and Glaser had experienced bereavements in the years prior to their research. Strauss’s experience in the death of his mother had led him to understand the importance of people’s expectations of the “certainty and timing of dying” (1965, p. 287). He had set up a preliminary study and was later joined in this by Barney Glaser, whose father had recently died. The appendix then offers a succinct summary of the approach that had been used to produce the foregoing chapters, with mention being made of the importance of developing the confidence to plunge into the fieldwork from the outset, generating hypotheses in subsequent stages as the research progresses, and the “blurring and intertwining of coding, data collection and data analysis” (p. 288). Anyone looking for a starting point in reading about GTM would do well to start with this appendix.

The doctoral program at UCSF, founded in 1968, was very much a proving ground for GTM. Those among the first groups undertaking this program were presented with the new research approach, and many of them subsequently became key propagators and developers of the method. Given the settings and context of Glaser and Strauss’s early research, and also that the focus of UCSF was on developing professionals in the areas of medicine, nursing, and what might be termed health support, it was not surprising that much of the work emanating from these GTM pioneers focused on hospital- and health-oriented issues.

Marking the fortieth anniversary of the doctoral program in 2008, a member of its first intake made the following comment:

“I like to refer to this program as The Mouse That Roared,” says Virginia Olesen, professor emerita in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the UCSF School of Nursing. “This has always been a tiny program—never more than six or seven faculty. But, my gosh, the contributions....” (quoted in Schwartz, 2009 )

Strauss can be seen as a pioneer of what would now be termed the sociology of medicine and healthcare. Moreover, this initial anchoring in the healthcare context, combined with the methodological innovations, resulted in a rich and varied series of outputs that have had a significant and continuing influence on social research methods, nursing practices, and palliative care. Schwartz (2009) does not exaggerate in summarizing the contributions as including, “legitimizing the concept of nursing research, establishing today’s most prominent qualitative research methodology and, supplying much of the ammunition informing the most significant public discussions about health and health care over the past half century, from women’s health and health disparities to aging and the impact of science and technology.”

With regard to GTM itself, many of the students from these early years of the program went on to develop and enhance the method, including Kathy Charmaz, Juliet Corbin, and Adele Clarke.

Background and Early Development

Although Discovery is rightly regarded as the founding text of GTM, its role was very much one of a manifesto, rather than an instructional overview or manual. In the opening pages of the book, Glaser and Strauss argue that the book “is directed toward improving social scientists” capacities for generating theories’ (1967, p. vii). They recognize that not everyone can develop this capacity, but this does not mean that it should be seen as something restricted to a few geniuses. Generating “useful theories” requires “a different perspective on the canons derived from vigorous quantitative verification on such issues as sampling, coding, reliability, validity, indicators, frequency distributions, conceptual formulation, construction of hypotheses, and presentation of evidence. We need to develop canons more suited to the discovery of theory ” (p. viii; emphasis added).

Glaser and Strauss contended that research in the social sciences in the United States in the 1960s was largely centered on the grand theorists and their grand theories. Thus, doctoral students in particular were all too often expected to develop proposals that emanated from one or other well-founded, “grand” theoretical position, deriving hypotheses and then concomitant procedures and tests for validating these latter deductions. They saw this as a highly unequal relationship between “theoretical capitalists” and “proletarian testers.” Moreover, this emphasis on verification prevented new and useful theories from being developed. Whether this was quite as widespread as Glaser and Strauss claim is not clear; indeed, Strauss himself had come from a contending orientation—the Chicago School—that had produced significant work from a fairly wide range of different researchers. But whatever the truth of the matter, GTM developed as a reaction against a view of research—quantitative and hypothesis-oriented—which was prevalent among the social science research community in the United States at the time. Conversely, it is important to understand that the method was, from the first, marked far more by its innovative claims and contribution to research practice than it was by its critical position with regard to standard approaches.

Kathy Charmaz (2006) has pointed to the distinctive features of GTM that challenged many of the core assumptions prevalent among US social science researchers in the 1960s:

the “arbitrary divisions between theory and research”; viewing qualitative studies as preparatory for more rigorous quantitative work; viewing qualitative research as illegitimate and devoid of rigour; viewing qualitative studies as impressionistic and unsystematic; the separation of data collection from its analysis; seeing the only possible outcome of qualitative research as “descriptive case studies rather than theory development.”

It is worth dwelling on these since further consideration will be of particular benefit in preparing a GTM-oriented research proposal that often requires engagement with the still conventional hypothesis-oriented “quantitative canon.”

Research Versus Theory

What Charmaz terms the “arbitrary division between theory and research” emanates from Glaser and Strauss’s argument that the social sciences in the 1960s in the United States had become “frozen” theoretically. The work of the European founding fathers of social science—Marx, Weber, Durkheim—had been supplemented by the work of homegrown theorists such as Parsons and Merton. This body of work had then come to be seen as a rich basis for further research, particularly for doctoral students and other, relatively inexperienced researchers, who would enhance existing work through the “canon of verification” to which Glaser and Strauss alluded in the opening section of Discovery .

Whatever the merits might have been for this orthodoxy, Glaser and Strauss individually had taken issue with it, both conceptually and as part of their own intellectual trajectories. Strauss had developed ideas in the field of social psychology and was heavily and directly influenced by the work of relatively unconventional social scientists associated with the various generations of the Chicago School, particularly those linked to symbolic interactionism. Glaser, conversely, had direct experience of the ways in which doctoral research could become a process of “proletarian testing” under the guidance of “theoretical capitalists”: Merton was his doctoral supervisor. In the recent work in which Holton (2011) reports on a series of interviews with Glaser, he makes it clear that although he learned a great deal from Merton and Lazarsfeld, he also consciously trod his own path, with encouragement from Zetterberg, who was only his senior by a few years.

In their early statements on GTM, such as Awareness and Discovery , Glaser and Strauss not only wanted to demonstrate the power of their method, but also to encourage others to follow their example. In particular, they wanted to encourage early-career researchers to branch out on their own, confident that they could and should aim to contribute new theoretical insights. The grounded theory method, with its emphasis on research founded on directly gathered data, rather than initial hypotheses, offered a route whereby researchers could aim to produce novel theoretical insights in the form of substantive theories—that is, conceptual statements or models that provided deep and practical insights into specific contexts, but that required further work if they were to provide the basis for more general purposes (see later discussion).

The overall impact of this means that there are firm justifications for the preparation of research proposals that can indeed eschew hypothesis testing as the starting point of research and instead specify objectives based on developing new conceptual models, framework, or theories. These outcomes can be evaluated using Glaser and Strauss’ criteria of fit, grab, work , and modifiability . Thus, the view that research is something based on existing theories can be challenged, offering the alternative proposition whereby theories and hypotheses can be the results of a research project. This is not to suggest that the latter viewpoint eclipses the former, but rather that the sequence of “theory then hypotheses then research” can be supplemented or replaced by the sequence “research then theory and hypotheses.”

The Status of Qualitative Research

For many researchers and, perhaps more importantly, for many disciplinary and research domain gatekeepers, valid research ought to be quantitative. The epigram of Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thompson) is often (mis)quoted in this regard: “If you cannot measure it, you cannot (control) improve it.” A more extended version runs as follows

In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science , whatever the matter may be. [PLA, vol. 1, “Electrical Units of Measurement,” 1883-05- 03] available at http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/ . Accessed July 26, 2012

Kelvin also argued, however, that “radio has no future,” “X-rays will prove to be a hoax,” warned the Niagara Falls Power Company that I “trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current”; and stated in his address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1900, that “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” (This last statement is somewhat disputed, since the original source cannot be confirmed.) So much for Lord Kelvin’s prognostications!

All too often, researchers have made the mistake of measuring what can be measured, rather than attending to investigating the key issues—whether or not they are amenable to simple, or not-so-simple, quantification. Glaser and Strauss could have counted the number of patients who died in the various hospital wards they investigated; they could also have looked at the number of days or hours that elapsed between admission to hospital and eventual demise. These might have produced some meaningful outcomes, but the concepts of “awareness” and “time” would not have emanated from such studies.

Kelvin’s longer quote expresses the view that nonquantitative studies are “at best” a preliminary to true knowledge (which must always be quantitative), but the results of the burgeoning of qualitative research that has developed at least since the 1960s indicate something very different. The outcomes of qualitative research can indeed be poor, ill-defined, lacking in rigor, and of little practical use; but so too can the outcomes of quantitative research. Moreover, thanks to the efforts of Glaser and Strauss—as well as many others who have contributed to innovation in research practice in many disciplines—qualitative research can be carried out in accord with clear and coherent criteria, laying a foundation for rigorous claims to knowledge and conceptual and theoretical innovation.

As will be seen in the sections that follow, there is an issue with regard to the distinction between conceptual innovation and impressionistic (re)description, but this is no more problematic for qualitative research than issues around statistical significance and meaningless or ambiguous measurement are for quantitative research. The key point is that Glaser and Strauss’ work in the 1960s and beyond needs to be recognized as forming a significant contribution to the knowledge claims of qualitative research methods and outcomes—many of which are now far more widely accepted if not widely taken for granted.

Data Collection and Analysis

One of Glaser’s teachers at Columbia was Paul Lazarsfeld, now considered to be one of the key influences in the development of investigative and experimental methods in sociology. Many of the existing taken-for-granted methods in applied social research were, in fact, developed by Lazarsfeld and his colleagues, and one of his key concerns was to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches. Before immigrating to the United States, Lazarsfeld lived and worked in Vienna. During this period, he was one of the key researchers and authors of the Marienthal study ( Lazarsfeld et al., 1933/1971 ), which has since become a classic in the sociological canon. The study was an investigation of one Austrian village—Marienthal—and was pioneering in its in-depth analysis, combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches. In his later work, Lazarsfeld developed the methodological insights gained from this and other studies (1972), publishing several key texts on methods (most notably Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg [1955] —and many editions thereafter); and, in these, he warned researchers about the dangers of simple coding and classification techniques, often stressing the need for researchers to analyze their data as it was in the process of being collected and categorized.

Much of this resonates with Glaser and Strauss’ characterization of GTM, albeit in a far less amenable and articulated form. Although there are now several variants of the method, one of the key aspects of any truly grounded method study is the way in which the processes of gathering, sorting, and analyzing the data continue simultaneously and iteratively. At later stages of the research, data will be sorted into or compared against categories or codes, but these will themselves be products of the earlier stages of the research, rather than delineations and distinctions preconceived prior to the start of the study itself.

This intertwining might be thought of as a spiral, with foundations in the early data, gathered in a wide and encompassing manner, then moving upward and inward toward a more focused and directed view of some key aspect or aspects of the research domain. As Glaser and Strauss demonstrated in their early studies, and as many have since demonstrated, this approach can result in detailed models or theories that combine conceptual cogency with relevance and utility.

The Results and Value of Qualitative Research

In some cases, qualitative research can produce outcomes that can be criticized as failing to offer more than impressionistic (re)description—that is, simply taking various accounts or observations of some domain of interest and weaving them into a narrative with little or no conceptual depth or practical relevance. As stated earlier, however, an equivalent failing also haunts the world of quantitative methods: results that are based on incorrect or inaccurate use of statistical methods and meaningless or ambiguous hypotheses (see Goldacre’s vivid and readable account of “Bad Science,” 2009 ; also his blog at http://www.badscience.net/ ). Research is a process fraught with a variety of pitfalls and problems requiring a combination of skill, experience, serendipity, and, sometimes, plain dumb luck. This applies equally to all forms of research, whether predominantly quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of several methods and approaches.

Glaser and Strauss, from the very beginning of their work together, stressed that the outcomes of a grounded theory study—that is, the grounded theory itself—had to adhere to some specific criteria, but ones that were distinct from those often held up as necessary for hypothesis-based, deductive research. They termed these grab, fit, work , and modifiability . At first sight, these might appear to be somewhat vague, but the terms are explained in some detail in the latter chapters of Awareness and sections of Discovery .

As I have explained elsewhere ( Bryant, 2009 ), the use of these terms can best be understood in the light of the work and ideas of the pragmatists, specifically John Dewey (1999) and William James (1904) . Dewey, in particular, promoted the idea of theories as tools—to be judged by their usefulness, rather than their truthfulness. This link between pragmatism and GTM was rarely mentioned by Glaser and Strauss in their joint publications in the 1960s, and Glaser never makes any reference to it in his later, solo writings. Strauss, for his part, does refer to pragmatism as “a red thread running through my work” (1993, p. 22) in his last book, Continual Permutations of Action , which is not regarded as part of his output on GTM and qualitative methods. Strauss was heavily influenced by pragmatism via his contact with G. H. Mead and others associated with the early Chicago School. In Awareness, chapter 14 is entitled “The Practical Use of Awareness Theory” (p. 259), and the footnote on that page does make specific reference to Dewey’s concept of a theory as something that is instrumental. But this is perhaps the only indication in Glaser and Strauss’s work—in concert or individually—of any relationship between GTM and pragmatism. Whatever the actual and acknowledged links between pragmatism and GTM might be, situating these four criteria against pragmatist ideas does shed light on each of the terms, enhancing the ways in which they can be understood as guidelines for evaluating the outcomes of research as follows:

Grab : This is a characteristic of a substantive grounded theory. It relates to Dewey’s idea of a theory being judged in terms of its usefulness, rather than on any abstract principle of veracity. If a grounded theory has grab, this might be demonstrated in the way in which the actors from the research setting respond when it is explained to them—they will understand and engage with it, using it in their activities and practices. Jeanne Quint’s development of innovative nursing practices and the ways in which these were taken up by colleagues and fellow professionals are prime examples of this feature.

Fit : This term refers to the need for theoretical insights to adhere to the substantive context, rather than to the predilections or biases (conscious or unwitting) of the researcher(s). Glaser offers further thoughts on this issue in Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) , stressing that the categories resulting from a GTM study should fit the data. How this is accomplished, and the cogency with which it is demonstrated and argued, will depend on the researcher(s) and the relevant published outputs. It should be thought of as an overarching aim to be striven toward in any GTM-oriented research.

Work : This again builds on the idea of a theory as a tool. Tools are useful within specific contexts or for specific tasks. There are no general-purpose tools suited to all and every situation and job. The anticipated outcome of a GTM-oriented research project ought to be a substantive grounded theory—that is, one that is of use in the context from which it has been drawn and within which it has been grounded. Thus, any such theory ought to be able to offer explanations and insights that perhaps previously were unrecognized or implicit and also provide a basis for consideration of future actions and directions. If such a substantive theory is then enhanced and developed to a wider class of contexts, it can claim formal status. One of the earliest examples of this was Strauss’s work on negotiated orders ( Strauss, 1978 ), which extended some of the aspects of the research that led to Glaser and Strauss’s early writings.

Modifiability : One of Glaser and Strauss’s criticisms of hypothesis-based research was that, far too often, by the time a research project had been completed—passing from derivation and proposal, through investigation, to eventual proof or disproof—things had moved on and, as a consequence, the finding and conclusions proved to be of little or no relevance. Furthermore, the process of conceptual discovery is not to be thought of as a once-and-for-all activity, but rather as a continuing and continuous dialogue. Thus, grounded theories have to be understood as modifiable, rather than as fixed, definitive statements for all time.

Epistemological and Ontological Issues

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. – ( John Maynard Keynes, 1964 , p. 383)

The 1960s witnessed various other challenges to academic orthodoxy, although these seem not to have been of any real concern to Glaser or Strauss, since neither one makes extended reference to them in their writings on GTM and associated methodological matters. One of the key challenges emanated from a variety of critiques of what was perceived as the dominant model of social science research and theorizing in the United States at the time, most notably the structural-functionalist approach exemplified in the work of Talcott Parsons (1949 , 1951 ). Apart from being seen as inherently conservative in its orientation, this stance was also criticized for placing far more emphasis on social structures and stability at the expense of social actors and agency. Part of the reaction to this view came from the work of the Chicago School of sociology, which stressed the importance of social actors’ views in creating and sustaining social contexts and institutions, including, in the 1950s and early 1960s, the work of Strauss himself, as well as others such as Erving Goffman and Howard Becker ( Becker, 1963 ; Becker, Geer, Hughes, & Strauss, 1961 ; Goffman, 1959 ).

With hindsight one can see the continuity between this facet of the Chicago School and the development of GTM. A significant aspect of the grounded nature of GTM arises from its focus on direct participation in the research context by the researcher(s), often including observation of and interviews with those involved. As will be explained later, the derivation of initial codes that encapsulate key features of the research context can themselves originate with the outcomes of these early interviews, based on the actual words and phrases used by the interviewees.

As has already been argued, GTM was presented by Glaser and Strauss as a challenge to the orthodoxy of research practice at the time. Moreover, it appears reasonable to argue that another aspect of their challenge drew on the ideas Strauss in particular had encountered, and contributed to, during his time in Chicago. Similarly Glaser had himself taken on, and significantly enhanced, some of the methodological insights on offer from familiarity with Lazarsfeld and colleagues at Columbia. So there is a case to be made for the influence of these lineages in the development of GTM, although this is in no way to detract from the innovative nature of GTM itself.

What is surprising, however, is the lack of any engagement with a further aspect of the range of challenges to academic orthodoxy at the time, as embodied in the work of Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn’s book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) created a major stir in the 1960s and is now regarded by many as one of the key works of the twentieth century. Apart from anything else, he challenged widely accepted views of science, scientific research, and the ways in which our knowledge of the world has developed and might be thought of as progressing in the future. His use of the term “paradigm” undermined the view that one could observe the world from a completely neutral position. At around the same time, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman encapsulated a similar set of arguments in their book The Social Construction of Reality (1966) , and both books contributed to what can be termed a constructivist or interpretivist model of knowledge—that is, that our understanding of reality is apprehended and sustained through social processes and interactions.

This position was articulated specifically to challenge various forms of positivism that, broadly understood, assumes the possibility of some neutral form of observation as a basis for discovery, testing of theories, hypotheses, and other claims to knowledge. The 1960s was marked by a variety of attacks on various forms of “conventional wisdom,” and Glaser and Strauss’s work can be seen as one component of this. What is surprising, however, is that neither Glaser nor Strauss makes any extended reference to any of these other, contemporary developments. Kuhn’s argument incorporated what was seen by many as a highly unflattering characterization of science in nonrevolutionary periods—which he termed “normal science”—as “puzzle solving,” rather than what might be termed discovery of new knowledge.

This resonates to a large extent with Glaser and Strauss’s criticism of social science research as “proletarian testing” of the grand conceptions of the “theoretical capitalists.” Conversely, one of the main thrusts of Kuhn’s argument was that scientific revolutions amounted to a paradigm shift, which was not simply an enhancement of previous knowledge but a completely different way of seeing the world. For instance, the shift from a geocentric view of the universe to a heliocentric one involves studying common aspects of the natural world but seeing them in totally different ways. Likewise, someone with a grounding in natural sciences from the late seventeenth or early eighteenth centuries would, quite literally, see things very differently from someone with a grounding in natural sciences from the late eighteenth century onward—something illustrated by Kuhn in his description of the work undertaken by Joseph Priestley in the late eighteenth century. Priestley is now accredited with discovering oxygen, but Kuhn argues that Priestley’s own account of his experimental findings indicates that he continued to adhere to accepted wisdom rather than accept what we would now understand as the idea of air and other materials being composed of basic elements such as oxygen. (Priestley argued to his dying days that his observations were of something called “de-phlogisticated air,” whereas Lavoisier, who heard of and repeated Priestley’s experiments, wrote about his observations of the properties of oxygen.)

One of the key consequences of the ideas of Kuhn and others was that there was no such thing as a neutral standpoint from which to observe and explain the world. Taken further, this leads on to the argument that the ways in which we describe the world, using language, are not neutral or transparent; language is not simply a way of describing reality, it is actually a crucial part of how we constitute reality. Taken as a whole, these developments—many of which actually predate the twentieth century in one form or another—culminated in the 1960s in a concerted attack on simple and straightforward ideas about data and observation. But neither Glaser nor Strauss ever took these up in any way. On the contrary, Glaser and Strauss, whether in their collaborative or separate contributions, consistently treat “data” as an uncomplicated concept. Moreover, in using the term “emergence” in a passive and unembodied sense—as in “the theory emerges from the data”—they cannot help but oversimplify the nature of data and the process of “discovery,” also obscuring the active role of researchers in shaping the development of codes, categories, and concepts.

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, GTM had grown in popularity, particularly following the publication of Strauss’s solo work Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists ( Strauss, 1987 ) and his collaborative work with Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research ( Strauss & Corbin, 1990 , 1998 )—now in its third edition ( Corbin & Strauss, 2008 ). Many doctoral researchers and others more advanced in their academic and research careers were taking up GTM, presenting proposals and findings that drew on Discovery and Basics in particular. Reviewers and research advisers found themselves presented with proposals that did not emanate from clearly formulated research questions or present hypotheses to be tested but that rather outlined generic areas of concern or specific contexts to be explored prior to articulation of clear objectives or issues. Moreover, research papers reported findings in which categories were derived from the intertwining of simultaneous and iterative processes of data gathering and analysis, with the outcomes often presented as having “emerged from the data.”

This presented evaluators, reviewers, and assessors in general with a number of problems and concerns. Some of these emanated from the innovations in the method itself, others from the ways in which researchers reported their findings and the details of the processes they followed.

Innovations

For those used to assessing research proposals in terms of the hypotheses presented or the clarity of the objectives articulated at the outset, GTM-oriented examples were something of a conundrum. Often, such proposals gave only a very generic and ill-defined account of the nature of the planned research, with little if any overview of the relevant literature, and only the slightest indication of the detailed instruments and methods to be used. This led to GTM proposals being treated as lacking in sufficient detail for any assessments to be made, and the method itself was seen as apparently providing the researchers—particularly doctoral and masters students—with a justification for only a limited amount of preparation prior to embarking on various, often ill-defined, research activities. Thus, the strengths of the method had come to be seen as its inherent weaknesses. In part, this was based on a misunderstanding of GTM by those in positions of authority claiming knowledge of methods, but it was also due to the ways in which the method was described in various texts and the manner in which it was then taken up by enthusiastic but inexperienced researchers keen to use alternative approaches.

Reporting of Findings

Although there may have been misgivings with regard to use of GTM and, as a consequence, some basis for limiting its growth, in many areas—particularly those associated with the pioneering work that emanated from UCSF in the 1960s and early 1970s—a significant proportion of research publications claimed use of GTM. It rapidly became the most widely claimed of any qualitative method, and, in some areas, it eclipsed all other methods—qualitative and quantitative—taken together. Editors and reviewers, however, were often perplexed by some of the GTM-oriented papers that they received. In many cases, these papers seemed to indicate that GTM amounted to nothing much more than stages of data gathering—usually in the form of open-ended interviews—followed by analysis of this data to produce codes or categories, which then mysteriously led to the “emergence” of some end result. This result itself was sometimes termed a “grounded theory,” but often its conceptual or theoretical claims seemed at best weak and often nonexistent. Moreover, the writers of such accounts often stated that they deliberately ignored any literature that might have shed light on the generic research area and had set off on their research “without any preconceptions” or had somehow discounted any potentially relevant experiences, ideas, or preexisting knowledge that might influence their investigations. Terms such as “theoretical sensitivity,” “emergence,” “theoretical sampling,” and “theoretical saturation”—sometimes accompanied by fleeting references to “grab,” “fit,” and “work”—were perhaps mentioned (often merely in passing) to provide some indicators of rigor and substantiation, but the overall effect on many reviewers and their ilk was one of bewilderment and suspicion.

Constructivist GTM

The overall result of these shortcomings was that GTM came to be regarded as methodologically frivolous or near vacuous. Those with positivist inclinations, particularly if they adhered to Lord Kelvin’s assumptions concerning measurement and quantitative techniques, saw GTM as lacking in any firm foundation (no hypotheses at the outset) and deficient in terms of rigor (no measurement or quantitative verification). Conversely, those with interpretivist predispositions regarded the method as naïve and simplistic, given the characterizations offered by its progenitors—and then parroted by users—of terms such as “data,” “emergence,” and “induction.” Lois Wacquant (2002 , p. 1481) encapsulated this when he described the method as one founded on “an epistemological fairy-tale.”

From the 1960s until the mid-1990s, neither Glaser nor Strauss ever engaged with the ways in which the work of Kuhn, Berger and Luckman, and others of a similar ilk undermined conventional ideas about data, observation, and knowledge claims. Given the central role played by “data,” particularly in Glaser’s writings, this seems somewhat strange; after all, Glaser and Strauss had set out to challenge the research orthodoxy, including those who acted as the gatekeepers and evaluators of theoretical legitimacy and authority. Kuhn’s ideas similarly sought to question the basis on which claims to knowledge were based; a critical enterprise that continues to this day. As I have argued elsewhere ( Bryant, 2009 ), this omission was particularly perplexing with regard to Strauss, given his background, steeped in the work of G. H. Mead and pragmatism.

Whatever the rationales behind both Glaser’s and Strauss’s specific failures to engage with these issues and ideas, there was no way that GTM could remain remote from or indifferent to them. By the mid-1990s, Kathy Charmaz had begun to articulate what she termed a “constructivist” form of GTM, and, in the second edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research ( Charmaz, 2000 ), she developed her argument, contrasting “constructivist” GTM with “objectivist” GTM, as espoused by Glaser.

For Charmaz, GTM had to take account of the active role of the researcher in moving from data collection through analysis to coding, then iterating through further stages of collection and analysis and coding. Thus, codes and categories did not “emerge” but were the product of deliberate interpretation by the researcher(s). She contrasted this view of GTM with what she termed Glaser’s “objectivist one,” which treats data as something uncovered by the research process, leading to the unearthing of codes and categories, and virtually effacing the researcher as an active participant. Thus, in her later book, Charmaz (2006) used the title Constructing Grounded Theory , rather than Glaser and Strauss’s Discovery .

Soon after this, in the late 1990s and quite independently, I had begun to develop a similar view. I had been presented with several research proposals that alluded to GTM, and, in many cases, this was no more than a thin veneer, hiding the student’s inability to state any clear ideas regarding specific objectives, lack of familiarity with the literature, or aversion to rigorous methods, particularly quantitative ones—sometimes all three. In most cases, when challenged, the student would agree to revise the proposal, remedying the deficiencies and opting to use some other, more prescriptive method. One student, however, persevered with GTM and was able to respond to the criticisms in a manner that indicated the strengths of the method. My own further examination of texts and sources such as Awareness, Discovery , and Basics , indicated that there were indeed valuable and important features of GTM, but that these needed to be separated from the language within which much of the GTM-oriented literature was based—what I termed “the GTM mantra.”

Writers claiming use of GTM often resort to variations or verbatim quotes of one or more of what might best be termed “the mantras of grounded theorists”—for example, “entering the research domain with an open mind,” “allowing the theory to emerge from the data,” “letting the data speak for themselves/itself.” Invocation of any or all of these should not be seen as inevitably leading to inadequate research, although, as has already been pointed out, such statements inevitably lead many reviewers and evaluators to be suspicious of or discount whatever follows.

In the wake of the work undertaken by Charmaz, myself, and others to develop the method in the light of the critiques of positivism or objectivism—particularly those emanating from a constructivist or interpretivist position—two issues come to the fore for anyone using or evaluating GTM:

Data now becomes a problematic concept and cannot simply be incorporated into research without further consideration. Glaser’s admonition against “immaculate conceptualization” is an indispensable part of the researcher’s mindset, but equally essential is an understanding that although the original meaning of “datum” (plural “data”) is something that is “given”—i.e., obvious and apparent and ready-to- hand—our processes of cognition are not as mechanistic and simple as this.

Developing from this is the argument that participants in research settings will encompass multiple standpoints and conceptions of the specific context. Early statements of GTM clearly incorporate this to some extent; for instance, the work on awareness describes the ways in which different people develop and communicate their awareness across different settings. But this range of viewpoints must also include the researcher or research team—something that is missing in early GTM writings and was not really attended to in any systematic manner until Charmaz’s work from the late 1990s onward.

In 2006, Kathy Charmaz published an extended statement of constructivist GTM— Constructing Grounded Theory, thus contrasting this approach with one oriented around “discovery.” Charmaz argues that taking an explicitly constructivist standpoint does impact on the research itself, since data collection will necessarily involve researchers taking account of people’s meanings, intentions, actions, and interpretations both in terms of actually engaging with participants—using interviews—or for other forms of data collection, such as observation. Moreover, this leads to a specifically reflective position on the part of the researcher who now has to consider his or her own participation and interaction in the research setting.

Since the 1990s, researchers have been faced with a number of possible forms of GTM. Initially, the fundamental distinction was that between Glaser’s work and Strauss’s later writings, particularly his joint work with Corbin. This distinction centers on a number of issues around the process of the method itself, particularly ideas about coding and the use of various frameworks or guidelines for developing concepts. The distinction between Glaser’s “orthodox” or “traditional” or “objectivist” GTM and constructivist GTM relates to the ways in which researchers seek to couch the form of justification for their ideas—constructed or discovered. Although there has been a good deal of debate around this issue, when it comes to carrying out research itself, one’s epistemological stance is often only of passing interest. The most important feature of research is its outcome, and it seems to make little or no difference whether the researcher conducted the research from a positivist/objectivist viewpoint or an interpretivist/constructivist one. Glaser and Strauss were correct to see the criteria of a research outcome—concept, theory, framework, or model—in terms of grab and fit, thereby offering alternative criteria for evaluating research outcomes.

The conclusion with regard to GTM and epistemology is that, although it may be useful for researchers to clarify their own disposition, ultimately, this may not really be a factor of any great import. In which case Wacquant’s jibe evaporates, and the true value of GTM lies in its application and impact on the research contexts in which it has been used.

GTM in Practice

The Grounded Theory Method (GTM) comprises a systematic, inductive, and comparative approach for conducting inquiry for the purpose of constructing theory ( Charmaz, 2006 ; Charmaz & Henwood, 2007 ). The method is designed to encourage researchers’ persistent interaction with their data, while remaining constantly involved with their emerging analyses. Data collection and analysis proceed simultaneously and each informs and streamlines the other. The GTM builds empirical checks into the analytic process and leads researchers to examine all possible theoretical explanations for their empirical findings. The iterative process of moving back and forth between empirical data and emerging analysis makes the collected data progressively more focused and the analysis successively more theoretical. GTM is currently the most widely used and popular qualitative research method across a wide range of disciplines and subject areas. Innumerable doctoral students have successfully completed their degrees using GTM. ( Bryant & Charmaz, 2007 b , p. 1)

GTM is a method for qualitative research. 1 It offers an alternative to hypothesis-based research, stipulating that, at the outset, the researcher(s) should not seek to articulate concepts or hypotheses to be tested, but rather that the initial aim should be to gather data as the basis for developing the research project in its initial stages. This can appear perplexing both to researchers and assessors, since there seems to be little in the way of guidance with regard to the research topic itself. In practice, however, researchers always do have some idea of their topics of interest and should be able to offer some initial characterization of the contexts that they are keen to study. This may be a specific location, a set of practices, or specific issues that have engaged the researcher’s interest.

Glaser and Strauss were keen for researchers to approach their study without having formulated ideas about the nature of the “problem” or the specific research question to be asked. In this way, they wanted researchers to be ready to be surprised by their findings, rather than looking for things based on their preconceived ideas. In some cases, researchers have misunderstood this admonition and have made mysterious and frankly laughable claims along the lines of “ignoring” or somehow disconnecting from their own existing knowledge of potentially relevant ideas, concepts, and other materials. (It is this claim, together with the magical invocation of “theory emerging from the data,” that lies at the heart of accusations of GTM being founded on an epistemological fairytale.) Ian Dey (2007) has provided a pithy corrective to this, which should be remembered by all researchers, whether or not they use GTM: “an open mind is not the same as an empty head.”

Bearing this in mind, a grounded theory study should begin with some characterization of the research context and can then continue with the posing of some open-ended and wide-ranging questions. Glaser and Strauss suggested the following high-level GTM questions:

What is happening here? ( Glaser, 1978 )

What is this data a study of? ( Glaser, 1978 , p. 57, Glaser & Strauss, 1967 )

What theoretical category does this datum indicate? ( Glaser, 1978 ) (“What Is Grounded Theory,” PowerPoint presentation, Kathy Charmaz, 2008   http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/208/1/What_is_Grounded_Theory.ppt )

If researchers are concerned or confused about the term “data,” Glaser has clearly and consistently affirmed that “All is data.” This means that researchers can and should plunge into their research context and start looking for data. This may be in the form of initial, open-ended interviews, but it can also be in the form of observations, texts, documents, and anything else that might be relevant.

One of the developments emanating from the constructivist account of GTM can be seen in the range of basic questions that a researcher should be prepared to pose at the outset of a research project. This is not to say that, prior to this, GTM researchers failed to consider such issues; rather, that the constructivist position necessarily prompts researchers toward such considerations. Thus, Charmaz (2006) offers several further questions that develop GTM in a more specifically constructivist manner than is evident in Glaser’s and Strauss’s work. She stresses that articulations of answers to the “what is happening here?” question lead to consideration of “basic social processes” and/or “basic psychological processes,” which Glaser mentions in Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) . Unlike Glaser, however, who remains silent on such matters, Charmaz stresses that such consideration depends on the assessments and judgments made by the researcher(s) reflecting on the findings, and such reflection may encompass analysis of the data using further questions such as:

From whose viewpoint is a given process fundamental?

How do participants’ actions construct [observed social processes]?

Who exerts control over these processes?

What meanings do different participants attribute to the process? ( Charmaz, 2006 , p. 20)

Taken together, all of this gives some guidance to researchers who are faced with the inevitable and awkward issue of how and where to start the research. But it provides a very different starting point from more traditional methods, particularly those developing from hypotheses. This latter approach has been described as deductive , since the hypotheses are often derived—deduced—from existing theoretical frameworks or models. This allows researchers to frame a specific research question, which then guides later activities such as the initial engagement with the research context, sampling, method, and analysis. Researchers following GTM eschew this strategy in favor of a far more open-ended one that many have described as inductive , since it relies on gathering data from which more generic patterns or conceptualizations can be ascertained.

In an age of formal evaluations and institutional review boards or committees, this can be problematic, since researchers will usually be expected to offer clear and concise research questions or hypotheses at the outset, accompanied by a critical review of the relevant literature, in order to sustain the argument that the proposed research offers some value and validity in terms of novelty or affirmation of existing claims. GTM-based research needs to provide other criteria at these early stages, and this can be problematic. Glaser’s position has always been that GTM researchers should avoid the relevant literature at the outset, but, in practice, this often proves impossible and inadvisable. Review committees expect that researchers can position their proposals against existing work, and this can only be done on the basis of a critical review of the literature. Moreover, GTM researchers themselves often point out that they need to explore existing work in order to have confidence in their own studies and ideas.

In recent years, there has been a burgeoning literature offering guidelines and justifications for many qualitative research methods specifically aimed at assisting reviewers and evaluators, as well as researchers, in assessing proposals oriented around methods such as GTM (see Bryant, 2012 ). This should provide a more supportive basis for consideration of such proposals, particularly GTM, where the initial stages provide such a crucial aspect in guiding the later ones.

Coding, Memoing, Theoretical Sampling, Theoretical Saturation

For many people, GTM is regarded as a method that relies on “coding”; indeed, for some, this is the be-all and end-all of the method. Thus, some research papers claiming use of GTM offer nothing further than reference to interview data, together with some codes that have been developed from that material. The outcome is then presented in the form of a diagrammatic model linking these together in some manner. Partly as a consequence of this, many editors and reviewers have something of a low regard for GTM. Many researchers, however particularly those in the early stages of their careers and undertaking doctoral research, start to use GTM and find themselves overwhelmed by the outcome of early coding exercises on their data. It is not unusual for such researchers to produce several hundred codes from one or two initial interviews and then to double this number for subsequent ones—not so much “saturation” as inundation.

As was pointed out earlier, coding was not unique to Glaser and Strauss’s conception of GTM, although the way in which it is incorporated into the method certainly was, in that codes are developed subsequent to the start of data gathering. For many researchers, GTM relies on interview data, and this forms the source material for coding. But it is worth recalling Glaser’s dictum of “all is data” and understanding this as encompassing many other types of source material, for example, documents, articles, web pages, tweets, and so on.

To illustrate some of the issues around coding and the way in which the method progresses, it is best to use some examples, even if they are somewhat constrained. To start with, Table 7.1 shows an extract from a paper on GTM ( Giske & Artinian, 2007 ); the text on the left-hand side is taken verbatim from an interview, the comments on the right-hand side are the researchers’ initial codes.

These initial codes can be thought of as ways in which the researcher has sought to highlight some key aspects of the “data.” For those writing from a basis in “traditional” GTM, as claimed and exemplified by Glaser’s work, this is seen and described in terms of the initial stages in the process of emergence. But the use of a phrase such as “the theory emerges from the data” is problematic, since it obliterates the active roles of the researcher(s). Different researchers may well look at the same data and produce a range of codes; some may well be common to several or all co-researchers, others may only have been developed by one researcher. The example in Table 7.1 is the work of more than one researcher and so may well have come about in its published form only after discussion and revision among the research team. This is grist to the mill for those working within a constructivist orientation; different people will construct or develop codes as the result of complex interactions between themselves and the “data.” This goes on in a far less formal manner all the time and is readily exemplified by the comments section appended to articles on the web; these often result in such disparate comments from readers that one wonders if they have all read the same article.

In GTM, the coding process is far more rigorous and develops through use of the method, as will be described later. But, to demonstrate the initial stages, readers are invited to look at the brief extract—Table 7.2 —from an article published in the UK newspaper The Guardian in late March 2012 as this essay was first being drafted. The column on the right-hand side has been left blank; in a manner similar to that shown in the earlier extract, try to come up with some initial codes of your own. Details of the full article are given as Doctorow (2012) .

Source : A personal experience of working with classical grounded theory: From beginner to experienced grounded theorist 3

Table 7.3 shows the codes that I have made on the basis of my reading of the “data.” Some of the codes you have produced may be similar to those on the right-hand side, others may well be different. The constructivist orientation clarifies the interactive process that underlies the production—construction—of these codes. Those you have produced will depend not only on the extract itself, but also on a host of other factors bearing on your own experiences, interests, and way of understanding and interpreting the extract itself.

One possible set of codes, differing markedly from those in Table 7.3 , might have come from someone deciding to focus on the extract from a journalistic perspective, one responding to the question “what is happening here?” in the sense of contextualizing the article as something published by a British newspaper generally regarded as taking a liberal, or left-of-center stance on many aspects, particularly those concerning citizens’ privacy and rights. There is no right or wrong set of codes to be derived from this initial process; only codes that might prove to be useful in developing an explanation, a model, a theory of some aspect of social life. Glaser and Strauss exemplified this in their early work, with their first extended GTM publication focusing on “awareness” and their subsequent one focusing on “time.”

There are several ways in which initial codes can be developed, and researchers can and should try several of them when first starting to use GTM. The coder in Table 7.1 broke down the data into smaller units and then summarized each part using terms similar or identical to those used in the original. You may have adopted a similar strategy in developing codes for Table 7.2 . The important point to note is that there is no one, correct way of coding; GTM research is oriented toward the development of a model or theory that is “grounded” in the data in some substantive fashion, so that it has “grab,” “fit,” and the like.

I have deliberately used the plural form—researchers—in order to stress that, although much of the GTM literature implies that research is carried out by a single person, in practice, this not usually the case. Carolyn Wiener, in her chapter on teamwork and GTM, offers some important observations on this issue, illustrating her account with observations from her experience as a member of the team that Strauss set up for a GTM research project in the 1970s ( Wiener, 2007 ). Moreover, even when there is a lone researcher—as in the case of most PhD research—this person should be encouraged to discuss codes and coding with their research advisors and their peers. This is common to all strands of GTM, with Glaser continuing to offer GTM workshops where issues such as coding can be discussed with others.

In these early stages, as well as coding, GTM researchers must record their ideas in the form of memos. Memos are a critical part of GTM, and memoing is an activity that often proves extremely valuable to other forms of research. In the earliest stages, memos may be created in the form of fairly unstructured notes and comments about the developing research, focusing on the researcher’s experiences in using the method, as well as on the early results themselves. Thus, an early memo might be in the form of a researcher, new to GTM, reflecting on the experience of coding. Alternatively, an early memo, related to the extract in Table 7.1 , might add some detail to the context of the two interviews used in the coding—interviews 3 and 9—which then might be used in later stages.

As the research develops, memos become more formal in the sense that they should be written with an eye on a wider readership and perhaps eventual publication and dissemination. Glaser has suggested that researchers should aim to develop a set of memos that can then provide the basis for publications. This may not always be possible, but GTM researchers should certainly bear in mind that memoing is an important component of the method, one that should be undertaken in a serious and consistent fashion throughout the research itself. (Further examples of memos can be found in Charmaz, 2006 , chapter 4.)

All coding in GTM should start with “open coding.” Charmaz defines coding as

the process of defining what the data is about. Unlike quantitative data which applies preconceived categories or codes to the data, a grounded theorist creates qualitative codes by defining what he or she sees in the data. Thus, the codes are emergent—they develop as the researcher studies his or her data. The coding process may take the researcher to unforeseen areas and research questions. Grounded theory proponents follow such leads; they do not pursue previously designed research problems that lead to dead-ends.

Open coding is the first stage of coding and usually involves close scrutiny of data. If the data are in the form of written documentation or verbatim or near-verbatim interview transcripts, then this may be done line-by-line or even word-by-word. The examples given in the Tables 7.1–3 demonstrate this level of analysis. The idea is to capture certain key aspects of the data, reducing the complexity by providing a smaller number of more abstract terms.

Subsequent strategies will depend on what has transpired from these initial efforts and also on the choices made by the researcher or research team. But what all strategies have in common are ways in which they facilitate the move from a large number of codes, often anchored in the actual terms or phrases used in the source data, to a narrower set of high-level codes that encompass the richness of the source materials in some manner. This may involve the researcher choosing one specific aspect of the research context for further development, as exemplified in Glaser and Strauss’s first GTM study that focused on the concept of “awareness.” Only later did they develop a second concept of “time” ( Glaser & Strauss, 1968 ).

If we return to the first example in Table 7.1 , the right-hand side of the table now includes these later codes (Table 7.4 )—classified by these authors as “selective coding.” Note that these codes can be seen to encompass the earlier codes but work at a higher level of abstraction. Again, it is not a case of them being correct or incorrect, but being judged in terms of whether or not they move the process of conceptualization forward in the articulation of a useful, grounded theory.

Glaser has consistently advocated that researchers seek to develop codes based on gerunds, and Charmaz strongly supports this. Gerunds are the verb forms of nouns, so, in English, the gerund form of the noun “interception” is “intercepting.” Using gerunds should focus the attention of the research on the processes and actions that, in part, constitute the social context under investigation. Taking this into account, the more focused codes for the extract from The Guardian might now be revised along the lines shown in Table 7.5 —although several of the original codes were themselves in gerund form.

At this stage, it might be useful to create a memo for “Employer intercepting and monitoring”:

A wide range of employers seek to monitor the use of IT and related technologies by their employees. Increasingly, this monitoring extends to a wide range of communication practices, and the monitoring itself has been taken up by other groups, including school administrators checking up on students’ use of school-issued laptops.

Consider the growth of mobile technologies and the extent to which employers might claim justified monitoring of employees using their work-supplied mobile devices such as smart phones, tablet PCs, etc.

Once a researcher has developed his or her ideas to something akin to this level of conceptualization, there is a basis for “theoretical sampling,” a GTM practice that Glaser and Strauss defined as “the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges” ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 , p. 45).

And Charmaz notes that “when engaging in theoretical sampling, the researcher seeks people, events, or information to illuminate and define the boundaries and relevance of the categories. Because the purpose of theoretical sampling is to sample to develop the theoretical categories, conducting it can take the researcher across substantive areas.”

In effect, this amounts to a more directed and focused search for evidence that might uphold, enhance, or undermine the initial ideas generated from the earlier findings. Researchers using GTM need to make this move clear in reporting the progress of their work, so that there is no misunderstanding about the strategy employed to identify the sample used.

The issue arises of how large a sample is required for the research to provide the basis for any reasonable and justifiable conclusions. GTM deals with this under the heading of “theoretical saturation”: “the point at which gathering more data about a theoretical category reveals no new properties nor yields any further theoretical insights about the emerging grounded theory” ( Charmaz, 2006 ).

This has proved to be an elusive concept in the literature, and many researchers and reviewers, among others, have wondered not only what the term actually means, but how a researcher might know that he or she has reached this position. In straightforward terms, the response to this is that, for instance, in research based on interviews, saturation is reached when responses given in later stages of the interviewing process yield confirmation of earlier findings, but nothing significant or new. In such cases, the researcher can decide that no further interviews are necessary, and the research itself can be moved on to its final stages.

Some commentators have argued that this decision point appears to be somewhat arbitrary and that, all too often in the literature, the researcher simply reports that saturation was reached, with little or no evidence for this. With regard to the former point, the decision to stop further gathering of evidence based on some criterion of sufficiency applies to all forms of research: when does one have enough data to start to draw some conclusions? In quantitative research, this usually takes the form of statements regarding the size and nature of the sample and its relationship to a wider population. In qualitative research, this is less clear cut, but amounts to the same thing. The key is for researchers to clarify the basis on which they made this decision, so that readers and assessors can decide whether this was indeed justified, and subsequent researchers can then ascertain if there might be a basis for developing this research in other areas or with other respondents. In all cases, there is always the possibility of what might be termed the “black swan research event”; that is, a research finding that completely undermines the pattern that seems to have been developing from findings to date. But that is an inescapable aspect of all forms of investigation.

Using the Literature

Researchers are usually expected to have reviewed the literature relevant to their research topic early in the process. In this way, they can justify their proposal in terms of existing research, current issues and concerns, and the like. When Glaser and Strauss introduced the idea of GTM, they were keen to ensure that researchers, particularly early-career doctoral students, were presented with an alternative to the literature-derived form of research that was predominant at the time, in which doctoral students studied the works of the great theorists and developed their research on some aspect of this.

The outcome was that GTM was seen as advocating that researchers should not engage with the literature in the early stages of their work. Glaser, in particular, has constantly advocated that researchers stay away from the relevant literature until much later in their research, although he has also stressed that researchers should not take this as a reason to stop reading; on the contrary, one should read avidly and widely.

There are a number of problems with this position. The main one is that researchers need to have some familiarity with the current status of work that has been carried out in the general area in which they are interested; otherwise, they have no basis on which they can claim novelty or justification for their plans. Indeed, one of the reasons they plan to do their research may well be that they have knowledge and even practical experience of the area and its key issues. Keeping an open mind is certainly important, but either pretending to have an empty head or deliberately making it so by avoiding the literature is not a feasible option, particularly if one has to present one’s proposal to a review board.

The result is that there is no way of avoiding some form of literature review in the early stages of one’s research. But, in the context of GTM, there are a number of issues to take into account. One of these is that the literature itself can be treated as “data,” with the researcher pointing to key issues and concerns and using these as the basis for some initial coding. This may well help in developing a proposal that, although devoid of specific research questions and hypotheses, still provides readers and assessors with an understanding of the general research area, as well as with the basis for some confidence that the research will develop and lead to appropriate outcomes.

In subsequent stages of the research, it may well prove to be the case that the findings lead away from the initial ideas, often quite markedly. Even if they do not, once the researcher has developed the basis for a new model or theory, there is a need to go back to the literature in a far more focused manner, in order to hold up one’s concepts against those most closely related to the eventual findings. So, the response to anyone who criticizes GTM for ignoring the literature is to point out that, on the contrary, the method requires at least two stages of engagement: one at the start and a potentially more rigorous one near the end of the process.

Results, Theories, and Publications

This chapter is designed to give you a brief overview of GTM, rather than a detailed account. The stages from initial coding through to more focused coding can take a great deal of time, effort, and ingenuity, but that is common to all forms of research. The extent to which research can be supported by methodological recommendations is a controversial one. Glaser and Strauss parted company on precisely this point in the 1990s, with Glaser accusing Strauss of undermining their concept of GTM with what Glaser saw as a far too prescriptive account of coding and generation of theories. (Various accounts of this can be found in Glaser, 1992 ; Bryant & Charmaz, 2007 b , 2007 c )

One of the key issues for GTM, however, must be the outcome and its dissemination. Whatever the differences might be between the various approaches to GTM—Glaser and Strauss’s, Strauss and Corbin’s, Glaser’s, Charmaz and Bryant’s—they all share the aim of providing researchers with a series of pointers to guide them from early ideas and insights toward substantive theories or models that have “grab” and “fit” and that “work” in some manner. The way in which these criteria might be assessed will depend on others having access to the account of the research itself, either in the form of published papers or perhaps more directly as a presentation by the researcher to the other participants ( Turner, 1983 ).

Some of these issues can be illustrated using the examples presented earlier. The full table of codes from Giske et al. (2007) is shown in Table 7.6 , with all three stages of coding. There are now three “final concepts,” all in gerund form. If readers refer to the full paper, they will find a very clear and succinct account of the way in which the researchers moved from this to a grounded theory of “preparative waiting.”

Giske et al. (2007) present their results not only in diagrammatic form, but also with textual explanation. This combination is a practice to be strongly encouraged because diagrams are often useful in summarizing lengthy expositions and also in guiding readers in the development of research accounts; however, they rarely, if ever, serve as satisfactory explanations on their own. A picture may well be worth a thousand words, but researchers need to ensure that the thousand words conjured for the reader bear some resemblance to those intended by the writer.

Theoretical Sensitivity

This is in many ways the holy grail of GTM and, indeed, of research in general. Kelle summarizes it as follows: “In developing categories the sociologist should employ theoretical sensitivity , which means the ability to ‘see relevant data’ and to reflect upon empirical data material with the help of theoretical terms.” Glaser’s book of this title (1978) is a “must read” for those interested in GTM, and it should also be on the reading lists for all courses on research methods and research design.

The concept is very much a case of what might be termed “IKIWISI” rather than “WYSIWYG”; that is, I’ll Know It When I See It , rather than What You See Is What You Get . This is not particularly helpful as a response to novice researchers who ask for more information about the term and perhaps even expect some clear and concise guidelines for ensuring this aspect. The term “grab” is relevant here, since it can also be applied to the way in which one’s research findings “grab” the imagination of one’s peers and colleagues in the relevant research community. Moreover, it brings into consideration the ways in which researchers actively participate in shaping or constructing their studies and eventual findings; that is what Kelle (2007) meant by a researcher’s ability to “see relevant data.”

Perhaps it is best to think of theoretical sensitivity as a research horizon; something that is always in front of us, but which inevitably recedes as we approach it. In any case, it will usually be presumptive of a researcher to claim that he or she has this sensitivity; far better to present one’s findings and assess the ways in which one’s colleagues respond, using this as a guide to the extent to which theoretical sensitivity has been demonstrated.

Alternative Approaches

The various exchanges between Glaser and Strauss in the light of their individual accounts of GTM, and the more recent ones focused on “objectivist” and “constructivist” approaches, might lead researchers to believe that there is some fairly strict gatekeeping going on with GTM. To some extent, this is correct, since there are many instances in which use of the method has been claimed in research proposals and publications but amounts to no more than a cursory incorporation of some aspect of GTM—usually the coding of data after some initial phase of collection.

However, there are many cases in which researchers have used GTM in unorthodox ways, but with good reason and producing results with “grab” and “fit.” 2 For instance, one of my PhD students had set out to administer a fairly structured questionnaire among a group of potential respondents but found that their background stories were far more interesting and did not fit into her initial research strategy. Rather than “forcing” these responses into her initial framework or simply ignoring the rich information that she had unearthed, she changed tack and started to analyze her data using GTM techniques. Since she had already gathered her data, I advised her to code one or two of her interviews and then see what transpired. Eventually, she managed to develop a set of codes and applied this to her other interviews and observations, resulting in a model that certainly had grab and fit.

Future Directions: What Is a (Grounded) Theory Anyway?

I have deliberately used terms such a “model, “framework,” “theory” almost interchangeably in the earlier sections. Some writers make specific distinctions between these terms, but I have chosen not to do so. One of the issues with regard to use of GTM is the expectation that the outcome of any such research should result in a theory—but what exactly is a theory, whether of the grounded variety or any other type?

There is currently a good deal of discussion about the status of the term “theory.” Those arguing in favor of some form of “creationism” or “intelligent design” often make statements to the effect that “evolution is only a theory ,” that it is not fully proven and therefore alternative claims to knowledge, however tenuous or problematic, must be granted equal status. This is to confuse the meanings of the term. In cases such as the theory of gravity, or relativity, or evolution, the term refers to a body of knowledge and concepts that have stood both the test of time and an extended time of testing and various forms of rigorous investigation. In more colloquial use, people talk about their own particular “theories” of anything from the origin of the universe, the economic crash of the last decade, or how to pick winners in horse races—in this sense, a theory is no more than a guess or a hunch.

In an earlier paper ( Bryant, 2009 ), I noted that, for pragmatists such as John Dewey and William James (particularly Dewey), a theory was something to be judged in terms of its usefulness rather than its truthfulness. Consequently, a theory should be regarded as a tool, and a tool is only useful for certain tasks. This, in fact, characterizes what Glaser and Strauss mean by the term “substantive theory” as opposed to “formal theory.”

By substantive theory we mean theory developed for a substantive or empirical area of sociological inquiry, such as patient care, geriatric life styles etc.... By formal theory we mean theory developed for a formal or conceptual area of sociological area such as status passage, stigma, deviant behavior, etc. ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 )

So, terms such as “grab,” “fit,” and “work” can then be seen as ways in which research outcomes can be judged, whether these results are regarded as theories, models, frameworks, or something else. In all cases, the outcome can be evaluated in terms of whether it has some use within the context from which it was derived. These criteria should not be restricted to GTM-oriented research, but if this form of research is to be assessed in terms of its “theoretical” outputs, then it is important that the nature of such results is understood.

GTM has developed into a mature family of methods and now provides researchers with a host of possible strategies, techniques, and guidelines. It is important that the intricacies and rich potential of GTM are understood, both by researchers and by those who judge and evaluate research proposals, funding applications, and articles submitted for publication. Use of the method continues to grow and so, too, does the supporting literature on the method itself. The extent to which researchers now have to articulate their methodological strategies is to be welcomed, but not if it starts to obscure the actual research itself. It is important that those involved in research, particularly those in positions of authority whose decisions can encourage or deter research projects, understand the intricacies of the plethora of research methods; and also that researchers themselves clarify and justify their research approaches so that their various audiences can assess the ways in which their efforts have achieved fruition.

Locating GTM within the pragmatist tradition, as I have argued elsewhere ( Bryant, 2009 ), implies an understanding of the process of research as a continuing dialogue. All outcomes must be seen as, at best, provisional, affording the basis for further research and investigation. In the light of this, I conclude by offering some issues for readers to ponder and also a list of sources, to some of which I have added a brief indication or comment.

To what extent is a researcher’s epistemological position important in guiding their research? Has it been an issue in your own research or in the way in which you have framed research proposals with which you have been involved?

There is now a wide variety of software tools available, either specifically aimed at GTM or supporting qualitative research in more general ways. To what extent do such tools impact on the research process, either positively or negatively?

Try to read several articles in which the researchers indicate that they have used GTM. How do these differ from each other? What do they have in common?

GTM-based research does not start out with specific hypotheses; indeed, hypotheses can be the result of this form of research. How should such hypotheses be taken up and used in further research? Can you find any examples in the literature in your field of expertise?

Suggestions for Further Reading

Although the three books published by Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s are rightly regarded as the founding texts for GTM, the best introduction to the method itself—together with clearly worked examples of coding, memo-writing, and other key features—is to be found in Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory . Glaser’s Theoretical Sensitivity should be read thoroughly, as should the Appendix to Glaser and Strauss’s Awareness . The Handbook of Grounded Theory provides a valuable overview of many aspects of GTM in recent years, with contributions from Glaser, as well as from many of those who were part of the UCSF doctoral program in the 1960s. There are also chapters from German-speaking contributors who were influenced directly or indirectly by Strauss as he lectured on the method in Germany.

If you contemplate using GTM in your own research, you should use keywords or other searches to review recent journals in your area of study to find examples of the ways in which others have used the method. This seems to go against Glaser’s line that you should not look at the relevant literature until you reach the later stages of your research. But this seems far less feasible with the burgeoning of research and the demand by reviewers and evaluators that a case be made for a research proposal to demonstrate awareness of existing work, together with critical insights regarding prior work and the methods employed. It is worth reiterating Dey’s point about “an open mind not being the same as an empty head”—something that should apply to all forms of research.

This section offers only a brief account of the method—a more detailed exposition will appear in my forthcoming book on GTM ( Bryant, 2014 ).

Several examples of this will be described in my forthcoming book.

Tove Giske, Bergen Deaconess University College Bergen, Norway; Barbara Artinian, School of Nursing Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California © 2007 Giske et al. 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.

Becker, H. S. ( 1963 ). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Becker, H. S. , Geer, B. , Hughes, E. C. & Strauss, A. ( 1961 ). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berger, P. L. , & Luckmann, T. ( 1966 ). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . Anchor Books.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . New York: Prentice-Hall.

Bryant, A. ( 2009 ). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss.   Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative social research , 10(3). Retrieved August 15, 2012, from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1358/2850

Bryant, A. ( 2012 ). The grounded theory method. In A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.), Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences . London: Taylor & Francis.

Bryant, A. ( 2014 ). Grounded theory . Oxford University Press.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. , eds. ( 2007 a /2010). The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. , eds. ( 2007 b ). Editors’ introduction to grounded theory research: Methods and practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . London: Sage.

Bryant, A. , & Charmaz, K. , eds. ( 2007 c ). Grounded theory in historical perspective. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Charmaz, K. ( 2000 ). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. ( 2006 ). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. ( 2007 ). Constructionism and grounded theory. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 319–412). New York: Guilford.

Charmaz, K. ( 2008 ). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), The handbook of emergent methods (pp. 155–170). New York: Guilford.

Charmaz, K. , & Henwood, K. ( 2007 ). Grounded theory. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology . London: Sage.

Corbin, J. , & Strauss, A. ( 2008 ). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Covan, E. ( 2007 ). The discovery of grounded theory in practice: The legacy of multiple mentors. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Dey, I. ( 2007 ). Grounding categories. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Dewey, J. ( 1999 ). The essential Dewey (two volumes edited by L. Hickman & T. Alexander ). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Doctorow, C. (2012). Protecting your Facebook privacy at work isn’t just about passwords. The Guardian , March 27, 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2012, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/mar/27/facebook-privacy-passwords

Giske, T. , & Artinian, B. ( 2007 ). A personal experience of working with classical grounded theory: From beginner to experienced grounded theorist.   International Journal of Qualitative Metelhods , 6 (4).

Glaser, B. ( 1978 ). Theoretical sensitivity . Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. ( 1992 ). Basics of grounded theory: Emergence vs. forcing . Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. , ed. ( 1993 ). Examples of grounded theory: A reader . Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. ( 1965 ). Awareness of dying . New York: Aldine.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. ( 1967 ). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . New York: Aldine.

Glaser, B. , & Strauss, A. ( 1968 ). Time for dying . New York: Aldine.

Goffman, E. ( 1959 ). The Presentation of self in everyday life . New York: Anchor.

Goldacre, B. ( 2009 ). Bad science . London: Harper.

Holton, J. A. ( 2011 ). The autonomous creativity of Barney G. Glaser: Early influences in the emergence of classic grounded theory methodology. In V. B. Martin & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded theory: The philosophy, method and work of Barney Glaser . Boca Raton: Brown Walker Press.

James, W. (1904). What is pragmatism. From series of eight lectures dedicated to the memory of John Stuart Mill, A new name for some old ways of thinking , in December 1904, from William James, Writings 1902–1920 , The Library of America. Accessed August 15, 2012, from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm

Kelle, U. ( 2007 ). The development of categories. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Keynes, J. M. ( 1964 ). The general theory of employment, interest and money , New York: Harcourt Brace.

Kuhn. T. ( 1962 ). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lazarsfeld, P. , Jahoda, M. , & Zeisel, H. (1933/ 1971 ). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal: Ein Soziographischer Versuch tiber die Wirkungen langdauernder Arbeitslosigkeit . [Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed community]. Leipzig: Hirzel/Aldine, 1971.

Lazarsfeld, P. ( 1972 ). Qualitative analysis: Historical and critical essays . New York: Allyn & Bacon. [Contains essays first published between 1935 and 1972.]

Lazarsfeld, P. , & Rosenberg, M. ( 1955 ). The language of social research: A reader in the methodology of social research . New York: Free Press.

Mead, G. H. ( 1934 ). Mind, self and society . Chicago: University of Chicago.

Mead, G. H. ( 1938 ). The philosophy of the act . Chicago: University of Chicago.

Parsons, T. ( 1949 ). The structure of social action . New York: Free Press.

Parsons, T. ( 1951 ). The social system . New York: Free Press.

Quint, J. ( 1967 ). The nurse and the dying patient . New York: Macmillan.

Quint Benoliel, J. ( 1982 ). Death education for the health professional . London: Taylor & Francis.

Quint Benoliel, J. ( 1996 ). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge.   Qualitative Health Research , 6 (3), 406–428.

Schwartz, A. (2009). UCSF school of nursing’s doctoral program in sociology celebrates 40 years. Accessed July 26, 2012, from http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/12/3144/ucsf-school-nursings-doctoral-program-sociology-celebrates-40-years

Star, L. ( 2007 ). Living grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Stern, P. ( 2007 ). On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

Strauss, A. ( 1987 ). Qualitative analysis for social scientists . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A. ( 1978 ). Negotiations . New York: Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, A. ( 1993 ). Continual permutations of action . New York: Aldine.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. ( 1990 ). Basics of qualitative research . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Strauss, A. , & Corbin, J. ( 1998 ). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Strauss, A. , Glaser, B. , & Quint, J. ( 1964 ). The nonaccountability of terminal care.   Hospitals , January 16(38), 73–87.

Turner, B. ( 1983 ). The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of organizational behaviour.   Journal of Management Studies , 20 (3), 333–348.

Wacquant L. , ( 2002 ). Scrutinizing the street.   American Journal of Sociology , 107 , 1468–1532.

Wiener, C. ( 2007 ). Making teams work in conducting grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory . Sage.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• All content
• Dictionaries
• Encyclopedias
• Expert Insights
• Foundations
• How-to Guides
• Journal Articles
• Little Blue Books
• Little Green Books
• Project Planner
• Tools Directory
• Sign in to my profile My Profile

• Sign in Signed in
• My profile My Profile

Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

• By: Cathy Urquhart
• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Ltd
• Publication year: 2013
• Online pub date: January 05, 2017
• Discipline: Anthropology
• Methods: Grounded theory , Theory , Coding
• DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781526402196
• Keywords: clients , discipline , emergent theory , identification , information systems , systems analysts , training skills Show all Show less
• Print ISBN: 9781847870544
• Online ISBN: 9781526402196
• Buy the book icon link

Subject index

Based on the author Cathy Urquhart's own wealth of experience this timely, engaging book helps first-time researchers to discover the excitement of grounded theory method. Fresh, innovative and clear, this book traces the history and development of grounded theory method, and examines how the method is evolving for new contexts today. It sets out the principles involved in using grounded theory method and explains the process and theory associated with coding in grounded theory. Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research introduces us to the practicalities of research design, theory building, coding and writing up and gives us the tools to tackle key questions: • What is grounded theory? • How do we code and theorize using grounded theory? • How do we write up a grounded theory study? This is an exciting new text for students and researchers across the social sciences who want to use grounded theory method.

Front Matter

• About the Author
• Acknowledgements
• How this Book is Structured
• Chapter 1 | Introduction
• Chapter 2 | Grounded Theory Method (GTM)
• Chapter 3 | Getting Started with Coding
• Chapter 4 | Research Design using GTM
• Chapter 5 | Coding and Conceptualising
• Chapter 6 | Building the Theory
• Chapter 7 | Scaling up the Theory
• Chapter 8 | Writing up a Grounded Theory Study
• Chapter 9 | The Contribution of GTM – Some Reflections

An Overview of Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research

Using grounded theory, you can examine a specific process or phenomenon and develop new theories derived from the collected real-world data and their analysis.

Grounded theory research is an inductive approach in which a theory is developed based on data. This is the opposite of the traditional hypothesis-deductive research approaches where hypotheses are formulated and are then tried to be proved or disproved.

In grounded theory, the process of collecting data, and developing theory is a continuous one and should be incorporated in the research design. The process of collecting and analyzing data is repeated until theoretical saturation is reached or no new insights will be gained from additional data.

In Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory with Dr. Adele Clarke, Clarke discusses situational analysis as an extension of grounded theory for analyzing qualitative data including interview, ethnographic, historical, visual, and/or other discursive materials. Clarke describes how it is especially useful for multi-site research, feminist, and critical inquiry. To dive deeper into the messy complexities in data and understand relations among the elements constitutive of the situation, watch Clarke’s webinar Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory.

>> View Webinar: Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory

What is Grounded Theory Approach in Research?

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

In 1967, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss published the book, The Discovery Of Grounded Theory which introduced this method. Many disciplines have since used grounded theory, including anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, and public health.

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

Grounded theory has the following salient features:

Begins with data- Researchers using the grounded theory approach typically start with a case study by observing an individual or group in action. Through an analysis of cases, researchers formulate a tentative definition of their concept. An explanation for the construct is later crafted based on this case analysis.

A personal approach- In this method, researchers study participants as they go about their daily activities, observe them interacting with others, conduct individual or group interviews, and ask participants specific questions about their observations, daily lives, experiences, or other sources relevant to the study.

The application of grounded theory qualitative research is a dynamic and flexible way to answer questions that can't be addressed by other research methods.

What is Grounded Theory in Research?

A grounded theory is often used in cases where there is no existing theory that explains the phenomenon being studied. It is also possible to use it if there is an existing theory, but it is potentially incomplete because the information wasn’t gathered from the group you intend to research.

Check out ScienceDirect's page for more examples on how grounded theory can be applied .

What are the Advantages of Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory offers various advantages.

Results reflect real-world settings

By using grounded theory, one can develop theories that are based on observations and interviews with real subjects in real situations. This results in findings that more closely reflect reality. In contrast, other types of research take place in less natural settings, such as focus groups and lab settings.

Excellent for discovering new things

The premise of grounded theory is that you discover new theories by inductive means. In other words, you don't assume anything about the outcome and aren't concerned about validating or describing it. Instead, you use the data you collect to inform your analysis and your theoretical construct, resulting in new insights.

Streamlined data gathering and analysis

Analyzing and collecting data go hand in hand. Data is collected, analyzed, and as you gain insight from analysis, you continue gathering more data. In this way, your data collection will be adequate to explain the results of your analysis.

Findings are tightly connected to the data

In grounded theory, the outcome is determined primarily by collected data, so findings are tightly tied to those data. It contrasts with other research methods that are primarily constructed through external frameworks or theories that are so far removed from the data.

Protection from confirmation bias

Because gathering data and analyzing it are closely intertwined, researchers are truly observing what emerges from data. By having a buffer, you avoid confirming preconceived notions about the topic.

Provides analysis strategies

An important aspect of grounded theory is that it provides specific strategies for analysis. Grounded theory may be characterized as an open-ended method, but its analysis strategies keep you organized and analytical throughout the research process.

Disadvantages of Grounded Theory

In addition to the multiple advantages of grounded theory listed above, there are a few disadvantages of grounded theory, and qualitative methods in general, that are important to consider.

Grounded theory is often a time-consuming process that involves collecting data from multiple sources, analyzing the data for patterns and themes, and then finally coding the data – all steps that can take significant time if not using qualitative data analysis software like NVivo.

Additional disadvantages in grounded theory include a researcher’s own biases and assumptions which may impact their data analysis and the quality of their data – whether it’s low quality or simply incomplete.

How to Use NVivo for Grounded Theory

If you’re ready to start using grounded theory, using tools like NVivo can help!

With NVivo, you can analyze interviews (and occasionally survey) data by visually exploring datasets with the Detail View feature. This ability lets you limit the amount of data you’re viewing and filter to help identify patterns in your data.

Additionally, NVivo can help with transcribing, making connections between themes and participants, and keeping your interview data organized. Learn more about how to use NVivo for interview data in Thematic Analysis of Interview Data: 6 Ways NVivo Can Help .

Learn more about how to use NVivo for grounded theory in this paper Using NVivo to Facilitate the Development of a Grounded Theory Project: An Account of a Worked Example and the video below.

Learn more about how to use NVivo for grounded theory >>

Start transforming your qualitative research by requesting a free demo of NVivo today!

Recent Articles

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 19, Issue 2
• What is grounded theory?
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Helen Noble 1 ,
• Gary Mitchell 2
• 1 School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast , Belfast , UK
• 2 Four Seasons Health Care , Belfast , UK
• Correspondence to : Dr Helen Noble , School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens's University Belfast, Belfast BT9 7BL, UK; Helen.noble{at}qub.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2016-102306

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Grounded theory (GT) is a research method concerned with the generation of theory, 1 which is ‘grounded’ in data that has been systematically collected and analysed. 2 It is used to uncover such things as social relationships and behaviours of groups, known as social processes. 3 It was developed in California, USA by Glaser and Strauss during their study—‘Awareness of Dying’. 1 It is a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data which is systematically gathered and analysed.

Features of GT

Data collection and analysis occur simultaneously.

Categories and analytic codes developed from data. Pre-existing conceptualisations not to be used—this is known as theoretical sensitivity (see below).

Theoretical sampling used to refine categories.

Abstract categories constructed inductively.

Social processes discovered in the data.

Analytical memos used between coding and writing.

Categories integrated into a theoretical framework. 4

Carrying out a GT study

Theoretical sampling.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) first mentioned theoretical sampling and described a process of generating theory from data which includes collecting the data, then coding and analysing the data. 1 Next the researcher makes a conscious decision about what further detail they feel needs exploring as the new theory develops. It usually takes place after some initial key concepts or categories have been identified, for example, you might decide to interview patients about their experience of heart failure. They may talk about systematic errors occurring in the general practice surgery. From this analysis of the data you may decide to approach and interview GPs to explore their views on patients’ comments. Theoretical sampling therefore, is used to produce more data to endorse or refute the categories that have been identified in the previous analysis. 6

Theoretical sensitivity

Theoretical sensitivity refers to the insight of the researcher. It concerns the researcher being able to give meaning to data, understand what the data says, and being able to separate out what is relevant and what is not. By being theoretically sensitive and using insight, the researcher is able to develop a theory that is grounded, theoretically dense, and cohesive. 7 Sensitivity comes from several sources including (1) literature—in depth reading offers a rich understanding of the phenomena being studied; (2) professional and personal experience—offers an understanding of the events and topics being explored; (3) the analytic process—allows for insight and understanding of the phenomena. 8

Analysis of data in GT

There are three stages of data analysis in GT: 8

Open coding: this involves line by line coding where concepts and key phrases are identified and highlighted and moved into subcategories, then categories. This breaks the data down into conceptual components and the researcher can start to theorise or reflect on what they are reading and understanding—making sense of the data. The data from each participant will be ‘constantly compared’ for similarities.

Axial coding: at this stage relationships are identified between the categories, and connections identified.

Selective coding: this involves identifying the core category and methodically relating it to other categories. The relationships must be authenticated and categories refined. Categories are then integrated together and a GT identified.

Analytical notes are encouraged. These are notes to oneself to explain thought patterns in relation to the data analysis. Final theory is usually generated from the integration of several analytical memos.

The core category

The core category is the chief phenomena around which the categories are built. Theory is generated around a core category. The core category should account for the variation found in the data, that is, the categories will relate to it in some way. The categories demonstrate how the core category is situated in the lives of those participating in the study.

Example of a GT case study

As illustrated, GT methodologies involve the construction of new theory through the analysis of data. In a study carried out by Beech et al , 9 the authors sought to explore patient participant experiences of recovery following surgical intervention for colorectal cancer. Beech et al 9 opted to use GT because previous studies had sought to answer this research question by measuring quantifiable biomedical markers, such as symptoms of pain, insomnia or fatigue. According to the authors, there was a paucity of empirical literature around the topic from a holistic perspective, for example social, psychological and cultural aspects of a person's well-being.

Twelve participants were interviewed four times, over a 1-year period. The authors used theoretical sampling to guide the researcher as data were collected. It helped facilitate the development of theory as it emerged, not once data collection was complete. 1 Initial participants were selected based on ‘subject area’, as is recommended in theoretical sampling. Each had undergone a surgical procedure to remove a tumour in their bowel or rectum and had not received prescribed chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The authors initially asked patient participants to describe their experiences to date.

Data analysis of the interviews was carried out according to the steps described by Strauss and Corbin. 10 The authors began by coding each line of each patient participant transcript. Similar codes were then grouped together to form subcategories and within these subcategories categories were identified. The authors then grouped together the categories to form theory related to patient participant experiences of recovery following surgical intervention for colorectal cancer. The process of data collection continued until each category was saturated and no new data emerged.

Patient participants described their recovery in three phases identified from three categories; disrupting the self, repairing the self and restoring the self. The authors also noted how the process was linear in that all participants went through the stages, for example, phase one began at prediagnosis and ended at the conclusion of surgery; phase two commonly lasted between 3 and 6 months and phase three, from 6 months onwards, was related to a person's fluctuating level of wellness and illness. Notably, these three categories were underpinned by various subcategories, which were generated from initial codes. For example, the second category Beech et al 4 identified, ‘disrupting the self’, was made up of the three subcategories; body repair, autonomy and re-establishing personal identity ( figure 1 ).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Grounded theory data analysis.

Importantly, the authors encapsulated the three categories to present a pertinent theory related to patient participant experiences of recovery following surgical intervention for colorectal cancer. They found that recovery is more than physical repair. It is a process of restoring a sense of wellness demonstrated through an awareness and enjoyment of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual aspects of life, in other words, holistic health. 9

By using GT and adhering to this as a research method, a theory will be produced that is grounded in your data. 10 It is a research method which uses strict procedures for data analysis and will enable you to search for and conceptualise the hidden social and collective patterns and constructions in your area of interest.

• Glaser BG ,
• Strauss A ,
• Faithfull S

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

What is Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research?

• April 15, 2022

You may have come across the term “ grounded theory ” in qualitative and quantitative research. Typically, grounded theory is discussed in academic research, though as market researchers, we find that we often use this framework when developing studies. In this post, we’ll try to break grounded theory down for market research usage and help provide an understanding of how impactful this mode of framing research can be for B2B and B2C studies.

First off, what is grounded theory – in real-speak?

Let’s explain grounded theory in non-academic jargon to make this simple to digest:

Use grounded theory methods when you’re not sure what you’re looking for in a study or there is no clear theory as to why certain behaviors or patterns are occurring.

Or to make it even more clear:

Use grounded theory methods when you don’t know what you don’t know.

In typical research methods (both quantitative and qualitative), teams come together with a clear hypothesis about what they’re studying.

For example, “When travelers are booking flights online, they will go for the best prices and flight times.”

That’s a clear hypothesis, likely based on previous data and studies. The research team may be tasked with investigating this hypothesis further and adding more details to it – or even disproving it, to uncover whether there are other factors at play in how people choose and book airline flights. To test the hypothesis, the research team would design a user experience study, where they observe how people book flights online (with screensharing), while asking them questions as the traveler goes through the process. This will help gather essential data that can be analyzed, thematically, to further prove or disprove the initial hypothesis.

However, that’s not what grounded theory would do, because in this case we just described, the hypothesis was set from the beginning.

What if, however, the researchers instead had a situation such as this: A product team wants to understand how people react to working from home exclusively during the pandemic so that they can develop software tools for remote teams.

In this example, the team doesn’t have a clear hypothesis to work from. For this specific case, the study question was posed in early 2020, when working from home for entire teams was new. The pandemic situation was unprecedented in the modern tech age, so the development team wasn’t sure exactly what hypothesis question to pose – or, to put it more simply – they didn’t know what they were looking for exactly, but they did know that there were likely software tools they could develop that could be helpful for remote teams.

This is a perfect example of when to apply grounded theory research. Let’s explore this example further, through the lens of grounded theory.

How to set up a grounded theory study

When you’re not sure exactly what you’re looking for, using grounded theory methods helps you explore themes, in an iterative research style.

So let’s go back to our remote-team software example.

Because the research team wasn’t sure exactly how people were adapting to at-home work, they first assembled a small sample to study. Using mobile ethnographies , the team had a sample of at-home workers record their daily work patterns. They were asked more general questions about highs and lows, efficiencies, and inefficiencies, and where they were feeling frustrated or lost by not having in-person collaboration. They also explored “workarounds” that teams were doing to stay productive.

Once they received the data back and did follow-up in-depth interviews with the participants, the team then sorted the themes into “codes.” Codes essentially sum up patterns in the data that are reoccurring. For example “ workers are less efficient when brainstorming new creative ideas” was a code that came out of the initial round.

From the initial round, some ideas started to take place and patterns emerged. The research team realized they needed to expand their participant pool to also include in-house designers, and not just product managers. The research team then devised a second round of research, also using mobile ethnographies and in-depth interviews, but this time with in-house designers and product managers.

After this second round, even more themes and codes emerged, and the product design team felt like they were getting closer to specific issues that they could develop software to address.

But they needed more data.

After analyzing the second round, the research team decided to hone in on a specific topic: in this case, how to improve brainstorming and enhance the creative process for remote teams. So they developed a third round of research, and they pulled in creative design teams, product managers, and upper-level managers.

The questions the researchers posed in this third round were now quite specific, and they designed exercises around remote creative brainstorming (also using mobile ethnographies and in-depth interviews). This round was especially illuminating because they now were much closer to proving and disproving new hypotheses that had emerged from the initial research rounds.

After analyzing the third round, the product team felt ready to design software prototypes that would address some of the issues they found in the exploratory research phases. In short: They had come up with a hypothesis, which was “Remote teams are struggling to collaborate creatively using their current software.” Now they had a hypothesis (a problem statement) and a mission for their software design work.

Let’s now break down that case study to uncover the steps of grounded theory research

We just took you through a real-world example of using grounded theory research methods to uncover patterns and arrive at a hypothesis. Grounded theory, as you can see from this example, is the opposite of typical research projects, where teams know what they’re looking for, so they recruit participants, design specific questions and exercises, and then spend the bulk of the research proving or disproving the hypothesis they’re testing.

In grounded theory, it’s exploratory, from the very beginning. Teams start with some initial ideas, recruit samples to test, and from the early tests, start to see patterns. They then may have to shift and recruit different personas and start to ask questions specific to the themes from the first round of research. In each subsequent round of research, the team uncovers ideas and then tests and poses hypotheses based on what they’re learning.

Grounded theory is a great method for specific types of research issues

Grounded theory is best applied when research teams come into a problem with uncertainty about the full landscape and situation. Because it requires multiple rounds of research, it’s more costly and time-consuming than studies where the hypothesis and testing is clear, from the very beginning. However, hopefully as the example we used illustrated, it’s a fantastic method to generate new product ideas. The key is to have an open mind and be able to first cast a wide net of ideas, before narrowing down on emerging themes to test.

Do you have a study that could benefit from grounded theory research? Request a proposal today >

• Request Proposal
• Participate in Studies
• Our Leadership Team
• Our Approach
• Mission, Vision and Core Values
• Qualitative Research
• Quantitative Research
• Research Insights Workshops
• Customer Journey Mapping
• Millennial & Gen Z Market Research
• Market Research Services
• Our Clients
• InterQ Blog

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

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 *

• Open access
• Published: 18 March 2024

Exploring advanced clinical practitioner perspectives on training, role identity and competence: a qualitative study

• Maxine Kuczawski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0774-8113 1 ,
• Suzanne Ablard 1 ,
• Fiona Sampson 1 ,
• Susan Croft 1 , 2 ,
• Joanna Sutton-Klein 1 , 3 &
• Suzanne Mason 1  

BMC Nursing volume  23 , Article number:  185 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

342 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs) are a new role that have been established to address gaps and support the existing medical workforce in an effort to help reduce increasing pressures on NHS services. ACPs have the potential to practice at a similar level to mid-grade medical staff, for example independently undertaking assessments, requesting and interpreting investigations, and diagnosing and discharging patients. These roles have been shown to improve both service outcomes and quality of patient care. However, there is currently no widespread formalised standard of training within the UK resulting in variations in the training experiences and clinical capabilities of ACPs. We sought to explore the training experiences of ACPs as well as their views on role identity and future development of the role.

Five online focus groups were conducted between March and May 2021 with trainee and qualified advanced clinical practitioners working in a range of healthcare settings, in the North of England. The focus groups aimed to explore the experiences of undertaking ACP training including supervision, gaining competence, role identity and career progression. Thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts was performed, informed by grounded theory principles.

Fourteen advanced clinical practitioners participated. Analysis revealed that training was influenced by internal and external perceptions of the role, often acting as barriers, with structural aspects being significant contributory factors. Key themes identified (1) clinical training lacked structure and support, negatively impacting progress, (2) existing knowledge and experience acted as both an enabler and inhibitor, with implications for confidence, (3) the role and responsibilities are poorly understood by both advanced clinical practitioners and the wider medical profession and (4) advanced clinical practitioners recognised the value and importance of the role but felt changes were necessary, to provide security and sustainability.

Conclusions

Appropriate structure and support are crucial throughout the training process to enable staff to have a smooth transition to advanced level, ensuring they obtain the necessary confidence and competence. Structural changes and knowledge brokering are essential, particularly in relation to role clarity and its responsibilities, sufficient allocated time to learn and practice, role accreditation and continuous appropriate supervision.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Advanced Clinical Practitioners (ACPs) are a relatively new role in the National Health Service (NHS), introduced to address the increasing complexity of healthcare needs and the growing demand for skilled professionals. They are becoming increasingly embedded within a wide range of NHS healthcare settings spanning community services, mental health wards and hospitals. ACPs play a vital role in expanding the scope of practice within healthcare teams, take on more advanced and complex levels of clinical work, including tasks historically carried out by doctors, with an aim to help alleviate the strain on medical professionals and enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery. Their integration into the workforce has been shown to enhance patient care by providing timely access to high-quality services while also fostering interdisciplinary collaboration [ 1 ]. Studies have shown that ACPs contribute to improved patient outcomes, increased patient satisfaction, and cost-effective healthcare delivery [ 2 , 3 ]. Additionally, their presence supports the development of junior staff by providing mentorship and guidance, thus ensuring a sustainable healthcare workforce for the future [ 1 , 4 ]. As non-medical healthcare professionals, ACPS are required to undertake further education (Masters degree) and extended training in specific clinical areas such as nursing, pharmacy, or allied health professions to qualify as an ACP. According to the multi-professional framework advanced clinical practice, this training is underpinned by four pillars: clinical practice, leadership and management, education, and research [ 5 ]. However, there is wide variability in this practice and training of ACPs across the UK [ 6 ].

Recent years have seen attempts to standardise the training and practice of ACPs. A framework for advanced clinical practice in England was authored in 2017 by Health Education England (HEE) (NHS England) [ 5 ], which set out standards for advanced clinical practice. Within this framework, advanced clinical practitioners should be able to deliver care with a high degree of autonomy and undertake complex decision making. The knowledge and skills should be underpinned by a Master’s level award (or equivalent) that incorporates the Four Pillars of Practice: Clinical Practice, Leadership and Management, Education and Research [ 5 ]. In 2020, The Centre for Advancing Practice ( https://advanced-practice.hee.nhs.uk/ ) began accrediting some of the many advanced clinical practice Masters programmes available in the UK, which it deemed to have met the standards laid out in HEE’s framework [ 7 ]. This process of defining common standards remains in its early stages, and there remains little research on ACP training programmes and their structures or governance. In a further effort to improve and standardise advanced clinical practice, The Centre for Advancing Practice additionally created guidance on workplace supervision for ACPs, noting the crucial need for high-quality supervision [ 8 ]. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) published their 2020-25 corporate strategy also in 2020, and committed to explore the need for regulation in a comprehensive review of advanced nurse practice [ 9 ]. The review is still in progress but research undertaken in the early stages by The Nuffield Trust and BritainThinks as part of the review reported inconsistency in definitions, outcomes, standards of education and proficiency in advance practice [ 10 ], and support for regulation by health professionals [ 11 ]. Despite calls for improvements in the supervision of ACPs, there has been limited research in this area.

Studies have shown that ACPs have historically struggled with the transition from their previous career to their advanced practice roles [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. The challenges of the transition have been exacerbated by a lack of clear professional identity for ACPs, which has been noted to be a source of tension and confusion, impacting on training, development and ultimately patient safety [ 6 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Recognising the importance of successful integration into the workforce will help ACPs to realise their full potential [ 21 , 22 ], impacting on role satisfaction [ 23 ], staff retention [ 24 ] and ultimately, building a more sustainable workforce.

As efforts to standardise and develop the ACP role continue, ACPs are becoming more widespread within the NHS. The proliferation of ACPs brings a need for a better understanding of all aspects of ACP training, both during and after qualification. We sought to explore the training experiences of ACPs with the aim of informing future models of education and support.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework of this study is based on the theories of Bourdieu, particularly his concept of Habitus [ 25 ], as it offers a valuable lens for examining the multifaceted identities, roles, and positionalities of ACPs. Habitus, ingrained dispositions and cultural knowledge shaped by social experiences, acts as a bridge between individual practitioners and the complex healthcare field they navigate. It influences how ACPs perceive and enact their roles, shaped by their educational background, professional training, and prior clinical experiences. Furthermore, Habitus interacts with the “field,” the social space within which ACPs operate, characterized by power dynamics, established hierarchies, and competing ideologies. This interaction influences the capital, both symbolic and material, that ACPs possess and wield within the field. Through this lens, we can understand how ACPs negotiate complex power dynamics within the healthcare system, navigate tensions between professional autonomy and institutional constraints, and ultimately construct their own sense of meaning and purpose within their evolving roles. By analyzing these interactions between Habitus, field, and capital, Bourdieu’s framework offers a rich and nuanced understanding of the experiences and challenges faced by ACPs, paving the way for further research and dialogue on optimizing their practice and impact.

We sought to explore the training experiences of ACPs as well as their perceptions on role identity, gaining clinical competency and future development of the role.

This exploratory study used a qualitative design to conduct focus groups with a purposive sample of ACPs currently working in South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw in the North of England. In 2022 there were 585 trainee ACPs and approximately 1200 qualified ACPs working in this region.

Participants

Qualified ACPs or trainee ACPs that have completed at least 1 year’s full time equivalent of Advanced Care Practitioners clinical training, and currently work in this role within either Mental Health, Community or Secondary Care within the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw region. It was felt 12-month minimum training experience would ensure trainees were sufficiently embedded in the clinical and educational programmes.

Recruitment

The NHS England Regional Faculty for Advancing Practice– North East and Yorkshire (FACP-NEY) acted as gatekeepers for the recruitment, contacting all qualified and trainee Advanced Care Practitioners working in the region with an invitation to participate by email. The email included a brief outline of the study, dates and times of the focus groups, details of an incentive payment of £30 for participation, a participant information sheet and, a web link to a short online questionnaire and contact details form. Additionally, the study was also advertised on social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook), with those who expressed an interest sent the same study invitation email, documentation and web link. Recruitment was open between February and May 2021, with one reminder email sent from the FACP-NEY during this time.

ACPs that wished to participate in the study were required to complete the short online questionnaire built using the survey tool, Qualtrics ( www.qualtrics.com ). After confirming eligibility, basic details were recorded about the participant and their ACP training including name, contact details, gender, age group, ethnicity, length of experience in the ACP role, supervision routine, portfolio status and supernumerary time. A variety of dates and times (morning, afternoon and evening) were provided for the focus groups to maximise recruitment, and participants were asked to indicate their preference. A total of 14 participants took part across five focus groups.

Data collection

Focus groups took place online using the Google Meets platform, with a maximum of 3 participants per group. To ensure participants were confident in using the Google Meets platform, the focus group began with an overview of the main functions and how to use them, for example clicking the ‘hand-up’ icon to indicate a wish to speak and chat facility. A focus group schedule was designed and used to guide the discussion similar to that used by Macnaghten and Jacobs (1997) [ 26 ] with an emphasis on each topic followed by discussion amongst the participants. The topics covered included experiences of undertaking ACP training (including gaining competence), role identity and career progression. Data collection was discontinued once it was felt there was no new contributions to the analysis, and there had been full investigation of the developed themes.

Participants provided written informed consent prior to attending the focus group, and consent was also acquired verbally at the start of each focus group. Each focus group was facilitated by one of the two authors (SA and MK), both of whom are experienced qualitative researchers with no clinical background or experience. Google Meets was used to video and audio-record the focus groups. The focus groups were transcribed verbatim by a third party, and quality checked against the recordings for accuracy. The duration of the focus groups was 2 h with a 15-minute comfort break. On completion of the focus groups, participants were sent a £30 shopping voucher to compensate them for their time.

Data analysis

The data was thematically analysed by three researchers (MK, SA and JSK) following the six-phrase process of Braun and Clarke, commencing with familiarisation of the data and then line by line coding to identify preliminary categories [ 27 , 28 ]. The data was then ordered and synthesised, combining similar categories and exploring the relationships between them [ 29 ]. This process was repeated for three of the five transcripts at which point the main themes and sub-themes were identified forming a test model, this was then applied to the final two transcripts. Following discussion amongst the research team, the main themes and sub-themes were agreed. NVIVO Release 1.3 (QSR International) [ 30 ] was used to help organise the data. The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist was used to report the findings (see Additional file 1).

The focus groups highlighted significant variability in the training experience of ACPs, dependent on their role and place of work. Table  1 provides an overview of the participant characteristics of each of the focus groups, and an overview of the overarching themes and sub-themes that were developed are displayed in Table  2 .

Overarching themes

A number of overarching themes were identified in our analysis that appeared to be strongly linked to role identity. We found the experiences of the ACP training were influenced by internal and external perceptions of the ACP role, often acting as barriers, with structural aspects being significant contributory factors. These findings were revealed in four key themes - lack of structure and support in the clinical training, existing experience and knowledge as enablers and inhibitors to progress with implications for confidence, the poorly understood nature of the ACP role and associated responsibilities, and a need for change to provide security to the ACP role in the future.

Clinical training lacked structure and support

The data revealed a stark contrast between the academic and clinical training, with clinical training found to be lacking in structure and support. Experiences of the clinical training were often expressed negatively due to the lack of structure which was heavily reliant on supervision and placements. As a result, ACPs often had to take the lead on their training and having to identify their own supervisor(s) and/ or placements was felt to be challenging. Consequently, some ACPs reported they had no dedicated medical supervisor at all. Where supervisors were in place, the quality of supervision varied, from being ad hoc (p41) and chaotic (p52) to great ( p53). Some of the supervision issues raised by the ACPs included lack of supervisor knowledge in relation to the ACP training and their required responsibilities, accessibility of supervisor (available time) and little direct clinical oversight. ACPs felt they needed an experienced medical professional as their supervisor, providing similar support and advice to that received by junior doctors.

We have nursing supervision from the lead community matron who is our line manager, but we do miss that sort of medical supervision (p22, Trainee ACP– Primary care) . I’m line managed by a nurse who is the operational lead for the service. He is the right person, but I don’t go to him for clinical support. It would be nice to have a medical supervisor (p. 41, Trainee ACP– Community care) .

Good supportive supervision appeared to enhance the ACP training, conversely poor, unsuitable or no supervision was perceived to have a serious negative impact on training and well-being, with suggestions that ACPs had left during training because of it.

I’ve had free reign over my own training, and planned everything myself, and that’s a positive for me (p41, Trainee ACP– Community care) . So the positives, um, I think the academic and educational supervision’s been, err, accessible and supportive. So we have, um, supervision from [regional] ACP lead,…and then there’s, um, the course unit lead, which she’s there and she’s supportive. So yeah, the academic, err, supervision is good (p52, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) . I think, um, something that I haven’t touched upon is, which I realised, so I’ve got a, um, clinical supervisor, she’s a consultant *****, and…the module I’ve just done which is minor illness, you had to do like a learning log, so they had to see you do….a load of things. And it made me laugh cos they turned around and said, look, I haven’t assessed anybody’s abdomen in ten years…. (p53, Trainee ACP– Secondary care)

Similar to supervision, clinical placements were highly valued by the ACPs and recognised as an important part of the training to achieve competence and consolidate their academic learning. All of the ACPs reported obstacles in organising and undertaking such placements, with those working in the community or mental health facing particular difficulties due to placements needing to be in a different clinical setting to where they worked. Competition with other trainees, the need to ‘ beg ’ (p7) and insufficient time from trainers were highlighted as ongoing problems. Conflict with junior doctors was also described as a competition for training opportunities.

Completely unsupported by the Trust because they just weren’t set up for it, there was no one leading on it, there were no one for us to contact really to talk. And then, like you said, I got my placements from begging on a, on a forum on Facebook and a nurse set me up (p16, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) . To kind of fulfil the module requirements, it was pretty much, for minor illness basically phoning up GP surgeries, practice nurses, beg stealing and borrowing, you know, begging people can you help me out, to try and get the amount of hours that you needed (p7, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) . But sometimes, it’s a little bit of a fight to get to what you need when you need because there’s so many junior doctors that also need that same training. So, there are occasions where you have to sort of step up and say we are training the same as these guys, we also need to be able to have these opportunities and you kind of have to have a little bit of a voice to say, we’re here (p17, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) .

In contrast to the clinical training, the academic learning followed a traditional format of taught lessons which ACPs felt covered a wide breadth of knowledge. There was some feeling that modules might have been more useful if they had been tailored towards individuals’ specialisms such as mental health or physiotherapy, however on the whole it was described as a positive learning experience with good supportive academic supervision.

I found the dissection labs quite alien but they have really helped to develop my practice (p24, Qualified ACP– Secondary care) . It feels a lot like there’s university, which is one day a week, and you do that, and it’s really supportive, and I’ve made some really good friends there, and everybody supports each other. But then at work, it’s a bit of a try and find your own way (p53, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) .

ACPs did describe the two learning environments (clinical and academic) as disconnected, separate and discrete, even though the ACP training is a combination of academic and clinical learning.

From the course point of view it’s pretty straightforward but it’s marrying that up with the expectations of the employer. Willingness of the employer to be able to give you the time you need to do what you need to do (p. 38, Qualified ACP– Secondary care) . They’d learn something at University (e.g. Cardiology) but there was no way this could be built on within the Trust. They just don’t deal with the physical health side of things (p. 7, Trainee ACP– Community mental health) .

Existing knowledge and experience appeared to act as both an enabler and inhibitor for ACPs, with implications for confidence

As existing experienced clinical practitioners, ACPs felt they were able to recognise their knowledge gaps and work quickly towards filling them, however the training approach also led to declines in confidence when deficiencies in knowledge and skills were highlighted. ACPs reported learning ‘backwards’ compared to junior doctors, using pattern recognition rather than pathology as a starting point, for example, being able to identify the treatment based on a diagnosis, but not necessarily knowing how the diagnosis was made originally. Not being able to adequately answer questions sufficiently on such subjects when tested by clinicians, and as experienced clinical practitioners, ACPs perceived themselves as lacking competence with a subsequent drop in confidence.

ACPs are trained ‘bottom-up’– we learn pattern recognition and then work our way back, whereas doctors know the diseases better (p41, Trainee ACP– Community care) . I think about cases backwards compared to doctors– as they think about pathology first and then build on that (p9, Trainee ACP– Primary care) .

A comparison between the clinical training processes of junior doctors and ACPs was a common discussion between ACPs with suggestions that it would be more beneficial if ACPs were recognised in a similar manner to junior doctors. For example, ACPs felt they should not be ‘counted in the nursing numbers’ when working on a ward, and as a consequence should not be expected to undertake a dual role of managing a nursing shift and practicing as an advanced practitioner:-

So say for example, you’re sat with somebody talking about their prescription and trying, you know, looking to see if there needs to be a change made, and then you’ve got other people banging on the door saying, I want to go out on leave, and I need this and I need that, and you’re the nurse in charge and need to be doing that. The people that usually do those jobs, so say for example the doctors in the week, when they’re having those sorts of consultations with people, they’ve not got that stress, the pressure, the disruption and the responsibility of running a nursing shift or a completely other shift. So, us as novices, it just doesn’t make sense to me (p. 52, Trainee ACP– Secondary care)

ACPs spoke of being unsure of when they had reached clinical competency, and how they would maintain this. They worried that if they were not given sufficient time to practise the new clinical skills, their confidence would decline and that they would ultimately feel unsafe in their clinical practice. ACPs emphasised the importance of having sufficient time to practice new skills and consolidate knowledge, enabling autonomy and confidence building. It was also felt this provided essential opportunities for colleagues to observe progress.

I’ve got most of my competencies but I still wouldn’t see myself as an expert practitioner (p41, Trainee ACP– Community care) .

The ACP role and associated responsibilities are poorly understood by ACPs and the wider medical profession

Exploring the experiences of training and the process of developing clinical competence with ACPs revealed there was a lack of clarity regarding the job role depending on where the ACP worked, and this applied to the ACPs themselves as well as their colleagues. This uncertainty impacted the responsibilities the ACP undertook within the clinical environment, and the expectations on them from the staff that they worked with.

ACPs that worked within the Emergency Department reported that colleagues understood the ACP role and utilised the advanced skillset the ACPs gained as the training progressed. They described feeling fully immersed within the department as an advanced practitioner, yet they were also recognised as being in a transitional stage with appropriately allocated time to undertake the necessary training.

ACPs working in other areas of healthcare such as acute wards, outpatients, mental health and community care discussed a general lack of awareness about the advanced practitioner role by both healthcare staff and patients. It was felt this led to a lack of utilisation of the advanced skills of the ACPs and expectations that the ACP should fulfil multiple job roles, creating feelings of intense pressure and demoralisation. ACPs reported hearing discouraging comments from colleagues about their abilities and felt a need to justify their role. Some ACPs described struggling with how to introduce themselves to both staff and patients, with their uniform described as an important part of their identity and how they were perceived by others. Adding to these external perceptions, ACPs revealed their job description was not necessarily updated to reflect their ACP role and where it was, the job description could be vague further undermining their role identity and leading to feelings of conflict between their original healthcare professional role (e.g., nurse) and working at an advanced level.

There’s been a lot of ambiguity around the job description for ACPs and trainee ACPs, so that’s left wriggle room for everybody making their own assumptions about what you’re supposed to do and what you should be doing, and therefore you’re pulled into all different things that don’t tie in to on paper in terms of national, regional frameworks……. there’s just pressure on the role being categorised as an extension of the nursing team, and taking on classic nursing tasks, it’s what people are familiar with, it’s what they assume (p52, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) . The challenge is with our role, is the ACP is tagged on to the end of our existing job. So, we have all of our normal nursing duties, we’re bed managers, we triage nurse, we run the hospital. And then you’ve got ACP tagged on the end. (p25, Qualified ACP– Secondary care)

Inconsistencies in awareness of the role, experience, training and clinical practice were felt to be a reflection of the different professions undertaking ACP training, a lack of standardised job role and unclear expectations. The variation in financial remuneration within and across different organisations for ACPs was also felt to be a contributing factor to these identity issues.

The ACP role is important, but changes are required to provide security to the role in the future

There was consensus that the combination of experience and advanced skills made the ACP a unique and valued role in the NHS, fulfilling an important gap in patient care. ACPs reported uncertainty about their future in the role, and the need for change structurally to ensure the ACP role has a future. Accreditation was felt to be necessary as this would legitimise the ACP role and apply some professional control in respect to the role title. ACPs viewed this as an existing issue with ‘advanced’ used by a multitude of health professions that have not undertaken the accredited training.

I kind of feel that, certainly as an ACP title, it should be some sort of standardised title, and then people would probably understand it a little bit more. I think our colleagues would understand it, and I think you won’t get so much resistance, from some medical colleagues, maybe, if people were sort, if it were a bit more regulated. I mean, if there were talking about credentialing and looking at a directory for ACPs anyway, it should be a registered regulated title (p54, Qualified ACP– Primary care) . I think everybody should be under the same governing body and there should be a bit of standardised, training placement (p41, Trainee ACP– Community care) .

As well as increased knowledge and skills, ACPs discussed the additional benefits of the training including the broad range of opportunities offered both during and after the training, and the potential boost in future prospects. A key attraction to the ACP training route that was repeatedly highlighted was the fact that it offers career progression whilst maintaining clinical responsibilities, progressing through more traditional routes into a managerial role appears to involve considerably less clinical duties and contact with patients. However, there was also some feelings of insecurity regarding the future of the ACP role because of the general lack of awareness of how ACPs fitted and could contribute to the NHS. It was felt that the deficiency in formal structure for the ACP role contributed to this; ensuring job descriptions existed and reflected the responsibilities of the role, and there was a structure for career progression was proposed as a good starting point to improve understanding amongst staff.

In terms of where I see myself in five to ten years’ time, I’m not sure, it depends how that organisation I work for pans out, because…. I won’t be sat here in five years’ time saying the same stuff. If it’s still the same I won’t be there, I will have gone somewhere else cos there are places that fulfil the role (p52, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) . I don’t see much career progression within ACPs other than to become a lead ACP and there is nothing to define progression within that role from a banding point of view (p1, Trainee ACP– Secondary care) .

On the whole, the ACPs felt the role had great future potential but this was often caveated, that changes were needed in formalisation of the training and particularly, wider recognition of the role and its responsibilities. Without these changes, a number of ACPs felt they would not be in the ACP role in 5 years’ time.

The one thing that I do know is that I love the job, I love the role (p38, Qualified ACP– Secondary care) .

This qualitative study collected the perspectives of 14 ACPs from different specialties and at different stages of their career. The findings suggest that ACPs continue to face significant barriers, undermining their development, transition and integration into the healthcare workforce.

ACPs described a number of challenges experienced in their training within the clinical environment, notably with placements and supervision. Both of these elements appeared to suffer from a lack of formal structure; where some ACPs experienced a supportive clinical environment making their training experience ‘phenomenal’, others reported unsuitable supervision and having to identify their own supervisors and/ or placements. This lack of support was felt to have a serious negative impact on ACP training and well-being, which has been reported nationally and internationally [ 17 , 31 , 32 ]. It is recognised that a supportive environment is a healthy environment, aiding not only ACPs in their competency, role transition and job satisfaction but also helping to optimise quality patient care, recruitment and retention [ 13 , 24 ]. Additionally, a disconnect between academic and clinical training was highlighted. This lack of ‘joined-up’ working between educators, healthcare staff and managers has been described previously with suggestions that it can impede the development of ACPs and their fulfilment of the role [ 22 , 33 ].

The knowledge and experience already held by ACPs from their original professional training was perceived as both a strength and weakness. Whilst the ACPs felt they could provide improved holistic patient care and identify gaps in their own training, it influenced their approach to learning which was described as ‘bottom-up’ and ‘backwards’ compared to how junior doctors learnt. This had implications for confidence as ACPs often felt they could not adequately answer questions posed during training. Furthermore, if they were not given sufficient time to consolidate their new knowledge, this led to an additional drop in confidence and doubts about their competence. This was reported by MacLellan, Higgins and Levett-Jones (2017) [ 34 ] and has been referred to as Imposter Syndrome [ 35 ]. It links closely with role transition and identity which has been widely researched within the advanced practitioner community [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. Increasing autonomy and responsibility is part of the transition for ACPs and whilst some of the ACPs in this study found this experience exciting, the majority conveyed mixed emotions including feeling stressed, pressured and uncertain. This was more prominent for those ACPs in areas where the role appeared to be less established and a lack of awareness among healthcare staff of the ACP role. For a smooth and successful transition, Barnes (2015) [ 12 ] identified a number of defining attributes including a shift from provider of care to prescriber of care, straddling two identities and mixed emotions. The experiences of our ACPs covered all of these attributes and suggest they have not experienced a smooth transitional journey.

Inconsistencies in the ACP training and lack of structure in relation to the clinical job role were discussed as contributing factors to role identity issues, which impacted their daily working lives. It appears the ACPs in our study are still experiencing the consequences of a role which was introduced without clear definition, standardisation, skills and scope [ 20 ], even though there has been significant development in recent years within advanced practice [ 5 ] of the ACP training. As a role introduced to work alongside doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals to deliver comprehensive and patient-centred care, ACPs play a pivotal role in fostering interprofessional collaboration within healthcare teams. However, with blurred definitions regarding the ACP role and responsibilities, it is unsurprising our ACPs reported a lack of understanding of their expertise and respect from their colleagues. Such barriers to interprofessional collaboration not only prevents ACPs from working to the full extent of their education and training [ 36 ] but impacts patients, on their outcomes and access to specialist care [ 21 , 37 , 38 ]. A review of 64 studies undertaken by Schot, Tummers and Noordegraaf (2020) of interprofessional collaboration among healthcare professionals described this as being multifaceted, and that for change to occur, individuals needs to work daily on tasks such as bridging gaps, negotiating overlaps and creating spaces [ 39 ].

There was agreement between the ACPs that accreditation of the role would help address some of the issues around role identity. The use of ‘advanced practice’ is widely applied within healthcare with little relationship to education level, often leading to confusion [ 18 ]. Accreditation would help protect the role by providing professional identity as well as providing more clarity to ACPs and those in the wider healthcare setting about the role and scope of practice [ 6 , 17 , 18 ]. It may also alieve fears of insecurity which were raised by the ACPs in relation to the future of the role. Improving and promoting knowledge brokering at both the individual and collective (system) levels would improve the transition process [ 40 ], whilst also encouraging change in an environment that is traditionally intransigent.

Although the ACPs reported challenges in their training and felt changes were necessary to ensure wider recognition of the ACP role, there was consensus among the ACPS that participated in this study that the training ‘boosted’ opportunities and allowed career progression whilst maintaining clinical responsibilities, an important factor to many of the ACPs in this study. Surprisingly, there was little discussion regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ACP training, even though the focus groups took place during the pandemic. When it was discussed, it was generally in the context of placements and how they had been further limited.

This qualitative insight into the training experience of ACPs has highlighted that there are many challenges still to be overcome to ensure ACPs feel supported through their role transition journey and are recognised appropriately for their skills and experience in the healthcare workforce. These findings are not new [ 13 , 14 , 20 , 22 ] but after the release of the 2017 HEE multi-professional framework for advanced clinical practice [ 5 ], it would be expected that there would have been more clarity and structure in the ACP training and role, benefitting ACPs, wider healthcare professionals and employers. Progress may improve as a result of the NMC review on regulation of advanced nursing practice that is due in the next 12 months [ 9 ], however, at the time of this study, the ACPs appeared to feel progress was slow and more work was needed.

Strengths and limitations

The opinions and experiences provided in this study were from a group of ACPs, either during (> 1 year FTE) or post training, working in the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw region. It is reasonable to suggest therefore that the results are not generalisable to other populations. Qualified and trainee ACPs were contacted about the study by email through the regional FACP-NEY who acted as gate keepers, as well as the study being advertised on social media platforms. It is assumed that this broad recruitment strategy helped to reach a wider population, although most respondents appeared to be as a result of the direct email. This approach may have introduced some bias but using a purposive sampling approach, participants from different specialties, professions and career stages were included. Information about the local ACP workforce such as size and individual characteristics was requested from the regional FACP-NEY but this was not provided thus an exact response rate cannot be calculated nor can any inferences be made regarding how representative the sample of ACPs were that participated in the study. The number of males that registered an interest in the study was low (three) and only one male participated in the focus groups; this is a limitation as there may be different perspectives and experiences of ACP training related to gender. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic focus groups had to be undertaken online. Adaptions were made to accommodate for this such as reducing the number of participants per focus group and creating time to build rapport [ 41 ]. One participant did experience technical issues, however using a digital approach did not appear to impede the participant-researcher interaction and compared favourably with traditional face to face focus groups [ 41 , 42 ]. There is a risk that views from participants were oversimplified due to the limited number of ACPs involved in the focus groups but findings from this study appear to align with previously published literature [ 6 , 17 , 19 , 21 ] providing some confidence in the results.

Future work

This was a small exploratory study in a rapidly evolving field, providing insights on ACP training, role identity and competence at one point in time. ACPs did report differences in their experiences due to their specialty thus a much larger study would provide an opportunity to explore this further and allow for more in-depth comparisons. The multi-professional framework was relatively new when this study was undertaken and since its publication, there has been much development in the guidance and practice of ACPs including the Royal College of Emergency Care ACP training [ 43 ] and the merger of Health Education England with NHS England. It would be useful to explore what impact, if any, these developments may have had on ACPs and if similar issues around role identity and competence still exist.

The ACP role is now integrated across many specialties both nationally and internationally, however challenges continue to persist in training, impacting on transition into the role. At a collective level, there remains a lack of structure and clarity around the ACP role, and individually ACPs appear to experience issues with supervision and support. This study has highlighted that the journey to advanced level practice is often turbulent, and changes are required to further embed the ACP training and role into the workplace. Ensuring ACPs have appropriate continuous support, allocated sufficient time to learn and practice, and wider recognition of the ACP role through accreditation would aid the training experience and a successful role transition.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the participants privacy being compromised but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Advanced Clinical Practitioner

Faculty for Advanced Clinical Practice

Health Education England

National Health Service

Imison C, Castle-Clarke S, Watson R. Reshaping the workforce to deliver the care patients need. Research report 2016, Nuffield Trust: London.

Mann C, et al. Exploring the role of advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) and their contribution to health services in England: a qualitative exploratory study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2023;67:103546.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Evans C, et al. Characterising the outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges of advanced clinical practice roles in the UK: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021;11(8):e048171.

Stewart-Lord A, et al. The role and Development of Advanced Clinical Practice within Allied Health Professions: a mixed method study. J Multidisciplinary Healthc. 2020;13:1705–15.

Article   Google Scholar  

Health Education England. Multi-professional framework for advanced clinical practice in England . 2017.

Evans CR, et al. Characterising the evidence base for advanced clinical practice in the UK: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10(5):e036192.

Health Education England: The Centre for Advancing Practice. Programme accreditation. 2023; Available from: https://advanced-practice.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/programme-accreditation/ .

Health Education England. The Centre for advancing Practice., workplace supervision for Advanced Clinical Practice: an integrated multi-professional approach for practitioner development . Health Education England; 2020.

Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). Regulate, support, influence: strategy 2020–2025. London: NMC; 2020.

Google Scholar  

Palmer W, Julian S, Vaughan L. Independent report on the regulation of advanced practice in nursing and midwifery. Research report. London: Nuffield Trust; 2023.

BritainThinks. Advanced Practice qualitative research . 2023, BritainThinks: London.

Barnes H. Nurse practitioner role transition: a Concept Analysis. Nurs Forum. 2015;50(3):137–46.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moran G, Nairn S. How does role transition affect the experience of trainee Advanced Clinical practitioners: qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(2):251–62.

Fitzpatrick S, Gripshover J. Expert nurse to novice nurse practitioner: the Journey and how to improve the process. J Nurse Practitioners. 2016;12(10):e419–21.

Timmons S, et al. The Advanced Clinical Practitioner (ACP) in UK healthcare: dichotomies in a new ‘multi-professional’ profession. SSM - Qualitative Res Health. 2023;3:100211.

Reynolds J, Mortimore G. Transitioning to an ACP: a challenging journey with tribulations and rewards. Br J Nurs. 2021;30(3):166.

Fothergill L, et al. Nationwide evaluation of the advanced clinical practitioner role in England: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e055475.

Leary A, et al. Variation in job titles within the nursing workforce. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(23–24):4945–50.

Lawler J, Maclaine K, Leary A. Workforce experience of the implementation of an advanced clinical practice framework in England: a mixed methods evaluation. Volume 18. Human Resources for Health; 2020. 1.

Nadaf C. Perspectives: reflections on a debate: when does Advanced Clinical Practice stop being nursing? J Res Nurs. 2018;23(1):91–7.

Evans C, et al. Advanced Clinical practitioners in Primary Care in the UK: a qualitative study of Workforce Transformation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4500.

Jones A, et al. Realising their potential? Exploring interprofessional perceptions and potential of the advanced practitioner role: a qualitative analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12):e009740.

Wood E, et al. Sources of satisfaction, dissatisfaction and well-being for UK advanced practice nurses: a qualitative study. J Nurs Manag. 2021;29(5):1073–80.

Price S, Reichert C. The importance of Continuing Professional Development to Career satisfaction and patient care: meeting the needs of novice to Mid- to late-Career nurses throughout their Career Span. Administrative Sci. 2017;7(2):17.

Bourdieu P. The logic of practice. Translated by R. Nice . 1990, London, UK: Polity Press.

Macnaghten P, Jacobs M. Public identification with sustainable development: investigating cultural barriers to participation. Glob Environ Change, 1997: p. 5–24.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2013.

Strauss A, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. California: Sage Publications Inc; 1990.

QSR International Pty Ltd. NVivo qualitative data analysis software . 2020.

Cusson R, Strange S. Neonatal nurse practitioner role transition: the process of reattaining expert status. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2008;22(4):329–37.

Duke C. The lived experience of nurse practitioner graduates’ transition to hospital-based practice , in nursing . East Carolina University: US; 2010. p. 138.

Townsend A. Developing a portfolio for advanced practice. Nurs Times. 2015;111:23–6.

MacLellan L, Higgins I, Levett-Jones T. An exploration of the factors that influence nurse practitioner transition in Australia: a story of turmoil, tenacity, and triumph. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2017;29(3):149–56.

Redfern-Jones J. Unmask your talent. Nurs Stand. 2009;23(38):64.

Moss E, Seifert CP, O’Sullivan A. Registered nurses as Interprofessional Collaborative Partners: creating Value-based outcomes. Online J Issues Nurs, 2016. 21(3).

Goldsberry JW. Advanced practice nurses leading the way: interprofessional collaboration. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;65:1–3.

Hardy M. Health and Care Professions Council. Advanced practice: research report . 2021.

Schot E, Tummers L, Noordegraaf M. Working on working together. A systematic review on how healthcare professionals contribute to interprofessional collaboration. J Interprof Care. 2020;34(3):332–42.

Putri AF, Tocher J, Chandler C. Emergency department nurses’ role transition towards emergency nurse practitioner: a realist-informed review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2022;60:101081.

Keen S, Lomeli-Rodriguez M, Joffe H. From challenge to opportunity: virtual qualitative research during COVID-19 and Beyond. Int J Qual Methods. 2022;21:16094069221105075.

Murray B. Online tools for qualitative research during the Covid-19 pandemic. Nurs Times [online]. 2022;118(6):1–3.

Royal College of Emergency Medicine. Emergency Medicine– Advanced Clinical Practitioner (EM-ACP). 2024; Available from: https://rcem.ac.uk/emergency-care-advanced-clinical-practitioners/ .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Sheffield Emergency Care Forum (SECF) PPI group ( https://secf.org.uk/ ) for their helpful feedback on the recruitment materials (email invitation, information sheet and consent form) developed for this study to ensure they were suitable for a lay audience. For helping with the recruitment, we would also like to thank the Faculty of Advanced Practice, particularly Fran Mead. Lastly, we would like to thank our participants for giving up their valuable free time to share with us their experiences of developing clinical competence as an Advanced Clinical Practitioner, and for their opinions on role identity.

This manuscript is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Yorkshire and Humber Applied Research Collaborations (NIHR200166). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health and Care Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Urgent and Emergency Care Research (CURE), Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK

Maxine Kuczawski, Suzanne Ablard, Fiona Sampson, Susan Croft, Joanna Sutton-Klein & Suzanne Mason

Emergency Department, Northern General Hospital, S5 7AU, Sheffield, UK

Susan Croft

Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Rd, M13 9WL, Manchester, UK

Joanna Sutton-Klein

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data: MK, SA and JSK; Analysis and interpretation of data: MK, SA, SC and JSK; Manuscript draft: MK, SA and JSK; Manuscript critical revisions: MK; SA; SC; JSK; FS; SM. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxine Kuczawski .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for the conduct of the research was obtained from the University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee (REC reference. 032462). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the focus group, and all methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kuczawski, M., Ablard, S., Sampson, F. et al. Exploring advanced clinical practitioner perspectives on training, role identity and competence: a qualitative study. BMC Nurs 23 , 185 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01843-x

Download citation

Received : 20 September 2023

Accepted : 04 March 2024

Published : 18 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01843-x

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

• Advanced clinical practitioner
• Qualitative
• Role identity

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

• General enquiries: [email protected]