research questions for grounded theory

Grounded Theory In Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Grounded theory is a useful approach when you want to develop a new theory based on real-world data Instead of starting with a pre-existing theory, grounded theory lets the data guide the development of your theory.

What Is Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory is a qualitative method specifically designed to inductively generate theory from data. It was developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967.

• Data shapes the theory:  Instead of trying to prove an existing theory, you let the data guide your findings.
• No guessing games:  You don’t start with assumptions or try to confirm your own biases.
• Data collection and analysis happen together:  You analyze information as you gather it, which helps you decide what data to collect next.

It is important to note that grounded theory is an inductive approach where a theory is developed from collected real-world data rather than trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis like in a deductive scientific approach

You gather information, look for patterns, and use those patterns to develop an explanation.

It is a way to understand why people do things and how those actions create patterns. Imagine you’re trying to figure out why your friends love a certain video game.

Instead of asking an adult, you observe your friends while they’re playing, listen to them talk about it, and maybe even play a little yourself. By studying their actions and words, you’re using grounded theory to build an understanding of their behavior.

This qualitative method of research focuses on real-life experiences and observations, letting theories emerge naturally from the data collected, like piecing together a puzzle without knowing the final image.

When should you use grounded theory? 

Grounded theory research is useful for beginning researchers, particularly graduate students, because it offers a clear and flexible framework for conducting a study on a new topic.

Grounded theory works best when existing theories are either insufficient or nonexistent for the topic at hand.

Since grounded theory is a continuously evolving process, researchers collect and analyze data until theoretical saturation is reached or no new insights can be gained.

What is the final product of a GT study?

The final product of a grounded theory (GT) study is an integrated and comprehensive grounded theory that explains a process or scheme associated with a phenomenon.

The quality of a GT study is judged on whether it produces this middle-range theory

Middle-range theories are sort of like explanations that focus on a specific part of society or a particular event. They don’t try to explain everything in the world. Instead, they zero in on things happening in certain groups, cultures, or situations.

Think of it like this: a grand theory is like trying to understand all of weather at once, but a middle-range theory is like focusing on how hurricanes form.

Here are a few examples of what middle-range theories might try to explain:

• How people deal with feeling anxious in social situations.
• How people act and interact at work.
• How teachers handle students who are misbehaving in class.

Core Components of Grounded Theory

This terminology reflects the iterative, inductive, and comparative nature of grounded theory, which distinguishes it from other research approaches.

• Theoretical Sampling: The researcher uses theoretical sampling to choose new participants or data sources based on the emerging findings of their study. The goal is to gather data that will help to further develop and refine the emerging categories and theoretical concepts.
• Theoretical Sensitivity:  Researchers need to be aware of their preconceptions going into a study and understand how those preconceptions could influence the research. However, it is not possible to completely separate a researcher’s history and experience from the construction of a theory.
• Coding: Coding is the process of analyzing  qualitative data  (usually text) by assigning labels (codes) to chunks of data that capture their essence or meaning. It allows you to condense, organize and interpret your data.
• Core Category:  The core category encapsulates and explains the grounded theory as a whole. Researchers identify a core category to focus on during the later stages of their research.
• Memos: Researchers use memos to record their thoughts and ideas about the data, explore relationships between codes and categories, and document the development of the emerging grounded theory. Memos support the development of theory by tracking emerging themes and patterns.
• Theoretical Saturation:  This term refers to the point in a grounded theory study when collecting additional data does not yield any new theoretical insights. The researcher continues the process of collecting and analyzing data until theoretical saturation is reached.
• Constant Comparative Analysis:  This method involves the systematic comparison of data points, codes, and categories as they emerge from the research process. Researchers use constant comparison to identify patterns and connections in their data.

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss first introduced grounded theory in 1967 in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory .

Their aim was to create a research method that prioritized real-world data to understand social behavior.

However, their approaches diverged over time, leading to two distinct versions: Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory.

The different versions of grounded theory diverge in their approaches to  coding , theory construction, and the use of literature.

All versions of grounded theory share the goal of generating a  middle-range theory  that explains a social process or phenomenon.

They also emphasize the importance of  theoretical sampling ,  constant comparative analysis , and  theoretical saturation  in developing a robust theory

Glaserian Grounded Theory

Glaserian grounded theory emphasizes the  emergence of theory from data  and discourages the use of pre-existing literature.

Glaser believed that adopting a specific philosophical or disciplinary perspective reduces the broader potential of grounded theory.

For Glaser, prior understandings should be based on the general problem area and reading very wide to alert or sensitize one to a wide range of possibilities.

It prioritizes  parsimony ,  scope , and  modifiability  in the resulting theory

Straussian Grounded Theory

Strauss and Corbin (1990) focused on developing the analytic techniques and providing guidance to novice researchers.

Straussian grounded theory utilizes a more structured approach to coding and analysis and acknowledges the role of the literature in shaping research.

It acknowledges the role of  deduction  and  validation  in addition to induction.

Strauss and Corbin also emphasize the use of  unstructured interview questions  to encourage participants to speak freely

Critics of this approach believe it produced a rigidity never intended for grounded theory.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

This version, primarily associated with Charmaz, recognizes that knowledge is situated, partial, provisional, and socially constructed. It emphasizes abstract and conceptual understandings rather than explanations.

Kathy Charmaz expanded on original versions of GT, emphasizing the researcher’s role in interpreting findings

Constructivist grounded theory acknowledges the researcher’s influence on the research process and the co-creation of knowledge with participants

Situational Analysis

Developed by Clarke, this version builds upon Straussian and Constructivist grounded theory and incorporates  postmodern ,  poststructuralist , and  posthumanist  perspectives.

Situational analysis incorporates postmodern perspectives and considers the role of nonhuman actors

It introduces the method of  mapping  to analyze complex situations and emphasizes both  human and nonhuman elements .

• Discover New Insights:  Grounded theory lets you uncover new theories based on what your data reveals, not just on pre-existing ideas.
• Data-Driven Results:  Your conclusions are firmly rooted in the data you’ve gathered, ensuring they reflect reality. This close relationship between data and findings is a key factor in establishing trustworthiness.
• Avoids Bias:  Because gathering data and analyzing it are closely intertwined, researchers are truly observing what emerges from data, and are less likely to let their preconceptions color the findings.
• 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.
• Synthesize Findings : By applying grounded theory to a qualitative metasynthesis , researchers can move beyond a simple aggregation of findings and generate a higher-level understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Limitations

• Time-Consuming:  Analyzing qualitative data can be like searching for a needle in a haystack; it requires careful examination and can be quite time-consuming, especially without software assistance6.
• Potential for Bias:  Despite safeguards, researchers may unintentionally influence their analysis due to personal experiences.
• Data Quality:  The success of grounded theory hinges on complete and accurate data; poor quality can lead to faulty conclusions.

Practical Steps

Grounded theory can be conducted by individual researchers or research teams. If working in a team, it’s important to communicate regularly and ensure everyone is using the same coding system.

Grounded theory research is typically an iterative process. This means that researchers may move back and forth between these steps as they collect and analyze data.

Instead of doing everything in order, you repeat the steps over and over.

This cycle keeps going, which is why grounded theory is called a circular process.

Continue to gather and analyze data until no new insights or properties related to your categories emerge. This saturation point signals that the theory is comprehensive and well-substantiated by the data.

Theoretical sampling, collecting sufficient and rich data, and theoretical saturation help the grounded theorist to avoid a lack of “groundedness,” incomplete findings, and “premature closure.

1. Planning and Philosophical Considerations

Begin by considering the phenomenon you want to study and assess the current knowledge surrounding it.

However, refrain from detailing the specific aspects you seek to uncover about the phenomenon to prevent pre-existing assumptions from skewing the research.

• Discern a personal philosophical position.  Before beginning a research study, it is important to consider your philosophical stance and how you view the world, including the nature of reality and the relationship between the researcher and the participant. This will inform the methodological choices made throughout the study.
• Investigate methodological possibilities.  Explore different research methods that align with both the philosophical stance and research goals of the study.
• Plan the study.  Determine the research question, how to collect data, and from whom to collect data.
• Conduct a literature review.  The literature review is an ongoing process throughout the study. It is important to avoid duplicating existing research and to consider previous studies, concepts, and interpretations that relate to the emerging codes and categories in the developing grounded theory.

2. Recruit participants using theoretical sampling

Initially, select participants who are readily available ( convenience sampling ) or those recommended by existing participants ( snowball sampling ).

As the analysis progresses, transition to  theoretical sampling , involving the deliberate selection of participants and data sources to refine your emerging theory.

This method is used to refine and develop a grounded theory. The researcher uses theoretical sampling to choose new participants or data sources based on the emerging findings of their study.

This could mean recruiting participants who can shed light on gaps in your understanding uncovered during the initial data analysis.

Theoretical sampling guides further data collection by identifying participants or data sources that can provide insights into gaps in the emerging theory

The goal is to gather data that will help to further develop and refine the emerging categories and theoretical concepts.

Theoretical sampling starts early in a GT study and generally requires the researcher to make amendments to their ethics approvals to accommodate new participant groups.

3. Collect Data

The researcher might use interviews, focus groups, observations, or a combination of methods to collect qualitative data.

• Observations : Watching and recording phenomena as they occur. Can be participant (researcher actively involved) or non-participant (researcher tries not to influence behaviors), and covert (participants unaware) or overt (participants aware).
• Interviews : One-on-one conversations to understand participants’ experiences. Can be structured (predetermined questions), informal (casual conversations), or semi-structured (flexible structure to explore emerging issues).
• Focus groups : Dynamic discussions with 4-10 participants sharing characteristics, moderated by the researcher using a topic guide.
• Ethnography : Studying a group’s behaviors and social interactions in their environment through observations, field notes, and interviews. Researchers immerse themselves in the community or organization for an in-depth understanding.

4. Begin open coding as soon as data collection starts

Open coding   is the first stage of coding in grounded theory, where you carefully examine and label segments of your data to identify initial concepts and ideas.

This process involves scrutinizing the data and creating codes grounded in the data itself.

The initial codes stay close to the data, aiming to capture and summarize critically and analytically what is happening in the data

To begin open coding, read through your data, such as interview transcripts, to gain a comprehensive understanding of what is being conveyed.

As you encounter segments of data that represent a distinct idea, concept, or action, you assign a code to that segment. These codes act as descriptive labels summarizing the meaning of the data segment.

For instance, if you were analyzing interview data about experiences with a new medication, a segment of data might describe a participant’s difficulty sleeping after taking the medication. This segment could be labeled with the code “trouble sleeping”

Open coding is a crucial step in grounded theory because it allows you to break down the data into manageable units and begin to see patterns and themes emerge.

As you continue coding, you constantly compare different segments of data to refine your understanding of existing codes and identify new ones.

For instance, excerpts describing difficulties with sleep might be grouped under the code “trouble sleeping”.

This iterative process of comparing data and refining codes helps ensure the codes accurately reflect the data.

Open coding is about staying close to the data, using in vivo terms or gerunds to maintain a sense of action and process

5. Reflect on thoughts and contradictions by writing grounded theory memos during analysis

During open coding, it’s crucial to engage in memo writing. Memos serve as your “notes to self”, allowing you to reflect on the coding process, note emerging patterns, and ask analytical questions about the data.

Document your thoughts, questions, and insights in memos throughout the research process.

These memos serve multiple purposes: tracing your thought process, promoting reflexivity (self-reflection), facilitating collaboration if working in a team, and supporting theory development.

Early memos tend to be shorter and less conceptual, often serving as “preparatory” notes. Later memos become more analytical and conceptual as the research progresses.

Memo Writing

• Reflexivity and Recognizing Assumptions:  Researchers should acknowledge the influence of their own experiences and assumptions on the research process. Articulating these assumptions, perhaps through memos, can enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of the study.
• Write memos throughout the research process.  Memo writing should occur throughout the entire research process, beginning with initial coding.67 Memos help make sense of the data and transition between coding phases.8
• Ask analytic questions in early memos.  Memos should include questions, reflections, and notes to explore in subsequent data collection and analysis.8
• Refine memos throughout the process.  Early memos will be shorter and less conceptual, but will become longer and more developed in later stages of the research process.7 Later memos should begin to develop provisional categories.

6. Group codes into categories using axial coding

Axial coding is the process of identifying connections between codes, grouping them together into categories to reveal relationships within the data.

Axial coding seeks to find the axes that connect various codes together.

For example, in research on school bullying, focused codes such as “Doubting oneself, getting low self-confidence, starting to agree with bullies” and “Getting lower self-confidence; blaming oneself” could be grouped together into a broader category representing the impact of bullying on self-perception.

Similarly, codes such as “Being left by friends” and “Avoiding school; feeling lonely and isolated” could be grouped into a category related to the social consequences of bullying.

These categories then become part of the emerging grounded theory, explaining the multifaceted aspects of the phenomenon.

Qualitative data analysis software often represents these categories as nested codes, visually demonstrating the hierarchy and interconnectedness of the concepts.

This hierarchical structure helps researchers organize their data, identify patterns, and develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between different aspects of the phenomenon being studied.

This process of axial coding is crucial for moving beyond descriptive accounts of the data towards a more theoretically rich and explanatory grounded theory.

7. Define the core category using selective coding

During  selective coding , the final development stage of grounded theory analysis, a researcher focuses on developing a detailed and integrated theory by selecting a  core category  and connecting it to other categories developed during earlier coding stages.

The core category is the central concept that links together the various categories and subcategories identified in the data and forms the foundation of the emergent grounded theory.

This core category will encapsulate the main theme of your grounded theory, that encompasses and elucidates the overarching process or phenomenon under investigation.

This phase involves a concentrated effort to refine and integrate categories, ensuring they align with the core category and contribute to the overall explanatory power of the theory.

The theory should comprehensively describe the process or scheme related to the phenomenon being studied.

For example, in a study on school bullying, if the core category is “victimization journey,” the researcher would selectively code data related to different stages of this journey, the factors contributing to each stage, and the consequences of experiencing these stages.

This might involve analyzing how victims initially attribute blame, their coping mechanisms, and the long-term impact of bullying on their self-perception.

Continue collecting data and analyzing until you reach theoretical saturation

Selective coding focuses on developing and saturating this core category, leading to a cohesive and integrated theory.

Through selective coding, researchers aim to achieve theoretical saturation, meaning no new properties or insights emerge from further data analysis.

This signifies that the core category and its related categories are well-defined, and the connections between them are thoroughly explored.

This rigorous process strengthens the trustworthiness of the findings by ensuring the theory is comprehensive and grounded in a rich dataset.

It’s important to note that while a grounded theory seeks to provide a comprehensive explanation, it remains grounded in the data.

The theory’s scope is limited to the specific phenomenon and context studied, and the researcher acknowledges that new data or perspectives might lead to modifications or refinements of the theory

• Constant Comparative Analysis:  This method involves the systematic comparison of data points, codes, and categories as they emerge from the research process. Researchers use constant comparison to identify patterns and connections in their data. There are different methods for comparing excerpts from interviews, for example, a researcher can compare excerpts from the same person, or excerpts from different people. This process is ongoing and iterative, and it continues until the researcher has developed a comprehensive and well-supported grounded theory.
• Continue until reaching theoretical saturation : Continue to gather and analyze data until no new insights or properties related to your categories. This saturation point signals that the theory is comprehensive and well-substantiated by the data.

8. Theoretical coding and model development

Theoretical coding is a process in grounded theory where researchers use advanced abstractions, often from existing theories, to explain the relationships found in their data. 

Theoretical coding often occurs later in the research process and involves using existing theories to explain the connections between codes and categories.

This process helps to strengthen the explanatory power of the grounded theory. Theoretical coding should not be confused with simply describing the data; instead, it aims to explain the phenomenon being studied, distinguishing grounded theory from purely descriptive research.

Using the developed codes, categories, and core category, create a model illustrating the process or phenomenon.

Here is some advice for novice researchers on how to apply theoretical coding:

• Begin with data analysis:  Don’t start with a pre-determined theory. Instead, allow the theory to emerge from your data through careful analysis and coding.
• Use existing theories as a guide:  While the theory should primarily emerge from your data, you can use existing theories from any discipline to help explain the connections you are seeing between your categories. This demonstrates how your research builds on established knowledge.
• Use Glaser’s coding families:  Consider applying Glaser’s (1978) coding families in the later stages of analysis as a simple way to begin theoretical coding. Remember that your analysis should guide which theoretical codes are most appropriate.
• Keep it simple:  Theoretical coding doesn’t need to be overly complex.   Focus on finding an existing theory that effectively explains the relationships you have identified in your data.
• Be transparent:  Clearly articulate the existing theory you are using and how it explains the connections between your categories.
• Theoretical coding is an iterative process : Remain open to revising your chosen theoretical codes as your analysis deepens and your grounded theory evolves.

9. Write your grounded theory

Present your findings in a clear and accessible manner, ensuring the theory is rooted in the data and explains the relationships between the identified concepts and categories.

The end product of this process is a well-defined, integrated grounded theory that explains a process or scheme related to the phenomenon studied.

• Develop a dissemination plan : Determine how to share the research findings with others.
• Evaluate and implement : Reflect on the research process and quality of findings, then share findings with relevant audiences in service of making a difference in the world

Reading List

Grounded Theory Review : This is an international journal that publishes articles on grounded theory.

• Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015).  Grounded theory: A practical guide . Sage.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
• Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn .  Symbolic interaction ,  26 (4), 553-576.
• Glaser, B. G. (1978).  Theoretical sensitivity . University of California.
• Glaser, B. G. (2005).  The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004, May). Remodeling grounded theory. In  Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: qualitative social research  (Vol. 5, No. 2).
• Charmaz, K. (2012). The power and potential of grounded theory.  Medical sociology online ,  6 (3), 2-15.
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1965). Awareness of dying. New Brunswick. NJ: Aldine. This was the first published grounded theory study
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017).  Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Routledge.
• Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (1997). Using grounded theory in psychological research. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.

10 Grounded Theory Examples (Qualitative Research Method)

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]

Learn about our Editorial Process

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) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Number Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Word Games for Kids (Free and Easy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 25 Outdoor Games for Kids
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 50 Incentives to Give to Students

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

• Correspondence
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2011

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

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

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

386k Accesses

206 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

Study background

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

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

Designing this grounded theory study

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

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

A. An open beginning and research questions

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

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

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

How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

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

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

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

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

Initial Interviews

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

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

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

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

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

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

Memo-writing

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quality of this grounded theory study

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

During data collection

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

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

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

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

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

During data analysis

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

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

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

Answering our research questions

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

Concluding remarks

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

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

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

Abbreviations

grounded theory methods

Monitor Dental Practice Program

New South Wales

Randomized Controlled Trial.

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-publication history

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter & Anthony Blinkhorn

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, R Wendell Evans & Anthony Blinkhorn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Sbaraini .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

Electronic supplementary material

12874_2011_640_moesm1_esm.doc.

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM2_ESM.DOC

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM3_ESM.DOC

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

Authors’ original submitted files for images

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

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2011

Accepted : 09 September 2011

Published : 09 September 2011

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• qualitative research
• grounded theory
• methodology
• dental care

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Patient Perspectives
• Methods Corner
• Science for Patients
• Invited Commentaries
• ESC Content Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Instructions for reviewers
• Submission Site
• Why publish with EJCN?
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Read & Publish
• About European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
• About ACNAP
• About European Society of Cardiology
• ESC Publications
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• War in Ukraine
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, distinguishing features of grounded theory, the role and timing of the literature review.

• < Previous

Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Carley Turner, Felicity Astin, Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?, European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2021, Pages 285–289, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaa034

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Grounded theory (GT) is both a research method and a research methodology. There are several different ways of doing GT which reflect the different viewpoints of the originators. For those who are new to this approach to conducting qualitative research, this can be confusing. In this article, we outline the key characteristics of GT and describe the role of the literature review in three common GT approaches, illustrated using exemplar studies.

Describing the key characteristics of a Grounded theory (GT) study.

Considering the role and timing of the literature review in different GT approaches.

Qualitative research is a cornerstone in cardiovascular research. It gives insights in why particular phenomena occur or what underlying mechanisms are. 1 Over the past 2 years, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing published 20 qualitative studies. 2–21 These studies used methods such as content analysis, ethnography, or phenomenology. Grounded theory (GT) has been used to a lesser extent.

Grounded theory is both a methodology and a method used in qualitative research ( Table 1 ). It is a research approach used to gain an emic insight into a phenomenon. In simple terms, this means understanding the perspective, or point of view, of an ‘insider’, those who have experience of the phenomenon. 22 Grounded theory is a research approach that originated from the social sciences but has been used in education and health research. The focus of GT is to generate theory that is grounded in data and shaped by the views of participants, thereby moving beyond description and towards theoretical explanation of a process or phenomenon. 23

Grounded theory as a method and methodology

One of the key issues with using GT, particularly for novices, is understanding the different approaches that have evolved as each specific GT approach is slightly different.

The tradition of GT began with the seminal text about classic GT written by Glaser and Strauss, 24 but since then GT has evolved into several different types. The approach to GT chosen by the researcher depends upon an understanding of the epistemological underpinnings of the different approaches, the match with the topic under investigation and the researcher’s own stance. Whilst GT is frequently used in applied health research, very few studies detail which GT approach has been used, how and why. Sometimes published studies claim to use GT methodology but the approaches that form the foundation of GT are not reported. This may be due to the word limit in academic journals or because legitimate GT approaches have not been followed. Either way, there is a lack of clarity about the practical application of GT. The purpose of this article is to outline the distinguishing characteristics of GT and outline practical considerations for the novice researcher regarding the place of the literature review in GT.

There are several distinguishing features of GT, as outlined by Sbaraini et al. 25 The first is that GT research is conducted through an inductive process. This means that the researcher is developing theory rather than testing it and must therefore remain ‘open’ throughout the study. In essence, this means that the researcher has no preconceived ideas about the findings. Taking an inductive approach means that the focus of the research may evolve over time as the researchers understand what is important to their participants through the data collection and analysis process.

With regards to data analysis, the use of coding is initially used to break down data into smaller components and labelling them to capture the essence of the data. The codes are compared to one another to understand and explain any variation in the data before they are combined to form more abstract categories. Memos are used to record and develop the researcher’s analysis of the data, including the detail behind the comparisons made between categories. Memos can stimulate the researcher’s thinking, as well as capturing the researcher’s ideas during data collection and analysis.

A further feature for data analysis in a GT study is the simultaneous data analysis and sampling to facilitate theoretical sampling. This means that as data analysis progresses participants are purposefully selected who may have characteristics or experiences that have arisen as being of interest from data collection and analysis so far. Questions in the topic guide may also be modified to follow a specific line of inquiry, test ideas and interpretations, or fill gaps in the analysis to build an emerging substantive theory. This evolving and non-linear methodology is to allow the evolution of the study as indicated by data, rather than analysing at the end of data collection. This approach to data analysis supports the researcher to take an inductive approach as discussed above.

Theoretical sampling facilitates the construction of theory until theoretical saturation is reached. Theoretical saturation is when all the concepts that form the theory being developed are well understood and grounded in data. Finally, the results are expressed as a theory where a set of concepts are related to one another and provide a framework for making predictions. 26 These key features of GT are summarized in Table 2 .

Distinguishing features of a GT study (adapted from Sbaraini et al. 25 )

The identification of a gap in the published literature is typically a requirement of successful doctoral studies and grant applications. However, in GT research there are different views about the role and timing of the literature review.

For researchers using classic Glaserian GT, the recommended approach is that the published literature should not be reviewed until data collection, analysis and theory development has been completed. 24 The rationale for the delay of the literature review is to enable the researcher to remain ‘open’ to discover theory emerging from data and free from contamination by avoiding forcing data into pre-conceived concepts derived from other studies. Furthermore, because the researcher is ‘open’ to whichever direction the data takes they cannot know in advance which aspects of the literature will be relevant to their study. 27

In Glaserian GT, the emerging concepts and theory from data analysis inform the scope of the literature review which is conducted after theory development. 24 This approach to the literature review aligns with the rather positivist stance of Glaser in which the researcher aims to remain free of assumptions so that the theory that emerges from the data is not influenced by the researcher. Reviewing the literature prior to data analysis would risk theory being imposed on the data. Perhaps counterintuitively, Glaser does recommend reading literature in unrelated fields to understand as many theoretical codes as possible. 28 However, it is unclear how this is different to reading literature directly related to the topic and could potentially still lead to the contamination of the theory arising from data that delaying the literature review is intended to avoid. It is also problematic regarding the governance processes around research, whereby funders and ethics committees would expect at least an overview of the existing literature as part of the justification for the study.

A study by Bergman et al. 29 used a classic Glaserian GT approach to examine and identify the motive of power in myocardial infarction patients’ rehabilitation process. Whilst the key characteristics of GT were evident in the way the study was conducted, there was no discussion about how the literature review contributed to the final theory. This may have been due to the word limit but illustrates the challenges that novice researchers may have in understanding where the literature review fits in studies using GT approaches.

In Straussian GT, a more pragmatic approach to the literature view is adopted. Strauss and Corbin 30 recognized that the researcher has prior knowledge, including that of the literature, before starting their research. They did not recommend dissociation from the literature, but rather that the literature be used across the various stages of the research. Published literature could identify important areas that could contribute to theory development, support useful comparisons in the data and stimulate further questions during the analytical process. According to Strauss and Corbin, researchers should be mindful about how published work could influence theory development. Whilst visiting the literature prior to data collection was believed to enhance data analysis, it was not thought necessary to review all the literature beforehand, but rather revisit the literature at later stages in the research process. 30

A study published by Salminen-Tuomaala et al. 31 used a Straussian GT approach to explore factors that influenced the way patients coped with hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. The authors described a reflexive process in which the researcher noted down their preconceived ideas about the topic as part of the data analysis process. The literature review was conducted after data analysis.

The most recent step in the evolution of GT is the move towards a constructivist epistemological stance advocated by Charmaz. 32 In simple terms, this means that the underlying approach reflects the belief that theories cannot be discovered but are instead constructed by the researcher and their interactions with the participants and data. As the researcher plays a central role in the construction of the GT, their background, personal views, and culture will influence this process and the way data are analysed. For this reason, it is important to be explicit about these preconceptions and aim to maintain an open mind through reflexivity. 32 Therefore, engaging in a preliminary literature review and using this information to compare and contrast with findings from the research undertaken is desirable, alongside completing a comprehensive literature review after data analysis with a specific aim to present the GT.

A study published by Odell et al. 33 used the modified GT approach recommended by Charmaz 32 to study patients’ experiences of restenosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The authors described the different GT approaches and key features of GT methodology which clearly informed the conduct of the study. However, there was no detail about how the literature review was used to shape the data analysis process and findings.

A solution: be clear on the approach taken to the literature review and why

Despite the clear differences in the approach to the literature review in GT, there appears to be a lack of precise guidance for novice researchers regarding how in depth or exhaustive a preliminary literature review should be. This lack of guidance can lead to a variety of different approaches as evidenced in the GT studies we have cited as examples, which is a challenge for the novice researcher. This uncertainty is further compounded by the concurrent approach to data collection and analysis which allows for the research focus to evolve as the study progresses. The complexity of the research process and the role and timing of the literature review is summarized in Figure 1 .

Literature review in Grounded Theory.

Taking a pragmatic approach, researchers will need to familiarize themselves with the literature to receive funding and approval for their study. This preliminary literature review can be followed up after data analysis by a more comprehensive review of the literature to help support the theory that was developed from the data. The key is to ensure transparency in reporting how the literature review has been used to develop the theory. The preliminary literature review can be used to set the scene for the research as part of the introduction, and the more extensive literature review can then be used during the discussion section to compare the theory developed from the data with existing literature, as per Probyn et al. 34

Whilst this pragmatic approach aligns with Straussian GT and Charmaz’s constructivist GT, it is at odds with Glaserian GT. Therefore, if Glaserian GT is chosen, the researcher should be explicit about deviation and provide a rationale.

Word count for journal articles is often a limiting factor in how much detail is included in why certain methodologies are used. Submitting detail about the methodology and rationale behind it can be presented as online supplementary material, thereby allowing interested readers to access further information about how and why the research was executed.

The use of GT as a methodology and method can shed light on areas where little knowledge is already known, generating theory directly from data. The traditional format of a published article does not always reflect the iterative approach to the literature review and data collection and analysis in GT. This can generate tension between how the research is presented in relation to how it was conducted. However, one simple way to ensure clarity in reporting is to be transparent in how the literature review is used.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest : The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Greenhalgh T , Taylor R. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) . Br Med J 1997 ; 315 : 740 – 743 .

Google Scholar

Wilson RE , Rush KL , Reid RC , et al.  The symptom experience of early and late treatment seekers before an atrial fibrillation diagnosis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :231--242.

Lauck SB , Achtem L , Borregaard B , et al.  Can you see frailty? An exploratory study of the use of a patient photograph in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :252--260.

Sundelin R , Bergsten C , Tornvall P , Lyngå, P. et al.  Self-rated stress and experience in patients with Takotsubo syndrome: a mixed methods study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120919387.

Janssen DJ , Ament SM , Boyne J , et al.  Characteristics for a tool for timely identification of palliative needs in heart failure: the views of Dutch patients, their families and healthcare professionals . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120918962.

Steffen EM , Timotijevic L , Coyle A. A qualitative analysis of psychosocial needs and support impacts in families affected by young sudden cardiac death: the role of community and peer support . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120922347.

Molzahn AE , Sheilds L , Bruce A , Schick-Makaroff K , Antonio M , Clark AM. Life and priorities before death: a narrative inquiry of uncertainty and end of life in people with heart failure and their family members . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 629 – 637 .

Wistrand C , Nilsson U , Sundqvist A-S. Patient experience of preheated and room temperature skin disinfection prior to cardiac device implantation: a randomised controlled trial . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 529 – 536 .

Widell C , Andréen S , Albertsson P , Axelsson ÅB. Octogenarian preferences and expectations for acute coronary syndrome treatment . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 521 – 528 .

Ferguson C , George A , Villarosa AR , Kong AC , Bhole S , Ajwani S. Exploring nursing and allied health perspectives of quality oral care after stroke: a qualitative study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 505 – 512 .

Sutantri S , Cuthill F , Holloway A. ‘ A bridge to normal’: a qualitative study of Indonesian women’s attendance in a phase two cardiac rehabilitation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 , doi: 10.1177/1474515119864208.

Liu X-L , Willis K , Fulbrook P , Wu C-J(J) , Shi Y , Johnson M. Factors influencing self-management priority setting and decision-making among Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 700 – 710 .

Wingham J , Frost J , Britten N , Greaves C , Abraham C , Warren FC , Jolly K , Miles J , Paul K , Doherty PJ , Singh S , Davies R , Noonan M , Dalal H , Taylor RS. Caregiver outcomes of the REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 611 – 620 .

Olsson K , Näslund U , Nilsson J , Hörnsten Å. Hope and despair: patients’ experiences of being ineligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 593 – 600 .

Heery S , Gibson I , Dunne D , Flaherty G. The role of public health nurses in risk factor modification within a high-risk cardiovascular disease population in Ireland – a qualitative analysis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 584 – 592 .

Brännström M , Fischer Grönlund C , Zingmark K , Söderberg A. Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 577 – 583 .

Haydon G , van der Riet P , Inder K. Long-term survivors of cardiac arrest: a narrative inquiry . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 458 – 464 .

Freysdóttir GR , Björnsdóttir K , Svavarsdóttir MH. Nurses’ Use of Monitors in Patient Surveillance: An Ethnographic Study on a Coronary Care Unit . London, England : SAGE Publications ; 2019 . p 272 – 279 .

Google Preview

Pokorney SD , Bloom D , Granger CB , Thomas KL , Al-Khatib SM , Roettig ML , Anderson J , Heflin MT , Granger BB. Exploring patient–provider decision-making for use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the INFORM-AF study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 280 – 288 .

Instenes I , Fridlund B , Amofah HA , Ranhoff AH , Eide LS , Norekvål TM. ‘ I hope you get normal again’: an explorative study on how delirious octogenarian patients experience their interactions with healthcare professionals and relatives after aortic valve therapy . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 224 – 233 .

Palmar-Santos AM , Pedraz-Marcos A , Zarco-Colón J , Ramasco-Gutiérrez M , García-Perea E , Pulido-Fuentes M. The life and death construct in heart transplant patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 48 – 56 .

De Chesnay M , Banner D. Nursing Research Using Grounded Theory: Qualitative Designs and Methods . New York, NY : Springer Publishing Company ; 2015 .

Corbin J , Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 3rd ed. California : SAGE ; 2007 .

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

Sbaraini A , Carter SM , Evans RW , Blinkhorn A. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices . BMC Med Res Methodol 2011 ; 11 : 128 – 128 .

Charmaz K. ‘ Discovering’ chronic illness: using grounded theory . Soc Sci Med 1990 ; 30 : 1161 – 1172 .

Thornberg R , Dunne C. Literature review in grounded theory. In Bryant A , Charmaz K , eds. The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory . London : SAGE Publications ; 2019 .

Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions . California : Sociology Press ; 1998 .

Bergman E , Berterö C. ‘ Grasp Life Again’. A qualitative study of the motive power in myocardial infarction patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2003 ; 2 : 303 – 310 .

Strauss A , Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques . 2nd ed. California : Sage ; 1998 .

Salminen-Tuomaala M , Åstedt-Kurki P , Rekiaro M , Paavilainen E. Coping—seeking lost control . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012 ; 11 : 289 – 296 .

Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory . 2nd ed. Los Angeles : SAGE ; 2014 .

Odell A , Grip L , Hallberg LRM. Restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): experiences from the patients' perspective . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006 ; 5 : 150 – 157 .

Probyn J , Greenhalgh J , Holt J , Conway D , Astin F. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients’ and cardiologists’ experiences of the informed consent process in Northern England: a qualitative study . BMJ Open 2017 ; 7 : e015127 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1873-1953
• Print ISSN 1474-5151
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
• 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.

An Introduction to Grounded Theory with a Special Focus on Axial Coding and the Coding Paradigm

• Open Access
• First Online: 27 April 2019

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Maike Vollstedt 4 &
• Sebastian Rezat 5  

Part of the book series: ICME-13 Monographs ((ICME13Mo))

98k Accesses

140 Citations

8 Altmetric

In this chapter we introduce grounded theory methodology and methods. In particular we clarify which research questions are appropriate for a grounded theory study and give an overview of the main techniques and procedures, such as the coding procedures, theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, and theoretical saturation. We further discuss the role of theory within grounded theory and provide examples of studies in which the coding paradigm of grounded theory has been altered in order to be better suitable for applications in mathematics education. In our exposition we mainly refer to grounded theory techniques and procedures according to Strauss and Corbin (Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1990 ), but also include other approaches in the discussion in order to point out the particularities of the approach by Strauss and Corbin.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory Methods

Grounded Theory Methodology: Principles and Practices

• Grounded theory
• Coding procedures
• Coding paradigm
• Coding families
• Theoretical sensitivity

1 Introduction

In 1967, sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss published their seminal book “The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research” (Glaser and Strauss 1967 ), which lays the foundation for one of the most prominent and influential qualitative research methodologies in the social sciences and beyond. With their focus on theory development, they dissociate themselves from mere theory verification and the concomitant separation of the context of theory discovery and the context of theory justification, which was the prominent scientific method at that time. With their approach to qualitative research, they also go beyond the mere description of phenomena. Originally, the book was written as a book for young researchers. One of its main intentions was to legitimate qualitative research (Mey and Mruck 2011 ).

Quite soon after their joint publication in 1967, Glaser and Strauss developed grounded theory in different directions and started to argue their own understanding of grounded theory methodology and methods apart from each other in different ways, Glaser primarily on his own, Strauss also together with Juliet Corbin (Glaser 1978 ; Strauss 1987 ; Strauss and Corbin 1990 ). Later, students of Glaser and Strauss further developed the different interpretations of grounded theory methodology so that today there is a second generation of grounded theory researchers, namely Juliet Corbin, Adele E. Clarke, and Kathy Charmaz (Morse et al. 2009 ). As those further developments of grounded theory resulted in different research methodologies, it has been suggested to talk about grounded theory methodologies in plural or at least to acknowledge that there are numerous modi operandi involving grounded theory methods in different fields of research as well as different national traditions (Mey and Mruck 2011 ). In Germany, for instance, it is still most common to work with the grounded theory methodology version that was published by Strauss and Corbin in 1990 (German translation from 1996 ). The second generation’s developments are still hardly noticed.

As this chapter is an introduction to grounded theory methodology and methods, our aim is to outline the common core of the different approaches to grounded theory. Therefore, we give a short introduction to grounded theory as a methodology (Sect. 4.2 ) and its techniques and procedures (Sect. 4.3 ). We further discuss an issue that lies at the heart of grounded theory, namely the role of theory within the methodology (Sect.  4.4 ). There, we also describe some examples of studies that used grounded theory as the main methodology, but took a specific stance to theory development in using the methodology.

2 A Short Positioning of Grounded Theory

This section provides a short overview of grounded theory as a methodology. We aim to answer two questions: 1. What is a grounded theory? 2. What kind of research questions are appropriate for a grounded theory study?

2.1 What Is Grounded Theory?

There is no simple answer to this question as the term grounded theory adheres to different research elements. In the first place, grounded theory is a methodology, which is characterized by the iterative process and the interrelatedness of planning, data collection, data analysis, and theory development. Grounded theory further provides a particular set of systematic methods, which support abstraction from the data in order to develop a theory that is grounded in the empirical data. These methods include different coding procedures, which are based on the method of constant comparison. New data are gathered continuously and new cases are included in the analysis based on their potential contribution to the further development and refinement of the evolving theory. This sampling method is called theoretical sampling . The iterative process of data collection according to theoretical sampling, data analysis, and theory development is continued until new data do not contribute any longer to a substantial development of the theory, i.e. until theoretical saturation is achieved. The theory that is the product of this process is also referred to as grounded theory . The quality of a grounded theory is not evaluated according to the standard criteria of test theory, i.e. objectivity, reliability and validity, but according to criteria such as credibility, plausibility, and trustworthiness.

2.2 What Kind of Research Questions Are Appropriate for a Grounded Theory Study?

According to the usual scientific procedure, the research question is at the outset of any scientific endeavour. It is the essence of what the researcher wants to know. The overall purpose of the study is to find an answer to the research question. Methodology and related methods are but a vehicle to find the (possibly best) answer to the research question. Ideally, it should be the research question that determines the methodology and not vice versa. Thus, it is important to ask what kind of research questions are appropriate for a grounded theory study. The character of the research question will influence the methodology and the choice of methods. We will try to characterize the kind of questions to which grounded theory could probably provide a good answer.

The overarching goal of grounded theory is to develop theory. Therefore, grounded theory studies may be carried out related to research phenomena or objects, which lack a (sufficient) theoretical foundation. It may be, that no theory exists for the phenomena under study or that the existing theories are insufficient in that

they lack important concepts;

the relationships among the concepts are not elaborated enough;

the relevance of the concepts and their relationships has not been corroborated for the population or the context under study.

Due to the origins of grounded theory in the social sciences, the main epistemological interest lies in predicting and explaining behavior in social interaction. Thus, Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) stress the orientation towards action and processes of grounded theory research questions.

3 A Short Introduction to the Methods and Techniques of Grounded Theory

The methods and techniques of grounded theory make use of different elements: some relate to the collection, some to the evaluation of data, and some refer to the research process. The following section gives a short introduction to the most important methods and techniques to make the start of working with grounded theory easier for a newcomer to this vast field. A more detailed description of the procedures and techniques can be found in the original literature describing grounded theory (e.g., Glaser 1978 ; Strauss 1987 ; Strauss and Corbin 1990 ). Note that technical terms and procedures may differ (slightly) when adhering to literature from different traditions of grounded theory. Even within one tradition of grounded theory, the methodology may also change over time (see Sect.  4.3.3.2 for an example with relation to the coding paradigm proposed by Strauss and Corbin 1990 and Corbin and Strauss 2015 respectively). To gain a more practical idea about the application of grounded theory, we suggest looking at Vollstedt ( 2015 ) for an example of the application of grounded theory methods in an international comparative study in mathematics education carried out in Germany and Hong Kong.

3.1 Theoretical Sensitivity and Sensitizing Concepts

When starting to work with grounded theory, there is no fixed theory at hand with which to evaluate the data. On the contrary, the researcher moves into an open field of study with many unclear aspects. As described above, important concepts are missing, and/or their relationship is not elaborated enough. The longer the researcher will have worked in this field, the clearer those unclear aspects will (hopefully) become. In order to make sense of the data, an important ability of the researcher is theoretical sensitivity. The notion of theoretical sensitivity is closely linked to grounded theory and Glaser ( 1978 ) even devoted a whole book to this issue. Corbin and Strauss ( 2015 ) describe sensitivity as “having insights as well as being tuned into and being able to pick up on relevant issues, events, and happenings during collection and analysis of the data” (p. 78). According to Glaser with the assistance of Holton ( 2004 ) the essence of theoretical sensitivity is the “ability to generate concepts from data and to relate them according to normal models of theory in general” (para. 43). They further sum up a number of single abilities that characterize the theoretical sensitivity of a researcher. These are “the personal and temperamental bent to maintain analytic distance, tolerate confusion and regression while remaining open, trusting to preconscious processing and to conceptual emergence […] the ability to develop theoretical insight into the area of research combined with the ability to make something of these insights […] the ability to conceptualize and organize, make abstract connections, visualize and think multivariately” (para. 43).

The opinions about how a researcher might develop theoretical sensitivity differ between the two founders of grounded theory and are in fact one of the main differences between their approaches. While Glaser (with the assistance of Holton 2004 ) suggests that the “first step in gaining theoretical sensitivity is to enter the research setting with as few predetermined ideas as possible” (para. 43), Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) name different sources of theoretical sensitivity: these are respective literature, the professional and personal experience of the researcher as well as the analytical process itself. However, the researcher is not supposed to follow the beaten track of the literature or his/her personal experience, but to question these and go beyond in order to get novel theoretical insight. In “Basics of qualitative research” Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) describe techniques to foster theoretical sensitivity. These are questioning, analyzing single words, phrases or sentences, and comparing, thus techniques, which pervade grounded theory in general.

3.2 Interdependence of Data Collection, Analysis, and Development of Theory

One characteristic of grounded theory is that data collection, data analysis, and theory development are not successive steps in the research procedure but are intertwined and interdependent. Thus, action in terms of data collection and reflexion in terms of data analysis and theory development always alternate. Data collection and analysis initialize the process of theory development. Further cycles of data collection and analysis are guided by theoretical sampling and serve to specify the research focus on the one hand, and to develop hypotheses and theory on the other. Theoretical sampling denotes a cumulative sampling method, in which the selection of new cases that are to be included in the analysis is guided by the unfolding theory. In this context “cases” does not necessarily mean “people”. Corbin and Strauss ( 2015 ) point out that “it is concepts and not people, per se, that are sampled” (p. 135). The authors point out that the goal of theoretical sampling might vary throughout the process of theory development. In the beginning of the process, cases are selected, because they are likely to enable the discovery of new relevant concepts. Later on, cases are selected because they are likely to contribute to the differentiation, elaboration, consolidation, and validation of categories in terms of their properties, their dimensions, or their interrelations (see the next section for the development of concepts and categories).

Theoretical sampling and the development of theory are continued until theoretical saturation is achieved, i.e., new data do not seem to contribute any longer to the elaboration of categories. The relations between the categories are well developed and validated (Strauss and Corbin 1990 ).

3.3 Data Analysis

The overarching goal of data analysis in the grounded theory methodology is theory development. In order to achieve this goal, the collected data are evaluated by applying different ways of coding as the core process. Coding in grounded theory methodology is a process of conceptual abstraction by assigning general concepts (codes) to singular incidences in the data.

After having collected some (not necessarily all) data, the evaluation process may begin. Depending on which line of grounded theory methodology one follows, the different kinds of coding that are applied may vary in nomenclature as well as procedures (Glaser 1978 ; Mey and Mruck 2011 ; Strauss and Corbin 1990 ; Teppo 2015 ). Glaser ( 1978 ) discriminates between substantive coding, which consists of open and selective coding, and theoretical coding. In contrast, Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) differentiate between three kinds of coding procedures that are needed to develop a grounded theory from the data: open, axial, and selective coding. These procedures are not to be misunderstood as being precise procedures that are easily distinguishable. On the contrary, the procedures are neither clear-cut, nor do they easily define phases that chronologically come one after the other. They embody rather different ways of working with the data that can be combined with each other and between which the researcher can move back and forth if needed (Mey and Mruck 2011 ).

The following sections give a brief overview of open, axial, and selective coding following Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ). Section  4.4 then focusses on the role of theory in grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm.

3.3.1 Open Coding

Although the different procedures of coding do not occur in a strict sequence, open coding is usually the first approach to the data. Core elements of open coding are posing sensitizing questions and constantly comparing data and codes.

Open coding is the part of data analysis that focuses on the conceptualisation and categorisation of phenomena through an intensive analysis of the data. In this first step of open coding, the data are broken up into smaller parts that are deeply analysed. The aim of this analysis is to grasp the core idea of each part and to develop a code to describe it. Open codes can be either developed in vivo, i.e. directly from the data using descriptions that also are derived from or close to the data, or with reference to technical literature referring, e.g., to theories from mathematics education, educational psychology, or other relevant areas of study.

In a second step then, these smaller analytical parts are compared with respect to similarities and differences. Similar parts can be labelled with the same code. Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) use the terms concept and category to denote a phenomenon that is categorized and conceptualized by assigning it to one code ( concept ) or concepts of higher order ( category ). This means that the concepts developed are then related to other concepts so that categories of a higher order emerge so that different dimensions of the category can be described. During the process of developing the dimensions of categories, theoretically relevant characteristics of every category are determined and explicated in the code descriptions (Mey and Mruck 2011 ).

The overall goal of open coding is to develop a wealth of codes with which to describe the data. To reach this goal, sensitizing questions are posed regarding the data when they are being analysed. This finally leads to new discoveries (Strauss and Corbin 1990 ). The following list shows some of the questions that offer rich answers for the interpretation of the data (Böhm 2004 ; Mey and Mruck 2011 ; Strauss and Corbin 1990 ):

What?—Which phenomenon is described?

Who?—Which people are involved? Which roles do they embody, or which ones are assigned to them?

How?—Which aspects of the phenomenon are dealt with? Which are left out?

When? How long? Where?—In what way is the spaciotemporal dimension biographically relevant or important for single actions?

Why?—Which justifications are given or deducible?

Whereby?—Which strategies are used?

What for?—Which consequences are anticipated?

To pose those sensitizing questions, the researcher uses his/her personal and professional experience as well as knowledge that was gained from the relevant literature. All those resources are used in a creative manner of free association (Strauss and Corbin 1990 ) to interpret the data and to develop codes to describe the interpretation found. Thus, the researcher’s own and other people’s presuppositions in relation to the phenomenon are questioned and investigated.

3.3.2 Axial Coding

To develop a grounded theory, the emerging relationships between the elaborated concepts need to be integrated into an overarching framework with one core category. Glaser ( 1978 ) calls this process theoretical coding ; Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) differentiate between axial coding and selective coding , but themselves emphasize that there is not much of a difference, except at the level of abstraction.

According to Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ), axial coding is needed to investigate the relationships between concepts and categories that have been developed in the open coding process. As people act and interact with other people, they possess different strategies to handle their interpretations of the situations in which they are involved. Their acting as well as the pursuit of their strategies have consequences. Explanations contain conditions that have an impact on one’s actions and interaction as well as the consequences that result from these (Strauss and Corbin 1990 ). To work out the relations between the categories, Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) suggest examining the data and the codes based on a coding paradigm that focuses on and relates causal conditions, context, intervening conditions, action/interaction strategies, and consequences. These perspectives on the data help to detect relations between concepts and categories in order to relate them on a meta level. Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) perceive the coding paradigm as an obligatory element of a grounded theory: if the coding paradigm was not used in theory development, the theory would miss density and precision.

One of the most difficult questions for a researcher new to the field of grounded theory is as follows: How does the coding paradigm work? After having broken up the data in the process of open coding, they are joined together in a new way in the process of axial coding as links are worked out between a category and its subcategories. The focus of axial coding is on a category (the phenomenon) in relation to the following aspects. First, causal conditions specify the phenomenon with respect to incidents or occurrences that result in appearance or development of a phenomenon. Second, the context is the specific set of characteristics in which the phenomenon is embedded. Simultaneously, the context also characterizes the special set of conditions in which action/interaction strategies take place to overcome, handle or react to a certain phenomenon. Third, intervening strategies are the broad and general conditions that influence action/interaction strategies. These comprise, for instance, time, space, culture, socioeconomic status, technological status, career, history, and individual biography. Fourth, action or interaction strategies are directed towards the phenomenon. No matter whether the research is about individuals, groups or collectives, there is always action or interaction that is directed towards the phenomenon, to handle or to overcome it, to perform it, or to react to it. The phenomenon always appears in a certain context or under specific circumstances. The interactional component is related to the self of the acting person as well as to other interactions. And finally, action and interaction that are performed or—on the contrary—are not performed as an answer to or to overcome a phenomenon, lead to results and consequences. These are neither always predictable nor intended, and also the default of an action/interaction leads to results and consequences. Consequences can be real or hypothetical in the present or in the future. In addition, consequences can change their frame of reference as in one point of time they can be consequences of an action/interaction, whereas at a later point of time, they can be part of causal conditions for another phenomenon. Note that in the fourth edition of the “Basics of qualitative research”, Corbin and Strauss ( 2015 ) reduced the coding paradigm to the three main features “conditions”, “actions-interactions”, and “consequences or outcomes”.

As Glaser, Strauss, and his colleagues were social scientists, the aspects chosen for their coding paradigm do not necessarily meet the necessities for educational research. Thus, there have been researchers who have changed the procedure of axial coding such that they in general followed the idea to look for relations between the phenomena described in the categories that were developed in the process of open coding but changed the aspects in the coding paradigm to look for those relations. We take a deeper look at the coding paradigm and its possibilities of amendment in Sect.  4.4 .

3.3.3 Selective Coding

The goal of selective coding is to integrate the different categories that have been developed, elaborated, and mutually related during axial coding into one cohesive theory. To reach this goal, the results from axial coding are further elaborated, integrated, and validated. Thus, selective coding is quite similar to axial coding, but it is carried out on a more abstract level. The categories are theoretically integrated into a consistent overarching theory as they are subsumed under a core category that is linked to all other categories that were established in axial coding. As Teppo ( 2015 , with reference to Corbin and Strauss 2008 , p. 14) points out, the questions that have to be answered are “what is the research all about?” and “what seems to be going on here?”. Thus, selective coding is the process of choosing the core category and relating it with the other categories from axial coding. In addition, these relations need to be validated and some categories might need to be refined and further elaborated. The core category described “the central phenomenon around which all the other categories are integrated” (Strauss and Corbin 1990 , p. 116). If the core category is found, the story line of the research is set or, as Vollstedt ( 2015 ) writes, the path is detected that leads the way through all the trees so that the wood can finally be seen. Having detected the core category, the researcher knows the central phenomenon of his/her research and can finally answer the research question. The product of this research process finally appears: the grounded theory that arose from the data.

3.3.4 Memos and Diagrams

A further central rule of grounded theory methodology is to interrupt the coding process again and again to write down memos: “Stop coding and record a memo on your ideas”, as Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 , p. 113) put it. In general, memos are very special types of written notes as they keep track of the analytical process and the directions for the analyst. Thus, they not only describe the phenomena they are about, but move on a meta level by being analytical and conceptual and help the researcher to step back from the material to see it from an analytical distance (Strauss and Corbin 1990 ). Glaser (with the assistance of Holton 2004 , para. 61) writes: “Memos are theoretical notes about the data and the conceptual connections between categories. The writing of theoretical memos is the core stage in the process of generating theory. If the analyst skips this stage by going directly to sorting or writing up, after coding, he/she is not doing GT” [i.e., grounded theory].

There are different kinds of memos like memos on methodical decisions, planning steps, case selection, or interpretative team sessions. The most important variant for the development of a grounded theory is writing memos that contain code notes and theoretical notes. In the process of data analysis, codes can be elaborated so that code notes can be further developed into theoretical notes (see Strauss and Corbin 1990 for a detailed description). Although it is tempting not to write memos in the analytical process, “writing memos and doing diagrams are important elements of analysis and never should be considered superfluous, regardless of how pressed for time the analyst might be” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 , p. 218). Thus, writing memos should accompany the whole analytical process from the development of the first code to the final grounded theory. Memos are written only for the analyst in order to keep track of the analytical “process, thoughts, feelings, and directions of the research and researcher—in fact, the entire gestalt of the research process” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 , p. 218). Hence, they are hardly seen by people other than the researchers involved, but are nevertheless of high importance, also from the perspective of quality criteria. As mentioned above, the quality of a grounded theory can be judged—among other criteria—with reference to credibility, plausibility, and trustworthiness. Memos are needed to argue and prove the development of the grounded theory from the data and are thus a crucial aspect to draw back to when writing down the theory. In addition, Strauss and Corbin also warn “if memos and diagrams are sparsely done, then the final product theory might lack conceptual density and integration. At the end, it is impossible for the analyst to reconstruct the details of the research without memos” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 , p. 218).

Supplementary to written memos, diagrams also help the researcher to find relations between concepts and develop the grounded theory from the data. Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) define diagrams as “visual devices that depict the relationships among concepts” (p. 217). Thus, diagrams are needed to link concepts graphically, which is especially helpful for instance to illustrate the relations between the different elements of the coding paradigm (cf. Vollstedt 2015 for a concrete example).

4 The Role of Theory Within Grounded Theory and the Coding Paradigm

From its origins, there has been a conflict inherent in the grounded theory methodology, which relates to the role of theory. The main idea of grounded theory and one of its hallmarks is that categories, concepts, and finally theory ‘emerge’ from the data. In “The discovery of grounded theory” the researcher is therefore advised to “ignore the literature of theory and fact on the area under study, in order to assure that the emergence of categories will not be contaminated” (Glaser and Strauss 1967 , p. 37). However, Glaser and Strauss also admit that “of course, the researcher does not approach reality as a tabula rasa . He must have a perspective that will help him see relevant data and abstract significant categories from his scrutiny of the data” (Glaser and Strauss 1967 , p. 3). Thus, they acknowledge that in modern epistemology it is taken for granted that the world is always perceived through theoretical lenses and related conceptual networks, and empirical observation therefore is always influenced by the theoretical and conceptual knowledge of the observer. Thus, the inherent conflict in terms of the role of theory in grounded theory is, if it is possible that theory only “emerges” from the data or if theory is actually “forced” on the data. This has in fact been a major issue of debate between the two founders of grounded theory—Glaser and Strauss—which finally led to their separation and constitutes the fundamental difference between the two approaches to grounded theory today (Kelle 2005 ).

In order to resolve this conflict between an unbiased emerging of theory and the inevitably theory-laden perspective of the researcher, Glaser and Strauss introduce the notion of theoretical sensitivity . In later works, the coding families (Glaser 1978 ) and the coding paradigm (Strauss and Corbin 1990 ) can also be seen as answers to the same problem.

The coding families (Glaser 1978 ) are sets of general sociological concepts organized into loosely connected frameworks, which are supposed to foster the theoretical sensitivity of the researcher in order to support the development of theory from the data. Some illustrative examples of coding families are provided in Table  4.1 . Glaser’s ( 1978 ) original list is much more detailed and extensive.

Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) offer a general model, which they denote as “coding paradigm”, and which is supposed to provide a general frame for analyzing relationships between the categories and concepts. The coding paradigm has already been described in more detail in Sect.  4.3.3.2 .

Although the coding families and the coding paradigm are only very general and widely accepted perspectives on social reality, it is important to be aware that the coding families and the coding paradigm are themselves theoretical framings or orientations, which are utilized within grounded theory in order to develop theory. Thus, the development of theory is not independent, but is structured by the theoretical assumptions and relations provided by the coding families and the coding paradigm. Both encompass a particular perspective on social reality.

Due to the sociological background of Glaser and Strauss, the epistemological interest of grounded theory lies in predicting and explaining behavior and social processes. Accordingly, the coding paradigm focuses on action and interaction in social contexts and related strategies (Tiefel 2005 ). The causal assumptions that are inherent in the coding paradigm structure the development of theory as a whole. Accordingly, Kelle ( 2005 ) advises researchers, which “may feel that this approach goes contrary to their requirements and would be well advised to construct an own coding paradigm rooted in their own theoretical tradition” (para. 21). Tiefel ( 2005 ) also argues that especially in educational research, the coding paradigm of grounded theory is not universally applicable. She even goes one step further and suggests an alternated coding paradigm, which captures dimensions of individual construction of meaning in the dialectic between the individual and the social context (see Sect.  4.4.1.1 ). In mathematics education research, there are also studies that are based on a grounded theory methodology, but which altered the coding paradigm according to their needs. Two examples are presented in Sects.  4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3 .

4.1 Examples from Studies in Which the Coding Paradigm Was Changed

The following section provides a little insight into three studies in which the coding paradigm was altered. Tiefel ( 2005 , cf. Sect.  4.4.1.1 ) offers an amendment for learning and educational science; Vollstedt ( 2011 , cf. Sect.  4.4.1.2 ) and Rezat ( 2009 , cf. Sect.  4.4.1.3 ) are studies from mathematics education.

4.1.1 A Modification of the Coding Paradigm from the Perspective of Learning and Educational Theory

As Tiefel ( 2005 ) explicates, Strauss and Corbin offer with their coding procedures a technique that relates structures, actions, and subjectivity with each other. A special focus is put on the processes involved. Being sociologists, their spotlight is primarily on the prediction and explanation of (social) action and (societal) processes. The phenomena that they are especially interested in are, thus, closely linked to a pragmatistic understanding of an activistic significance of objects, which is raised by people’s action or work and which can be changed by interaction and over time. Thus, in this disciplinary context, theories that are grounded in data aim at the explanation of conditions, meanings and significances, as well as procedures that influence people in different situations and areas of their active construction of the world.

Tiefel ( 2005 ) continues that educational science also defines the analysis of interdependencies between biographic and structural processes by means of selected contexts and situations. Nevertheless, its cognitive interest focuses rather on the desire to understand individual decisions and actions. Thus, research in educational science also concentrates rather on the reconstruction of biographical processes in their interdependence with social relativities. Thus, in her research on processes of learning and education as well as the professional biography of an educational consultant, Tiefel ( 2005 ) developed a coding paradigm for processes of learning and education with a special focus on questions of understanding. She proposes the following three perspectives:

Perspective of meaning (especially referring to the reconstruction of the self-perception): How does the informant present him-/herself? What does the person say about him-/herself? What is not mentioned? Which orientations (norms, values, sciences, commonplaces etc.) are relevant for the informant?

Perspective of structure (especially referring to the reconstruction of the world view): Which conditions are shown as important or relevant for the possibilities and the spheres of action of the self? Which ideas, positions, and assumptions give orientation? Which social relations, institutional or social/historical connections are marked as being important for the self?

Courses of action: Which activities/interactions does the informant describe? Which options are noticed and how are they dealt with? Are the strategies rather active or passive, target-oriented or tentative seeking?

Tiefel’s ( 2005 ) suggestion for the modification of the coding paradigm with respect to learning and educational sciences is probably closer to the needs of many researchers in mathematics education than Strauss and Corbin’s ( 1990 ) coding paradigm. However, there are still areas where it does not provide the structure needed to grasp the relevant information to answer the research questions. Therefore, the following two sections provide insight into two studies that further adapted the coding paradigms to their needs to be able to develop a dense grounded theory.

4.1.2 Personal Meaning When Dealing with Mathematics in a School Context

The claim for meaning in education has been raised for many years and meaningful learning is assumed to be a central impetus (Biller 1991 ) as well as one of the major goals (Vinner 2007 ) of education. Hence, one of the challenges of education in general as well as of mathematics education in particular is to find convincing answers to the quest for meaning. Subsequently, to make learning meaningful for the students, we need to ask the students what is meaningful to them rather than imposing some kind of meaning that might be meaningful from a normative perspective, but can hardly be related to the students’ biography (Meyer 2008 ). Howson ( 2005 ) therefore distinguishes between two different aspects of meaning, “namely, those relating to relevance and personal significance (e.g., ‘What is the point of this for me?’) and those referring to the objective sense intended (i.e., signification and referents)” (p. 18). Hence, “even if students have constructed a certain meaning of a concept, that concept may still not yet be ‘meaningful’ for him or her in the sense of relevance to his/her life in general” (Kilpatrick et al. 2005 , p. 14). In her research, Vollstedt ( 2011 ) therefore took the students’ perspective when she was interested in the aspects of the learning process that make learning mathematics meaningful for them. To emphasize the focus on the learner’s perspective, the term personal meaning was coined to designate those aspects that are personally relevant for the students, i.e., the first aspect of meaning that was described by Howson above (cf. also Vollstedt and Duchhardt, in press).

One aim of the study was to develop a grounded theory about what personal meanings students construct when they are involved with mathematical contents in a school context. A second aim was to put a special focus on the role of the cultural background of the classroom situation. Therefore, the interview study was conducted in Germany and in Hong Kong. The two places were chosen as examples of a Western and a Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC, cf. Leung et al. 2006 ) to make sure to have quite distinct cultural backgrounds for teaching and learning mathematics.

Data gathered for the study comprised video recordings of three mathematics classrooms (9th and 10th grade) for one week in each place together with field notes taken by the researcher. The videos were used for a sequence of stimulated recall (Gass and Mackey 2000 ) at the beginning of each interview with volunteers from the classes (see Vollstedt 2011 or 2015 for further details).

In the process of axial coding it turned out that neither Strauss and Corbin’s ( 1990 ) nor Tiefel’s ( 2005 ) coding paradigm really fitted the data and the research questions. Therefore, the coding paradigm was also adapted to the individual needs of Vollstedt’s study in the following way: At first, there was a long and intense discussion with fellow researchers from the Graduate Research Group on Educational Experience and Learner Development at the University of Hamburg about how personal meaning might be constructed, and which aspects seemed to be relevant for its construction. In the final model it is assumed that there is an individual in a certain situation in which he/she is dealing with mathematics in a school context, e.g., the student Johanna is studying mathematics at home. The situational context, i.e., the context of the learning situation in terms of topic as well as classroom situation/home, is a crucial factor for the construction of personal meaning and of particular importance in this study as there was a special focus on cultural background of the teaching and learning situation. In this situation, there are certain preliminaries that are part of Johanna, such as her personal background, i.e., aspects that cannot be influenced by herself, including her socio-economic or migration background. In addition, personal traits, i.e., aspects that concern her self, are relevant. They comprise concepts that are discussed in various scientific fields such as educational psychology (self-concept, self-efficacy), mathematics education (beliefs), and educational science (developmental tasks). Based on these preliminaries, Johanna then constructs personal meaning with relation to the learning content and context. Depending on the result of this construction, different consequences can occur. Johanna might for instance appraise the situation with respect to her personal goals so that different actions might follow, e.g., she might not understand the contents she is dealing with and will therefore ask her neighbour for help. Or she might think that mathematics is not as important as spending time with her friends so that she will stop working on her tasks.

The relational framework given in Fig.  4.1 shows the diagram of how the aspects described above might be interrelated to describe the construction of personal meaning. It provided the basis for the coding paradigm used by Vollstedt ( 2011 ). For each category that was developed throughout the coding process, it was attempted to fit it in this model and relate it with other relevant concepts. Thus, finally, it was possible to describe preliminaries and consequences for each core category, i.e., personal meaning, that was developed in this study (see Vollstedt 2011 , 2015 ).

Relational framework of personal meaning (cf. Vollstedt 2011 )

Taking a closer look at this coding paradigm, reveals that there are relations to both versions of coding paradigms provided by either Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) or Tiefel ( 2005 ). Vollstedt’s ( 2011 ) situation embraces aspects from Strauss and Corbin’s ( 1990 ) context and intervening strategies , whereas some aspects of the latter are also part of Vollstedt’s preliminaries . Consequences are similar in both paradigms. Strauss and Corbin’s causal conditions and action/interaction strategies were not found to be relevant in Vollstedt’s study as they are directed towards the phenomenon, i.e., a kind of personal meaning. In Vollstedt’s theory, consequences occur after the individual has constructed a personal meaning, so that actions from her framework—being part of the consequences —are something different than action/interaction strategies from Strauss and Corbin. With respect to Tiefel’s ( 2005 ) aspects, on the one hand the perspective of meaning is similar to aspects that are described in the preliminaries like personal background and/or personal traits . The perspective of structure and the courses of action on the other hand relate to situation and preliminaries , and consequences respectively. Nevertheless, although nearly all aspects are somehow integrated in Vollstedt’s ( 2011 ) coding paradigm, neither Strauss and Corbin’s ( 1990 ) nor Tiefel’s ( 2005 ) coding paradigm would have grasped the particularities of the phenomenon under study. It is interesting to see, though, that Vollstedt’s approach is very close to the modifications made by Corbin and Strauss ( 2015 ) in the fourth edition of “Basics of qualitative research”. There, they reduced the aspects of the coding paradigm to conditions, actions - interactions , and consequences or outcomes . Still, having a sociological perspective, the focus is on actions and interactions whereas in Vollstedt’s research, educational processes are the focus. But nevertheless, as her coding paradigm also primarily looks at preliminaries and consequences from the context and individual’s perspective, the similarities of the two approaches cannot be overlooked.

4.1.3 Learning Mathematics with Textbooks

Rezat ( 2009 ) developed a grounded theory on how students learn mathematics autonomously with their mathematics textbooks. Theory development is grounded in data on the specific parts that students used on their own in their textbooks, and on students’ explanations of why they used these parts. He further conducted interviews with selected students in order to better understand how they proceeded when learning mathematics with their textbooks. Finally, he observed the mathematics lessons for the period of the study and took field notes (Rezat 2008 ).

The grounded theory comprises activities, in which students utilize their mathematics textbooks and students’ utilization schemes of the textbook within these activities. Rezat ( 2009 ) finds that students refer to their mathematics textbook related to four activities:

solving tasks and problems in order to get assistance from the textbook,

consolidation activities in order to use the contents of the book for practicing and consolidation,

acquiring mathematical knowledge that has not been a matter in class, and

activities associated with interest in mathematics.

These activities clarify the causal conditions under which textbook use occurs as well as attributes of the context of the investigated phenomenon, autonomous learning mathematics with the textbook . In terms of activity 1, this means that the causal condition for using the textbook is that students are working on a task or a problem (that might originate from the textbook or some other source) and they need assistance for solving it. The causal condition for textbook use related to activity 2 is students’ aspiration to practice and consolidate their mathematical knowledge/competencies. The inclination to acquire new mathematical knowledge or competencies is the causal condition for textbook use related to activity 3 and students’ interest in mathematics motivates textbook use related to activity 4.

Although the coding paradigm of grounded theory according to Strauss and Corbin ( 1990 ) allows for a general analysis of students’ actions and interactional strategies with their textbooks associated with the four activities, Rezat ( 2009 ) argues that the instrumental approach (Rabardel 2002 ) provides theoretical concepts and relations that grasp students’ interactions with their textbook better than the general focus on actions and interactional strategies of the coding paradigm in grounded theory. Therefore, he enhances the coding paradigm by including the instrumental approach (Rabardel 2002 ). Instead of analyzing actions and interactional strategies he analyses students’ “instrumentalization” und “instrumentation” (Rabardel 2002 ) of the mathematics textbook within the different learning activities. While the analysis of the instrumentalization of the mathematics textbook relates to functions that users attribute to the textbook within the activities, the analysis of instrumentation relates to the development of utilization schemes. The latter are characterized by “1. goals and anticipations; 2. rules of action, information seeking, and control; 3. operational invariants; 4. possibilities of inference” (Vergnaud 1998 , p. 173). Based on this conceptualization of schemes, Rezat reconstructs different utilization schemes of students using their textbook within the different activities. For example, he finds three different utilization schemes related to consolidation activities: (1) position-dependent practicing ; (2) block-dependent practicing ; and (3) salience depended practicing (Rezat 2013 ). The three schemes differ in particular in terms of their operational invariants. Position-dependent practicing is based on the operational invariant that contents of the textbook that is useful for practicing can be found at a certain relative position to other contents in the textbook, e.g. tasks that are appropriate for practicing are adjacent to tasks that the teacher explicitly asked the students to work on. On the contrary, block-dependent practicing is based on the selection of a specific structural element of the textbook such as tasks, rules (in a box) or worked examples for practicing. Finally, salience-dependent practicing is based on an operational invariant that takes salient visual features of the contents as the main criteria for selection of contents from the textbook.

On the one hand, the instrumental approach and the notion of utilization schemes is included in the study as a means to increase theoretical sensitivity and to describe the cognitive aspects of students’ actions and interactions with their textbooks. On the other hand, the concepts of the instrumental approach provide a language, which can be used to describe students’ actions and interactions with their textbooks from a cognitive perspective as exemplified in the three utilization schemes related to students’ consolidation activities with mathematics textbooks.

In the study by Rezat ( 2009 ), parts of the very general coding paradigm are substituted by a well elaborated theory. Consequently, the question has to be raised if this is actually still a grounded theory study or if a well-developed theory already existed before. However, a well-developed theory about the phenomenon under study, namely students’ autonomous learning of mathematics with their textbooks, had not existed before the study. Therefore, grounded theory appears to be an adequate overall methodology of the study. In order to grasp specific aspects of the phenomenon under study in more detail, Rezat ( 2009 ) refers to existing and more general theory, which is not solely linked to the phenomenon under study. While Rabardel’s ( 2002 ) theory conceptualizes human interactions with (technological) artefacts in general, Rezat ( 2009 ) develops a theory of students’ learning of mathematics with their textbooks. Therefore, his approach seems to reconcile theory development and building on existing theory. While the overall goal of the study is to develop a grounded theory related to a particular phenomenon, theory development builds on more general existing theories, which seems to be a helpful approach in order to focus and describe particular elements of the developing theory. Thus, existing theory seems to be included in the grounded theory wherever it appears to be useful in the developing theory.

5 Concluding Remarks

In this chapter, we gave a cursory introduction to grounded theory methodology and methods. We briefly described the coding procedures, the notions of theoretical sensitivity , theoretical sampling , and theoretical saturation and how these components serve the main aim of grounded theory, namely to develop a theory that is empirically grounded in the data. We recommend that the (early career) researcher, who has become curious and wants to start developing grounded theory, also refers to the original sources. These describe the techniques and procedures of grounded theory in much more detail. As already pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, some of them were even written for early career researchers.

Our chapter might support the early career researcher in becoming aware of differences between the two main schools of grounded theory—grounded theory in the tradition following the foundations of Glaser or of Strauss, respectively. These differences are mainly rooted in the role of theory within grounded theory. We pointed out that the role of theory is actually an inherent epistemological issue in grounded theory methodology. We further provided examples of studies that challenge this issue by adjusting the coding paradigm according to the needs of the phenomenon under study. However, in these cases, the researcher has to justify whether the study remains a grounded theory study. We see this as just another challenge to the theoretical sensitivity of the researcher. And theoretical sensitivity is the core ability a researcher has to bring to, cultivate within, and gain from the endeavor of developing a grounded theory.

Biller, K. (1991). Habe Sinn und wisse Sinn zu wecken! Sinntheoretische Grundlagen der Pädagogik [Have meaning and know how to arouse meaning! Theoretical foundations of education related to meaning] . Hohengehren: Schneider.

Google Scholar  

Böhm, A. (2004). Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A Companion to qualitative research (pp. 270–275). London: Sage.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Second language acquisition research . Monographs on research methodology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

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

Glaser, B. G. with the assistance of J. Holton (2004). Remodeling grounded theory [80 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5 (2), Art. 4. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245 .

Howson, A. G. (2005). “Meaning” and school mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 17–38). New York: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kelle, U. (2005). “Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (2), Art. 27. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502275 .

Kilpatrick, J., Hoyles, C., & Skovsmose, O. (2005). Meanings of ‘meaning of mathematics’. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 9–16). New York: Springer.

Leung, F. K. S., Graf, K.-D., & Lopez-Real, F. J. (Eds.). (2006). Mathematics education in different cultural traditions: A comparative study of East Asia and the West. The 13th ICMI Study . New York: Springer.

Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2011). Grounded-Theory-Methodologie: Entwicklung, Stand, Perspektiven [Grounded theory methodology: Development, status quo, and perspectives]. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (pp. 11–48). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Meyer, M. A. (2008). Unterrichtsplanung aus der Perspektive der Bildungsgangforschung [Lesson planning from the perspective of research on educational experience and learner development]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 10 (Special issue 9), 117–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91775-7_9 .

Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. (2009). Developing grounded theory. The second generation . Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Rabardel, P. (2002). People and technology: A cognitive approach to contemporary instruments . https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/1020705/filename/people_and_technology.pdf .

Rezat, S. (2008). Learning mathematics with textbooks. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of PME 32 und PME-NA XXX (Vol. 4, pp. 177–184). Morelia: Cinestav-UMSNH.

Rezat, S. (2009). Das Mathematikbuch als Instrument des Schülers. Eine Studie zur Schulbuchnutzung in den Sekundarstufen [The mathematics textbook as instrument of students. A study of textbook use at secondary level]. Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Teubner.

Rezat, S. (2013). The textbook-in-use: students’ utilization schemes of mathematics textbooks related to self-regulated practicing. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45 (5), 659–670.

Article   Google Scholar  

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

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

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

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1996). Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung [Basics of qualitative social research] . Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.

Teppo, A. (2015). Grounded theory methods. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 3–21). Dordrecht: Springer.

Tiefel, S. (2005). Kodierung nach der Grounded Theory lern- und bildungstheoretisch modifiziert: Kodierleitlinien für die Analyse biographischen Lernens [Coding in terms of Grounded theory: Modifying coding guidelines for the analysis of biographical learning within a theoretical framework of learning and education]. Zeitschrift für qualitative Bildungs-, Beratungs- und Sozialforschung (ZBBS), 6 (1), 65–84.

Vergnaud, G. (1998). A comprehensive theory of representation for mathematics education. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 17 (2), 167–181.

Vinner, S. (2007). Mathematics education: Procedures, rituals and man’s search for meaning. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 26 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2007.03.004 .

Vollstedt, M. (2011). Sinnkonstruktion und Mathematiklernen in Deutschland und Hongkong. Eine rekonstruktiv-empirische Studie [Personal meaning and the learning of mathematics: A reconstructive-empirical study]. Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Teubner.

Vollstedt, M. (2015). To see the wood for the trees: The development of theory from empirical data using grounded theory. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Doing qualitative research: Methodologies and methods in mathematics education. Advances in mathematics education series (pp. 23–48). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_2 .

Vollstedt, M., & Duchhardt, C. (in press). Assessment and structure of secondary students’ personal meaning related to mathematics. In M. S. Hannula, G. C. Leder, F. Morselli, M. Vollstedt, & Q. Zhang (Eds.), Affect in mathematics education: Fresh perspectives on motivation, engagement, and identity. ICME-13 Monographs. Cham: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Maike Vollstedt

University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

Sebastian Rezat

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maike Vollstedt .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Gabriele Kaiser

Mathematics Department, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

Norma Presmeg

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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 license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Vollstedt, M., Rezat, S. (2019). An Introduction to Grounded Theory with a Special Focus on Axial Coding and the Coding Paradigm. In: Kaiser, G., Presmeg, N. (eds) Compendium for Early Career Researchers in Mathematics Education . ICME-13 Monographs. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15636-7_4

Published : 27 April 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-15635-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-15636-7

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

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
• Product Demos
• For Digital
• For Customer Care
• For Human Resources
• For Researchers
• Financial Services
• All Industries

Popular Use Cases

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

Market Research

• 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?

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
• BMC Med Res Methodol

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

Alexandra sbaraini.

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

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

Stacy M Carter

R wendell evans, anthony blinkhorn, associated data.

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

There has been some discussion in the literature about what characteristics a grounded theory study must have to be legitimately referred to as 'grounded theory' [ 18 ]. The fundamental components of a grounded theory study are set out in Table ​ Table1. 1 . These components may appear in different combinations in other qualitative studies; a grounded theory study should have all of these. As noted, there are few examples of 'how to do' grounded theory in the literature [ 18 , 19 ]. Those that do exist have focused on Strauss and Corbin's methods [ 20 - 25 ]. An exception is Charmaz's own description of her study of chronic illness [ 26 ]; we applied this same variant in our study. In the remainder of this paper, we will show how each of the characteristics of grounded theory methodology worked in our study of dental practices.

Fundamental components of a grounded theory study

Study background

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

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

Designing this grounded theory study

Figure ​ Figure1 1 illustrates the steps taken during the project that will be described below from points A to F.

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

A. An open beginning and research questions

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

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

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

• How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

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

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

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

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

Initial Interviews

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

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

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

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

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

We have provided a worked example of coding in Table ​ Table2. 2 . Gerunds emphasise actions and processes. Initial coding identifies many different processes. After the first few interviews, we had a large amount of data and many initial codes. This included a group of codes that captured how dentists sought out evidence when they were exposed to a complex clinical case, a new product or technique. Because this process seemed central to their practice, and because it was talked about often, we decided that seeking out evidence should become a focused code. By comparing codes against codes and data against data, we distinguished the category of "seeking out evidence" from other focused codes, such as "gathering and comparing peers' evidence to reach a conclusion", and we understood the relationships between them. Using this constant comparative method (see Table ​ Table1), 1 ), we produced a theoretical code: "making sense of evidence and constructing knowledge". This code captured the social process that dentists went through when faced with new information or a practice challenge. This theoretical code will be the focus of a future paper.

Coding process

Memo-writing

Throughout the study, we wrote extensive case-based memos and conceptual memos. After each interview, the interviewer/researcher (AS) wrote a case-based memo reflecting on what she learned from that interview. They contained the interviewer's impressions about the participants' experiences, and the interviewer's reactions; they were also used to systematically question some of our pre-existing ideas in relation to what had been said in the interview. Table ​ Table3 3 illustrates one of those memos. After a few interviews, the interviewer/researcher also began making and recording comparisons among these memos.

Case-based memo

We also wrote conceptual memos about the initial codes and focused codes being developed, as described by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We used these memos to record our thinking about the meaning of codes and to record our thinking about how and when processes occurred, how they changed, and what their consequences were. In these memos, we made comparisons between data, cases and codes in order to find similarities and differences, and raised questions to be answered in continuing interviews. Table ​ Table4 4 illustrates a conceptual memo.

Conceptual memo

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

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

We have already described our initial purposive sampling. After our initial data collection and analysis, we used theoretical sampling (see Table ​ Table1) 1 ) to determine who to sample next and what questions to ask during interviews. We submitted Ethics Modification applications for changes in our question routes, and had no difficulty with approval. We will describe how the interview questions for dentists and dental practice staff evolved, and how we selected new participants to allow development of our substantive theory. The patients' interview schedule and theoretical sampling followed similar procedures.

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

After theoretical sampling, we could begin coding theoretically. We fleshed out each major focused code, examining the situations in which they appeared, when they changed and the relationship among them. At time of writing, we have reached theoretical saturation (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). We have been able to determine this in several ways. As we have become increasingly certain about our central focused codes, we have re-examined the data to find all available insights regarding those codes. We have drawn diagrams and written memos. We have looked rigorously for events or accounts not explained by the emerging theory so as to develop it further to explain all of the data. Our theory, which is expressed as a set of concepts that are related to one another in a cohesive way, now accounts adequately for all the data we have collected. We have presented the developing theory to specialist dental audiences and to the participants, and have found that it was accepted by and resonated with these audiences.

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

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

The quality of this grounded theory study

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

During data collection

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

2. We analysed the interview transcripts as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice sampled as shown on Figure ​ Figure1. 1 . This allowed the process of theoretical sampling to occur.

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

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

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

During data analysis

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

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

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

Answering our research questions

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

Concluding remarks

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

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

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

Abbreviations

GTM: grounded theory methods; MPP: Monitor Dental Practice Program; NSW: New South Wales; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/128/prepub

Supplementary Material

Initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff.

Questions added to the initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the initial interview schedule

Questions added to the modified interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the modified interview schedule

Acknowledgements

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

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

• Qualitative Health Research Journal. http://qhr.sagepub.com/ website accessed on 10 June 2011.
• Qualitative Health Research conference of The International Institute for Qualitative Methodology. http://www.iiqm.ualberta.ca/en/Conferences/QualitativeHealthResearch.aspx website accessed on 10 June 2011.
• The Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research. http://www.gcqhr.com/ website accessed on 10 June 2011. [ PubMed ]
• Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 1995; 311 :182. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W. Qualitative research: an introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008; 337 :a288. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a288. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statemen. Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . 1998. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/introduction.cfm website accessed on 13 September 2011.
• The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm website accessed on 10 June 2011.
• Bryant A, Charmaz K, (eds.) Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker D, Myrick F. Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qual Health Res. 2006; 16 :547–559. doi: 10.1177/1049732305285972. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barbour R. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001; 322 :1115–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007; 7 (3):375–422. doi: 10.1177/1468794107078517. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser BG. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs Forcing. Mill Valley CA, USA: Sociology Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin J, Strauss AL. Basics of qualitative research. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke AE. Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowers B, Schatzman L. In: Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE, editor. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press; 2009. Dimensional Analysis; pp. 86–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE, (eds.) Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter SM. In: Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies. Higgs J, Cherry N, Macklin R, Ajjawi R, editor. Vol. 2. Practice, Education, Work and Society Series. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers; 2010. Enacting Internal Coherence as a Path to Quality in Qualitative Inquiry; pp. 143–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wasserman JA, Clair JM, Wilson KL. Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qual Res. 2009; 9 :355–381. doi: 10.1177/1468794109106605. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott JW. Relating categories in grounded theory analysis: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. The Qualitative Report. 2004; 9 (1):113–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarker S, Lau F, Sahay S. Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory about virtual team development. Data Base Adv Inf Sy. 2001; 32 (1):38–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• LaRossa R. Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. J Marriage Fam. 2005; 67 (4):837–857. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendall J. Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. WJNR. 1999; 21 (6):743–757. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Kippen S, Liamputtong P. Doing sensitive research: what challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qual Res. 2007; 7 (3):327–353. doi: 10.1177/1468794107078515. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charmaz K. Discovering chronic illness - using grounded theory. Soc Sci Med. 1990; 30,11 :1161–1172. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curtis B, Evans RW, Sbaraini A, Schwarz E. The Monitor Practice Programme: is non-surgical management of tooth decay in private practice effective? Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 :306–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00071.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Featherstone JDB. The caries balance: The basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2004; 2 (S1):259–264. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Axelsson P, Nyström B, Lindhe J. The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. J Clin Periodontol. 2004; 31 :749–757. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00563.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sbaraini A, Evans RW. Caries risk reduction in patients attending a caries management clinic. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 :340–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00076.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitts NB. Monitoring of caries progression in permanent and primary posterior approximal enamel by bitewing radiography: A review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983; 11 :228–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1983.tb01883.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitts NB. The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. DentoMaxilloFac Rad. 1996; 25 :5–16. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitts NB. Are we ready to move from operative to non-operative/preventive treatment of dental caries in clinical practice? Caries Res. 2004; 38 :294–304. doi: 10.1159/000077769. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tan PL, Evans RW, Morgan MV. Caries, bitewings, and treatment decisions. Aust Dent J. 2002; 47 :138–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00317.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riordan P, Espelid I, Tveit A. Radiographic interpretation and treatment decisions among dental therapists and dentists in Western Australia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991; 19 :268–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1991.tb00165.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelid I, Tveit A, Haugejorden O, Riordan P. Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries among dentists in Norway. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1985; 13 :26–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1985.tb00414.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelid I. Radiographic diagnoses and treatment decisions on approximal caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986; 14 :265–270. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1986.tb01069.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans RW, Pakdaman A, Dennison P, Howe E. The Caries Management System: an evidence-based preventive strategy for dental practitioners. Application for adults. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53 :83–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.00004.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Berkley: University of California Press; 1969. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ. Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004; 4 (1):107–18. doi: 10.1177/1468794104041110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Grounded Theory - Science topic

• asked a question related to Grounded Theory
• 16 Jun 2024

• 17 Jun 2024
• 10 Recommendations

• 10 Jun 2024
• ‘The problem-centred expert interview’ . This paper combines qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. It discusses the social relevance of expert knowledge and offers a dialogic-discursive interview procedure investigating individual perspectives, based on an empirical study in human geography.
• 3 Recommendations

• Recent Trends and Innovations: What are the newest trends and innovations in supply chain management that are being explored through qualitative methodologies? This could include case studies, ethnographic research, grounded theory, or narrative analyses.
• Sustainability and Ethical Practices: How are qualitative researchers addressing sustainability, ethical practices, and corporate social responsibility within supply chains? Are there any groundbreaking studies or theories emerging in this area?
• Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management: With the increasing frequency of disruptions (e.g., pandemics, geopolitical tensions, natural disasters), what qualitative research is being conducted to understand and improve supply chain resilience and risk management?
• Technological Impact: How are emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, AI, IoT) being studied qualitatively in their application to supply chains? What human, organizational, and strategic dimensions are being uncovered?
• Integration and Collaboration: What insights are being gained about supply chain integration, collaboration, and relationship management from a qualitative perspective?
• Cultural and Behavioral Aspects: How are cultural, behavioral, and organizational factors influencing supply chain practices, and what qualitative research is shedding light on these dimensions?
• Policy and Regulation: Are there any notable qualitative studies exploring the impact of policies, regulations, and trade agreements on supply chains?

• 0 Recommendations

• GT & Pr ag.pdf 328 kB
• 5 Recommendations

• 22 Apr 2024

• 10 Apr 2024
• 9 Recommendations

• 17 Mar 2024

• 16 Nov 2023

• 20 Nov 2023

• 11 Nov 2023
• 2 Recommendations

• 29 Oct 2023
• Grounded Theory - Applicati on.ppt 118 kB

• 21 Sept 2023

• 25 Sept 2023

• 11 Sept 2023

• 18 Aug 2023
• 20 Aug 2023

• 10 Jun 2023
• 4 Recommendations

• 26 May 2023

• I wrote an article many years ago where I discussed the issue of literature review and grounded theory that might be helpful: Article Informed Grounded Theory

• 20 Apr 2023

• 22 Apr 2023
• 27 Apr 2023
• 13 Mar 2023

• 19 Apr 2023

• 12 Mar 2023

• 10 Mar 2023
• 49 Recommendations
• 20 Recommendations
• 15 Recommendations
• 8 Recommendations

• 16 Feb 2023

• 17 Feb 2023

• 25 Dec 2022

• 23 Dec 2022

• 16 Recommendations

• 23 Nov 2022

• 16 Nov 2022

• 11 Nov 2022

• 15 Nov 2022

• 14 Oct 2022

• 2 Sept 2022
• 5 Sept 2022

• 20 Aug 2022

• 17 Jun 2022

• 21 Jun 2022
• 6 Recommendations

• 25 Recommendations

• GT and Pr ag.pdf 328 kB

• 19 Apr 2022
• Dart, R. (2004) Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology, Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 33 , 2, pp. 290-310.
• Kandaiya, T. and Chavan, M. (2013) Social enterprise and sustainability: A theoretically grounded approach to strategy development, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 7 , 1, pp. 55-70.
• Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R. E. and Mort, G. S. (2010) Sustainability of nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation, Journal of World Business, 45 , 4, pp. 346-356.
• Weerawardena, J. and Mort, G. S. (2006) Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model, Journal of World Business, 41 , 1, pp. 21-35.

• 20 Mar 2022

• 15 Mar 2022
• 13 Recommendations

• 32 Recommendations

• 27 Oct 2018

• 10 Mar 2022

• 23 Jan 2022
• 21 Recommendations

• 16 Jan 2022
• 17 Jan 2022

• 11 Jan 2022

• 10 Jan 2022

• 22 Dec 2021
• 15 Dec 2021

• 13 Dec 2021

• 12 Dec 2021

• 10 Dec 2021

• 28 Nov 2021

• 10 Nov 2021

• 25 Oct 2021

• 7 Recommendations

• 21 Sept 2021

• 23 Aug 2021

• 24 Aug 2021

• 24 Jul 2021

• research methodlo gy.JPG 27.5 kB
• 28 Jul 2021

• 10 Jun 2021

• 17 Jul 2020

• 25 May 2021

• 23 Apr 2021

• 28 Apr 2021

• 16 Apr 2021

• 22 Apr 2021

• 21 Apr 2021

• 12 Apr 2021

• 19 Mar 2021
• 23 Mar 2021

• 16 Jun 2019

• 12 Mar 2021
• 48 Recommendations

• 18 Feb 2021

• 30 Jan 2021

• 31 Jan 2021

• 18 Jan 2021
• I will analyze online shaming on social media . I will use qualitative method .
• Specifically I will obtain data from social media - comments from users . So I will analyze comments that users wrote on the social media (for each case of online shaming).
• Then I want to describe what is going on in the comments and which latent psychological constructs can be seen in the data . I have made some theoretical framework , and I want to see if I can interpret data with this theoretical framework, but at the same time I want to be open as researcher and to see what data is telling itself.
• content analysis,
• grounded theory or
• some other analysis (e.g. discourse analysis etc.).
• 19 Jan 2021
• 30 Recommendations

• 30 Dec 2020

• 31 Dec 2020

• 75 Recommendations

• Recruitment Flyer_Dea Mulolli - Made with PosterMyWa ll.jpg 701 kB

• 28 Dec 2020

• 10 Dec 2020

• 16 Nov 2020
• 40 Recommendations

• 30 Oct 2020

• 31 Oct 2020
• 5e - Schneider_2302_Chapter_6_ma in.pdf 630 kB
• 19 Oct 2020

• 28 Oct 2020

• 15 Oct 2020

• 16 Oct 2020

• 20 May 2020

• 7 Sept 2020

• 31 Aug 2020

• 27 Aug 2020

• 14 Mar 2020

• 15 Aug 2020

• 13 Aug 2020
• 14 Jul 2020

• 16 Jul 2020

• 60 Recommendations

• 29 May 2020
• 30 May 2020
• 12 Recommendations

• 14 May 2020
• 15 May 2020

• 20 Mar 2020

• 10 Mar 2020
• 13 Mar 2020

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Grounded Theory: Approach And Examples

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

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

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

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

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

What Is Grounded Theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Theoretical Memoing

  compile findings.

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

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

It Is Personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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