basics of qualitative research grounded theory

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory

• Juliet Corbin - San Jose State University, USA
• Anselm Strauss
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

“The subject of the book is timely, important, and relevant. The content is laid out in a logical and organized manner and written in a style that is easy to understand.”

“[This book] provides an overview as well as depth into some of the techniques used in Grounded Theory studies, from the formation of research questions on through how to disseminate the work. A beginning researcher wanting to conduct a Grounded Theory study would find parts of this book helpful.”

A useful supplemental source for graduate students.

I rarely have students who select grounded theory for their dissertation research, and so decided not to adopt for each student. However, I do recommend this text for those who do plan GT

NEW TO THIS EDITION:

• New organization into three parts: Part I: Introduction to the Grounded Theory of Anselm Strauss, Part II: Research Demonstration Project, and Part III: Finishing the Research Project
• Context, process, and theoretical integration (previously Chapter 5) has been expanded with content on "Context" (now Chapter 8), and content on “Process” (now Chapter 9)
• New Chapter 11 : Covering the Use of Computers in Qualitative Data Analysis
• New Chapter 12 : Open Coding: Identifying Concepts
• New Chapter 13 : Axial Coding: Elaborating Concepts
• All chapters have undergone revisions 
• A brand new feature, “Insider Insights,” at the end of each chapter provides insights from top qualitative researchers for working in the field
• Key terms with definitions now appear at the beginning of the chapter to introduce key concepts  
• A chapter-ending “Summary of Important Points” reinforces key information from the chapter
• New and updated exercises for thinking, writing and group discussion reinforce key concepts and give readers an opportunity for hands-on application

KEY FEATURES:

• The authors’ presentation takes the form of an informal dialogue, similar to students and teachers working together in a classroom setting
• Each chapter begins with the questions most often asked by students about that aspect of analysis and discusses the logic behind the process being described
• The actual steps involved in data analysis (from description to grounded theory) and data gathering by means of theoretical sampling provide readers with everything they need to conduct data analysis
• Exercises for thinking, writing, and group discussion allow readers to practice what they've learned and check their understanding of new concepts
• The evolution of grounded theory method over time is discussed, along with the influence of constructionists and post-modern trends, without losing the method’s foundations in the grounding of data and building of theory
• "Critical Issues" sections at the end of each chapter help students develop their critical thinking skills

Sample Materials & Chapters

Detailed Table of Contents

For instructors

Select a purchasing option, related products.

• Find My Rep

You are here

Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory

• Juliet Corbin - San Jose State University, USA
• Anselm Strauss
• Description

“The subject of the book is timely, important, and relevant. The content is laid out in a logical and organized manner and written in a style that is easy to understand.”

“[This book] provides an overview as well as depth into some of the techniques used in Grounded Theory studies, from the formation of research questions on through how to disseminate the work. A beginning researcher wanting to conduct a Grounded Theory study would find parts of this book helpful.”

A useful supplemental source for graduate students.

I rarely have students who select grounded theory for their dissertation research, and so decided not to adopt for each student. However, I do recommend this text for those who do plan GT

Sample Materials & Chapters

Detailed Table of Contents

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

• Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Related Products

• Privacy Policy

Home » Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Grounded Theory

Definition:

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

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

History of Grounded Theory

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

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

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

Types of Grounded Theory

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

Classic Grounded Theory

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

Constructivist Grounded Theory

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

Grounded Theory Conducting Guide

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

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

Data Collection Methods

Grounded Theory Data Collection Methods are as follows:

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

Data Analysis Methods

Grounded Theory Data Analysis Methods are as follows:

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

Applications of Grounded Theory

Here are some of the key applications of Grounded Theory:

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

Examples of Grounded Theory

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

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

Grounded Theory Research Example

A Grounded Theory Research Example Would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of Grounded Theory

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

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

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

When to use Grounded Theory

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

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

Characteristics of Grounded Theory

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

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

Advantages of Grounded Theory

Advantages of Grounded Theory are as follows:

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

Limitations of Grounded Theory

Limitations of Grounded Theory are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

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

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

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

A newer edition of this book is available.

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 The Grounded Theory Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background and Early Development

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

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

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

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

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

Research Versus Theory

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

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

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

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

The Status of Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data Collection and Analysis

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

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

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

The Results and Value of Qualitative Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epistemological and Ontological Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innovations

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

Reporting of Findings

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

Constructivist GTM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GTM in Practice

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

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

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

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

What is happening here? ( Glaser, 1978 )

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

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

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

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

From whose viewpoint is a given process fundamental?

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

Who exerts control over these processes?

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

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

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

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

Coding, Memoing, Theoretical Sampling, Theoretical Saturation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using the Literature

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

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

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

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

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

Results, Theories, and Publications

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

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

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

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

Theoretical Sensitivity

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

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

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

Alternative Approaches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions for Further Reading

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

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

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

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

Tove Giske, Bergen Deaconess University College Bergen, Norway; Barbara Artinian, School of Nursing Azusa Pacific University Azusa, California © 2007 Giske et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

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

Google Scholar

Google Preview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

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

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Basics of qualitative research : grounded theory procedures and techniques

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

783 Previews

13 Favorites

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

EPUB and PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station51.cebu on February 4, 2020

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Basics of qualitative research : grounded theory procedures and techniques

Available online, at the library.

Green Library

Education Library (Cubberley)

The Education Library is closed for construction. Request items for pickup at another library.

More options

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• Introduction Getting Started Theoretical Sensitivity The Uses of Literature Open Coding Techniques for Enhancing Theoretical Sensitivity Axial Coding Selective Coding Process The Conditional Matrix Theoretical Sampling Memos and Diagrams Writing Theses and Monographs, and Giving Talks about Your Research Criteria for Judging a Grounded Theory Study.
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

• Even more »

Account Options

• Try the new Google Books
• Advanced Book Search
• Barnes&Noble.com
• Books-A-Million
• Find in a library
• All sellers  »

Get Textbooks on Google Play

Rent and save from the world's largest eBookstore. Read, highlight, and take notes, across web, tablet, and phone.

Go to Google Play Now »

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases, bibliographic information.

• Politics & Social Sciences
• Social Sciences

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Follow the author

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Constructing Grounded Theory (Introducing Qualitative Methods series) Third Edition

This is  the  definitive guide to doing constructivist grounded theory.

From gathering rich data and conducting interviews, to undertaking coding and writing up your study, this down-to-earth book guides you through all the steps you need to do grounded theory research.

This revised third edition:

• Showcases 9 new case studies of grounded theory research in action from scholars across the globe, including Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States.
• Enables you to see, at a glance, how each chapter will develop your understanding with new learning objectives.
• Supports you to expand your knowledge with new further reading suggestions in every chapter.

Retaining Kathy Charmaz’s characteristic warm and accessible style, this book is essential reading for anyone - undergraduate, postgraduate or researcher - looking to understand and do grounded theory research. 

• ISBN-10 1526426609
• ISBN-13 978-1526426604
• Edition Third
• Publisher SAGE Publications Ltd
• Publication date December 16, 2024
• Language English
• Print length 408 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author.

Kathy Charmaz  was Professor Emerita of Sociology and the former director of the Faculty Writing Program at Sonoma State University. She joined the first cohort of doctoral students at the University of California, San Francisco, where she studied with Anselm Strauss. She wrote in the areas of social psychology, medical sociology, qualitative methods, and grounded theory, and over her career wrote, coauthored, or coedited 14 books, including two award-winning works: Good Days, Bad Days; The Self in Illness and Time, and Constructing Grounded Theory . She received the George Herbert Mead award for lifetime achievement from the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, the Leo G. Reeder award for distinguished contributions from the Medical Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association and the Lifetime Achievement award from the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry. Professor Charmaz also gave workshops on qualitative methods, grounded theory, symbolic interactionism, and scholarly writing around the globe.

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ SAGE Publications Ltd; Third edition (December 16, 2024)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 408 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1526426609
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1526426604
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.74 pounds

About the author

Kathy charmaz.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices