grounded theory methods and qualitative family research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• SAGE Open Med

Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers

Ylona chun tie.

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

Melanie Birks

Karen francis.

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

Background:

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

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

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

Discussion:

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

Conclusion:

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Genres: traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory

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

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

Research process

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

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

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

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

Purposive sampling

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

Constant comparative analysis

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

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

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

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

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

Generating/collecting data

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

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

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

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

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

Adapted from Birks and Mills. 6

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

Initial coding

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

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

Theoretical sampling

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

Examples of theoretical sampling.

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

Intermediate coding

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

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

Advanced coding

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

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

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

Writing the storyline.

Theoretical sensitivity

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

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

Theoretical sensitivity.

The grounded theory

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

Quality and rigour

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

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

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

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

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

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available
• Scholarly Journal

Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

Select results items first to use the cite, email, save, and export options

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

Among the different qualitative approaches that may be relied upon in family theorizing, grounded theory methods (GTM), developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, are the most popular. Despite their centrality to family studies and to other fields, however, GTM can be opaque and confusing. Believing that simplifying GTM would allow them to be used to greater effect, I rely on 5 principles to interpret 3 major phases in GTM coding: open, axial, and selective. The history of GTM establishes a foundation for the interpretation, whereas recognition of the dialectic between induction and deduction underscores the importance of incorporating constructivism in GTM thinking. My goal is to propose a methodologically condensed but still comprehensive interpretation of GTM, an interpretation that researchers hopefully will find easy to understand and employ.

Key Words: content analysis, grounded theoretical analysis, qualitative methods, theory construction.

There is an irony-perhaps a paradox-here: that a methodology that is based on "interpretation" should itself prove so hard to interpret. (Dey, 1999, p. 23)

Beginning in the early 1970s with the creation of the National Council on Family Relations' Theory Construction and Research Methodology Workshop, and continuing through a series of volumes on family theories and methods (Bengtson, Acock, Allen, Dilworth-Anderson, & Klein, 2005a; Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993; Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, 1979a, 1979b), family studies has become a field where methodologically based theorizing matters. Cognizant of this fact, family scholars place a premium on research techniques that facilitate the development of new ideas.

In quantitative studies, multivariate statistical techniques are essential to the theorizing process. In qualitative studies, any number of approaches may be used to generate theory, but family scholars tend to rely on a multivariate nonstatistical (or quasistatistical) set of procedures, known as grounded theory methods (GTM). GTM were originally devised to facilitate theory construction, and their proponents routinely assert that a GTM approach promotes theorizing in ways that alternative methods do not (see Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, 1998).

Besides being drawn to GTM's theory-generating potential, family scholars may be attracted to GTM's compatibility with quantitative research. Unlike some other qualitative approaches, which are expressly descriptive in their intent (e.g., phenomenological analysis), GTM are purposefully explanatory (Baker,...

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Grounded Theory Methodology: Principles and Practices

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 13 January 2019
• Cite this reference work entry

• Linda Liska Belgrave 2 &
• Kapriskie Seide 2  

2766 Accesses

22 Citations

Since Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’ (The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Adline De Gruyter, 1967) publication of their groundbreaking book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory , grounded theory methodology (GTM) has been an integral part of health social science. GTM allows for the systematic collection and analysis of qualitative data to inductively develop middle-range theories to make sense of people’s actions and experiences in the social world. Since its introduction, grounded theorists working from diverse research paradigms have expanded the methodology and developed alternative approaches to GTM. As a result, GTM permeates multiple disciplines and offers a wide diversity of variants in its application. The availability of many options can, at times, lead to confusion and misconceptions, particularly among novice users of the methodology. Consequently, in this book chapter, we aim to acquaint readers with this qualitative methodology. More specifically, we sort through five major developments in GTM and review key elements, from data collection through writing. Finally, we review published research reflecting these methods, to illustrate their application. We also note the value of GTM for elucidating components of culture that might otherwise remain hidden.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Grounded Theory Methods

Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E, Levison W. Are physicians ready for patients with internet-based health information? J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e22.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aita K, Kai I. Physicians’ psychosocial barriers to different modes of withdrawal of life support in critical care: a qualitative study in Japan. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(4):616–22.

Bateman J, Allen M, Samani D, Kidd J, Davies D. Virtual patient design: exploring what works and why. A grounded theory study. Med Educ. 2013;47:595–606.

Beard RL, Fetterman DJ, Wu B, Bryant L. The two voices of Alzheimer’s: attitudes toward brain health by diagnosed individuals and support persons. Gerontologist. 2009;49:S40–9.

Belgrave LL, Seide K. Coding for grounded theory. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K, editors. The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory. London. Forthcoming.

Google Scholar  

Brown B. Shame resilience theory: a grounded theory study on women and shame. Fam Soc. 2006;87(1):43–52.

Bryant A. Re-grounding grounded theory. J Inf Technol Theory Appl. 2002;4:25–42.

Bryant A. Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: pragmatism in research practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bryant A, Charmaz K. Grounded theory in historical perspective: an epistemological account. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K, editors. The handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage; 2007a. p. 31–57.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bryant A, Charmaz K. Introduction. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K, editors. The handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage; 2007b. p. 31–57.

Charmaz K. Body, identity and self: adapting to impairment. Sociol Q. 1995;36:657–80.

Charmaz K. Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2000. p. 509–35.

Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.

Charmaz K. Constructionism and grounded theory. In: Holstein JA, Gubrium JF, editors. Handbook of constructionist research. New York: Guilford; 2007. p. 35–53.

Charmaz K. Shifting the grounds: constructivist grounded theory methods for the twenty-first century. In: Morse J, Stern P, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke A, editors. Developing grounded theory: the second generation. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009. p. 127–54.

Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.

Charmaz K, Belgrave LL. Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, Marvasti AB, McKinney KD, editors. The sage handbook of interview research: the complexity of the craft. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2012. p. 347–65.

Clarke A. From grounded theory to situational analysis: what’s new? Why? How? In: Morse J, Stern P, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke A, editors. Developing grounded theory: the second generation. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009. p. 194–233.

Clarke A. Feminisms, grounded theory, and situational analysis revisited. In: Clarke AE, Friese C, Washburn R, editors. Situational analysis in practice: mapping research with grounded theory. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2015. p. 84–154.

Clarke A, Friese C. Grounded theory using situational analysis. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K, editors. The sage handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage; 2007. p. 363–97.

Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2015.

Cresswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.

Cresswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2013.

Cresswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.

Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2018.

Denzin NK, Giardina MD. Qualitative inquiry and social justice: towards a politics of hope. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009.

Erol M. Melting bones: the social construction of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Turkey. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(10):1490–7.

Fielding N. Analytic density, postmodernism, and applied multiple methods research. In: Bergman MM, editor. Advances in mixed methods research: theories and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008. p. 37–52.

Glaser BG. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press; 1978.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL. Awareness of dying. Chicago: Aldine Pub; 1965.

Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Adline De Gruyter; 1967.

Kononowicz AA, Zary N, Edebring S, Hege I. Virtual patients – what are we talking about? A framework to classify the meanings of the term in healthcare education. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:11.

Larsson IE, Sahlsten MJ, Sjöström B, et al. Patient participation in nursing care from a patient perspective: a grounded theory study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2007;21:313–20.

Liamputtong P. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

Liamputtong P. Culture as social determinant of health. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Social determinants of health: individual, community and healthcare. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2018.

Lindsay K, Vanderpyl J, Logo P, Dalbeth N. The experience and impact of living with gout: a study of men with chronic gout using a qualitative grounded theory approach. J Clin Rheumatol. 2011;17:1–6.

Nagel DA, Burns VF, Tilley C, Augin D. When novice researchers adopt constructivist grounded theory: Navigating the less traveled paradigmatic and methodological paths in Ph.D. dissertation work. Int J Doctoral Stud. 2015;10:365–83.

Poteat T, German D, Kerrigan D. Managing uncertainty: a grounded theory of stigma in transgender health care encounters. Soc Sci Med. 2013;84:22–9.

Quah S. Health and culture. In: Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433114_ss1-7 .

Schnitzer G, Loots G, Escudero V, Schechter I. Negotiating the pathways into care in a globalizing world: help-seeking behavior of ultra-orthodox Jewish parents. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2011;57(2):153–65.

Seide K. In the midst of it all: a qualitative study of the everyday life of Haitians during an ongoing cholera epidemic. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. University of Miami; 2016.

Stern PN. On solid ground: essential properties for growing grounded theory. In: Bryant A, Charmaz K, editors. The sage handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage; 2007. p. 114–26.

Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.

Ulysse GA. Papa, patriarchy, and power: snapshots of a good Haitian girl, feminism, & diasporic dreams. J Haitian Stud. 2006;12(1):24–47.

Wertz FJ, Charmaz K, McMullen L, Josselson R, Anderson R, McSpadden E. Five ways of doing qualitative analysis. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

Linda Liska Belgrave & Kapriskie Seide

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Liska Belgrave .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Belgrave, L.L., Seide, K. (2019). Grounded Theory Methodology: Principles and Practices. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_84

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_84

Published : 13 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5250-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5251-4

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Grounded Theory In Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

What Is Grounded Theory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When should you use grounded theory? 

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

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

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

What is the final product of a GT study?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Core Components of Grounded Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glaserian Grounded Theory

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

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

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

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

Straussian Grounded Theory

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

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

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

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

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

Constructivist Grounded Theory

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

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

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

Situational Analysis

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

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

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

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

Limitations

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

Practical Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Planning and Philosophical Considerations

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

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

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

2. Recruit participants using theoretical sampling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Collect Data

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

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

4. Begin open coding as soon as data collection starts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Memo Writing

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

6. Group codes into categories using axial coding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Define the core category using selective coding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue collecting data and analyzing until you reach theoretical saturation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Theoretical coding and model development

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Write your grounded theory

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

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

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

Reading List

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

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

Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research

RALPH LAROSSA Georgia State University

There is an irony—perhaps a paradox—here: 2005a; Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & that a methodology that is based on ‘‘interpreta- Steinmetz, 1993; Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, tion’’ should itself prove so hard to interpret. 1979a, 1979b), family studies has become a field (Dey, 1999, p. 23) where methodologically based theorizing mat- Among the different qualitative approaches that ters. Cognizant of this fact, family scholars place may be relied upon in family theorizing, a premium on research techniques that facilitate grounded theory methods (GTM), developed by the development of new ideas. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss , are the In quantitative studies, multivariate statistical most popular. Despite their centrality to family techniques are essential to the theorizing pro- studies and to other fields, however, GTM can cess. In qualitative studies, any number of be opaque and confusing. Believing that simpli- approaches may be used to generate theory, but fying GTM would allow them to be used to family scholars tend to rely on a multivariate greater effect, I rely on 5 principles to interpret nonstatistical (or quasistatistical) set of proce- 3 major phases in GTM coding : open, axial, dures, known as grounded theory methods and selective. The history of GTM establishes (GTM). GTM were originally devised to facili- a foundation for the interpretation, whereas tate theory construction, and their proponents recognition of the dialectic between induction routinely assert that a GTM approach promotes and deduction underscores the importance of theorizing in ways that alternative methods do incorporating constructivism in GTM thinking. not (see Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & Strauss, My goal is to propose a methodologically con- 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, densed but still comprehensive interpretation of 1998). GTM, an interpretation that researchers hope- Besides being drawn to GTM’s theory- fully will find easy to understand and employ. generating potential, family scholars may be attracted to GTM’s compatibility with quantita- tive research. Unlike some other qualitative Beginning in the early 1970s with the creation of approaches, which are expressly descriptive in the National Council on Family Relations’ The- their intent (e.g., phenomenological analysis), ory Construction and Research Methodology GTM are purposefully explanatory (Baker, Workshop, and continuing through a series of Wuest, & Stern, 1992). With government grant- volumes on family theories and methods (Bengt- ing agencies viewing quantitative and qualitative son, Acock, Allen, Dilworth-Anderson, & Klein, methods as ‘‘mutually supportive’’ (National Institutes of Health, 2001; see also Ragin, Nagel, & White, 2004), investigators may feel that Department of Sociology , Georgia State University, Univer- referring to GTM procedures in their proposals sity Plaza, Atlanta, GA 30303 ( [email protected] ). will increase their chances of getting funded. Key Words: content analysis , grounded theoretical analysis, Yet another reason that family scholars may qualitative methods, theory construction. be disposed to use GTM is that a number of

Journal of Marriage and Family 67 (November 2005): 837–857 837 838 Journal of Marriage and Family qualitative software programs (e.g., ATLAS, the indicators upon which GTM-derived theo- ETHNOGRAPH, and NUD*IST)were designed— ries are formed. The connection between the or are at least believed to have been designed words on a page and the theories in one’s mind, or reconfigured—with GTM in mind (Seale, however, is more reciprocal than is sometimes 2005). realized. (c) Coding and explanation are built Given the many books and articles devoted to upon a series of empirical and conceptual outlining the procedures, one might presume that comparisons. The construction of variables (cat- a basic grasp of GTM is within easy reach. Such egories in the GTM lexicon) depends on classi- is not the case, however. Apart from the fact that fying concepts and infusing dimensionality GTM guidelines can be opaque and confusing, into the theorizing process. (d) From a grounded there is also a war of sorts being fought among theoretical perspective, theories are sets of inter- different GTM interpreters. Debates abound over related propositions, whereas propositions state whose version of GTM is genuine, and the ver- how variables are related. Scholars are free to bal sparring occasionally has gotten nasty. subscribe to other definitions of theory, but this Studying GTM can be exhilarating, but it also is the definition that undergirds most GTM can be extremely challenging, with an inordinate manuals. (e) There is value in choosing one amount of time devoted to trying to figure out variable from among the many variables that what different GTM procedures mean. Some of a grounded theoretical analysis may generate my students have confessed that they found and making that variable central when engaged doing grounded theory more tiring than inspir- in theoretical writing. It will serve as the back- ing, and a few have abandoned the approach bone of a researcher’s ‘‘story.’’ This central altogether, after deciding that the procedures variable, according to GTM guidelines, will be were needlessly cumbersome. one that developed in the course of the analysis GTM are not the only way to do qualitative and is well grounded in the textual materials research, but they are a valuable set of proce- being studied. But it also is a variable that dures for thinking theoretically about textual can and should be chosen for artistic as well materials (i.e., intensive- interview transcripts, as procedural reasons. There is an aesthetic observational fieldnotes, historical documents, quality to GTM, as there is in all research, that and the like). I thus find it troubling that, despite cannot be denied. If anything, it should be all the attention in recent years to publicizing celebrated. the methods, they have become, if anything, The specific procedures of GTM, as I view less user friendly. The result is that GTM are them, flow from these five principles. Exactly not being employed to their full advantage. how is outlined below. Important to this discus- Given how much family studies has relied on sion is the acknowledgment that there are multi- qualitative research to generate important theo- ple ways to do grounded theory. Hence, I make retical insights (Gilgun, 1999; LaRossa & Wolf, no claim to presenting ‘‘the true version’’ of 1985), family researchers can ill afford to ignore GTM. I offer only an interpretation. Also, I cau- a situation that threatens their ability to do theo- tion that what follows is not a self-contained retical work. manual on GTM. Researchers who want to Is there a solution? Perhaps. After teaching use the methods should familiarize themselves qualitative methods for a number of years, I with the major GTM how-to books and articles have come to think that, if it were possible to and the chief critiques, most of which are reduce GTM to a set of essentials, people would included in the list of references. Finally, I use them to greater effect. This article springs emphasize that GTM are a compendium of pro- from that belief. My goal is to propose a meth- cedures spanning research design , coding, sam- odologically condensed but still comprehensive pling, and writing and that not every one of interpretation of GTM, an interpretation that re- these procedures is covered here. Rather, my searchers hopefully will find easy to understand primary focus is on three topics. The first is the and employ. history of GTM and the interpersonal conflicts The interpretation that I present rests on five that have arisen since the methods were principles. These are (a) Language is central to devised. The second is the coding procedures in social life. Thus, the microanalysis of written GTM and what they entail. The third is the texts, the heart of a grounded theoretical analy- question of whether GTM are as inductive as sis, is a worthwhile enterprise. (b) Words are some interpreters have made them out to be. Grounded Theory Methods 839

HISTORY AND CONTROVERSY were not dogmatic in their approach. Indeed, just the opposite was true: ‘‘Our strategies do GTM were first developed in the 1960s by not insist that the analyst engage in a degree of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss and are explicitness and overdrawn explanation in an rooted in the Chicago school of symbolic inter- effort to coerce the theory’s acceptance by actionism, which achieved prominence in the ‘drugging the reader’s imagination and beating 1920s and 1930s, and the Columbia school of him [or her] into intellectual submission.’’’ multivariate analysis, as it was practiced in the Glaser and Strauss also said that they expected post–World War II era. (Other influences may be others would be motivated to propose their own noted, but these are the two that were identified procedures: ‘‘Our principal aim is to stimulate from the beginning and arguably continue to be other theorists to codify and publish their own the most important today.) Strauss received his methods for generating theory. We trust that PhD from the University of Chicago in 1945 they will join us in telling those who have not and generally is credited with incorporating yet attempted to generate theory that it is not a symbolic interactionist perspective. Glaser a residual chore in this age of verification’’ received his PhD from Columbia University in (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 8). 1961 and often is recognized as the one who Hence, GTM, as initially formulated, were pushed the importance of multivariate analysis. designed to be pluralistic. And pluralistic the Although their backgrounds may have been methods certainly have become, though not different, their collaboration grew out of their along the lines that Glaser and Strauss might similar discomfort with the supremacy of theory have predicted. Each went on to produce his testing in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. In The own set of maxims, Theoretical Sensitivity Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser and (Glaser, 1978) and Qualitative Analysis for Strauss (1967) said that graduate students in the Social Scientists (Strauss, 1987); and, starting social sciences were being trained to confirm with the publication of two volumes that pur- the ideas of early theorists (e.g., Marx, Weber, portedly lay out the fundamentals of the Durkheim) but were not being encouraged to approach, Basics of Qualitative Research generate theory themselves. The result of this (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, 1998) and Basics of one-sidedness was an interruption in the flow of Grounded Theory Analysis (Glaser, 1992), each ideas and a failure to appreciate the complexity has been locked in debate over whose version is and diversity of social life. more valid. Deciphering and evaluating the two [M]any potentially creative students have limited versions—referred to as the Glaserian and themselves to puzzling out small problems be- Straussian schools by some (Melia, 1996; Stern, queathed to them in big theories. . . . [But] the 1994)—has turned into a cottage industry, with masters have not provided enough theories to various individuals choosing sides or advanc- cover all the areas of social life. . . . Further, some theories of our predecessors, because of their lack ing their own similar-but-not-identical-to-GTM of grounding in data, do not fit, or do not work, methodologies (e.g., see Charmaz, 2000; Clarke, or are not sufficiently understandable to be used 2005; Schatzman, 1991). and are therefore useless in research, theoretical As if the war among devotees were not advance and practical application. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 11) enough to confound things, there also are dispar- ities in how the premier GTM interpreters con- Glaser and Strauss wrote their book with the vey the methods. The second edition of Basics aim of ‘‘closing the embarrassing gap between of Qualitative Research (Strauss & Corbin, theory and research’’ and ‘‘improving social sci- 1998), published after Strauss died in 1996 at entists’ capacity for generating theory.’’ They the age of 79, defined terms differently than did admitted that ‘‘[n]ot everyone can be equally the first edition (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a); and skilled at discovering theory,’’ but they also felt an edited volume intended to show students that one did not have to ‘‘be a genius’’ either what completed grounded theory projects look (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. vii–viii). Their pro- like, Grounded Theory in Practice (Strauss & cedures thus were designed to provide concrete Corbin, 1997), included several articles in which steps that both novice and experienced research- GTM were not even mentioned. Major works in ers could understand and follow. GTM are described as ‘‘inaccessible’’ or leaving As committed as Glaser and Strauss were to readers in a ‘‘maze’’ (Charmaz, 2000, p. 512). offering guidelines that would be helpful, they Some practitioners believe, in fact, that it is 840 Journal of Marriage and Family impossible to learn GTM by reading about them clearly as possible is a sine qua non. On this and that, without a mentor, one is doomed to fail count, reviewers are adamant: ‘‘The author has (Stern, 1994). Courses and seminars on GTM to tell the reader what specific techniques were thus have flourished, but even these may not used’’ (Ambert, Adler, Adler, & Detzner, have the desired outcome. Said one teacher, 1995). ‘‘Quarter after quarter, our students worked with Strauss, Glaser, and me, and after all that, some of them still struggled. How can anyone learn to CODING PROCEDURES do this from a book?’’ (Interview with Leonard Researchers often encounter difficulties with Schatzman, reported in Gilgun, 2001, p. 357). GTM when they start to code their materials. Seeing the ambiguity surrounding GTM, we Understandably, they want to know the precise should not be surprised that manuscripts, avow- steps to follow. It turns out, however, that the edly based on GTM, do not appear to follow the coding procedures differ, depending on who is same rules. Some authors will say simply that describing them. Whereas Glaser and Strauss ‘‘grounded theory methods were employed,’’ (1967) specified four phases, Glaser (1978, cite one article or book (not unusually, only 1992) talked about two major phases plus sev- Glaser & Strauss, 1967, disregarding the revi- eral subphases, and Strauss (1987), along with sions in later publications), and then go on to Strauss and Corbin (1990a, 1998), referred to describe a study where there is little, if any, the- three phases. oretical development. Others will refer to one or I divide coding into the same three phases two steps in GTM but ignore other steps that that Strauss (1987) and Strauss and Corbin leading proponents consider crucial. The harsh- (1990a, 1998) suggest, namely open coding, est editorial reviewers of these qualitative axial coding, and selective coding. I do so manuscripts often are other GTM researchers because, over time, these have become the most (e.g., see Baker et al., 1992; Locke, 1996; Stern, widely accepted phases in GTM. I want to 1994; Wilson & Hutchinson, 1996). acknowledge, however, that after poring over Does the pluralistic nature of GTM mean that the different GTM manuals, I have come to researchers can do pretty much whatever they have a greater appreciation of the significant want and call it grounded theory? I say no, but, all too often, unrecognized influence that because there are certain principles about which Glaser had on Strauss’s and Strauss and Cor- grounded theory proponents, more or less, con- bin’s works. It was Glaser in a 1965 article who cur. I do think, however, that as long as these first developed the central tenets of GTM, and it principles are kept in mind, the details of the was Glaser (1978) in Theoretical Sensitivity procedures can be modified to suit a researcher’s who first wrote about the value of open and needs. This is the message that Glaser and selective coding and formalized GTM’s ap- Strauss (1967) conveyed when they said that proach to the study of variable linkages. they wanted to stimulate other theorists to cod- I use the triadic coding scheme of open, axial, ify their own methods for generating theory. and selective coding because I believe that Strauss (1987) also advised, ‘‘Study them, GTM are most productive when all three phases use them, but modify them in accordance with of coding are employed. Given the laborious- the requirements of your own research’’ (p. 8). ness that some researchers associate with GTM, Strauss and Corbin (1998), in addition, recom- one or more of the coding phases often are mended, ‘‘Students should stay within the gen- skipped. I recognize, too, the cyclical connec- eral guidelines outlined in [Basics of tion among the three phases, which introduces Qualitative Research] and use the procedures an important dynamic to the coding process. and techniques flexibly according to their abili- The nonlinear nature of the methods, however, ties and the realities of their studies’’ (p. 295). does not deny the fact that, at certain points in Given that the details of the procedures can a research project, one or more of the phases vary, it is imperative that GTM researchers be will be brought to the foreground. very specific about how they go about doing their analyses. Thus, it is insufficient for an Open Coding author to say, ‘‘I did grounded theory,’’ with a citation to one or more of manuals and leave it Analysis begins with open coding. Glaser at that. Outlining one’s coding operations as (1978) characterized open coding as ‘‘running Grounded Theory Methods 841 the data open’’ (p. 56; see also Strauss, 1987, ing indicators (1, 2, 3, etc.) would be identified p. 29), whereas Strauss and Corbin described it and linked. When a researcher got to a point as a procedure where ‘‘the data are broken down where the addition of another indicator to those into discrete parts, closely examined, compared already grouped under a concept did not appear for similarities and differences, and questions to generate significantly new insights about that are asked about the phenomena reflected in the concept, then, in GTM terms, the concept is data’’ (1990a, p. 62; 1998, p. 102). theoretically saturated. A theoretically saturated The rudiments of open coding are captured concept essentially is a well grounded concept. in what Glaser (1978, pp. 62–63) called the Figure 1 illustrates how indicators and con- concept-indicator model (see also Strauss, 1987, cepts are integrated in open coding. The figure pp. 25–26). The concept-indicator model is builds on, but also revises, a drawing that predicated on the constant comparison of indi- Glaser (1978) and later Strauss (1987) used to cators, that is, on regularly identifying similari- depict the concept-indicator model. In the fig- ties and variations in texts. The ‘‘basic, defining ure, indicators are linked to a concept, but also rule’’ of constant comparison is that, while cod- to each other, demonstrating the principle of ing an indicator for a concept, one compares constant comparison. that indicator with previous indicators that have One may ask, how do these statements lead been coded in the same way. An indicator re- to the concept of social loss? How are the lines fers to a word, phrase, or sentence, or a series of drawn between one and the other? The key ele- words, phrases, or sentences, in the materials ment in concept formation is to pose generative being analyzed. A concept is a label or name questions (see especially Strauss, 1987). What associated with an indicator or indicators; stated does it connote when, in a hospital setting, peo- another way, a concept is a symbol or conven- ple say of another who has died, ‘‘He [or she] tional sign attached to a referent. Thus, man and was so young’’ or ‘‘He [or she] was to be a doc- woman are concepts. So are love, mate selec- tor’’? What is being talked about? In answering tion, divorce, death, and depression. this last question, we may begin to wonder: It helps to see how the concept-indicator Why is it so bad to die young? What difference model was first applied. In their study of the does it make that the deceased was going to be social reality of dying, Glaser and Strauss a doctor? Would the same have been said of (1964) used the concept of social loss (concept a teacher or a housekeeper? Glaser and Strauss a) to summarize the meaning of a series of state- may have grouped the statements under social ments that nurses in the project made. These loss, because they thought that the nurses were verbalizations included ‘‘He [the deceased] was saying that, in certain situations, the social real- so young,’’ ‘‘He was to be a doctor [but he died ity of death was not just about absence but also before he completed his studies],’’ ‘‘She had about dispossession. a full life,’’ and ‘‘What will the children and her How many indicators can be associated with husband do without her?’’ (Glaser & Strauss, a concept? Early in coding, a single indicator 1967, p. 106). If we assume that the first state- may prompt the researcher to develop a concept; ment (indicator 1) initially triggered the social that is, the researcher might note the concept in loss concept in Glaser and Strauss’s mind and the margins of a transcript and write a memo that the second statement (indicator 2) also about the concept’s possibilities. Eventually, prompted them to think about social loss, however, multiple indicators will be needed to before the two indicators would be grouped theoretically saturate a concept. As to how en- together, the second statement would be com- compassing a concept should be, logic suggests pared with the first. If, as a result of this com- that coders keep in mind the following rule. parison, the two statements seemed to belong together, the statements would be classified as If a [conceptual] label is insufficiently abstract or too general, too few observations will fall [under indicators for the concept, social loss. If, how- that conceptual label]. . . . In such cases, the label ever, the statements did not seem to belong merely restates or rephrases the data. To ‘‘work’’ together, a second concept (concept b) would (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), a conceptual label must be developed to give meaning to the second occupy a higher level of abstraction than the inci- dents [or indicators] . . . it is intended to classify. indicator. As coding continued, through the If the concept[ual] label is too abstract, however, application of constant comparison, a number too much information will fall into that category. of concepts (a, b, c, etc.) and their accompany- For example, a concept . . . labeled ‘‘interaction’’ 842 Journal of Marriage and Family -

n or ‘‘exchange’’ might include every observed do i instance of persons talking to one another . . . 1987,

and (Martin & Turner, 1986, p. 149) among husb To paraphrase, coders must decide how Strauss,

her abstract to be and choose a level between two Lines

later extremes. A totally restricted level of abstrac- and

and tion would result in thousands of concepts, each cators. , with a single indicator. A totally unrestricted indi children 1978 level of abstraction would result in one concept us

the that incorporated every indicator. aser, ill The level-of-abstraction issue comes up not Gl w numero Indicator 6

e just during open coding but throughout a GTM that What hav study. For example, toward the end of their ‘ ‘ d ill projects, some GTM researchers will endeavor ’ w

drawing to develop not only substantive theories, which life.’ a are topic specific (e.g., a theory about mate erally full

ises, selection), but also formal or generic theories, a gen rev

pt which are issue transcendent and thus more had Indicator 5

e abstract (e.g., a theory about how interpersonal also h conce S

‘ relationships are socially constructed). ‘ but c

’ Besides developing concepts, open coding on, s].’ s

d also is said to involve the formulation of cate- ODEL saturated gories. Although categories are mentioned in M build studie virtually every GTM manual, the definition of re his

ATOR a category remains vague. Glaser and Strauss figu (1967) said that a category ‘‘stands by itself as Indicator 4 theoretically NDIC pleted (This a

-I a conceptual element of the theory’’ (p. 36),

com whereas Strauss (1987) defined a category as but c he ‘‘any distinction [that] comes from dimensional- ONCEPT Concept (Social Loss) concepts. C izing’’ (p. 21). In the first edition of their book, concept, 1. before Strauss and Corbin (1990a) said that a category a was a ‘‘classification of concepts’’ (p. 61), but in died for generates IGURE Indicator 3 their second edition (1998), they defined a cate- F he gory as a concept ‘‘that stand[s] for phenom-

[but ena’’ (p. 101). Glaser (1992), in his rebuttal to indicator b indicators Strauss and Corbin (1990a), said that a category of doctor is a ‘‘type of concept’’ that is ‘‘usually used for single a

a a higher level of abstraction’’ (p. 38). be be

to If you find these descriptions hard to follow,

Indicator 2 you are not alone (see Dey, 1999). Part of the may comparison was t e difficulty may stem from the fact that, in GTM, ‘He ther l.) ‘ the term category is used in two ways. These b ’ constan a are not necessarily contradictory but are more mode the like two sides of the same coin. First, categori- analysis, young.’ zation in GTM may be said to involve the n how a so f grouping of putatively similar but not identical o ndicator 1 g show was I concepts under a more abstract heading. An cept-indicator to observer, for example, might group birds, innin sed] con

ded planes, and kites under the heading ‘‘objects beg the that are alike in that they fly’’ (cf. Strauss & decea ’ inten the ?’ Corbin, 1998, p. 113). In this instance, categori- In are [the her depict

t zation is analogous to the standard dictionary te: to ‘He ‘ definition, which emphasizes the idea of putting No a dicators used withou things into a category (e.g., putting shirts and Grounded Theory Methods 843 trousers into the category of clothing). Second, perceptions (p. 36). But it is difficult to know categorization may be said to involve the group- from this example how a category and property ing of putatively dissimilar but still allied differ. One GTM interpreter indeed inquired, concepts under a more abstract heading. A ‘‘[W]hat relationship is being illustrated be- researcher studying children at play, for exam- tween the category . . . and its property . . . [?] In ple, might categorize toy grabbing and toy hid- what sense is the latter [the nurses’ rationales ing under the heading ‘‘various strategies to for the loss of a patient] a ‘property’ of the for- avoid sharing a toy’’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, mer [the nurses’ perceptions of how the loss p. 68). In this instance, categorization means di- impacted others]? The answer is not clear.’’ The mensionalization (i.e., whereby strategy a is interpreter went on to say that it would have distinguished from strategy b). been better if Glaser and Strauss simply had Although both kinds of grouping are impor- said that the category and property were sepa- tant to GTM and to the scientific enterprise in rate categories, with the rationales ‘‘referring to general, it is the second that leads most directly the strategies used by nurses in response to per- to axial and selective coding. Dimensionaliza- ceptions of social loss’’ (Dey, 1999, pp. 49–50). tion, in other words, is crucial to categorization I agree, with one important qualification. I sug- in GTM, if one is to progress to other phases in gest that variable be substituted for category. the coding regimen. Such a transposition makes it clear that a cate- Dimensionalization is explicitly mentioned in gory essentially is intended to capture not only Strauss’s (1987) definition of a category. Di- similitude but also dimensionality among a set mensionalization also is central to the notion, of concepts. mentioned in several GTM manuals, that cate- Can categories legitimately be thought of as gories should be developed in terms of their variables? Some might say no, that the notion ‘‘properties,’’ which, in turn, are then ‘‘dimen- of categories is too embedded in the GTM ver- sionalized’’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, pp. 69– nacular to be altered. A close examination of 72; 1998, pp. 116–119; see also Schatzman, GTM manuals, however, shows that categories 1991). and variables often have been used interchange- Property is another term about which there is ably. Glaser (1978, 1992), for example, equates some confusion. Glaser and Strauss (1967) variables and categories. So do other grounded defined a property as ‘‘a conceptual aspect or theory interpreters (e.g., see Charmaz, 2000; element of a category’’ (p. 36), whereas Strauss Creswell, 1998; Gilgun, 2001; Stern, 1980). (1987) talked about a property as ‘‘the most The major GTM manuals also refer to causes, concrete feature of something (idea, thing, per- consequences, hypotheses, and propositions— son, event, activity, relation) that can be con- terms that imply, if not explicitly denote, a form ceptualized’’ (p. 21). Strauss and Corbin of variable analysis (see Strauss, 1987; Strauss (1990a) initially described a property as an attri- & Corbin, 1990a, 1998). If, technically speaking, bute or characteristic ‘‘pertaining to a category’’ a category is ‘‘any distinction [that] comes from (p. 61) and then later said that a property dimensionalizing’’ (Strauss, p. 21), or a ‘‘classi- referred to the ‘‘characteristics of a category, the fication of concepts’’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, delineation of which defines and gives it mean- p. 61), then categories are essentially variables ing’’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 101). Glaser because they represent dimensions of concepts (1992) defined a property as a ‘‘type of concept or conceptual classificatory schemes. that is a conceptual characteristic of a category, Categorization in GTM thus is not just about [and] thus at a lesser level of abstraction than grouping concepts together; categorization is a category’’ (p. 38). also about arraying concepts. Taking two or How does a property contribute to our under- three similar concepts and thinking of how they standing of a category? Glaser and Strauss may be subsumed under a higher level heading (1967) initially illustrated the difference means moving from one level of abstraction to between a category and a property by saying another level of abstraction, while still remain- that nurses’ perceptions of the degree to which ing in the realm of concepts. Taking two or the death of a patient impacted others (e.g., fam- three dissimilar concepts and thinking of how ily members) constituted a category, whereas they may be arrayed along a dimension also the types of rationales that nurses used to justify means moving from one level of abstraction to those perceptions constituted a property of their another level of abstraction, but now the aim is 844 Journal of Marriage and Family e

ce, to shift from the explication of concepts to the , tered sam etc. . , development of variables love divor the clus Thinking in terms of variables not only f variables). blue o be ault t

¼ underscores how important dimensionalization of tion), of rties) par

no-f is to open coding but also negates the need to may romantic e ela b of of erties

tion speak about categories and their properties. but vs. Prope cy intensity

sity Table 1 shows how. Strauss and Corbin (1990a) , prop may dura and

alone described the difference between a category and blue d inten and . requen ression f a property by using color as an illustration. of ories etc stan ression, , dep ression,

nic), Types of color, they said, constitute a category dep not fault), dep shade Categ

tegories whose properties are shade, intensity, hue, and . e plato (e.g., c ca vs. eed divorce etc so on (p. 70). But how is this different from stat- ce n , ., lt vs. red), (i.e., lt ivor ivorce ing that color types can vary by shade, intensity, (i.e vs. love divor and hue and that, instead of there being a cate- iables postd no-fau a no-fau postd blue of var Clusters gory and its properties, there simply are differ- antic romantic of of iables ression after (e.g., ent variables: the of color (e.g., the var types that rom (e.g., dep level ce level level (e.g., r

of primary colors, blue, red, and yellow) and ith ings ce ce too, w Variable cy the shade, intensity, and hue of each type (e.g., colo love divor feel ance ance BLES ze, ous of of of of the shade, intensity, and hue of blue). If color ceptan requen ARIA ac combinations are considered (e.g., mixing blue f accept postdivor accept pes pes pes pes V recogni Ty Ty Ty Ty and red to make purple), more variables can be and o t synonym t AND

ce imagined. All of these variables or dimensions are

rtan may be grouped into a cluster of variables per- divor

t taining to color, but that does not mean that the cally impo ONCEPTS

is distinction among the variables has to be ‘‘mud- C basi It

no-faul dled,’’ in the way that the distinction among of vs.

ties. concepts, categories, and properties often is

ncy (Dey, 1999, p. 251; Schatzman, 1991, pp. 307– manuals, proper EVELOPING

ression 308). (Schatzman, in his alternative GTM D ods : freque

and approach, advocated generating ‘‘clusters of di- dep nic) G

meth mensions.’’) So also, if a researcher were study- fault) ries with ories) plato (e.g., ODIN ry ing , it would be understood that there vs. love C ce lt vs. red)

Categ could be types of love (e.g., romantic, platonic, along theo catego PEN d vs.

divor courtly) as well as variations in intensity (i.e., ce, O (i.e., no-fau than a

1. high to low) within each type. (These are not blue romantic divor

after the only possibilities, of course.) Similarly, if g., grounde (e.g., a rather ABLE (e. in ce a researcher were studying , one would (e.g., divorce T ngs r Variables after assume that there could be types of divorce colo divor feeli love used (e.g., no-fault, fault) as well as variations in fre- variables of of of of quency (i.e., very common to hardly common) feelings elation) erally f o about within each type. Lastly, we know that people Types Types Types Types s gen s ing who have gone through a divorce may experi-

type ence a sense of depression (‘‘I feel empty term think

and inside’’) or elation (‘‘I feel great’’), either of to

ce which can vary in duration (i.e., from a very erties, short period of time to a very long period of divor antage prop f

o time). At certain points in the analysis, adv s

and a researcher might draw a mental circle around an divorce type a

be the variables to indicate a variable cluster, but

g., that would not require that all these dimensions ter). (e. after may tegories

love be bundled into a single variable. ps divorce Ca clus c Figures 2 and 3 show how indicators, there grou e iable ncepts manti concepts, and variables can be integrated in us, Note: epression o-fault nto Co Blu Ro D N Th var i open coding. Again, indicators are linked to FIGURE 2. VARIABLE-CONCEPT-INDICATOR MODEL: VARIABLE A Gro unded Variable A (Types of Love) Theory

Concept a (romantic love) Concept b (platonic love) Concept c (courtly love) Meth ods

Indicator 1a Indicator 2 Indicator 3b Indicator 4 Indicator 5 Indicator 6

Note: Variables must include at least two concepts and may be discrete or continuous. Although only two indicators per concept are depicted, a theoretically saturated concept generally will have numerous indicators. Lines among indicators and among concepts are intended to show how the constant comparison of indicators generates concepts and how the constant comparison of concepts generates variables. (This figure builds on, but also revises, a drawing that Glaser, 1978, and later Strauss, 1987, used to depict the concept-indicator model.) a‘‘I am sexually aroused during intimate moments with my partner.’’ b‘‘I feel affection for my partner but it is not a sexual kind of affection.’’

FIGURE 3. VARIABLE-CONCEPT-INDICATOR MODEL: VARIABLE B

Variable B (Intensity of Romantic Love)

Concept d (low-intensity) Concept e (mid-intensity) Concept f (high-intensity)

Indicator 7a Indicator 8 Indicator 9 Indicator 10 Indicator 11b Indicator 12

Note: Variables must include at least two concepts and may be discrete or continuous. Although only two indicators per concept are depicted, a theoretically saturated concept generally will have numerous indicators. Lines among indicators and among concepts are intended to show how the constant comparison of indicators generates concepts and how the constant comparison of concepts generates variables. (This figure builds on, but also revises, a drawing that Glaser, 1978, and later Strauss, 1987, used to depict the concept-indicator model.) 845 a‘‘I am lukewarm with sexual desire during intimate moments with my partner.’’ b‘‘I am burning with sexual desire during intimate moments with my partner.’’ 846 Journal of Marriage and Family concepts, but also to each other, demonstrating essential to GTM, that any theoretical perspec- the principle of constant comparison. In these tive can inform the analysis. Strauss and Corbin two figures, concepts also are linked to each (1990b), themselves, said, ‘‘One need not sub- other to show how comparing concepts will scribe’’ to symbolic interactionism to employ result in the creation of a variable. Focusing the methods (p. 5). once again on the general concept of love, types My take on the matter is that, although a vari- of love might include romantic love, platonic ety of perspectives can be brought to bear (e.g., love, and courtly love. Each of these types a feminist perspective can provide sensitizing would constitute a separate concept, and each concepts that are relevant to the study of gender concept would have a set of indicators. One politics and patriarchy), a theoretical perspec- interviewee might have said, ‘‘I am sexually tive that places language at the nucleus of the aroused during intimate moments with my part- analysis is critical. If symbolic interactionism is ner,’’ which a coder might classify as an indica- not used, then an alternative framework that ac- tor for romantic love. Another interviewee cords as much weight to the study of language might have said, ‘‘I feel affection for my partner must be substituted. Social constructionism but it is not a sexual kind of affection,’’ which (e.g., Berger & Luckmann, 1966), poststructur- a coder might classify as an indicator for pla- alism (e.g., Foucault, 1978), cognitive sociol- tonic love. A coder also might feel that inter- ogy (e.g., Zerubavel, 1997), and cultural studies viewees talked about degrees of intensity within (e.g., Griswold, 1994) are four that can work, each type, and thus construct three other varia- but there are others. The basis for this position bles (besides types of love): intensity of roman- is that, as can be readily seen, open coding re- tic love, intensity of platonic love, and intensity lies heavily on a line-by-line coding of texts of courtly love. One interviewee might have (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, said, ‘‘I am burning with sexual desire during 1990a, 1998), with both the concept-indicator intimate moments with my partner,’’ which model and variable-concept-indicator model a coder might classify as an indicator for the encouraging the microanalysis of one indicator concept, high romantic love. Another inter- after another. A case, in fact, could be made that viewee might have said, ‘‘I am lukewarm with line-by-line coding is ‘‘the guts of the [GTM] sexual desire during intimate moments with my approach’’ (Orona, 1997, p. 179). From a macro- partner,’’ which a coder might classify as an demographic perspective, the close inspection indicator for the concept, low romantic love. of texts might be considered unnecessary and Again, each concept would require numerous maybe even frivolous, an example of misplaced indicators to be considered theoretically satu- precision. From a symbolic interactionist per- rated. Also, indicators that initially seemed to spective, however, the linguistic analysis of belong with the same concept later might be texts is thought to be valuable. Thus, symbolic grouped with other developing concepts. Con- interactionism—and language-oriented frame- cepts, in other words, could be fractured or works, in general—provide the theoretical li- reconstituted. This demonstrates the kind of cense to scrutinize page after page of discourse. typology or variable construction that char- Without that warrant, open coding can look and acterized the Columbia school of multivariate feel like nothing more than busy work. analysis (see Glaser, 1978, pp. 66–72). In this sense, typologies also are variables. Cuber and Axial Coding Harroff’s (1965) five types of marriage (total, vital, devitalized, passive-congenial, and con- Axial coding, according to Strauss (1987), con- flict-habituated) basically constitute a variable, sists of ‘‘intense analysis done around one cate- with each type representing a different concept. gory [i.e., variable] at a time, in terms of A final point needs to be made about open paradigm items (conditions, consequences, and coding. Despite the enormous influence that the so forth)’’ (p. 32). The phrase ‘‘paradigm items’’ Chicago school of symbolic interactionism had was an allusion to a coding paradigm, a concep- on the birth of GTM, the question has been tual device that Strauss said is ‘‘especially help- raised as to whether the methods require a sym- ful to beginning analysts’’ and ‘‘part and parcel bolic interactionist perspective (Charmaz, 2000, of the analyst’s thought processes.’’ Its function p. 513; but see Clarke, 2005, pp. 2–5). Some is to serve ‘‘as a reminder to code data for rele- have said that symbolic interactionism is not vance to whatever phenomena are referenced by Grounded Theory Methods 847 a given category,’’ with special attention to happening but a series of interactional and polit- ‘‘conditions, interactions among actors, strate- ical episodes that occur chronologically (Berger gies and tactics, consequences’’ (pp. 27–28). & Luckmann, 1966). Thus, in designing their Axial coding also has been defined as ‘‘a pro- studies, GTM researchers should strive, when- cess of relating categories to their subcategories ever possible, to take into consideration time. A [italics added]’’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, longitudinal study generally is the best way to p. 123; see also Strauss, p. 27; Strauss & Corbin, capture events as they unfold. 1990a, p. 99). Subcategories also are categories, Whether or not a researcher is able to carry but they are categories that answer the questions out a longitudinal study, sensitivity to process of ‘‘when, where, why, who, how, and with what should be central to a grounded theoretical consequences’’ around a focal category (Strauss study from the very beginning. Translating & Corbin, 1998, p. 125). The focal category or nouns into verbs when developing concepts and variable is temporarily placed at the hub of the variables during open coding can be especially analysis and the when, where, why, and so on helpful. For example, gender can be translated constitute the spokes around the hub. into the process of ‘‘engendering’’ or ‘‘doing Axial coding appears to be similar to three gender’’ (McMahon, 1995; West & Zimmer- specific coding procedures that Glaser (1978) man, 1987), whereas we-ness in a couple’s re- covered under a phase that he called ‘‘theoreti- lationship can be translated into the process cal coding.’’ These specific procedures include of ‘‘becoming a ‘We’’’ and ‘‘marking ‘We’’’ (a) looking for ‘‘causes, contexts, contingencies, (Richardson, 1988; see also Berger & Kellner, consequences, covariances, and conditions’’ 1964). Both sets of processes are based on (‘‘the six C’s’’) around a focal category; (b) social interactions and proceed through stages. building process into the analysis (i.e., ‘‘stages, Coding for process does not end here, how- staging, phases, phasing,’’ etc.); and (c) paying ever. A full-scale examination of process neces- attention to people’s ‘‘strategies, tactics, . . . ma- sitates also, in grounded theoretical terms, the neuverings, ploys, . . . dominating, positioning,’’ investigation of causes, contexts, contingencies, and so on (pp. 74, 76). consequences, covariances, and conditions The fact that process and interaction are dis- (Strauss & Corbin, 1990a, p. 153). The addition cussed under axial coding, and, in Glaser’s case, of these relational factors to an analysis—the under theoretical coding (Glaser, 1978, pp. 74– search for (or, more accurately, the develop- 75; Strauss & Corbin, 1998, pp. 123–135) could ment of) ‘‘the six C’s’’—is the distinctive fea- lead one to believe that these are important only ture of the axial coding phase. during this phase. In actuality, they are impor- Although there is a parallel between Strauss’s tant at every phase in a GTM project. Strauss axial coding and Glaser’s theoretical coding, and Corbin (1998) acknowledged as much there is a difference in the sequencing of the when they said, ‘‘Analyzing data for process is two. In Strauss’s (1987) version, axial coding is not a separate aspect of analysis’’ (p. 167). In a phase that ‘‘becomes increasingly prominent their books, they also emphasized, ‘‘Bringing during the normally lengthy period of open cod- process into the analysis is an important part of ing’’ (p. 32). In Glaser’s (1978) version, theoret- any grounded theory study’’ (1990, p. 143; ical coding takes place later in the analysis, 1998, p. 163), and offered extensive examples after selective coding (pp. 72–82). Selective of how to incorporate process in qualitative coding, to be covered in the next section, is the research (see also Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987). delimited coding that is done around a centrally The same point can be made about the study important variable (p. 61). of strategies, tactics, maneuvering, and so on. As in open coding, there is confusion about Researchers should always be asking, how the mechanics of axial coding. Strauss and Cor- do power and politics play a part in social bin’s (1990a, 1998) use of the term subcategory situations? is not very helpful. In many people’s minds, the Based on symbolic interactionism and other prefix sub denotes under or beneath as in sub- language-oriented frameworks, GTM encourage marine or subsample. Thus, a subcategory can the study of how ‘‘reality’’ is socially con- be thought to refer to a category that is under structed (e.g., how dying is socially constructed another category (e.g., pens and pencils sub- or how love is socially constructed). The social sumed under writing instruments). But this is construction of reality, however, is not a static not how sub has been used in Strauss and 848 Journal of Marriage and Family

Corbin’s version of GTM. In their scheme, sub- tal con- ’ loca-

category denotes a category that is related to—- ?’ and ther

not a subclass of—a focal category. ago ironmen ies

As already noted, I believe that a researcher ano env years can substitute variable for category, without in to

violating the spirit of GTM. I also believe that 100 ntingenc refer or ducted

Strauss and Corbin’s (1990a, 1998) discussion Co con of subcategories can be translated into a discus- ago ng. i ntexts sion of variables. My reasoning is that questions rs cod Co were pertaining to when, where, why, and so on yea 25

essentially are about relating a set of variables axial study in to a focal variable. In essence, axial coding is e ariables. th v on ducted about developing hypotheses or propositions, if so two which, in scientific parlance, are generally con understood to be statements about the relation- and least were different, ship between or among variables. Figure 4, at e based on Glaser’s (1978) elucidation of ‘‘the six b study Consequences

C’s,’’ illustrates the point. tingencies, the between if

Imagine that a researcher is doing an intensive- con linkages interview study on the social reality of love. In- e exts, erent,

terviewees have been asked about their defini- thes diff tions of love and whether they have ever cont e , relationship b fallen in and out of love and how they came to a ‘Would ‘ ing that determination. Through open coding, the causes of

researcher has developed variables and variable linkages ODING mple, C clusters associated with love (e.g., romantic specify Contingencies/Conditions exa study love vs. platonic love, high-intensity romantic these XIAL for the love vs. low-intensity romantic love) and has A ict 4. ask, variables,

begun to wonder about the when, where, why, ‘Would ‘ to dep r

and so on regarding these variables. Strauss and o Contexts is to ’ Focal Variable IGURE Covariances rating

Corbin would advise the researcher to place F )?’ texts a focal variable temporarily at the center of the used mode 8) con analytical inquiry (say, intensity of romantic (Intensity of Romantic Love) country are love) and answer questions about its subcatego- (197 about

ries. Another option, not at odds with theirs, r itions another would be to advise the researcher to think about Glaser

the variables that might relate to the focal vari- wonde that state, ies/cond able. A question about why would encourage To enc the researcher to imagine variables that might ther era. l ano drawing influence a person’s intensity of romantic love. Contingencies/Conditions a

The interview transcripts might have included Conting rhood, Causes

repeated references to physical appearance historica

(e.g., ‘‘My partner is very attractive’’ and ‘‘She revises, and g also has beautiful eyes’’). These references (specifi- neighbo equivalent.

cally, indicators) might have prompted the but be settin

researcher to develop a variable, of to

degree on, another physical attractiveness. The why question thus s here

might lead the researcher to ask whether the build ocultural red degree of physical attractiveness positively in- setting, soci figure

fluences the intensity of romantic love. The as conside researcher might also turn the question around another This such and ask whether the intensity of romantic love are s positively influences the degree of physical (e.g., Note: dition tion attractiveness because it is possible that after factors, Grounded Theory Methods 849 people fall in love, they tend to perceive their reason, if not the major reason, that GTM is said partners as more physically attractive. In this to have ‘‘positivist roots’’ (Clarke, 2003, p. 558). reversal of variable order, the researcher would These roots, however, can be transcended (e.g., be exploring the consequences relating to a focal see Charmaz, 2000), a point that is addressed in variable. Other questions to ask might include: a later section on induction and deduction. What are the conditions under which the degree Where axial coding belongs in the GTM of physical attractiveness influences the inten- sequence is a major point of contention. Besides sity of romantic love? Might a partner’s physi- suggesting that axial coding essentially was his cal attractiveness be more important to men idea, Glaser (1992) also took issue with Strauss than to women? In what kinds of contexts is the and Corbin’s (1990a) portrayal of the phase. relationship between degree of physical attrac- Glaser felt that axial coding, especially if done tiveness and intensity of romantic love relevant? early in the analysis, would encourage research- Is the relationship more relevant in some coun- ers to force conceptual linkages upon their data. tries than in others? Is it more relevant today Glaser said that conceptual linkages between or than 100 years ago? In all of these cases, the among variables—and he did speak of ‘‘varia- search for whys or consequences or conditions bles’’—should emerge. or contexts ultimately is about developing Although Glaser implied that Strauss’s ver- hypotheses or propositions because one is relat- sion and his version of axial or theoretical cod- ing variables. ing are antithetical, there is a middle ground. The difference between open coding and On the one hand, I support Glaser’s perspective axial coding appears to come down to the dif- that GTM researchers should routinely ask ference between a typology and a theory. In themselves how saturated variables relate to one open coding, the researcher, for the most part, is another. On the other hand, I do not think it is developing variables. The variables may be necessary to restrict axial coding to the later very elaborate, but how they are interrelated re- phases of coding. Although a focus on saturated mains largely unexplored. In axial coding, the variables should be central to any grounded relationship between or among variables is theoretical analysis, I believe that a GTM re- explicitly examined. If the development of the- searcher should feel comfortable relating gener- ory is said to rest heavily though not entirely on ated variables (saturated or yet to be saturated) explanation (Bengtson, Acock, Allen, Dilworth- to other variables whose relevance would be Anderson, & Klein, 2005b), and if explanation suggested from either prior research or an estab- is said to rest on empirically or logically estab- lished theoretical framework. This appears to be lishing how variables are interrelated, then axial what Strauss and Corbin (1990a, 1998) were coding is the phase at which GTM research saying when they talked about looking for begins to fulfill its theoretical promise. causes, consequences, and so on in the begin- The definitions of concepts, variables, and ning phases of a project. hypotheses/propositions being employed here For example, a researcher might ask, very should be familiar to most researchers. They are early in the analysis, how gender and social similar to those used in axiomatic theorizing class relate to other variables, because that (e.g., see Burr et al., 1979a, 1979b). GTM and researcher has been trained to believe that gen- axiomatic theorizing are, to a certain extent, der and social class are almost always important aligned (e.g., see Strauss & Corbin’s, 1998, correlates. As another example, suppose that, p. 22, reliance on Hage, 1972; note, too, that while open coding a set of transcripts on the GTM have certain similarities with conceptual social reality of divorce, a researcher became modeling, see Soulliere, Britt, & Maines, 2001). interested in the rationales for why the divorce When Strauss (1987) defined hypotheses as ‘‘a occurred. We will assume that the variable- provisional answer to a question about concep- concept-indicator model was employed and that tual relationships,’’ he plainly stated that he was the concept of rationales was associated with using the term ‘‘exactly as in the usual scientific a number of indicators (e.g., ‘‘I got a divorce lexicon’’ (p. 21). It is no coincidence that GTM, because . . .’’). The researcher, familiar with which encourage qualitative researchers to think a symbolic interactionist perspective, might in terms of variables and hypotheses/proposi- begin to speculate how these rationales can be tions, were developed in the same era that axi- conceptualized as ‘‘vocabularies of motives’’ omatic theorizing was at its peak. This is one (Mills, 1940; see Hopper, 1993) and, in the 850 Journal of Marriage and Family course of doing so, the researcher could trans- analysis. Davis (1974) summed up the choices pose the concept of rationales into a set of varia- that a researcher faces, when he wrote bles (e.g., types of rationales, intensity of different types). Soon thereafter, the researcher I want to bring us to that awesome point where might begin to ask questions such as, do men you have collected the closetfull or tons of data and women use different rationales? (who), and then you have to do something with them. You face the terrible moment when you want to what purpose do different rationales serve? leave this mortal coil because you are wondering (why), what happens if certain rationales are not what all of this awful buzzing confusion called offered? (consequences), and so on. In other ‘‘the data’’ can possibly mean. . . . What is the words, the researcher will generate hypotheses. story? . . . Naturally, where you have been, what you have done, whom you have spoken with and The basic question is, when and to what what the data are about limit the range of stories degree can GTM researchers carry out literature to select among. But when you come upon one reviews? Early versions of GTM suggested that which seems appropriate, I would suggest that you researchers should disregard prior studies, at begin fearlessly by trying to ‘‘impose’’ it upon the least in the beginning of an analysis, in order data. Now, of course, we all know that this ‘‘impo- sition’’ will not work; that any such attempt to not to contaminate their coding. Glaser (1978) impose a particular story, a plot, an extended met- said, ‘‘The first step in gaining theoretical sensi- aphor or rhetorical scheme, is bound to reveal all tivity is to enter the research setting with as few sorts of lacunae, contradictions, falsehoods, and so predetermined ideas as possible. . . . His [or her] forth between the more or less fully plotted story in your mind and what you sense to be true of the mandate is to remain open to what is actually data. But the story still has the virtue of being able happening’’ (p. 3). He added, ‘‘When the theory to illuminate facets of the data that you otherwise [generated from the analysis] seems sufficiently might not have been aware of. In any case, the dis- grounded and developed, then we review the junction of imposition begins to generate an inter- literature in the field’’ (p. 31). Later versions nal conflict in which the story illuminates the data, the data modifies the story, and so forth, to where, of GTM, on the other hand, not only acknowl- hopefully, in the end you come up with something edge the value of reviewing prior research but coherent, something readable and, best of all, also contend that the literature significantly in- something interesting. (Davis, 1974, pp. 310–312) fluences coding, even if the researcher is unaware that it does (Glaser, 1992, pp. 31–37; In short, the stories that researchers put Strauss, 1987, p. 12; Strauss & Corbin, 1998, together should be lucid, understandable, and pp. 46–53, 136–137). hopefully compelling. Unless it is assumed that How prior work should be used is up to the research-based narratives are entirely fictional, individual researcher. Although some GTM they also should be reasonably accurate. (For researchers prefer not to conduct literature re- a debate on the notion of accuracy in qualitative views until they are well into a project, others research, see ‘‘Street Corner Society Revisited,’’ feel that it is important to know what has been 1992.) done before, so as not to ‘‘reinvent the wheel’’ Stories can vary not only in content but in style (Clarke, 2005; see also Gilgun, 2005). Cer- too (Van Maanen, 1988). Some researchers may tainly, we cannot avoid being influenced by prefer to tell idiographic stories, with anecdotal in- what we read and, on some level of conscious- dicators fleshing out the particulars. Other research- ness, absorb. But as long as we are not ‘‘terror- ers may like to tell confessional (‘‘let-me-share- ized by the literature’’ (Becker, 1986) and allow what-happened-to-me’’) stories, putting themselves it to dictate what we see, we should be able to at the center of their write-ups. Still others may lean mine previous research without stifling our own toward theoretical stories, accounts of how a com- inventiveness. Ultimately, ‘‘prior conceptions plex of variables are interrelated. GTM were de- need not become preconceptions’’ (Dey, 1999, signed to facilitate the crafting of stories that fall p. 251; see also Strauss, 1987, pp. 306–311; into this third grouping. Theoretical stories are Strauss & Corbin, 1998, pp. 47–52). GTM’s forte. Idiographic, confessional, and theoretical sto- ries, which can be combined in a single GTM- inspired narrative, essentially are second-order Selective Coding stories that frame the first-order stories signified In any study, a researcher will decide—or in the interview/observational/historical materials should decide—the main story underlying the being analyzed (Daly, 1997; see also Emerson, Grounded Theory Methods 851

Fretz, & Shaw, 1995; Howell & Prevenier, configuration up for the students to see, I tell 2001). That is, through various channels of direct them that a good candidate for core-variable sta- and indirect expression, research subjects tell sto- tus is the spool that has the most connections to ries to frame their lives (LaRossa, 1995), and re- other spools. I also remind them of the other cri- searchers, in turn, tell stories about their teria for choosing a core variable. Then, I begin subjects’ stories. (The second-order stories that to rotate the configuration, moving different researchers impart are also about their lives— spools and sticks to the foreground and other and ultimately about their ‘‘selves.’’ If I write an spools and sticks toward the back. Because the article or a book that tells a feminist theoretical configuration is a three-dimensional mock-up, story, what am I trying to say about ‘‘me’’?) there are numerous ways that different spools Different methodological strategies advance and sticks can be ‘‘accentuated.’’ Rotating the different techniques to help researchers choose configuration also helps to convey the artistry a project’s main story. In quantitative research , that goes into selecting a core category and to measures of association and tests of significance story telling. Although the spool that is singu- are used. In GTM, selective coding is em- larly central has not changed, the slant on that ployed. As Strauss and Corbin (1990a, p. 116; spool and the entire configuration has shifted. 1998, p. 148) have noted, selective coding can Thus, much the same as a newspaper report or be defined as the explication of ‘‘the story line.’’ novel will have a slant to it, so also research nar- Although there is disagreement between ratives will have a slant. And that slant may Glaser and Strauss as to when selective coding make the difference in whether an article or book should occur, there is unanimity that selective is read—and, if read, remembered (see Figure 5). coding entails the identification of a core vari- An example of how a study can be given a able. The core variable is the one variable compelling slant is Richardson’s (1988) Ameri- among all the variables generated during coding can Sociological Review article on extramari- that, in addition to other qualities, is theoretically tal affairs. I like using this GTM article not saturated and centrally relevant. (The 11 criteria only because it was published in a high-prestige for choosing a core category or variable were journal and is widely cited but also because first provided by Glaser [1978] and repeated by Richardson (1990, pp. 53–59) wrote about the Strauss [1987]. Strauss & Corbin [1990a, 1998] narrative stance that she chose when she wrote paraphrase Glaser’s list.) The core variable, ac- it. The study was based on ‘‘intensive interviews cording to Strauss and Corbin (1998), is a vari- with 65 single women who had or were having able that has ‘‘analytic power’’ because of ‘‘its long-term (over a year) intimate relationships ability to pull the other categories [variables] with married men’’ (1988, p. 211). Richardson together to form an explanatory whole.’’ could have reported her results in a variety of ways. She opted, however, to pitch the piece at [It] may evolve out of the list of existing catego- a fairly high level of abstraction: ‘‘My rhetorical ries [variables]. Or, a researcher may study the plan was to make limited claims for the statisti- categories [variables] and determine that, cal representativeness of my findings—but although each category [variable] tells part of the unlimited claims to their generality and theoreti- story, none captures it completely. Therefore, another more abstract term or phrase is needed, cal significance’’ (1990, p. 55). How she config- a conceptual idea under which all other categories ured her major variables, and how she selected [variables] can be subsumed. (Strauss & Corbin, which variables to accentuate, nicely illustrates 1998, p. 146) how to both know one’s audience (in her case, sociologists) and maximize a study’s impact. When I teach GTM, I bring a Tinkertoy set to class. I assemble a configuration of multicolored spools and sticks and tell the students to think The title of the paper, ‘‘Secrecy and Status: The Social Construction of Forbidden Relationships,’’ of the spools as variables and the sticks as rela- . . . keyed two core sociological concepts, status tionships among the variables. Although this and relationships; identified a theoretical home, is not the only way that relationships among social construction; and signaled new conceptual variables can be visually portrayed, I like the links, secrecy and status and forbidden relation- ships. . . . My decision was to cloak the specific Tinkertoy-show-and-tell approach because it something (the data base of single women/mar- allows me to demonstrate both the mechanics ried men), but to accentuate ‘‘secret, forbidden, and aesthetics of selective coding. Holding the sexual relationships,’’ and then make the case that 852 Journal of Marriage and Family

FIGURE 5. SELECTIVE CODING

Note: The core variable is the one variable among all the variables generated during coding that, in addition to other quali- ties, is theoretically saturated and centrally relevant. In a configuration of spools and dowels (imagine a Tinkertoy set), the spool with the most connections to other spools would be considered the core variable. Rotating the configuration and allow- ing different spools (variables) to be shifted more to the front or more to the back (as you view the set) illustrates how artistic considerations also play a part in grounded theory research. Much the same as a sculptor gives shape to a marble or bronze creation, accentuating some features over others, so also a grounded theory researcher gives shape to a scholarly work.

these were not trivial, uncommon, rare, or with- implications for formal theory. The analyst can out theoretical significance. The eventual accep- talk of hospital shifts and immediately realize tance of the paper, I felt, depended upon my convincing the reviewers, first, that the category the implications of shifts as a basic social condi- of relationships fulfilled the generality criterion, tion in any twenty four hour a day work oper- and second that the particular class (single ation, and start to conceive of generating women/married men) was theoretically and empir- a formal theory of work shifts’’ (Glaser, 1978, ically paradigmatic of the category. (Richardson, pp. 95–96; see also Strauss, p. 36). This is pre- 1990, pp. 55–56) cisely what Zerubavel (1979) did when he In effect, Richardson sculpted her argument . developed the concept of continuous coverage Her decision to highlight secrecy and status in in his study of hospital life. Initially intrigued the later stages of her analysis illustrates how with how nurses and doctors structured their variables can be moved to the foreground and schedules so that patients would receive unin- how that rotational action (using the Tinkertoy terrupted care, he went on to generate a formal analogy) can influence a study’s story line. In sociological theory of time. her analysis and writing, she made artistic as Formal/generic stories developed in non- well as other kinds of decisions. familial contexts can be profitably applied to Striving to fulfill the generality criterion, familial contexts—and vice versa (Prus, 1987). Richardson chose to engage in formal or generic To cite an example from my own research, theorizing, a strategy that is often applauded when Maureen Mulligan LaRossa and I were in GTM (Strauss, 1987; but see Clarke, 2005, analyzing the interview transcripts in our for an alternative assessment). One of the cri- study of the transition to parenthood (LaRossa teria for selecting a core category or variable & LaRossa, 1981), we borrowed Zerubavel’s explicitly states, ‘‘A core category [variable] (1979) theory of time to help explain why fa- in a substantive study has clear and grabbing thers and mothers would shift toward a more Grounded Theory Methods 853 traditional division of infant care in the first 9 in which indicators drive the research. The months postpartum. Another example is how Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967), by its Diane Vaughan applied Glaser and Strauss’s very title, certainly communicated that concepts (1964) typology of ‘‘awareness contexts’’ were ‘‘discovered’’ in a data set. Interesting, too, (closed, open, pretense, suspicion), developed in is that much of the controversy surrounding their study of dying patients, to her analysis of GTM centers on Glaser’s (1992) contention that marital breakups (‘‘Uncoupling begins with Strauss and Corbin (1990a) had disregarded a secret,’’ Vaughan, 1986, p. 3). What is espe- GTM’s inductivist principles. cially interesting about Vaughan’s study is that At first glance, the differences on this point she also talked about how her theory of the appear to be fairly solid. In Qualitative Analysis divorce process could be applied to other social for Social Scientists, Strauss (1987) said that contexts. GTM were erroneously referred to as ‘‘inductive theory’’ and that, in retrospect, it would have been better to say that the methods included ele- INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION ments of induction, deduction, and verification, In the figure that Glaser (1978) and later Strauss because one cannot deny that personal experi- (1987) produced to represent the concept-indi- ence and prior studies influence ‘‘provisional cator model, arrows were drawn from a set of formulations of hypotheses’’ (p. 12). In Basics of indicators to a single concept. By having the Qualitative Research, Strauss and Corbin arrows go in only one direction, Glaser and (1990a, 1998) alluded to the same three ele- Strauss gave the impression that GTM rely ments, arguably even more so, which may help almost exclusively on the epistemology of to explain why Glaser has been so upset with induction. In actuality, the methods rely upon their books. In his 1965 article and in induction and deduction. Thus, a better way to The Discovery of Grounded Theory, the provi- represent the concept-indicator model would sional testing of theories was not in the GTM have been to show the arrows going in both di- rules (Glaser, 1965; Glaser & Strauss, 1967); rections. Note that in Figures 1 through 3, the and Glaser saw no reason subsequently to add arrows between indicators and concepts are the criterion. ‘‘Grounded theory is not verifica- bidirectional. This was intended to illustrate tional,’’ he insisted (Glaser, 1992, p. 29). GTM’s inductive and deductive sides. Despite what appears to be significantly dif- Bidirectional arrows also are in keeping with ferent epistemological viewpoints, both Glaser the tenets of symbolic interactionism. Mead and Strauss generally emphasize induction in (1934), one of the principal architects of sym- their descriptions of GTM. Early on, Glaser and bolic interactionism, made the point, ‘‘Language Strauss (1967) did say, ‘‘Of course, the does not simply symbolize a situation or object researcher does not approach reality as a tabula which is already there in advance; it makes pos- rasa,’’ but ‘‘must have a perspective that will sible the existence or the appearance of that sit- help him [or her] see relevant data and abstract uation or object’’ (p. 78; see also Blumer, significant categories from his [or her] scrutiny 1969). Because concepts are symbols, they are of the data’’ (p. 3). Their use of the word a language and thus create as well as reflect in- ‘‘abstract’’ in the structure of the sentence sug- dicators. What is a valid indicator, and what is gested, however, that conceptual categories not, is in the eye of the beholder/researcher. By were removed from or embedded in the data. the same token, the lumping and splitting that Strauss and Corbin (1998) later acknowledged underlies the classification of concepts in vari- a dialectical relationship between induction and able construction is a product of mental activity deduction, but they were more likely to do so (see Zerubavel, 1991). when talking about the formulation of hypothe- The question of induction versus induction/ ses rather than the development of concepts in deduction in GTM is important. GTM were open coding (e.g., pp. 136–137; but see p. 294). described as an inductive mode of analysis when In this regard, Glaser and Strauss and Corbin, they were first formulated (Glaser & Strauss, despite their sensitivities to the insights of sym- 1967, p. 5), and, to a certain extent, they continue bolic interactionism, come close to subscribing to be described as such today (e.g., see Creswell, to naı¨ve realism, an epistemology that is often 1998; Gilgun, 2001). The original message was associated with positivism (Guba & Lincoln, and, for some, may still be that these are methods 1994). 854 Journal of Marriage and Family

Others have leveled the same charges. Charmaz that all GTM researchers should be aware of, (2000) criticized the objectivist thinking in lest they find themselves susceptible to the same traditional GTM coding, and proposed a ‘‘con- kinds of charges. A familiarity with this debate structivist grounded theory’’ as a new alterna- is essential to doing grounded theory. tive. (Constructivism here is equated with The transition to parenthood study that I constructionism. Both are assumed to be based briefly talked about before (LaRossa & LaRossa, on a combination of biological, psychological, 1981) helped me to appreciate the importance and sociological factors [see, however, Gergen, of the debate and may serve as a lesson for 1999, p. 237].) others. In that study, 20 married couples were conjointly interviewed during the third, sixth, [E]arly grounded theory texts imply that catego- and ninth months postpartum, with 10 couples ries and concepts inhere within the data, awaiting having their first child and the other 10 having the researcher’s discovery (Charmaz, 1990, their second. Reading the transcripts of the in- 1995). Not so. Glaser (1978, 1992) assumes that we can gather our data unfettered by bias or biog- terviews was a joy. So much seemed to be raphy. Instead, a constructivist approach recog- ‘‘going on.’’ For example, at their sixth-month nizes that the categories, concepts, and theoretical interview, a husband and wife, with a 10-year- level of an analysis emerge from the researcher’s old daughter and new baby boy, were asked, interactions within the field and questions about the data. (Charmaz, 2000, p. 522) ‘‘What’s been happening since the last time we met?’’ The wife responded that she was now Similarly, Emerson et al. (1995), in a particu- ‘‘adapting’’ to ‘‘increased demands,’’ which led larly stinging assessment, admonished grounded the interviewer to probe, ‘‘What kind of in- theorists for ‘‘depict[ing] analysis as a clearcut, creased demands?’’ almost autonomous activity’’ (p. 143). Constant attention that I have to give him [the baby], and then turn around and be able to give it [G]rounded theorists focus on the ‘‘discovery’’ to her [the older child] and to him and all that, and modification of theory through the close but once the school year started, it really got diffi- examination of qualitative data. But such an cult, because she’s in so many activities, and I approach dichotomizes data and theory as two have to carpool, or I wish I were carpooling. I’m separate and distinct entities; it avoids seeing the- driving it by myself because nobody else is going ory as inherent in the notion of data in the first anymore, and so that I have to wake him up place. But data are never pure; they are ripe . . . regardless, and sometimes come close to inter- with meanings and always the products of prior rupt[ing] his feeding. The other day I refused to interpretive and conceptual decisions. Grounded interrupt his feeding when they had to close for theory slights the processes whereby data are the supposed ice storm that was coming through, assembled, processes that build concepts into the so it made me like 15 minutes late to pick her up data from the start in the very process of writing and she had panicked and gone home to a friend’s fieldnotes [or conducting interviews, reviewing house and the friend thought, I could see the documentary sources, etc.]. In this respect, it is expression on the friend’s face, like ‘‘What are something of a distortion to talk about ‘‘discover- you doing to your child?’’ You know? But you ing theory,’’ as we often are tempted to do. . . . have to draw the line, and I just refused to inter- [T]heory only to jump out of the data and seems rupt his feeding. But anyway. So that’s what it hit the researcher in the face; this flash of insight amounts to. It just drives me crazy. occurs only because of the researcher’s prior ana- lytic commitments built into the notes, the theo- retical concerns and commitments she [or he] In the grounded theory analysis that we car- brings to the reading, and the connections made ried out, to children became with other ‘‘similar events’’ observed and written accessibility about. Thus, it is more accurate to say that the a salient concept. We were intrigued by how ethnographer creates rather than discovers theory. often parents talked about having to be on duty (Emerson et al., 1995, p. 167) or on call vis-a`-vis their kids. Indicators for accessibility included phrases such as ‘‘constant These criticisms may seem unduly harsh, attention’’ and ‘‘so many activities’’ (to which especially when it is acknowledged that Glaser children have to be ferried) and transcript pas- and Strauss were not ignorant of the fact that sages pertaining to the trials and tribulations of mental lenses help researchers ‘‘see relevant infant feeding, a parental job that, as the excerpt data’’ (again, see Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 3). shows, cannot be interrupted freely. From the Nonetheless, they are criticisms that are not start, we felt that the concept of accessibility entirely off the mark. They also are criticisms was literally jumping off the page. It seemed to Grounded Theory Methods 855 us that it was everywhere in the interviews. scriptive and spectacular. But in disciplines where Strictly speaking, however, the concept was not theory is valued—and family studies is one of on the page or in the interviews. Rather, the asso- those disciplines—qualitative research routinely ciation of the concept with a variety of indicators is judged by how well it is connected to theory. was a dialectical linkage. What cannot be denied GTM are a valuable set of procedures for are the theoretical assumptions that we brought thinking theoretically about textual materials, to data collection (e.g., see our instructions to but they can be difficult to decipher. Believing the interviewer, LaRossa & LaRossa, 1981, pp. that simplifying the methods would allow them 239–246), or the theoretical insights that we to be used to greater effect, I have proposed gleaned from prior research and applied to the a methodologically condensed but still compre- texts (especially Zerubavel [1979] on continuous hensive interpretation of GTM, an interpretation coverage). We offered a conflict sociological that researchers hopefully will find easy to model on the transition to parenthood (p. 208), understand and employ. The history of GTM but we certainly cannot maintain that the varia- established a foundation for the interpretation. bles in the model had sprung de novo during our Five basic principles served as its linchpin. analysis. After all, I had offered a conflict socio- These principles emphasized the centrality of logical approach to marriage and first pregnan- language in social life, the importance of words cy only a few years before (LaRossa, 1977). as indicators, the significance of empirical and Finally, we noted in the book’s preface that our conceptual comparisons, the value of thinking first child was born just as we were beginning about how variables are linked, and the mechan- the early phases of analysis, which meant that we ics and aesthetics of crafting a story line. The were ‘‘experiencing our own transition to parent- dialectical relationship between induction and hood at the same time that we were trying to deduction was also discussed to underscore the understand the experiences of others’’ (p. 12). importance of incorporating constructivism in Without a doubt, becoming parents in the midst GTM thinking. of the project influenced how we approached the In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser interviews. How could it not? and Strauss (1967) said that generating theory was both an ‘‘exciting adventure’’ and funda- mentally necessary (p. 8). They were right. The CONCLUSION creation of theory can be an exhilarating experi- A number of criteria may be used to assess ence for those of us who do research; but it is, qualitative research. Theoretical development is first and foremost, a responsibility to the public often at or near the top. The National Science that we serve. In the end, we must do it; and we Foundation offered a series of recommendations must do it well. for writing qualitative research proposals. Among the items listed were ‘‘articulate the the- oretical contribution the research promises to NOTE make’’ and ‘‘describe a strategy to refine the This project was supported by a grant from the Department concepts and construct theory’’ (Ragin et al., of Sociology, Georgia State University. The author appreci- 2004, p. 17). The editors of the Journal of Con- ates the feedback received from Dawn M. Baunach, Jane F. temporary Ethnography , outlining what Gilgun, Maureen Mulligan LaRossa, Cynthia B. Sinha, ‘‘readers and reviewers should take into consid- Phyllis Noerager Stern, and Mindy Stombler. eration when evaluating the quality and contri- bution of a piece of ethnography,’’ said that the REFERENCES most important element was to ‘‘have a clear conceptual or theoretical significance’’ (Adler & Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). The demography of Adler, 1995, p. 21). A similar point was ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnogra- made about qualitative manuscripts submitted phy, 24, 3–29. to the Journal of Marriage and Family: ‘‘They Ambert, A.-M., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., & Detzner, should challenge or enlarge an existing theory D. F. (1995). Understanding and evaluating quali- or strike out in a new direction with new the- tative research. Journal of Marriage and the ory’’ (Ambert et al., 1995, p. 884). Family, 57, 879–893. This is not to say that qualitative work has to Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. N. (1992). Method be theoretical. Qualitative research can be de- slurring: The grounded theory/phenomenology 856 Journal of Marriage and Family

example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1355– Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and 1360. research design: Choosing among five traditions. Becker, H. S. (1986). Writing for social scientists: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. How to start and finish your thesis, book, or arti- Cuber, J. F., & Harroff, P. (1965). The significant cle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Americans: A study of sexual behavior among the Bengtson, V., Acock, A., Allen, K., Dilworth- affluent. New York: Appleton-Century. Anderson, P., & Klein, D. (Eds.). (2005a). Source- Daly, K. (1997). Re-placing theory in ethnography: A book of family theory and research: An interactive postmodern view. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 343–365. approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davis, F. (1974). Stories and sociology. Urban Life Bengtson, V., Acock, A., Allen, K., Dilworth- and Culture, 3, 310–316. Anderson, P., & Klein, D. (2005b). Theories and Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guide- theorizing in family research: Puzzle building lines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic and puzzle solving. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, Press. K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research: Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: Univer- An interactive approach (pp. 3–33). Thousand sity of Chicago Press. Oaks, CA: Sage. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume Berger, P. L., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the 1, an introduction. New York: Random House. construction of reality: An exercise in the micro- Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social con- sociology of knowledge. Diogenes, 46, 1–25. structionism. London: Sage. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social Gilgun, J. F. (1999). Methodological pluralism and construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology qualitative family research. In M. B. Sussman, of knowledge. New York: Anchor/Doubleday. S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Hand- Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: book of marriage and the family (2nd ed., pp. Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 219–261). New York: Plenum. Prentice-Hall. Gilgun, J. F. (2001). Grounded theory and other Boss, P., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., inductive research methods. In B. Thyer (Ed.), & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.). (1993). Sourcebook of Handbook of social work research methods (pp. family theories and methods: A contextual 345–364). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. approach. New York: Plenum. Gilgun, J. F. (2005). Deductive qualitative analysis Burr, W. R., Hill, R., Nye, F. I., & Reiss, I. L. (Eds.). and family theory building. In V. Bengtson, (1979a). Contemporary theories about the family A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. (Vol. 1). New York: Free Press. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and Burr, W. R., Hill, R., Nye, F. I., & Reiss, I. L. (Eds.). research: An interactive approach (pp. 83–84). (1979b). Contemporary theories about the family Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Vol. 2). New York: Free Press. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering chronic illness: method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, Using grounded theory. Social Science and Medi- 12, 436–445. cine, 30, 1161–1172. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory anal- Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27–49). ysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. London: Sage. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1964). Awareness con- Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and texts and social interaction. American Sociological constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Association, 29, 669–679. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded research. Chicago: Aldine. theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Sym- Griswold, W. (1994). Cultures and societies in a chang- bolic Interaction, 26, 553–576. ing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, paradigms in qualitative research: Theories and is- CA: Sage. sues. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Grounded Theory Methods 857

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hage, J. (1972). Techniques and problems of theory Schatzman, L. (1991). Dimensional analysis: Notes construction in sociology. New York: Wiley. on an alternative approach to the grounding of the- Hopper, J. (1993). The rhetoric of motives in divorce. ory in qualitative research. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 801–813. Social organization and social process: Essays in Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 303–314). New sources: An introduction to historical methods. York: Aldine de Gruyter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Seale, C. (2005). Using computers to analyse qualita- LaRossa, R. (1977). Conflict and power in marriage: tive data. In D. Silverman, Doing qualitative Expecting the first child. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. research (2nd ed., pp. 188–208). London: Sage. LaRossa, R. (1995). Stories and relationships. Soulliere, D., Britt, D. W., & Maines, D. R. (2001). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, Conceptual modeling as a toolbox for grounded 553–558. theorists. Sociological Quarterly, 42, 253–269. LaRossa, R., & LaRossa, M. M. (1981). Transition Stern, P. N. (1980). Grounded theory methodology: to parenthood: How infants change families. Bev- Its use and processes. Image: The Journal of Nurs- erly Hills, CA: Sage. ing Scholarship, 12, 20–23. LaRossa, R., & Wolf, J. H. (1985). On qualitative Stern, P. N. (1994). Eroding grounded theory. In family research. Journal of Marriage and the Fam- J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative ily, 47, 531–541. research methods (pp. 212–223). Thousand Oaks, Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of CA: Sage. grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Man- Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social agement Inquiry, 5, 239–245. scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded the- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990a). Basics of qualitative ory and organizational research. Journal of Applied research: Techniques and procedures for develop- Behavioral Science, 22, 141–157. ing grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McMahon, M. (1995). Engendering motherhood: Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990b). Grounded theory Identity and self-transformation in women’s lives. research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative crite- New York: Guilford Press. ria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3–21. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded University of Chicago Press. theory in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Melia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser. Qualita- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative tive Health Research, 6, 368–378. research: Techniques and procedures for develop- Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated actions and vocabular- ing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, ies of motives. American Sociological Review, 5, CA: Sage. 904–913. Street corner society revisited. (1992, April). Journal National Institutes of Health. (2001). Qualitative of Contemporary Ethnography, 21(special issue), methods in health research: Opportunities and 3–132. considerations in application and review. Bethes- Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing da, MD: Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Research, National Institutes of Health. Vaughan, D. (1986). Uncoupling: How relationships Orona, C. (1997). Temporality and identity loss due come apart. New York: Oxford University Press. to Alzheimer’s disease. In A. Strauss & J. Corbin West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gen- (Eds.), Grounded theory in practice (pp. 171– der. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151. 196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Methodo- Prus, R. (1987). Generic social processes: Maximizing logic mistakes in grounded theory. Nursing conceptual development in ethnographic research. Research, 45, 122–124. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 250–293. Zerubavel, E. (1979). Patterns of time in hospital life. Ragin, C. C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (2004). Workshop Chicago: University of Chicago Press. on scientific foundations of qualitative research. Zerubavel, E. (1991). The fine line: Making distinc- Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. tions in everyday life. New York: Free Press. Richardson, L. (1988). Secrecy and status: The social Zerubavel, E. (1997). Social mindscapes: An invita- construction of forbidden relationships. American tion to cognitive sociology. Cambridge, MA: Har- Sociological Review, 53, 209–219. vard University Press.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Grounded theory, mixed...

Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research

• Related content
• Peer review
• Lorelei Lingard , associate professor and BMO Financial Group professor in health professions education research 1 ,
• Mathieu Albert , assistant professor 2 ,
• Wendy Levinson , Sir John and Lady Eaton professor and chair and physician in chief, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre 3
• 1 SickKids Learning Institute and Department of Paediatrics and Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, 200 Elizabeth Street, Eaton South 1-565, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4
• 2 Department of Psychiatry and Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto
• 3 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto
• Correspondence to: L Lingard lorelei.lingard{at}utoronto.ca

These commonly used methods are appropriate for particular research questions and contexts

Qualitative research includes a variety of methodological approaches with different disciplinary origins and tools. This article discusses three commonly used approaches: grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. It provides background for those who will encounter these methodologies in their reading rather than instructions for carrying out such research. We describe the appropriate uses, key characteristics, and features of rigour of each approach.

Grounded theory: what is it and when is it used?

Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss.[1] Its main thrust is to generate theories regarding social phenomena: that is, to develop higher level understanding that is “grounded” in, or derived from, a systematic analysis of data. Grounded theory is appropriate when the study of social interactions or experiences aims to explain a process, not to test or verify an existing theory. Researchers approach the question with disciplinary interests, background assumptions (sometimes called “sensitising concepts”[2]) and an acquaintance with the literature in the domain, but they neither develop nor test hypotheses. Rather, the theory emerges through a close and careful analysis of the data.

What are the key features of grounded theory?

Key features of grounded theory are its iterative study design, theoretical (purposive) sampling, and system of analysis.[3] An iterative study design entails cycles of simultaneous data collection and analysis, where analysis informs the next cycle of data collection. In a study of the experience of caring for a dying family member, for instance, preliminary analysis of interviews with family care providers may suggesta theme of “care burdens,” and this theme could be refined by interviewing participants who are at variouspoints in the care trajectory, who might offer different perspectives. Analysis of the subsequent phase of data collection will lead to further adaptations of the data collection process to refine and complicate the emerging theory of care burdens. In keeping with this …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

• Correspondence
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2011

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

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

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

387k Accesses

207 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

Study background

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

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

Designing this grounded theory study

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

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

A. An open beginning and research questions

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

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

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

How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

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

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

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

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

Initial Interviews

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

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

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

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

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

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

Memo-writing

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quality of this grounded theory study

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

During data collection

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

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

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

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

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

During data analysis

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

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

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

Answering our research questions

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

Concluding remarks

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

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

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

Abbreviations

grounded theory methods

Monitor Dental Practice Program

New South Wales

Randomized Controlled Trial.

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-publication history

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter & Anthony Blinkhorn

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, R Wendell Evans & Anthony Blinkhorn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Sbaraini .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

Electronic supplementary material

12874_2011_640_moesm1_esm.doc.

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM2_ESM.DOC

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM3_ESM.DOC

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

Authors’ original submitted files for images

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

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2011

Accepted : 09 September 2011

Published : 09 September 2011

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• qualitative research
• grounded theory
• methodology
• dental care

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research.

Chat with Paper

Content maybe subject to  copyright     Report

“Trabajando Duro Todos Los Días”: Learning From the Life Experiences of Mexican‐Origin Migrant Families*

Mothering through recruitment: kinscription of nonresidential fathers and father figures in low-income families*, a sociohistorical analysis of gay men's procreative consciousness, public information advertisements: māori perspectives, maternal distress and parenting in the context of cumulative disadvantage, discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, the discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research., basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, symbolic interactionism: perspective and method, mind, self, and society, related papers (5), basics of qualitative research : grounded theory procedures and techniques, qualitative analysis for social scientists, the discovery of grounded theory, qualitative research and evaluation methods.

• 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

Symmetric Histogram – Examples and Making Guide

Regression Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Probability Histogram – Definition, Examples and...

Inferential Statistics – Types, Methods and...

Uniform Histogram – Purpose, Examples and Guide

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

Barbo Geneveave 1 *

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp. 44-59

https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14888

OPEN ACCESS   65 Views   29 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

In recent years, numerous published calls to action from nurses and nursing scholars requested greater involvement and response to the health needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Youth refugees and asylum seekers have been particularly vulnerable to mental health difficulties and have experienced major barriers to mental health access. Grounded theory may be suitable to expand our understanding of this field, which could assist decision-makers, managers, healthcare providers, and researchers in developing policies and programs to address this wicked problem. This paper, therefore, reviews and examines grounded theory’s core components, history, types, ontology, epistemology, methodology, methods, strengths, limitations, utility to nursing inquiry, and potential in supporting mental health service research for youth refugees and asylum seekers.

Keywords: Asylum seekers, grounded theory, mental health care, nursing, refugees

• Asadi, M., Ahmadi, F., Mohammadi, E., & Vaismoradi, M. (2024). A grounded theory of the implementation of medical orders by clinical nurses. BMC Nursing , 23 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01775-6
• Belfrage, C., & Hauf, F. (2017). The gentle art of retroduction: Critical realism, cultural political economy and critical grounded theory. Organization Studies , 38 (2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616663239
• Benoliel, J. Q. (1996). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research , 6 (3), 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600308
• Betancourt, T. S., Frounfelker, R., Mishra, T., Hussein, A., & Falzarano, R. (2015). Addressing health disparities in the mental health of refugee children and adolescents through community-based participatory research: A study in 2 communities. American Journal of Public Health , 105 (S3), S475–S482. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302504
• Block, K., Warr, D., Gibbs, L., & Riggs, E. (2013). Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: Reflections from the field. Journal of Refugee Studies , 26 (1), 69–87. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fes002
• Campbell, K., Harris, F., & Stoddart, K. (2022). The hematology cancer patient experience of “Facing Death” in the last year of life: A constructivist grounded theory study. Cancer Nursing , Publish Ahead of Print , 47 (2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000001180
• Cathro, H. (2016). Navigating through chaos: Charge nurses and patient safety. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration , 46 (4), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000326
• Charmaz, K. (1990). ‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine , 30 (11), 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . SAGE Publications.
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory . SAGE Publications.
• Charmaz, K. (2020). “With constructivist grounded theory you can’t hide”: Social justice research and critical inquiry in the public sphere. Qualitative Inquiry , 26 (2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419879081
• Chen, B., Zhu, H., Fu, H., Han, Q., & Chen, L. (2024). A qualitative study on the willingness and influencing factors of master of geriatric nursing specialist postgraduates to volunteer for home respite care for disabled elderly families. BMC Nursing , 23 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01710-9
• Clark, K., Rödlach, A., Ballesteros, M., Davis, R., Holmes, L., Miller, J., Minnich, M., & Schultz, A. (2024). The role of Doctor of Nursing practice programs’ mission, vision, and values statements in the development of students’ professional identity: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today , 134 , Article 106096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106096
• Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction , 26 (4), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553
• Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn . SAGE Publications.
• Clarke, A. E., Washburn, R., & Friese, C. (2022). Situational analysis in practice: Mapping relationalities across disciplines . Routledge.
• Connor, J., Flenady, T., Dwyer, T., & Massey, D. (2023). Application of classic grounded theory in nursing studies: A qualitative systematic review protocol. BMJ Open , 13 (7), Article e068588. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068588
• Corbin, J., & Holt, N. L. (2005). Grounded theory. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 49–55). SAGE Publications.
• Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches , 2 , 53–80.
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches . SAGE publications.
• Dastjerdi, M., Olson, K., & Ogilvie, L. (2012). A study of Iranian immigrants’ experiences of accessing Canadian health care services: A grounded theory. International Journal for Equity in Health , 11 (1), Article 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-11-55
• De Chesnay, M. (2014). Nursing research using grounded theory: Qualitative designs and methods in nursing . Springer.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research . SAGE Publications.
• Drgac, D., & Himmelsbach, R. (2023). Acts of negotiation: Toward a grounded theory of nursing practice in chronic wound care in Austria. BMC Health Services Research , 23 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10276-2
• Duchscher, J. B., & Morgan, D. (2004). Grounded theory: Reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 48 (6), 605–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03249.x
• Edge, S., Newbold, K. B., & McKeary, M. (2014). Exploring socio-cultural factors that mediate, facilitate, and constrain the health and empowerment of refugee youth. Social Science & Medicine , 117 , 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.025
• Filler, T. (2018). Addressing Syrian refugee adolescents’ mental health and wellbeing: Youth-informed policy implications. INYI Journal , 9 (1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.25071/1929-8471.34
• Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Qualitative Social Research , 3 (3), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.825
• Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2007). Doing formal theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 96–113). SAGE Publications.
• Glaser, B. G. (2009). Jargonizing: Using the grounded theory vocabulary . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2011). Getting out of the data: Grounded theory conceptualization . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G. (2012). Stop, write: B writing grounded theory . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory . Aldine Transaction.
• Griswold, K., Scates, J., & Kadhum, A. (2020). Transforming well-being for refugees and their communities: Perspectives from medicine, nursing, education, and social work. In K. H. Smith & P. K. Ram (Eds.), Transforming Global Health: Interdisciplinary Challenges, Perspectives, and Strategies (pp. 35–50). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32112-3_3
• Hadley, G. (2019). Critical grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory (pp. 564–592). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526485656.n30
• Hense, C., & McFerran, K. S. (2016). Toward a critical grounded theory. Qualitative Research Journal , 16 (4), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-08-2015-0073
• Higgins, P. A., & Moore, S. (2000). Levels of theoretical thinking in nursing. Nursing Outlook , 48 (4), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1067/mno.2000.105248
• Honan, D. M., Rohatinsky, N., & Lasiuk, G. (2023). How do registered nurses understand followership? Canadian Journal of Nursing Research , 55 (4), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/08445621231173793
• Hussein, M., Hirst, S., Salyers, V., & Osuji, J. (2014). Using grounded theory as a method of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19 (27), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1209
• Kadir, A., Battersby, A., Spencer, N., & Hjern, A. (2019). Children on the move in Europe: A narrative review of the evidence on the health risks, health needs and health policy for asylum seeking, refugee and undocumented children. BMJ Paediatrics Open , 3 (1), Article e000364. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2018-000364
• Levers, M.-J. D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open , 3 (4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243
• Malik, E., & Shankar, S. (2023). Empowering nurses: Exploring self-managed organizations in Indian healthcare. BMC Nursing , 22 (1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01647-5
• Marshall, E. A., Butler, K., Roche, T., Cumming, J., & Taknint, J. T. (2016). Refugee youth: A review of mental health counselling issues and practices. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne , 57 (4), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000068
• McCrae, N., & Purssell, E. (2016). Is it really theoretical? A review of sampling in grounded theory studies in nursing journals. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 72 (10), 2284–2293. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12986
• McGough, S., Wynaden, D., & Wright, M. (2018). Experience of providing cultural safety in mental health to Aboriginal patients: A grounded theory study. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing , 27 (1), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12310
• Mediani, H. S. (2017). An introduction to classical grounded theory. SOJ Nursing & Health Care , 3 (3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.15226/2471-6529/3/3/00135
• Milhomme, D., Gagnon, J., & Lechasseur, K. (2018). The clinical surveillance process as carried out by expert nurses in a critical care context: A theoretical explanation. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing , 44 , 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2017.07.010
• Pacquiao, D. F. (2008). Nursing care of vulnerable populations using a framework of cultural competence, social justice and human rights. Contemporary Nurse , 28 (1–2), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.673.28.1-2.189
• Paradis-Gagné, E., Holmes, D., Bernheim, E., & Cader, M. (2023). The judiciarization of people living with mental illness: A grounded theory on the perceptions of persons involuntary admitted in psychiatric institution. Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 44 (12), 1200–1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2023.2265468
• Rieger, K. L. (2019). Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nursing Inquiry , 26 (1), Article e12261. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12261
• Santos, J. L. G. dos, Erdmann, A. L., Sousa, F. G. M. de, Lanzoni, G. M. de M., Melo, A. L. S. F. de, & Leite, J. L. (2016). Methodological perspectives in the use of grounded theory in nursing and health research. Escola Anna Nery - Revista de Enfermagem, 20 (3), Article e20160056. https://doi.org/10.5935/1414-8145.20160056
• Schlegel, E. C., Pickler, R. H., Tate, J. A., Williams, K. P., & Smith, L. H. (2024). The EMeRGE theory of emerging adult-aged women’s sexual and reproductive health self-management: A grounded theory study. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 80 (2), 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15814
• Schreiber, R. S., & Stern, P. N. (2001). Using grounded theory in nursing . Springer.
• Sebastian, K. (2019). Distinguishing between the strains grounded theory: Classical, interpretive and constructivist. Journal for Social Thought , 3 (1), Article 1.
• Sharrock, J., & Happell, B. (2006). Competence in providing mental health care: A grounded theory analysis of nurses’ experiences. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing , 24 (2), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.403354596630410
• Silva, Í. R., Leite, J. L., Trevizan, M. A., Silva, T. P. da, & José, S. A. P. (2017). Connections between research and health care assistance: emerging challenges for science, innovation and technology in nursing. Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem , 26 , Article e2470016. https://www.scielo.br/j/tce/a/LTjb9xXrNFCYqTGjDDnXqvM/?lang=en
• Singh, S., & Estefan, A. (2018). Selecting a grounded theory approach for nursing research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research , 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393618799571
• Skyvell Nilsson, M., Gadolin, C., Larsman, P., Pousette, A., & Törner, M. (2024). The role of perceived organizational support for nurses’ ability to handle and resolve ethical value conflicts: A mixed methods study. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 80 (2), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15889
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). SAGE Publications.
• Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Thorne, S. (2020). The great saturation debate: What the “S word” means and doesn’t mean in qualitative research reporting. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research , 52 (1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0844562119898554
• Urcia, I. A. (2021). Comparisons of adaptations in grounded theory and phenomenology: Selecting the specific qualitative research methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 20 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211045474
• Walsh, S., Jones, M., Bressington, D., McKenna, L., Brown, E., Terhaag, S., Shrestha, M., Al-Ghareeb, A., & Gray, R. (2020). Adherence to COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative research: A scientometric study in nursing social science. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 19, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920982145
• Williams, A. M. (1998). The delivery of quality nursing care: A grounded theory study of the nurse’s perspective. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 27 (4), 808–816. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00590.x
• Wilson, R. L., Atem, J. M., Gumuskaya, O., Lavadas, M., Šošić, B., & Urek, M. (2022). A call for nurses and interdisciplinary collaborators to urgently respond to the health and well-being needs of refugees across the world. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 78 (3), e52–e61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15134
• Winqvist, I., Näppä, U., Rönning, H., & Häggström, M. (2023). Reducing risks in complex care transitions in rural areas: A grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-Being , 18 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2023.2185964
• Winters, N. (2016). Seeking status: The process of becoming and remaining an emergency nurse. Journal of Emergency Nursing , 42 (5), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2015.10.023
• Wuest, J. (1995). Feminist grounded theory: An exploration of the congruency and tensions between two traditions in knowledge discovery. Qualitative Health Research , 5 (1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500109
• Wuest, J. (2012). Grounded theory: The method. In P. Munhall (Ed.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 225–256). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Extract insights from Customer & Employee Interviews. At Scale.

Advanced research design methods for qualitative research.

Home » Advanced Research Design Methods for Qualitative Research

Innovative qualitative methodologies are reshaping the way researchers approach data collection and analysis. As the demand for deeper insights grows, these methodologies offer fresh perspectives, empowering researchers to capture complex human experiences. Traditional qualitative techniques often focus solely on interviews and focus groups; however, integrating innovative methodologies can elevate research design significantly.

By incorporating techniques like participatory research, digital ethnography, and narrative inquiry, researchers can explore diverse participant viewpoints. These methodologies not only enhance data richness but also foster engagement. As researchers adopt innovative qualitative methodologies, they pave the way for more authentic insights, ultimately driving meaningful outcomes in their projects.

Mixed-Methods Approaches in Innovative Qualitative Methodologies

Mixed-methods approaches integrate both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. This combination enhances the richness of data and offers a more comprehensive understanding of research questions. By utilizing innovative qualitative methodologies, researchers can capture diverse perspectives while validating their findings through statistical data.

In mixed-methods research, several key components stand out. First, triangulation strengthens the credibility of results by cross-verifying data from multiple sources. Next, the sequential explanatory design allows researchers to follow up qualitative insights with quantitative data, enhancing overall clarity. Finally, the concurrent triangulation design enables simultaneous data collection, ensuring a thorough exploration of the topic at hand. Employing these strategies within innovative qualitative methodologies not only deepens the analysis but also broadens the implications of the research, paving the way for more informed decision-making and effective problem-solving.

Combining Ethnography and Case Studies

Combining ethnography and case studies provides a robust framework for qualitative research, marrying the depth of cultural understanding with the focused examination of specific events or phenomena. Ethnography immerses researchers in the daily lives of participants, enabling them to capture nuanced perspectives. This observational approach brings forth contextual knowledge crucial for interpreting behaviors and interactions.

In contrast, case studies concentrate on particular instances or decisions within a broader context, allowing for in-depth analysis of specific scenarios. When combined, these two methods create a comprehensive analytical lens. Researchers gain the ability to examine individuals' lived experiences while simultaneously evaluating the variables that influence those experiences. This synergy enhances the research process, making it an innovative qualitative methodology that generates richer insights and a deeper understanding of complex social phenomena.

Integrating Grounded Theory with Narrative Analysis

Integrating grounded theory with narrative analysis offers an innovative qualitative methodology that enhances the understanding of complex social phenomena. Grounded theory focuses on developing theories grounded in empirical data, while narrative analysis emphasizes the importance of personal stories in shaping human experience. By merging these two approaches, researchers can uncover deeper meanings and patterns within individual narratives, illuminating how stories resonate within broader socio-cultural contexts.

This integration allows for a comprehensive exploration of how experiences are constructed and interpreted. Researchers might follow several key steps: first, collect narratives through interviews or other means; next, analyze these narratives for recurring themes and constructs; finally, relate these findings back to grounded theoretical frameworks. This combination leads to rich insights and enhances the depth of qualitative research, showcasing the ability of innovative qualitative methodologies to unveil intricate relationships between personal experience and theoretical understanding.

Advanced Techniques in Data Collection

Advanced Techniques in data collection focus on enhancing qualitative research through innovative methodologies. Utilizing these methodologies allows researchers to gather nuanced insights in more creative and effective ways. One prominent approach involves using digital tools to create comprehensive datasets that inform better decision-making. For instance, employing journey maps can visually illustrate participant experiences, uncovering pain points and opportunities for improvement in various services.

Additionally, the use of personas derived from data can help researchers frame questions that yield richer, more contextual responses. This method empowers researchers to ask specific inquiries related to the personas' characteristics, leading to deeper understanding. Tailoring data collection strategies based on these advanced techniques significantly improves the quality and relevance of qualitative data, enhancing the overall research process. Through these practices, researchers not only collect data but also engage meaningfully with the participants, yielding valuable perspectives that drive innovation in research design.

Utilizing Digital Tools for Enhanced Data Capture

Digital tools have revolutionized the way researchers capture and analyze qualitative data. By integrating software solutions designed for text, audio, and video analysis, researchers can enhance their data collection process significantly. These innovative qualitative methodologies streamline the tasks of transcription and reporting, allowing teams to focus their efforts on critical insights rather than getting lost in manual data handling.

One notable advantage of utilizing digital tools is the efficiency they bring. Researchers can automate repetitive tasks, significantly reducing the time spent on analysis. Furthermore, many digital platforms incorporate AI-driven features to minimize biases that can skew results. To truly harness the potential of these tools, researchers should explore multiple functionalities, such as real-time collaboration and integrated data visualization. Engaging with these features not only improves data capture but also enriches the overall quality of qualitative research outcomes. Thus, employing digital tools in qualitative research isn't merely beneficial; it's becoming essential for success.

Applying Visual and Arts-Based Methods in Research

Visual and arts-based methods offer a unique lens through which researchers can gather rich, nuanced data. These innovative qualitative methodologies encourage participants to express their perspectives through various art forms, such as drawing, photography, or performance. This creative approach fosters deeper emotional connections, allowing researchers to uncover layers of meaning that may be missed in traditional interviews. Ultimately, engaging with visual and arts-based methods invites participants to communicate their experiences in ways that resonate more profoundly.

When applying these methods, consider three essential techniques: visual storytelling, participatory art projects, and collaborative exhibitions. Visual storytelling enables participants to narrate their experiences through imagery, which can prompt unexpected insights. Participatory art projects invite community involvement, creating a space for shared dialogue and reflection. Lastly, collaborative exhibitions cultivate an environment where participants can showcase their work, promoting wider engagement with their lived experiences. By harnessing these approaches, researchers create a dynamic atmosphere for exploration, empowering participants to convey their stories in transformative ways.

Conclusion: The Future of Innovative Qualitative Methodologies

The future of innovative qualitative methodologies is bright and full of potential. Researchers are increasingly integrating technology to enhance their qualitative research, making data collection and analysis more accessible. By utilizing advanced tools, even those without extensive experience can contribute insightful qualitative findings, thus broadening the research community and its scope.

As we advance, the emphasis will shift towards methodologies that emphasize participant voices and experiences. Innovative qualitative methodologies will likely focus on inclusivity, enabling diverse perspectives to shape research narratives. This evolution promises richer insights, allowing researchers to address complex societal issues more effectively while fostering a stronger connection between research outcomes and real-world applications.

Turn interviews into actionable insights

On this Page

Steps for Identifying Qualitative Research Type of Data Collected

You may also like, comprehensive approaches to qualitative study analysis.

How to Build a Research Design Sample for Qualitative Research

Mastering the role of researcher in qualitative research.

Unlock Insights from Interviews 10x faster

• Request demo
• Get started for free

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Investigating the effectiveness of endogenous and exogenous drivers of the sustainability (re)orientation of family smes in slovenia: qualitative content analysis approach.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. legal framework on sustainable corporate governance (with a focus on smes), 2.1.1. corporate sustainability reporting directive, 2.1.2. corporate sustainability due diligence directive, 2.1.3. scope of the csddd for smes, 2.2. drivers of the family businesses’ (re)orientation towards sustainability, 2.3. endogenous drivers, 2.3.1. the protection of sew, 2.3.2. ownership and management composition, 2.3.3. values, beliefs and attitudes of family owner-managers, 2.3.4. transgenerational continuity and long-term orientation, 2.3.5. knowledge of sustainability, 2.4. exogenous drivers, 2.4.1. stakeholders pressure, 2.4.2. the impact of institutional environment and local communities, 3. empirical research, 3.1. institutional context of slovenia, 3.2. research method, 3.3. sampling and data collection, 3.4. data analysis, 4.1. results of the final coding of the family businesses’ sustainability (re)orientation, 4.2. references to responsibility, preserving (natural) environment and sustainability/sustainable development in the analysed statements, 4.3. family businesses with a higher level of sustainability awareness and orientation, 5. discussion, 5.1. sustainability awareness and readiness of investigated family smes to comply with the new eu legal framework, 5.2. the effectiveness of endogenous and exogenous drivers of family businesses’ sustainability (re)orientation, 6. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of The Regions, An SME Strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe, COM/2020/103 final. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2020%3A103%3AFIN (accessed on 25 June 2024).
• Al Malki, M.A. Review of Sustainable Growth challenges faced by Small and Medium Enterprises. Int. J. Glob. Acad. Sci. Res. 2023 , 2 , 35–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Parliament and the Council. Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC, and Directive 2013/34/EU. OJ L 322, 16.12.2022, 15–80. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464 (accessed on 21 August 2024).
• Fogarty, V.; Flucker, S. Sustainability. In Data Centre Essentials: Design, Construction, and Operation of Data Centres for the Non-expert ; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Primec, A.; Belak, J. Sustainable CSR: Legal and Managerial Demands of the New EU Legislation (CSRD) for the Future Corporate Governance Practices. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 16648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Umantsiv, H. Reporting on sustainable development in the context of corporate social responsibility. Cientia Ructuosa 2023 , 149 , 59–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Parliament and the Council. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CONSIL:PE_9_2024_REV_1 (accessed on 25 June 2024).
• Proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937. COM/2022/71 final. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0071 (accessed on 29 June 2024).
• Sørensen, K.E. Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence in Groups of Companies. Eur. Co. Law 2022 , 19 , 119–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arena, C.; Michelon, G. A matter of control or identity? Family firms’ environmental reporting decisions along the corporate life cycle. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018 , 27 , 1596–1608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dekker, J.; Hasso, T. Environmental Performance Focus in Private Family Firms: The Role of Social Embeddedness. J. Bus. Ethics 2016 , 136 , 293–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, P.; Sharma, S. The Role of Family Firms in Corporate Sustainability. In The Oxford Handbook of Management Ideas ; Sturdy, A., Hueskinveld, S., Reay, T., Strang, D., Eds.; Oxford Handbooks Online: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 1–18. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/44598484/The_Role_of_Family_Firms_in_Corporate_Sustainability (accessed on 10 October 2023).
• European Family Business Barometer. EFB and KPMG Enterprise. Available online: http://www.europeanfamilybusinesses.eu/uploads/Modules/Publications/european-family-business-barometer7ed.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
• Report on family businesses in Europe. Brussel: Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0290_EN.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2024).
• Berrone, P.; Cruz, C.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R.; Larraza-Kintana, M. Socioemotional Wealth and Corporate Responses to Institutional Pressures: Do Family-Controlled Firms Pollute Less? Adm. Sci. Q. 2010 , 55 , 82–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Canavati, S. Corporate social performance in family firms: A meta-analysis. J. Fam. Bus. Manag. 2018 , 8 , 235–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dyer, W.G.; Whetten, D.A. Family Firms and Social Responsibility: Preliminary Evidence from the S&P 500. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006 , 30 , 785–802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cruz, C.; Larraza-Kintana, M.; Garcés-Galdeano, L.; Berrone, P. Are Family Firms Really More Socially Responsible? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014 , 38 , 1295–1316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Le Breton-Miller, I.; Miller, D. Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2016 , 7 , 26–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Samara, G.; Jamalia, D.; Sierrac, V.; Paradab, M.J. Who are the best performers? The environmental social performance of family firms. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2018 , 9 , 33–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dal Maso, L.; Basco, R.; Bassetti, T.; Lattanzi, N. Family ownership and environmental performance: The mediation effect of human resource practices. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020 , 29 , 1548–1562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dou, J.; Su, E.; Wang, S. When Does Family Ownership Promote Proactive Environmental Strategy? The Role of the Firm’s Long-Term Orientation. J. Bus. Ethics 2019 , 158 , 81–95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graafland, J. Family business ownership and cleaner production: Moderation by company size and family management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 255 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miroshnychenko, I.; De Massis, A.; Barontini, R.; Testa, F. Family Firms and Environmental Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2022 , 35 , 68–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Gils, A.; Dibrell, C.; Neubaum, D.O.; Craig, J.B. Social Issues in the Family Enterprise. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2014 , 27 , 193–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, J.; Fairclough, S.; Dibrell, C. Attention, Action, and Greenwash in Family-Influenced Firms? Evidence From Polluting Industries. Organ. Environ. 2017 , 30 , 304–323. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, P.; Sharma, S. Drivers of Proactive Environmental Strategy in Family Firms. Bus. Ethics Q. 2011 , 21 , 309–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roxas, B.; Coetzer, A. Institutional Environment, Managerial Attitudes and Environmental Sustainability Orientation of Small Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2012 , 111 , 461–476. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vourvachis, P.; Woodward, T. Content analysis in social and environmental reporting research: Trends and challenges. J. Appl. Account. Res. 2015 , 16 , 166–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eriksson, P.; Kovalainen, A. Qualitative Methods in Business Research , 2nd ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oak, CA, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreier, M. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice ; SAGE: London, UK, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Antončič, B.; Auer Antončič, J.; Juričič, D. Družinsko Podjetništvo: Značilnosti v Sloveniji (Family Entrepreneurship: Characteristics in Slovenia) ; EY: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berrone, P.; Cruz, C.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Socioemotional Wealth in Family Firms: Theoretical Dimensions, Assessment Approaches, and Agenda for Future Research. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2012 , 25 , 258–279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gómez-Mejía, L.R.; Takács Haynes, K.; Núñez-Nickel, M.; Jacobson, K.J.L.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. Socioemotional Wealth and Business Risks in Family-controlled Firms: Evidence from Spanish Olive Oil Mills. Adm. Sci. Q. 2007 , 52 , 106–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darnall, N.; Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. Adopting Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and Firm Size. J. Manag. Stud. 2010 , 47 , 1072–1094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gómez-Mejía, L.R.; Cruz, C.; Berrone, P.; De Castro, J. The Bind that Ties: Socioemotional Wealth Preservation in Family Firms. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2011 , 5 , 653–707. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Studdert, J.; Govender, V.; Spies, J.; Jarque Branguli, M.; Nievas, S.; Roca Silva, M.F.; Zhu, W.; Diebschlag, P.; Sassine, R.; Cilliers, W.; et al. United Nations Global Compact. Available online: https://unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles (accessed on 17 March 2024).
• Primec, A.; Tičar, B. A new challenge in corporate governance—the new legal regulation of nonfinancial reporting. In Recent Challenges in Corporate Governance ; Bohinc, R., Ed.; Fakulteta za družbene vede, Založba FDV: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2023; pp. 91–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Primec, A. Nefinančno poročanje kot pravni institut za vzpostavljanje korporativne družbene odgovornosti. Podjet. Delo 2023 , 6–7 , 1231–1240. Available online: https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-MF5DYSLE (accessed on 21 August 2024).
• Pacces, A.M. Civil Liability in the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Proposal: A Law & Economics Analysis. European Corporate Governance Institute - Law Working Paper No. 691/2023, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2023-14, Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 2023-02. Forthcoming in Ondernemingsrecht. [ CrossRef ]
• Delmas, M.A.; Gergaud, O. Sustainable Certification for Future Generations: The Case of Family Business. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2014 , 27 , 228–243. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bingham, J.B.; Dyer, W.G., Jr.; Smith, I.; Adams, G.L. A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2010 , 99 , 565–585. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cennamo, C.; Berrone, P.; Cruz, C.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Socioemotional Wealth and Proactive Stakeholder Engagement: Why Family-Controlled Firms Care More About Their Stakeholders. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2012 , 36 , 1153–1173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duh, M.; Tominc, P. Pomen, značilnosti in prihodnost družinskih podjetij (Importance, characteristics and future of family businesses). In Slovenski Podjetniški Observatorij 2004 , 2nd ed.; Rebernik, M., Tominc, P., Duh, M., Krošlin, T., Radonjič, G., Eds.; Inštitut za podjetništvo in management malih podjetij, Ekonomsko-poslovna fakulteta, Univerza v Mariboru: Maribor, Slovenia, 2005; pp. 19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mandl, I. Overview of Family Business Relevant Issues. Final Report, Austrian Institute for SME Research: Vienna. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/10389/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native (accessed on 1 February 2023).
• Sachs, J.D.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. Sustainable Development Report 2021: Includes the SDG Index and Dashboards ; The Decade of Action for the Sustainable Development Goal; SDSN, Bertelsmann Stiftung, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sachs, J.D.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G. The SDGs and the UN Summit of the Future. Sustainable Development Report 2024 ; SDSN: Paris, France; Dublin University Press: Dublin, Ireland, 2024. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UMAR. Poročilo o Razvoju 2023 (Report on Development 2023). Ljubljana: Urad RS za Makroekonomske Analize in Razvoj. Available online: https://www.umar.gov.si/fileadmin/user_upload/razvoj_slovenije/2023/slovenski/POR2023-splet.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
• Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches ; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers, M.D. Qualitative Research in Business & Management ; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Massis, A.; Kotlar, A. The case study method in family business research: Guidelines for qualitative scholarship. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2014 , 5 , 15–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Campopiano, G.; De Massis, A. Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: A Content Analysis in Family and Nonfamily. J. Bus. Ethics 2015 , 129 , 511–534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Craig, J.; Dibrell, C. The Natural Environment, Innovation, and Firm Performance: A Comparative Study. Fam. Bus. Rev. 2006 , 19 , 275–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, P.; Chrisman, J.J.; Chua, J.H. Predictors of satisfaction with the succession process in family firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 2003 , 18 , 667–687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Whittingham, K.L.; Earle, A.G.; Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I.; Argiolas, A. The impact of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on corporate sustainability reporting. Bus. Res. Q. 2023 , 26 , 45–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cabrera-Suárez, K. Leadership transfer and the successor’s development in the family firm. Leadership Quarterly 2005 , 16 , 71–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rus, D.; Močnik, D.; Crnogaj, K. Podjetniška Demografija in Značilnosti Startup in Scaleup Podjetij: Slovenski Podjetniški Observatorij 2022 (Business Demographics and Characteristics of Startup and Scaleup Companies: Slovenian Entrepreneurship Observatory 2022) ; niverza v Mariboru, Univerzitetna založba: Maribor, Slovenia, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Data base of Slovenian exporters. Available online: https://www.sloexport.si/ (accessed on 30 August 2023).
• Bizi. Data base of financial and contact data of Slovenian companies. Available online: https://www.bizi.si/ (accessed on 30 August 2023).
• Family Business Slovenia 2019. Ljubljana: EY. Available online: https://www.ey.com/en_si/family-enterprise/familiy-business-book-slovenia-2019 (accessed on 30 November 2023).
• Family Business Slovenia 2020. Ljubljana: EY. Available online: https://www.ey.com/en_si/family-enterprise/family-business-book-slovenia-2021 (accessed on 30 November 2023).
• Family Business Slovenia 2021. Ljubljana: EY. Available online: https://www.ey.com/en_si/family-enterprise/family-business-book-slovenia-2020 (accessed on 30 November 2023).
• Payne, G.T.; Brigham, K.H.; Broberg, J.C.; Moss, T.W.; Short, J.C. Organizational Virtue Orientation and Family Firms. Bus. Ethics Q. 2011 , 21 , 257–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schreier, M. Qualitative Content Analysis. In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis ; Flick, U., Ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 170–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Müller-Stewens, G.; Lechner, C. Strategisches Management, 5. Auflage ; Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wheelen, T.L.; Hunger, J.D. Strategic Management and Business Policy. Toward Global Sustainability , 13th ed.; Prentice Hall, Pearson: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• WCED. Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2021).
• Sjåfjell, B. Reforming EU company law to secure the future of European business. Eur. Co. Financ. Law Rev. 2021 , 18 , 190–217. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Duh, M.; Primec, A. Investigating the Effectiveness of Endogenous and Exogenous Drivers of the Sustainability (Re)Orientation of Family SMEs in Slovenia: Qualitative Content Analysis Approach. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177285

Duh M, Primec A. Investigating the Effectiveness of Endogenous and Exogenous Drivers of the Sustainability (Re)Orientation of Family SMEs in Slovenia: Qualitative Content Analysis Approach. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177285

Duh, Mojca, and Andreja Primec. 2024. "Investigating the Effectiveness of Endogenous and Exogenous Drivers of the Sustainability (Re)Orientation of Family SMEs in Slovenia: Qualitative Content Analysis Approach" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7285. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177285

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals