how to write a grounded theory research proposal

• Correspondence
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2011

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

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

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

386k Accesses

206 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Peer Review reports

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

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

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

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

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

Study background

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

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

Designing this grounded theory study

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

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

A. An open beginning and research questions

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

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

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

How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

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

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

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

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

Initial Interviews

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

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

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

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

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

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

Memo-writing

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quality of this grounded theory study

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

During data collection

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

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

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

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

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

During data analysis

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

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

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

Answering our research questions

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

Concluding remarks

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

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

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

Abbreviations

grounded theory methods

Monitor Dental Practice Program

New South Wales

Randomized Controlled Trial.

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-publication history

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter & Anthony Blinkhorn

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

Alexandra Sbaraini, R Wendell Evans & Anthony Blinkhorn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Sbaraini .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

Electronic supplementary material

12874_2011_640_moesm1_esm.doc.

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM2_ESM.DOC

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

12874_2011_640_MOESM3_ESM.DOC

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

Authors’ original submitted files for images

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

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2011

Accepted : 09 September 2011

Published : 09 September 2011

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• qualitative research
• grounded theory
• methodology
• dental care

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

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.

• 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

Multidimensional Scaling – Types, Formulas and...

Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

Factor Analysis – Steps, Methods and Examples

Textual Analysis – Types, Examples and Guide

Uniform Histogram – Purpose, Examples and Guide

Grounded theory and the PhD – notes for novice researchers

Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences

ISSN : 2632-279X

Article publication date: 26 October 2020

Issue publication date: 19 November 2020

This paper aims to consider the realities and problematics of applying a grounded theory (GT) approach to research, as a novice, within a mixed methods study during post graduate research. Its intention is to provide the novice user with a framework of considerations and greater awareness of the issues that GT can expose during research activity.

Design/methodology/approach

Using empirical evidence and a comparative approach, the paper compares the efficacy of both the classic Glaserian and Straussian models. It observes the effects of a positivist academic environment upon the choice of approach and its application. This study was specific to design education; however, its reliance upon a social science epistemology results in findings beneficial to research novices across broader disciplines.

GT presents the novice researcher with several potential pitfalls. Most problematic were the immutable, positivist institutional requirements, researcher a priori knowledge, the reliance upon literature for the research proposal and structure of the proposal itself. These include suspension of the notion that the purist use of either model can be applied in the current academic environment, the need for a close relationship with the data and toleration of a non-linear process with unexpected results.

Originality/value

The practicalities of GT research are often reflected upon by the academy, but use by novice researchers is little considered. The findings from this study provide a novel set of guidelines for use by those embarking on GT research and particularly where the requirements of formal education may cause a conflict.

• Grounded theory
• Social science research
• Novice researcher
• Glaserian grounded theory
• Post graduate research
• Straussian grounded theory
• Mixed methods research

Thurlow, L. (2020), "Grounded theory and the PhD – notes for novice researchers", Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences , Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 257-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-05-2020-0079

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Lisa Thurlow.

Published in Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

This paper considers the practicalities and problematics of applying grounded theory (GT) as a novice researcher during a mixed methods research project. Presented as a critical review of GT via a case study, it observes postgraduate (PhD) investigation into the nature of sketch inhibition among undergraduates within design higher education. The aim of the study was to build an effective theory of sketch inhibition as along with a set of pedagogic tools for its management in higher education – sketch inhibition is defined as a phenomenon whereby the suffer feels or demonstrates a reluctance or inability to engage with the mark-making aspect of design ideation and development ( Author, 2019 ). This type of problem-solving and conceptual activity is also evident in broader environments including the social sciences, sciences and business. Although often criticised for its lack of formal epistemology ( Doherty, 2015 ; Downs, 2017 ), the design disciplines have historically borrowed heavily from the social sciences, and an unintended consequence of this study offers methodological insight, not only to design research but also to other disciplines.

The following considers GT as a research approach and methodological framework (deleted phrase) alongside the personality of post graduate research. Its characteristics (both Glaserian and Straussian) are considered by the literature, together with a critical evaluation of their relationship. The benefits and problematics of GT applied within the mainly positivist environment of independent post graduate study are considered – from initial proposal, data gathering and analysis; thesis-writing; and identifying points along the research process where method particular attention or method slurring ( Baker et al. , 1992 ) were required. By way of conclusion, the findings from this have been developed into a set of considerations for prospective users of the method, intended as a decision-making tool for novices to GT research.

The personality of grounded theory research – comparison of the schools during project proposal development

Suddaby (2006) and Muratovski (2016) believe GT is the best used to observe a phenomenon where little extant theory is available: it “relies on the absence of an existing theory and its purpose is to set up a new theory,” ( Muratovski, 2016 , p. 99). Such lack of theory relating to the phenomenon of sketch inhibition drew the research towards an inductive process, and paradigmatically, GT. A constructivist approach was identified as the most appropriate – sketch inhibition being phenomenological and perceived at both the macro-level across discipline and by individual sufferers. GT, ( Glaser and Strauss, 1967 ; Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ), offering both method and result ( Bohm, 2004 ) in providing understanding ( Furniss, 2011 ) of sketch inhibition was the most appropriate approach for observing the phenomenon.

Based on this initial understanding of GT research, and its apparent suitability for the study, further review of evaluation method was conducted. Being data-driven, GT study demands identification of an area of interest or research question to be investigated but no explicit methodology at the outset – this was perplexing; the antithesis of the requirement for post graduate study. GT and phenomenology paradigms occupying a close relationship within the social sciences, method slurring is often an unavoidable consequence of its use ( Baker et al. , 1992 ). The close relationship between research activity and data and the recursive nature of their method were noted by Glaser and Strauss (1967 , p. 6): “most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the data, but are systematically worked out in relation to the data during the course of the research.” A notable trait of GT research is the requirement for analysis of data as it is collected, rather than as afterwards – this in contrast to previous activity, the body of data sought in their entirety before analysis begins. Identification and saturation of categories is data-driven ( Muratovski, 2016 ) using an emergent approach to classification: pre-defined categories unnecessary and potentially harmful to the process. Both Glaserian and Straussian approaches to GT use constant comparison – the evaluation of new data against existing categories and development of new categories should these emerge during the process. Locke (1996) observing this recursive process necessary for subsequent growth of the research: “the materializing theory drives ongoing data collection” ( Locke, 1996 , p. 240).

Both approaches use theoretical sampling – the identification of further sources of data to be evaluated, these reliant upon the development of theory emerging from existing data ( Suddaby, 2006 ). Via the process of constant comparison and purposive sampling, identification of clear categories and the relationships between them emerge from the data:

Categories or codes […] are the basic building blocks of a grounded theory. As they are developed, the same recursive, theory driven, comparative processes are used to surface the links and relationships among the categories to construct a complete theoretical framework ( Locke, 1996 , p. 241)

This would allow the data to drive the research and obviate the need for a preformulated methodology.

GT’s separation into two individual schools, to include Straussian in 1990 offered the research a choice: that of emergence versus forcing of data. The Glaserian model of emergence relied upon allowing the data to simply appear during analysis characterized by the separateness between researcher and the external world that incorporates their subject matter ( Howell, 2013 ). Locke (1996 , p. 241) considered the benefit of this, the Glaserian model favouring a passive, neutral approach, thereby avoiding contamination of pre-conception, providing a “one-way mirror” on the data: “categories emerge upon comparison and properties emerge upon more comparison. And that is all there is to it” ( Glaser, 1992 , p. 43). Locke (1996 , p. 239) suggested the Glaserian model enabled researchers “to use their intellectual imagination and creativity to develop theories related to the areas of enquiry” through the gathering of naturalistic data. Borgatti (2020) suggested theory developed from such activity (deleted phrase) aims to “focus on making implicit belief systems explicit”.

The Straussian model’s ( Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ) requirement of questioning the data to develop theory provides the researcher with a world view through a Constructivist lens, ( Guba and Lincoln, 2005 ). Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggested both induction, whereby data is used to build a picture of a reality, and deduction based upon hypothesis testing, (deleted phrase) were intrinsic to such research and the act of conceptualization by the researcher would by default, involve deduction, suggesting interaction between the two was necessary for theory-building. With a dearth of knowledge around sketch inhibition, the methodological purity of the Glaserian model was attractive, and further considered.

Coding, according to Walker and Myrick (2006 , p. 549), “transports researchers and their data from transcript to theory,” observing that both models use the same basic functions: “gather data, code, compare, categorize, theoretically sample, develop a core category, and generate a theory” (p. 550). Glaser’s (1978) approach involves two separate processes – substantive coding (fracturing the gathered data into categories based upon its properties), followed by selective, or theoretical coding; grouping into codes at the conceptual level and allowing the theory to develop as a result ( Walker and Myrick, 2006 ). Strauss and Corbin (1990) , coding is more complex, involving open, axial and selective coding, although individual stages are subject to blurring and can be used both sequentially and concurrently ( Walker and Myrick, 2006 ).

Initial, open coding allows reduction of data into concise manageable themes that accurately reflect the phenomenon. Axial coding allows for interpretation of categories to be identified. Muratovski (2016) refers to Leedy and Ormrod’s (2010) questioning (provoking) of data to facilitate this. They ask, “What are the conditions that have given rise to this process? What is the context in which this process is embedded? […] What are the consequences of these strategies?” ( Leedy and Ormrod, 2010 , p. 143).

The final, selective coding stage involves the bringing together of categories and connections, their development into a storyline to describe the mechanics of the issue. According to Muratovski (2016) , this is the point where theory can be developed. This more constructivist approach to coding was criticised by Glaser for being too aggressive, negatively affecting the research outcome. “Strauss’ sampling is controlled by the evolving relevant concepts, and relevance comes from testing out what is looked for, not what is emerging” ( Glaser, 1992 , p. 103). He believed this caused contamination of the analysis and favoured anticipation over emergence – that it could “force conceptual descriptions” as opposed to enabling the natural emergence of “grand theories,” ( Glaser, 1992 , p. 8). Borgatti (2020) , however, endorsed the Straussian model for consisting of “a set of steps whose careful execution is thought to guarantee a good theory as the outcome”. At this point, the purity of the Galserian model was still considered the most appropriate for the study, enabling a natural emergence of knowledge about sketch inhibition, and an almost effortless development of theory.

The contentious nature of the researcher’s a priori experience illustrated how the Glaserian approach could be problematic to the study. Glaser’s (1992 , p. 50) belief that previous knowledge was detrimental to effective theorizing – the researcher should, “just not know as he approaches the data,” was problematic, Suddaby (2006 , p. 634) suggesting the negation of researcher experience, agenda and the literature impossible: “the researcher is a blank sheet devoid of experience or knowledge” being unattainable within any research scenario.

The Straussian paradigm allowed for, and even endorsed for their insight, the benefit of the researcher’s a priori experience and exposure to the issues under scrutiny – this including engagement with relevant literature. Potter (2006) believed unintentional researcher influence unavoidable, subsequent knowledge considered to be of a Constructivist epistemology. Baker et al. (1992) believed that fully understanding the realities of social or psycho-social situations within a GT study could only happen through observation, listening, inferring from the literature and reflecting upon one’s own experiences – effectively, everything could be considered data within a GT study – this, via the lens of the researcher. This more structured approach was potentially more manageable than a classic Glaserian style and appeared to provide a robust and justifiable route towards growth of theory ( Wacker, 2008 ). Despite the unease between the two schools, Suddaby (2006 , p. 635) maintains that GT offers, “a practical middle ground between a theory-laden view of the world and an unfettered empiricism”.

Using grounded theory to research sketch inhibition

The essentialist concept of measurability being vital to success in education – the award of academic qualifications impossible without it – creates an immutable environment for within which post graduate researchers must function. Such need for measurability requires, by default, a set of criteria to measure against, the research proposal being central to this. With most influence on the study was the requirement for a formal, developed proposal: this was completely at odds with GT and effectively precluded its use purest form – methodological concessions were already being made.

A review of the literature was necessary to frame the scope of the research and with so little literature referring directly to sketch inhibition, a wider search allowed context to be established. This continued for over a year, almost exclusively, to build a research framework robust enough to carry the primary research through to completion of the study. If the Glaserian model were to be observed, the use of the literature review together with empirical data would deem the data already contaminated. The Straussian model, by default, had become the approach to the study.

According to the institutional requirement, the research proposal was submitted. The initial aim was:

An investigation into the reasons for design students and early career designers avoiding manual drawing tools during design development and the proposal of a pedagogical framework to address this.

The stages of design development where drawing is used and an investigation into its purpose within creative development.

Current practice of designers across a range of disciplines regarding their use of drawing techniques during design development.

Reasons for students choosing not to use drawing as a tool for development and presentation – explicit reasoning.

An investigation into the use of drawing as a tool for design development within HE – tactic reasoning.

The position and value of drawing within current frameworks for design education – tacit reasoning ( Author, 2015 ).

This proposal was problematic on several levels. As a statement of intent, it was far too complex. In contradiction to GT it made assumptions about the nature and extent of sketch inhibition and presupposed that it was indeed an issue. In addition to this, and in further contradiction to GT, the proposal required submission of a literature review and proposed methodology for data collection and analysis. The methodology was also submitted for ethical approval: pre-empting methods and samples was required despite there being little data upon which to base their need. Regardless of this, without such approval, the research could not have been conducted.

The formal review

At this point, a full literature review together with the developed methodology for data collection and analysis was required. The standard PhD model demanded the literature review prior to primary research. This again was in conflict with a GT approach. Based upon institutional requirements, the methodology presented for review was as follows:

Semi-structured interviews: Divided into two groups, with those who observed sketch inhibition, i.e. industry and education specialists; and with those who suffered sketch inhibition, i.e. undergraduates of design. The semi-structured approach was considered the most appropriate mode and accordingly, a standard operating procedure had to be developed and a set of questions designed.

Protocol analysis experiment and observation: to identify the symptoms of sketch inhibition among sufferers, a sample of inhibited students would complete an ideation task to be observed and coded. This was based upon similar methodologies of Suwa et al. (1998) , Bilda and Gero (2005) and Kim et al. (2010) identified from the literature used to investigate designers’ processes. It was intended that data would be analysed using a coding system based on precedents set by Suwa et al. (1998) and Tang et al. (2011) .

NASA TLX questionnaire: to be applied post-protocol analysis experiment to establish participants’ emotional response to the activity to provide data about the soft issues of sufferers.

Questionnaire and Delphi study: once a proposal for sketch inhibition management had been developed, this would be submitted for feedback to interview subjects from Group 1. In addition to this, the Delphi study ( Hsu and Sandford, 2007 ) was intended to produce a normalised set of moderated pedagogic tools for use by educators ( Author, 2016 ).

Getting it wrong

Based upon this proposal, the formal review was passed and progression to a PhD was approved. However, as a piece of GT research, the project was already failing: the methodology up to this point had been driven entirely by institutional requirements and not by the data. The remit of the study was the development of a theory of sketch inhibition and pedagogic framework; however, the proposed tools would not facilitate the constant comparative and purposive sampling essential to achieve this. In fact, the research process had developed into a series of box-ticking exercises to fulfil the requirements of the institution and understanding sketch inhibition had become subordinate to the research proposal. This was completely at odds with the aim and approach of the study and a watershed moment – the GT literature was revisited, the protocol experiment, NASA TLX questionnaire and questionnaire and Delphi study duly scrapped and restructuring of the project undertaken.

Getting it right

Based solely upon the emergence of issues from data, the interview method alone was kept, albeit in a form more reflective of true GT. The semi-structured approach was scrapped, instead, identifying issues to be discussed with subjects based, simply, upon the question, “what do I need to know about sketch inhibition?” This would be applied to the same two groups, i.e.; observers and sufferers of sketch inhibition. From this, further interviews were conducted, data coded immediately after each one, and emergent themes used to inform the next interview, i.e.; adding to the body of issues to be discussed.

The interviews provided both data for the study, and insight into the problematics of conducting GT research. Digression was a common issue, particularly among industry subjects and often difficult to manage: if everything was considered as data within a GT study, to what extent could digression be allowed in case it offered up some new and unexpected insight? This was difficult to resolve – it also resulted in lengthy transcriptions and data extraction that were the most time-consuming part of the study.

Lack of structure during the interviews with students was particularly problematic. It was assumed the unstructured approach favoured in GT studies would elicit breadth and depth of data, but this was not the case: students were simply unaware of what they didn’t know. Lack of maturity and experience may have affected the way subjects responded, and it was evident their understanding of sketching and the design process was somewhat poor. The frustration of trying to tease out responses from some subjects created a tendency to ask leading questions – this had to be carefully monitored to avoid corrupted the data. Data from educators was very high and proved most valuable to the study. Constant comparison and theoretical sampling led to an interview with one subject whose data approved pivotal to the whole study: without using GT, this subject not have been identified.

Always a conundrum for qualitative research, interview sample size was surprisingly simple to establish. Where the literature offered a plethora of notions about this, GT made it simpler: the interviews continued until no further new issues emerged from the data. Instead of an arbitrarily-set sample, constant comparison enabled identification of the point of saturation.

Data management

Depth and breadth of data during GT research is difficult to predict, Fassinger (2005) noting the complexity of data handling as potentially problematic. NVivo software was used throughout the study for storage, management, coding and analysis, thereby mitigating some of the complexity observed by Charmaz (2000) . NVivo’s graphic tools enabled visual macro-analysis of the data – this, essential for interrogating the quantity of data generated by the study. Charmaz (2000 , p. 520) suggested that such software had a tendency to “unintentionally foster an illusion that interpretive work can be reduced to a set of procedures”. This did not, however, appear problematic: emergent themes rather than software parameters were the driver of data handling.

Data analysis

The coding process, “identifying patterns and discovering theoretical properties in the data,” ( Bowen, 2008 , p. 144), adhered to the Straussian method, initially developing open coding. Individual nodes were created as they emerged from the data, observing Borgatti's (2020) “nouns and verbs of a conceptual world.” Boyatzis’ (1998 , p. 161) definition of a theme was observed as closely as possible; “a pattern in the information that at minimum describes and organises the possible observations and at maximum interprets aspects of the phenomenon” – (process illustrated in Figure 1 ).

A hierarchy of themes emerged as coding progressed. Meta-themes became structured into parent nodes, for example, “cognitive issues” and “definitions of sketching.” As new interview data were analysed, additional themes emerged and iterative (constant comparison) process of revisiting already coded data to code for new themes was conducted. And so, the number of parent nodes increased, as did child nodes within these. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method was also observed: to reduce loss of context during coding some of the surrounding data was kept: whole sentences and sometimes paragraphs relevant to the theme were coded to maintain clarity of meaning. Multiple coding also formed part of the constant comparison process – coding data as many times as necessary to ensure it was coded into all nodes it related to. Throughout the coding process, axial coding, using mind mapping techniques, identified further issues within and between themes, according to Walker and Myrick (2006 , p. 553), to “understand categories in relationship to other categories and their subcategories” ( Figure 2 ).

Selective coding, “the process of selecting the central or core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships and filling in categories that need further refinement and development,” ( Strauss and Corbin, 1990 , p. 116), began towards the end of the data gathering process. This underpinned the structure of findings and their presentation as a narrative of sketch inhibition ( Figure 3 ).

Theoretical sampling

Where theoretical sampling offered efficiency to the study, the lack of time to research new methodologies was problematic. During coding, the potential benefit of a learning style survey emerged. Responses from the interviews with sufferers of sketch inhibition suggested that there may be a link between inhibition and learning preference or learning difference. As such, a new data gathering methodology was applied. Similarly, the interview data suggested a possible issue among sufferers of inhibition and their employability – the benefit of a longitudinal study emerged.

The findings from the learning preference study were valuable to the study; however, the longitudinal study failed to gather any purposeful data: the GT approach of developing methodology according to emerging need was proving problematic. The fixed timeframe of the study prevented the development of an effective methodology and its application in an effective way. Instead, a rushed study with limited sample, based upon revisiting interview subjects via email was applied, very unsuccessfully.

Thesis structure

The thesis, in traditional PhD study, requires a linear set of content to be presented for examination. A product of the positivist tradition, such structure tends to favour the sciences. This is endorsed by the institution’s Code of Practice for Research Degree Students ( De Montfort University, 2018 , p. 52), which describes the structure of “a conventional dissertation”. Additionally, the mandatory training modules provided by the doctoral training programme, specifically, Structuring and Completing Your Thesis ( De Montfort University, 2020 ), further validate this, describing the required format for thesis presentation ( Figure 4 ).

Despite pouring through many theses during the course of the study in search of non-traditional formats, these requirements appear to have never been challenged. It was tempting to present the study in a non-linear format truly reflective of Grounded Theory, but too much was at stake and thus a version of the traditional structure was submitted.

Positivist issues for grounded theory research

A typical PhD taking between three and seven years to complete, timeframe is an immutable factor and certainly impinged upon this study. Without the limits of time, a truer reflection of the possibilities of GT research would have been achieved. The study would have continued as long as was necessary, the data and findings growing far beyond those presented in the thesis. Time restrictions were a constant issue – the joy of observing the emergence of a new issue to research, coupled with the lack of available time to investigate a potential methodology was problematic. This was particularly apparent during the learning style questionnaire and longitudinal study. Despite this, it was also an essential mechanism for the study – an ensuing deadline guaranteed to sharpen the mind. Although positivism could be criticised for placing restrictions upon the study it would have looked very different without it – and not necessarily for the better. PhD requirements actually lent a beneficial framework to the research, structure providing helpful boundaries to work within.

Henwood and Pidgeon (2003) believe, “The excitement and challenge of GT is finding a way out of its maze, but there is no one legitimate way out of the maze,” and GT research is certainly nothing if not complex. Fernández and Lehmann (2005) considered creativity an important part of GT research coupled with the need to conceptualise to develop theory from the data. They also believed the researcher should be able to tolerate confusion, and sporadic regression of the research process. These factors were certainly reflective of the study, challenging traditional linear approaches to previous projects.

GT appears to relate closely to Complexity Theory, ( Kuhn, 2008 ; Wang, 2010 ). Although in its infancy, this could provide a paradigm for the future of design education, and potentially benefit research into creative issues – both approaches able to accommodate complex, creative, non-linear systems and emergence of unexpected data. Despite the methodological and epistemological benefits that could accompany this, such a reality is probably distant, and the shoe-horning of non-positivist endeavours into positivist structure would have to continue.

Novice use of GT can be fraught with complexity and initially perceived as in-compatible with traditional post graduate research. However, a version of such an approach within a finite research structure is possible and very rewarding. The Glaserian model suffers most as a result of institutional requirements. Its purity is compromised from the outset by researcher prior knowledge and the use of literature during the proposal development stage (deleted phrase). The Straussian version is more accepting of the realities of constructivism – and more forgiving of research structure. Despite this, the research proposal and ethical requirements of contemporary research projects have a huge impact upon such a study.

The dual approach of constant comparison and theoretical sampling of both models are invaluable. They enable close observation of the study, both in terms of the data analysis and as a tool for the management of processes. They also support the researcher in dealing with novel and unexpected findings – the greatest joy of conducting research.

Based upon the observations of the case study, a set of considerations is offered for the novice researcher:

Understand what GT is about before you start. Make sure you fully understand its purpose and nature before you embark on research of this type: its remit is theory-building within an area of lack. It may be easier and less stressful to embrace other paradigms with more structured methodologies. The question is how hard do you want to make it for yourself?

It is almost impossible to apply GT in its purest form during post graduate research; identification of an issue to investigate is not enough for many institutions, (or funding bodies). They require certainty, a developed proposal with clear objectives and a methodology early on in the process, this being essential for ethical approval. This will require considerable reference to literature, understanding of GT and possible negotiation over the proposal before starting. At this point, theoretically, your research is no longer GT, but becomes a hybridized, institutionally acceptable form of the approach. Live with this, as there is little you can do.

Know the research will grow – it is not linear. GT research, being data driven, relies on the last piece of data to inform the next activity, (constant comparison and theoretical sampling). This implies a degree of flying by the seat of one’s pants, and allowing yourself to be taken wherever the data dictates. Where other types of research can be planned, GT is different and may lead to heated discussion with supervisors over matters of project management.

Allow the data to drive you at all times. This is almost a mantra when conducting such a project. The urge to lean towards a highly structured proposal is huge, especially during times of isolation and hopelessness that characterize PG research. Keep in mind that theory while covering unchartered territory is never going to be easy.

Being data driven, rather than relying on prescribed samples, data saturation can be easily identified using GT. Theoretical sampling is also efficient for focussing effort where it is required. The close relationship between research data and research activity allows this – and why coding data at the point of collection is so important.

Time will be problematic. Researching entire new methods of data gathering and applying these effectively may be problematic. It is somewhat of a Catch 22 for the researcher: such methods cannot be fully investigated and piloted prior to a GT study, as the data has not guided you there. However, during a GT study, getting to grips with unfamiliar and unexpected methodologies takes time. This can result potentially, in poor application and results of little benefit to the research.

It is not tidy. If you prefer a clear, highly managed approach to research, GT may not be your bag. The snowball effect of research and data growing in different and unexpected directions at the same time can be overwhelming. A pragmatic disposition is required in this situation – the ability to detach necessary to maintain control of the process.

Positivist factors should be embraced – timeframes, deadlines and structure are the antithesis of GT, but without them the novice handler will struggle to maintain focus and momentum.

GT research offers a steep learning curve and the balancing between immersion in the data and maintaining objectivity. If all these factors do not deter the novice researcher, such projects can be creative, exciting and hugely rewarding.

Emergence of initial themes from the data according to Strauss’ method of open coding

Model of axial coding using mind mapping techniques

Selective coding to build the narrative of sketch inhibition

Required thesis structure

Author ( 2015 ), PhD Proposal, [Unpublished Document] , De Montfort University , Leicester .

Author ( 2016 ), Formal Review Document [Unpublished Document] , De Montfort University , Leicester .

Author ( 2019 ), “ Designers who don’t draw: an investigation into sketch inhibition among undergraduate designers ”, PhD thesis, De Montfort University , Leicester .

Baker , C. , Wuest , J. and Stern , P.N. ( 1992 ), “ Method slurring: the grounded theory/phenomenology example ”, Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol. 17 No. 11 , pp. 1355 - 1360 , doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1992.tb01859.x .

Bilda , Z. and Gero , J.S.J. ( 2005 ), “ Does sketching off-load visuo-spatial working memory? ”, Studying Designers , Vol. 5 No. 2005 , pp. 145 - 160 .

Bohm , A. ( 2004 ), “ Theoretical coding: Text analysis in grounded theory ”, in Flick , U. , von Kardoff , E. and Steinke , I. (Eds), A Companion to Qualitative Research , Sage , pp. 270 - 275 .

Borgatti , S. ( 2020 ), “ Introduction to grounded theory ”, available at: www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtogt.htm ( accessed 30 January 2018 ).

Bowen , G.A. ( 2008 ), “ Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 137 - 152 , doi: 10.1177/1468794107085301 .

Boyatzis , R. ( 1998 ), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development , Sage .

Braun , V. and Clarke , V. ( 2006 ), “ Using thematic analysis in psychology ”, Qualitative Research in Psychology , Vol. 3 No. 2 , doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Charmaz , K. ( 2000 ), “ Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory ”, Handbook of Qualitative Research , pp. 509 - 535 .

De Montfort University ( 2018 ), Code of Practice for Research Degree Students , De Montfort University .

De Montfort University ( 2020 ), “ REST7301 structuring and completing your thesis ”, [online teaching resource] Doctoral College, De Montfort University , Leicester .

Doherty , M. ( 2015 ), [Interview] Lecturer, Department of Design , University of Suffolk , Ipswich .

Downs , S. ( 2017 ), [Interview] Senior Lecturer, School of the Arts , English and Drama, Loughborough University .

Fassinger , R.E. ( 2005 ), “ Paradigms, praxis, problems and promise: grounded theory in counseling paradigms ”, Journal of Counseling Psychology , Vol. 52 No. 2 , pp. 156 - 166 , doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.156 .

Fernández , W.D. and Lehmann , H. ( 2005 ), “ Achieving rigour and relevance in information systems studies: Using grounded theory to investigate organizational cases ”, The Grounded Theory Review , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 79 - 107 .

Furniss , D. , Blandford , A. and Curzon , P. ( 2011 ), “ Confessions from a grounded theory PhD: experiences and lessons learnt ”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pp. 113 - 122 .

Glaser , B. ( 1978 ), Theoretical Sensitivity , Sociology Press .

Glaser , B.G. ( 1992 ), Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis , Sociology Press .

Glaser , B.G. and Strauss , A.L. ( 1967 ), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research , Aldine .

Guba , E.G. and Lincoln , Y.S. ( 2005 ), “ Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging influences ”, in Lincoln , N.D. (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research , Sage pp. 191 - 216 .

Henwood , K. and Pidgeon , N. ( 2003 ), “ Grounded theory in psychological research ”, in Camic , P. , Rhodes , J. and Yardley , L. (Eds), Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design , APA .

Howell , K. ( 2013 ), An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology , Sage .

Hsu , C.-C. and Sandford , B.A. ( 2007 ), “ The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus, practical assessment ”, Research and Evaluation , Vol. 12 No. 10 , pp. 1 - 8 .

Kim , J.E. , Bouchard , C. , Omhover , J.F. and Aoussat , A. ( 2010 ), “ Towards a model of how designers mentally categorise design information ”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology , Vol. 3 No. 3 , pp. 218 - 226 , doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2010.11.004 .

Kuhn , L. ( 2008 ), “ Complexity theory and educational research ”, Educational Philosophy and Theory , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 177 - 189 .

Leedy , P. and Ormrod , J. ( 2010 ), Practical Research: planning and Design , Pearson .

Locke , K. ( 1996 ), “ Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? ”, Journal of Management Inquiry , Vol. 5 No. 3 , pp. 239 - 245 , doi: 10.1177/07399863870092005 .

Muratovski , G. ( 2016 ), Research for Designers , Sage .

Potter , S. ( 2006 ), Doing Postgraduate Research , Sage .

Strauss , A. and Corbin , J.M. ( 1990 ), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques , Sage Publications .

Suddaby , R. ( 2006 ), “ What grounded theory is not ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 49 No. 4 , pp. 633 - 642 .

Suwa , M. , Purcell , T. and Gero , J. ( 1998 ), “ Macroscopic analysis of design processes based on a scheme for coding designers’ cognitive actions ”, Design Studies , Vol. 19 No. 4 , pp. 455 - 483 , doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00016-7 .

Tang , H. , Lee , Y. and Gero , J. ( 2011 ), “ Comparing collaborative co-located and distributed design processes in digital and traditional sketching environments: a protocol study using the function–behaviour–structure coding scheme ”, Design Studies , Elsevier , Vol. 32 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 29 , doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.dmu.ac.uk/10.1016/j.destud.2010.06.004 .

Wacker , J.G. ( 2008 ), “ A conceptual understanding of requirements for theory-building ”, Journal of Supply Chain Management , Vol. 44 No. 3 , pp. 5 - 15 .

Walker , D. and Myrick , F. ( 2006 ), “ Grounded theory an exploration of process and procedure ”, Qualitative Health Research , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 547 - 559 .

Wang , T. ( 2010 ), “ A new paradigm for design studio education ”, International Journal of Art and Design Education , Vol. 29 No. 2 , pp. 173 - 183 , doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01647.x .

Corresponding author

About the author.

Lisa Thurlow is a Lecturer within the School of Design, researcher and writer. Her teaching crosses multiple disciplines including interior design, fashion and textiles, footwear, design management, research methodologies and design cultures. Her PhD (2019) used Grounded Theory to consider the cause, symptoms and management of sketch inhibition among under-graduate designers across multiple disciplines. Her interests include design cognition and visual learning pedagogies, developing tools for students with learning differences and international students for whom such approaches are beneficial. She runs workshops in design process sketching and inhibition management and is currently working on various related publications.

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Res Methodol

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

Alexandra sbaraini.

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

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

Stacy M Carter

R wendell evans, anthony blinkhorn, associated data.

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamental components of a grounded theory study

Study background

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

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

Designing this grounded theory study

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

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

A. An open beginning and research questions

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

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

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

• How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

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

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

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

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

Initial Interviews

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

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

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

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

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

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

Coding process

Memo-writing

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

Case-based memo

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

Conceptual memo

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

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

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

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The quality of this grounded theory study

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

During data collection

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

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

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

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

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

During data analysis

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

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

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

Answering our research questions

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

Concluding remarks

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

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

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

Abbreviations

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

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

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

Pre-publication history

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

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

Supplementary Material

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

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

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

Acknowledgements

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

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

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

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

Practical Guide To Grounded Theory Research Methods For Your Dissertation

By Laura Brown on 14th February 2024

Developed in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, grounded theory research became a widely used qualitative research approach in a very short period of time. It offers researchers a qualitative research approach in various disciplines.

If you have chosen a qualitative approach for your dissertation methodology , GT research should be your first choice to analyse your data. It allows theories to emerge organically from the data which makes it exceptionally relevant for in-depth study.

Before we move forward on how to conduct a grounded theory approach in qualitative research, we need to dig a bit more into the theory itself.

Understanding Grounded Theory Research

In simple terms, Grounded Theory is like an adventure where you explore and understand things based on what you discover in your study. There are basically three key parts of this approach.

• Inductive Approach

Instead of starting with a set idea or plan, you should begin with an open mind. You are required to collect information and let patterns and ideas emerge naturally.

• Constant Comparison

This means you are always looking at new information and comparing it with what others have collected already. It is like putting puzzle pieces together to see the bigger picture.

• Theoretical Sampling

Imagine you are choosing what to study next based on what you have already learned. This will help you dig deeper and gather the right pieces of information to build a strong understanding.

As we dive into each of these aspects, you will see how they work together to create a method that allows you to uncover new insights without preconceived notions. This understanding is the foundation for successfully using grounded theory in your dissertation journey.

Steps Involved In Grounded Theory Research Design

GT research is not just a set of procedural steps but it is a dynamic journey where you play the lead role in unwinding the complexity of a phenomenon. Let’s walk through each stage together to grasp the true essence of this research.

1. Formulating Research Questions

Your journey begins with crafting thoughtful and incisive research questions that serve as the compass for the study. These questions are not arbitrary, they are the seeds from which your entire research landscape will sprout.

You should meticulously sculpt these inquiries to capture the core of the phenomenon under investigation. It is like setting the stage for a captivating play, where each question is a protagonist, ready to reveal its part in the unfolding narrative.

2. Data Collection Methods

Once you have placed the questions, you should focus your shift to gathering the raw materials which are obviously data. This is not a haphazard gathering, it is a strategic pursuit. Researchers employ an arsenal of research methods, ranging from interviews to observations, to gather a mosaic of perspectives.

It is like going on a treasure hunt, seeking the gems that will later be meticulously examined and pieced together. The richness of the data you have collected lays the foundation for the depth of insights that will emerge.

3. Coding and Analysis

With data in hand, the next step involves the art of coding and analysis. You should think of it as deciphering a cryptic message. Researchers meticulously sift through the data, assigning codes to chunks of information.

These codes act as the building blocks, paving the way for patterns and connections to emerge. The analysis is not a mechanical task, it is a dance with the data, an intricate waltz where researchers and information move in tandem, revealing the nuanced story hidden within the numbers and words.

4. Theoretical Sampling

As the narrative unfolds, the need for depth and complexity intensifies. Theoretical sampling, the next step, is akin to selecting characters for a drama sequel. Researchers purposefully choose additional participants or data sources to delve deeper into emerging patterns.

It is not a random selection but a strategic move to enrich the storyline. Each new addition contributes a layer of meaning, where you can turn the research into a symphony of voices and experiences.

5. Category Development

The final act of this research journey you must follow is the development of categories. These are not arbitrary classifications, they are the threads that weave the entire narrative into a coherent tapestry. Researchers organise the codes into meaningful categories, providing structure and clarity.

Picture it as arranging puzzle pieces, where each category is a distinct section of the complete picture. The categories not only summarise findings but also lay the groundwork for future studies, contributing to the broader scholarly conversation.

Grounded theory is not linear research but a dance of intellect and exploration. From formulating questions to developing categories, each step is an integral part of the choreography.

Some Practical Tips For Grounded Theory

Alright, now that we have got the basics of qualitative grounded theory research, let’s talk about some down-to-earth tips that will surely help you navigate the twists and turns of grounded theory like a pro.

i. Maintaining Theoretical Sensitivity

Think of this like tuning into the subtle vibes of your data. Stay open, be receptive to what it is telling you. It is not about sticking rigidly to a plan but sensing the nuances. Imagine you are picking up on the unsaid, the whispers amidst the data noise. Trust your instincts; they are your best guide in this expedition.

ii. Flexibility in Research Design

Here is a golden nugget: be as flexible as a yoga instructor doing a backbend. Your research design is not carved in stone. If your data takes you on a detour, go with it. Embrace the unexpected. It is the detours that sometimes lead to the most fascinating discoveries. Think of it like a road trip where the unplanned stops end up being the highlight.

iii. Managing Data Overload

Data can feel like standing in front of a buffet with too many options. The key here is not to devour everything at once. Take it one bite at a time. Organise your data, and categorise it neatly. Think of it like sorting a messy room where you would not tackle the whole mess at once, right? Break it down, and suddenly it becomes manageable.

Alright, remember to pay attention to the little details, be prepared to take unexpected turns, and do not let too much data stress you out. Grounded theory is kind of like a dance, and these tips along with our dissertation writing service will help you move smoothly through each part of it.

Look At Grounded Theory Qualitative Research Example

Let’s quickly peek into some groundbreaking studies that used grounded theory.

• In one, researchers delved into family dynamics during illness, unveiling the hidden struggles.
• Another explored workplace interactions, revealing patterns crucial for organisational harmony.

These studies showcase the power of grounded theory research examples to uncover stories within social phenomena. These studies were not just academic exercises, they brought real-world insights which allowed us to learn about the importance of communication in families facing illness, and how acknowledging informal hierarchies can boost workplace collaboration. These examples prove that grounded theory is not just theory, it is a practical tool for understanding and improving real-life situations.

While Summing Up On Grounded Theory Research Methods

Now that you have gone through the complete journey of grounded theory, let’s recap it quickly. We began with questions, collected data like treasures, and pieced it together through coding and analysis. Theoretical sampling filled in the gaps, and category development transformed findings into a coherent narrative.

If you are looking forward to using GT research, remember, it is a unique adventure. Focus on the uncertainties, play with the data, and let the process unfold. Grounded theory is not just a methodology, it is a dynamic journey that can lead to profound discoveries. Trust the process, and you will find yourself at the helm of groundbreaking research.

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

methodology: Grounded Theory. Thesis example.

Related Papers

jesus tapia

After reading this chapter, you will have an understanding of: the aims and objectives of grounded theory methodology the basic principles that underpin grounded theory methodology the methodological procedures associated with grounded theory, including techniques for gathering and analysing data and ways of presenting the fi ndings the different versions of grounded theory that are available and the debates that have given rise to their emergence grounded theory's limitations In addition, you will be able to: locate grounded theory epistemologically and understand (1) what kind of knowledge it aims to produce, (2) what kinds of assumptions it makes about the world, and (3) how it conceptualizes the role of the researcher in the research process Grounded theory was originally developed by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. They were unhappy about the way in which existing theories dominated sociological research. They argued that researchers needed a method that would allow them to move from data to theory, so that new theories could emerge. Such theories would be specific to the context in which they had been developed. They would be 'grounded' in the data from which they had emerged rather than rely on analytical constructs, categories or variables from pre-existing theories. Grounded theory, therefore, was designed to open up a space for the development of new, contextualized theories. MGH083_ch07.indd 69 4/25/13 1:48 PM

Amal Jabali-Kassem

In social research, the choice of research methodology depends on the pursued research aim and objectives. Social investigators utilize qualitative methods if interested in understanding human behavior patterns in specific situations and contexts (Newman, 2013). Qualitative researchers also assume a dynamic, social, and negotiated reality, which finds reflection in the informant’s perspective. When concerned with facts about social phenomena, social researchers prefer quantitative methodology. In this case, they assume a fixed, objective, and measurable perspective (Newman, 2013).

Mark G Bound, Ph.D.

Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal

Agnes Higgins

Grounded theory research students are frequently faced with the challenge of writing a research proposal and using a theoretical framework as part of the academic requirements for a degree programme. Drawing from personal experiences of two PhD graduates who used classic grounded theory in two different universities, this paper highlights key lessons learnt which may help future students who are setting out to use grounded theory method. It identifies key discussion points that students may find useful when engaging with critical audiences, and defending their grounded theory thesis at final examination. Key discussion points included are: the difference between inductive and deductive inquiry; how grounded theory method of data gathering and analysis provide researchers with a viable means of generating new theory; the primacy of the questions used in data gathering and data analysis; and, the research-theory link as opposed to the theory-research link.

Being new to grounded theory the onus to understand the methodology and the various versionscan be daunting.Learning and understanding the differences between grounded theories methodologies can be as much a learning of one's own research philosophy and this philosophy is often the deciding factor in methodology selection. Learning the different methodologies is a difficult journey as terminology often sounds similar to the novice researcher, but only by exploring the differences can the researcher rationalize their own choice. This paper offers the new researcher a view into the confusing world of grounded theory, where common terms are usedbut the secret lies in understanding the philosophy of the researcher and the topic of discovery. Glaser was correct, the answer is in the data, but you need to understand the philosophy of the method and if it matches your philosophy of research.

Space and Culture, India

Venkat Pulla

This paper discusses Grounded Theory, which is one of the newer methodologies becoming popular with social researchers since its evolution in the late 1960s. The paper discusses the principles and processes of the Grounded Theory and then explores the nature of codes, coding process and the concept of saturation. It then goes on to discuss the pros and cons, arguments for and against the use of Grounded Theory methodology in social research and explores the applicability of this methodology in producing sound theoretical basis for practice. Selected narratives from the author’s recent studies are used to explain the processes of Grounded Theory methodology.

Iris Vessey

Dr. Kurt K . McKenzie

Aytül Kasapoğlu

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Jason Vickers

Vivian Martin

IOER INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH JOURNAL

IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ) , Elinesa Ebona Abamonga

Journal Space and Culture, India Open access Journal

Erika C . Burt

SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks

Anne Kovalainen

Devajit Mohajan

Journal of Social …

Dayang Hjh Tiawa

Dr Yashpal D Netragaonkar

Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends

Cathy Urquhart

Shahid Khan

SAGE Open Medicine

Ylona Chun Tie

Nurse researcher

Nehemiah Mavetera

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods

Louis Farber

Sofia Morales

Jurnal Keperawatan Padjadjaran

HENNY MEDIANI

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

George Shava

Sheng Villamor

Qualitative Report

Mohamed El-Hussein

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

•   UZ eScholar Home
• Faculty of Business Management Sciences and Economics
• Department of Business Studies
• Business Studies Staff Publications

An Example of a Grounded Theory Research Proposal

Additional Citation Information

Additional notes, collections.

• Business Studies Staff Publications [47]

• Open Access
• Submissions
• Barney Glaser – In Memoriam

Selection of Grounded Theory as an Appropriate Research Methodology for a Dissertation: One Student’s Perspective

James W. Jones, Ed.D.

Doctoral students wanting to use grounded theory as a methodological approach for their dissertation often face multiple challenges gaining acceptance of their approach by their committee. This paper presents the case that the author used to overcome these challenges through the process of eliminating other methodologies, leaving grounded theory as the preferred method for the desired research issue. Through examining the approach used successfully by the author, other doctoral students will be able to frame similar arguments justifying the use of grounded theory in their dissertations and seeing the use of the method continue to spread into new fields and applications. This paper examines the case built for selecting grounded theory as a defensible dissertation approach. The basic research issue that I wanted to investigate was how practitioners in an applied field sought information in their work ; in other words, how they researched. I further narrowed the investigation down to a more specific field, but the paper presented here is left in broader form so that other students can see the approach in more general terms.

Introduction

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable , must be the truth?” … Sherlock Holmes to Watson in The Sign of the Four (Doyle, 1950, p. 163)

Like many other doctoral students aspiring to use grounded theory for their dissertations, I had a graduate committee comprised of members who had never supervised a dissertation that used grounded theory and whose members had never done grounded theory themselves. As there were no other faculty members on campus who were experts in the approach, and because a dissertation exclusively using grounded theory had never been done on that campus, I had to fill the role of both educator and sales representative for the approach.

For me, the key to being successful in this approach was to show how grounded theory was not just one possible approach for the desired purpose of the study, but in fact the only appropriate methodology. I moved from broad research issues down to more focused examples, eliminating all the “impossible” (as Holmes put it), eventually leaving grounded theory as the only acceptable choice for the study.

I deliberately selected texts and references that had been used in previous courses with the committee members as it was felt that they would make relevant exemplars. The intent was to use resources that the committee members were familiar with and already trusted in order to make the case, so that the argument could be kept focused on the methodology rather than the references. Other references that were similar in research intent were also used to illustrate the acceptability in the academic community of the approach, albeit in other disciplines. This resulted in a more limited but focused literature review than might be used in other instances, but one that was intended to be more persuasive.

Research Approach and Intent

Research has been defined as “the formal, systematic application of the scientific and disciplined inquiry approach to the study of problems” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p.3). Just as there are many different types of problems, there are consequently many different types of research methodologies used to investigate them. Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) see the research problem and how to investigate it as intimately intertwined, “The identification of the problem and the choice of methodology may be seen as an interactive process, with each influencing the other” (p. 46). Selecting the appropriate methodology for a research problem is therefore much like selecting the right tool out of your toolbox; you might be able to get the job done with screwdriver, but it will not be as effective or efficient if you really needed a hammer all along.

There are several important factors to consider when selecting a methodology. Madsen (1992) states, “Once you have set forth the research problem…you must set forth precise steps you propose to take to answer your question and solve your problem” (p. 68). Sogunro (2002) describes this process:

When faced with the question of which method to choose in conducting research…the following factors are important for consideration: matching research purposes and questions with methods; depth of study of phenomena; availability of resources (money, time, etc [sic]); availability of supporting literature; ‘knowledge pay off’ (i.e., which approach will produce more useful knowledge); and ‘style’ or preference for a method….and so forth. (p. 8)

Note that the first factor Sogunro (2002) advises us to consider is the research purpose. The purpose of the research will drive the rest of the process of selecting an appropriate methodology. Merriam and Simpson (2000) posit, “Ultimately the value or purpose of research in an applied field is to improve the quality of practice of that discipline” (p. 7). While this lofty goal of improving practice may indeed be the ultimate goal of the researcher, contributing aspects must be examined as well.

First, whose practice is the researcher interested in improving? For the given case of examining how practitioners seek information, the answer to this question may have dramatic effects in the selection of an appropriate methodology. For example, if the researcher was the manager of practitioners and ultimately only wanted to improve the practice of the practitioners directly under his or her charge, this would be a very important consideration. In this case, an action research approach might be most appropriate, since “its purpose is to obtain knowledge that can be applied directly to a particular situation” and does not require hypothesis formulation, extensive procedural planning, or experimental condition control (Merriam & Simpson, 2000).

On the other hand, if the researcher is an information manager at a particular firm who is considering subscribing to an improved online search service, action research may not be the most appropriate choice. Instead, the information manager might really only want to know how much practitioners currently use the current package to evaluate whether or not an upgrade would be worthwhile. In this case, evaluation or evaluation research might be appropriate where a decision will be made based on the systematic collection and analysis of data (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2005; Gay & Airasian, 2003).

In addition to whose practice the researcher is interested in improving, the researcher must consider the intended audience for the research. In the examples discussed above, the action researcher or the evaluation researcher may or may not be interested in preparing and/or presenting the results to anyone else. It may simply be a separate project undertaken in the course of other duties, or it may be formalized in a report to upper management for approval. On the other hand, a pragmatic academic may want to publish the findings in peer reviewed journals that require more rigorous and/or replicable methodological treatments. This too would influence the researcher’s definition of the ultimate purpose for the investigation. Dissertations related to an applied field may want to appeal to audiences in both industry and academia.

The preferences and skills of the researcher must also be honestly evaluated (Brause, 2000; Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). If the researcher dislikes interacting with people, methodologies that use interviews may not be desirable. If the researcher dislikes statistical analysis, a quantitative approach may be unsuitable. Besides simple likes and dislikes, acknowledgement of skills and preferences towards certain methods may be given and evaluated. For example, if the researcher has extensive experience in correlational research but another approach is warranted, new and/or additional skills may have to be obtained.

There are also other practical considerationsl. As mentioned previously by Sogunro (2002), the resources available, particularly money and time, must be considered. There are at least two related aspects of time that might affect the researcher in the selection of a methodology: the time that the results are required or desired and the time that it will take to produce them. As Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) state, “In general, qualitative studies take more time than quantitative ones. Ethnographic studies are especially time-sensitive” (p. 46). If the researcher needs the results in a month, this will clearly limit the choice of methodologies or preclude the proper conduct of the study altogether.

Methodology Selection

With the above considerations in mind, the researcher begins to be guided towards certain methodologies and away from others. For the purposes of this paper, it will be assumed that there are no overriding constraints on methodology, such as publishing in a journal devoted to a particular approach or having to have the results in a month. Further, it will be assumed that the research will not be used or consumed solely by the researcher, but will be presented to at least a limited audience of academics and professionals with the goal of explaining and potentially even predicting this information-seeking behavior. The final product is a defensible dissertation of the quality expected of a doctoral candidate and the utility to be used by practitioners.

Although one of the stated intents of the research is for it to ultimately be applied by practitioners in the field, there is no desire to judge the information-seeking behavior of the participants, only to learn what it is. Although considered a form of applied research, evaluation research approaches would therefore be categorically rejected in this case, as they are intended to be used in rating and making decisions on the subject, as discussed previously.

The process therefore turns back to the research question itself. The key word in the research problem is the interest in how practitioners seek information. In general, a study to of how or why things are a certain way would indicate a qualitative approach would be most suitable (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 13). This allows for the development of hypotheses about how the behavior occurs, in contrast to a quantitative approach, which would test hypotheses (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 8-9). As recommended by Merriam and Simpson, if it is revealed “that no theory fits the phenomenon under investigation, the one study goal may be to formulate a theory and/or hypothesis to explain observed events or behavior” (2000, p. 27).

However, eliminating approaches that are exclusively quantitative only narrows the field of potential methodologies slightly; there are a host of qualitative approaches left to consider. Action research, discussed previously, is considered a qualitative approach, but it is also considered to be nongeneralizable and limited to the specific conditions under which it was conducted (Merriam & Simpson, 2000). Since the researcher has a specific audience of both academics and practitioners in mind, with the intent of the research being applied, action research would therefore be eliminated from consideration. Since the researcher is interested in current practices, historical research methods are also inappropriate. This leaves several other options remaining.

A case study approach would allow detailed investigation into how a practitioner or practitioners seek information. Perry (1998) believes that case studies are particularly suitable for offering realistic portrayals of behavior:

Given this appropriateness of realism for case study research, the research problems addressed in theses are more descriptive than prescriptive, for example, no positivist experiments or cause-and-effect paths are required to solve the research problem. That is, the research problem is usually a “how do?” problem rather than a “how should?” problem. This “how do” rather than “how should” problem captures the positive versus normative dichotomy, for case study research is concerned with describing real world phenomena rather than developing normative decision models. (p. 787)

This fits the stated research problem of how do practitioners research. Case studies are likely to provide some important information, as Stake (2005) discusses:

We recognize a large population of hypothetical cases and a small subpopulation of accessible cases….On representational grounds, the epistemological opportunity seems small, but we are optimistic that we can learn some important things from almost any case. We choose one case or a small number of exemplars. (p. 451)

While learning something is a good start, the case study approach has several drawbacks for the proposed study, which focuses on how practitioners in an applied field seek information. First, it may be difficult to actually define a case to study for this research. Stake (2005) explains:

Custom has it that not everything is a case. A child [patient] may be a case, easy to specify. A doctor may be a case. But his or her doctoring probably lacks the specificity, the boundedness, to be called a case. (p. 444)

Similarly, a practitioner seeking information may likewise not be a suitable case for study. More importantly, while a case study would provide a lot of detail about that particular practitioner being examined, this may be inadequate for the given purpose, since the researcher wants to know how practitioners (plural) seek information. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001) point this limitation of case studies out:

They are not generalisable [sic] in the conventional sense. By definition, case studies can make no claims to be typical….because the sample is small and idiosyncratic, and because data is predominantly non-numerical, there is no way to establish the probability that data is representative of some larger population. For many researchers and others, this renders any case study findings as of little value. (p. 10)

This leaves us to consider other methodologies as more appropriate.

Ethnography is another qualitative approach that could be considered for this project. Gay and Airasian (2003) define ethnography as “a qualitative approach that studies the participants in their natural setting” (p. 16). This definition seems appropriate for the given study, as the researcher wants to know how practitioners seek information in their natural work setting. However, as Groat and Wang (2002) elaborate:

Although it emphasizes in-depth engagement with its subject…the researcher’s aim is not to create an explanatory theory that can be applied to many settings. Rather, ethnographic research culminates in a rich and full delineation of a particular setting that persuades a wide audience of its human validity. (p. 182)

This level of detail and focus on the context, while potentially interesting, are not what the researcher is seeking in this instance, eliminating ethnography as a suitable methodology for this study.

Although not exclusively a qualitative method, a grounded theory approach may also be considered for this research. The researcher is looking for a way of explaining how practitioners in an applied field seek information; in other words, a theory of how this is done in actual practice. Building a theory based on, or grounded in, actual data is specifically what a grounded theory methodology is designed to do. Glaser (1998) defines grounded theory as “the systematic generation of theory from data acquired by a rigorous research method” (p. 3).

Grounded theory is used to investigate problems of why and how in a systematic way, one that is “grounded” in the data itself rather than being deduced logically or hypothetically. It is particularly well suited for fields of practice, as it can be used to “give the practitioner a conceptual tool with which to guide practice” (Merriam & Simpson, 2000, p. 113). This satisfies the aforementioned overall goal of applied research of improving practice.

Another advantage of the grounded theory approach is its flexibility with regard to data collection and analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This is particularly important in this case because the researcher wants to know how the practitioners actually seek information, which presents difficulties with regard to data collection, as the behavior may not be possible to directly observe. As noted in Ellis’ (1993) grounded theory study of the information-seeking patterns of academics, the use of direct observation is “almost totally impracticable” (p. 475) due to the nature of the study. Even if access and timing worked to the researcher’s favor and he was present at the exact moment that a practitioner was seeking information, the actions would not be transparent and would not allow any depth of understanding, specifically regarding the “how” issues, to be obtained. Furthermore, the situation would certainly not ameliorate itself were the researcher to continuously ask the practitioner what they were doing, why they were doing it that way, and what influences were acting upon their decision making process. The observation of research would, by definition, end at that point, with the possible outcome being that the researcher would no longer be welcome in the setting.

Data collection methods other than observation, are therefore required. While journaling or diaries would be possible approaches, they have several drawbacks. First, it is doubtful that they would be properly maintained, if completed at all, by busy practitioners. This is particularly true of personnel in an applied industry, who might not be familiar with journaling and may view the process as strange and/or uncomfortable. As Ellis (1993) stated in regard to his study of academic research activities,

The use of diaries…would have relied on the willingness and ability of the researchers to complete the diaries, and, even if the researchers had been able to complete them, it is questionable whether they would have been able to have done so comprehensively and accurately (p.475).

Furthermore, the data collection would still be post hoc; no one would stop in the middle of their information-seeking to record their actions, thoughts, and motivations. Finally, the collection process would be slowed considerably as the diaries were completed, collected, and read before learning if they contained information of value to the researcher.

Grounded theory often employs interviewing as its data collection technique, and this appears most appropriate in this case. Interviews are particularly suited for this approach; as Fontana and Frey (2005) stated, “the focus of interviews is moving to encompass the hows of people’s lives…as well as the traditional whats ” (p. 698). These hows and whats are exactly what the researcher is seeking.

As with any methodology, there are several potential criticisms of grounded theory as an appropriate research tool for this study. A common criticism of grounded theory studies is that they are not “real” research. These criticisms are nothing new; in 1967 Glaser and Strauss noted that “qualitative research is generally labeled ‘unsystematic,’ ‘impressionistic,’ or ‘exploratory'” (1967, p. 223). However, these criticisms fall short in the case of grounded theory as a methodology. It is not exclusively qualitative; it has a systemic process including sampling, coding, and memoing; it is based on data rather than impressions; and, while it can explore new subject matter, is a complete methodology rather than simply a starting point for further (presumably quantitative) research.

The acceptance of the grounded theory framework has been evinced by its inclusion in a host of research texts, in subjects ranging from architecture (Groat & Wang, 2002) to education (Gay & Airasian, 2003; Merriam & Simpson, 2000) to qualitative research in general (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) (while it uses qualitative data, it is not a qualitative method). As Glaser has noted, grounded theory has “product proof” which nullifies criticisms: “Let the product legitimize it self [sic], as it is doing in health, education, and business professions, where it is crucial to have relevant research that works” (1998, p. 16).

Grounded theory is therefore the most appropriate methodology for this research study. It allows the researcher to determine how practitioners actually seek information in their field and develop a theory to explain and predict this behavior. Although there are minor concerns with the methodology, these are outweighed by its applicability for this situation.

The persuasions described previously convinced my committee that grounded theory was not just the best methodology for this study, but was in fact the only appropriate choice. This allowed me to gain the committee’s acceptance with grounded theory as the methodological approach and for the study to progress. While there were certainly still other challenges to the use of grounded theory for a dissertation proposal, the acceptance of the method in general was a key factor in the overall success of my completing the process and successfully defending my dissertation in the summer of 2008.

James W. Jones, Ed.D. Construction Management Program Coordinator and Assistant Professor of Technology Applied Technology Building 207D Ball State University Muncie, Indiana Email: [email protected]

Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project managers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brause, R. S. (2000). Writing your doctoral dissertation: Invisible rules for success. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Doyle, A. C. (1950). The sign of the four. In The adventures of Sherlock Holmes. NY: Heritage.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: AldineTransaction.

Glatthorn, A. A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: Wiley.

Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case study research. In Learning and Skills Development Agency conference: Making an impact on policy and practice. Retrieved June 28, 2007 from www.sfeu.ac.uk/documents/1553/

Madsen, D. (1992). Successful dissertations and theses: A guide to graduate student research from proposal to completion (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults (2nd Edition). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Subscribe to receive updates

Your email:

Call for Papers

Are you developing a classic grounded theory? Do you have data that could be resorted and further developed into a new grounded theory? Are you working on a formal theory, or are you reflecting on a methodological issue? We invite you to submit your paper for consideration for the next issue of Grounded Theory Review, which is published in late December and June each year.

The database of the Grounded Theory Review now contains more than a hundred articles on classic grounded theories—from either a methodological or a theoretical perspective. We would like to expand the open access database with more grounded theories that truly demonstrates the interdisciplinary potential of the classic grounded theory method. Following the 50th anniversary wish of GT’s co-founder Dr. Barney Glaser, we would like to see a conglomerate of new grounded theories that span a wide array of disciplines and topics and that demonstrate general applicability and conceptual strengths in diverse social contexts. The theories will be peer reviewed by experienced members of the advisory board of the Grounded Theory Review.

Please submit your paper no later than April 1 for the June edition and September 15 for the December edition.

Current Issue

• Issue 1, June 2023
• GT Institute
• GT Mentoring
• The Grounded Theory Review is published by Sociology Press ISSN: 1556-1550

Indexed by:

• EBSCO, Google Scholar, and DOAJ
• ESCI (Web of Science)
• Article Archives
• PDF Archives