Grounded theory

Grounded theory is a systematic

methodology that has been largely applied
to qualitative research conducted by social
scientists. The methodology involves the
construction of hypotheses and theories
through the collecting and analysis of
data.[1][2][3] Grounded theory involves the
application of inductive reasoning. The
methodology contrasts with the
hypothetico-deductive model used in
traditional scientific research.

A study based on grounded theory is likely

to begin with a question, or even just with
the collection of qualitative data. As
researchers review the data collected,
ideas or concepts become apparent to the
researchers. These ideas/concepts are
said to "emerge" from the data. The
researchers tag those ideas/concepts with
codes that succinctly summarize the
ideas/concepts. As more data are
collected and re-reviewed, codes can be
grouped into higher-level concepts and
then into categories. These categories
become the basis of a hypothesis or a new
theory. Thus, grounded theory is quite
different from the traditional scientific
model of research, where the researcher
chooses an existing theoretical framework,
develops one or more hypotheses derived
from that framework, and only then
collects data for the purpose of assessing
the validity of the hypotheses.[4]

Background

Grounded theory is a general research

methodology, a way of thinking about and
conceptualizing data. It is used in studies
of diverse populations from areas like
remarriage after divorce[5] and
professional socialization.[6] Grounded
theory methods were developed by two
sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm
Strauss.[7]

While collaborating on research on dying

hospital patients, Glaser and Strauss
developed the constant comparative
method which later became known as the
grounded theory method. They
summarized their research in the book
Awareness of Dying, which was published
in 1965. Glaser and Strauss went on to
describe their method in more detail in
their 1967 book, The Discovery of
Grounded Theory.[7] The three aims of the
book were to:

1. Provide a rationale to justify the idea

that the gap between a social science
theory and empirical data should be
narrowed by firmly grounding a theory
in empirical research;
2. Provide a logic for grounded theory;
3. Legitimize careful qualitative
research, the most important goal,
because, by the 1960s, quantitative
research methods had gained so
much prestige that qualitative
research had come to be seen as
inadequate.[3]
A turning point in the acceptance of the
theory came after the publication of
Awareness of Dying. Their work on dying
helped establish the influence of grounded
theory in medical sociology, psychology,
and psychiatry.[3][7] From its beginnings,
grounded theory methods have become
more prominent in fields as diverse as
drama, management, manufacturing, and
education.[8]

Philosophical underpinnings

Grounded theory combines traditions in

positivist philosophy, general sociology,
and, particularly, the symbolic
interactionist branch of sociology.
According to Ralph, Birks and Chapman,[9]
grounded theory is "methodologically
dynamic"[7] in the sense that, rather than
being a complete methodology, grounded
theory provides a means of constructing
methods to better understand situations
humans find themselves in.

Glaser had a background in positivism,

which helped him develop a system of
labeling for the purpose of coding study
participants' qualitative responses. He
recognized the importance of systematic
analysis for qualitative research. He thus
helped ensure that grounded theory require
the generation of codes, categories, and
properties.[10]

Strauss had a background in symbolic

interactionism, a theory that aims to
understand how people interact with each
other in creating symbolic worlds and how
an individual's symbolic world helps to
shape a person's behavior. He viewed
individuals as "active" participants in
forming their own understanding of the
world. Stauss underlined the richness of
qualitative research in shedding light on
social processes and the complexity of
social life.[10]
According to Glaser, the strategy of
grounded theory is to interpret personal
meaning in the context of social
interaction.[11] The grounded theory
system studies "the interrelationship
between meaning in the perception of the
subjects and their action".[12]

Grounded theory constructs symbolic

codes based on categories emerging from
recorded qualitative data. The idea is to
allow grounded theory methods to help us
better understand the phenomenal world
of individuals.[10] According to Milliken and
Schreiber, another of the grounded
theorist's tasks is to understand the
socially-shared meanings that underlie
individuals' behaviors and the reality of the
participants being studied.[10]

Premise

Grounded theory provides methods for

generating hypotheses from qualitative
data. After hypotheses are generated, it is
up to other researchers to attempt to
sustain or reject those hypotheses.
Questions asked by the qualitative
researcher employing grounded theory
include "What is going on?" and "What is
the main problem of the participants, and
how are they trying to solve it?"
Researchers using grounded theory
methods do not aim for the "truth." Rather,
those researchers try to conceptualize
what has been taking place in the lives of
study participants. When applying
grounded theory methods, the researcher
does not formulate hypotheses in advance
of data collection as is often the case in
traditional research, otherwise the
hypotheses would be ungrounded in the
data. Hypotheses are supposed to emerge
from the data.[13]

A goal of the researcher employing

grounded theory methods is that of
generating concepts that explain the way
people resolve their central concerns
regardless of time and place. These
concepts organize the ground-level data.
The concepts become the building blocks
of hypotheses. The hypotheses become
the constituents of a theory.

In most behavioral research endeavors,

persons or patients are units of analysis,
whereas in grounded theory the unit of
analysis is the incident.[13] Typically
several hundred incidents are analyzed in a
grounded theory study because every
participant usually reports many incidents.
When comparing many incidents in a
certain area of study, the emerging
concepts and their inter-relationships are
paramount. Consequently, grounded
theory is a general method that can use
any kind of data although grounded theory
is most commonly applied to qualitative
data.[14][15]

Most researchers oriented toward

grounded theory do not apply statistical
methods to the qualitative data they
collect. The results of grounded theory
research are not reported in terms of
statistically significant findings although
there may be probability statements about
the relationship between concepts.[16]
Internal validity in its traditional research
sense is not an issue in grounded theory.
Rather, questions of fit, relevance,
workability, and modifiability are more
important in grounded theory.[7][17][16] In
addition, adherents of grounded theory
emphasize a theoretical validity rather than
traditional ideas of internal validity or
measurement-related validity.[18] Grounded
theory adherents are "less charitable when
discussing [psychometric] reliability,
calling a single method of observation
continually yielding an unvarying
measurement a quixotic reliability."[18]

A theory that is fitting has concepts that

are closely connected to the incidents the
theory purports to represent; fit depends
on how thoroughly the constant
comparison of incidents to concepts has
been conducted. A qualitative study driven
by grounded theory examines the genuine
concerns of study participants; those
concerns are not only of academic
interest. Grounded theory works when it
explains how study participants address
the problem at hand and related problems.
A theory is modifiable and can be altered
when new relevant data are compared to
existing data.
Methodology
Stage Purpose

Codes Ident ifying anchors t hat allow t he key point s of t he dat a t o be gat hered

Concepts Collect ions of codes of similar cont ent t hat allows t he dat a t o be grouped

Categories Broad groups of similar concepts t hat are used t o generat e a t heory

Theory A collect ion of categories t hat det ail t he subject of t he research

Once the data are collected, grounded

theory analysis involves the following
basic steps:

1. Coding text and theorizing: In

grounded theory research, the search
for a theory starts with the very first
line of the very first interview that one
codes. Small chunks of the text are
coded line-by-line. Useful concepts
are identified where key phrases are
marked. The concepts are named.
Another chunk of text is then taken
and the above-mentioned steps are
continued. According to Strauss and
Corbin,[19] this process is called open
coding. The process involves
analyzing data such that conceptual
components emerge. The next step
involves theorizing, which partly
includes pulling concepts together
and thinking through how each
concept can be related to a larger
more inclusive concept. The constant
comparative method plays an
important role here.
2. Memoing and theorizing: Memoing is
the process by which a researcher
writes running notes bearing on each
of the concepts being identified. The
running notes constitute an
intermediate step between coding
and the first draft of the completed
analysis. Memos are field notes
about the concepts and insights that
emerge from the observations.
Memoing starts with the first concept
identified and continues right through
the processing of all the concepts.
Memoing contributes to theory
building.
 3. Integrating, refining and writing up
theories: Once coding categories
emerge, the next step is to link them
together in a theoretical model
constructed around a central
category that holds the concepts
together. The constant comparative
method comes into play, along with
negative case analysis. Negative
case analysis refers to the researcher
looking for cases that are
inconsistent with the theoretical
model.

Theorizing is involved in all these steps.

One is required to build and test theory all
the way through till the end of a project.[20]

The idea that all is data is a fundamental

property of grounded theory. The idea
means that everything that the researcher
encounters when studying a certain area is
data, including not only interviews or
observations but anything that helps the
researcher generate concepts for the
emerging theory. According to Ralph, Birks,
and Chapman field notes can come from
informal interviews, lectures, seminars,
expert group meetings, newspaper articles,
Internet mail lists, even television shows,
conversations with friends etc.[21]
Coding

Coding places incidents into categories

and then creates one or more hierarchies
out of these categories in terms of
categories and subcategories or
properties of a categories. A property
might be on a continuum such as from low
to high, this may be referred to as a
dimension.[a] Constant comparison where
categories are continually compared to
one another is used to create both
subcategories and properties.[b] There is
some variation in the meanings of the
terms code, concept and category with
some authors viewing a code as identical
to category while others consider a
concept to be more abstract than a code,
which a code being more like a substantive
code.[c] Different researchers have
identified different types of codes and
encourage different methods of coding,
with Strauss and Glaser both going on to
extend their work with different forms of
coding.

The core variable explains most of the

participants' main concern with as much
variation as possible. It has the most
powerful properties to picture what's going
on, but with as few properties as possible
needed to do so. A popular type of core
variable can be theoretically modeled as a
basic social process that accounts for
most of the variation in change over time,
context, and behavior in the studied area.
"grounded theory is multivariate. It
happens sequentially, subsequently,
simultaneously, serendipitously, and
scheduled" (Glaser, 1998).

Open coding or substantive coding is

conceptualizing on the first level of
abstraction. Written data from field notes
or transcripts are conceptualized line by
line. In the beginning of a study everything
is coded in order to find out about the
problem and how it is being resolved. The
coding is often done in the margin of the
field notes. This phase is often tedious
since it involves conceptualizing all the
incidents in the data, which yields many
concepts. These are compared as more
data is coded, merged into new concepts,
and eventually renamed and modified. The
grounded theory researcher goes back and
forth while comparing data, constantly
modifying, and sharpening the growing
theory at the same time they follow the
build-up schedule of grounded theory's
different steps.

Strauss and Corbin proposed axial coding

and defined it in 1990 as "a set of
procedures whereby data are put back
together in new ways after open coding, by
making connections between
categories."[19] Glaser proposed a similar
concept called theoretical coding.
Theoretical codes help to develop an
integrated theory by weaving fractured
concepts into hypotheses that work
together. The theory, of which the just-
mentioned hypotheses are constituents,
explains the main concern of the
participants. It is, however, important that
the theory is not forced on the data
beforehand but is allowed to emerge
during the comparative process of
grounded theory. Theoretical codes, like
substantive codes, should emerge from
the process of constantly comparing the
data in field notes and memos.

Selective coding is conducted after the

researcher has found the core variable or
what is thought to be the tentative core.
The core explains the behavior of the
participants in addressing their main
concern. The tentative core is never wrong.
It just more or less fits with the data. After
the core variable is chosen, researchers
selectively code data with the core guiding
their coding, not bothering about concepts
of little relevance to the core and its sub-
cores. In addition, the researcher now
selectively samples new data with the core
in mind, a process that is called theoretical
sampling – a deductive component of
grounded theory. Selective coding delimits
the scope of the study (Glaser, 1998).
Grounded theory is less concerned with
data accuracy than with generating
concepts that are abstract and general.
Selective coding could be conducted by
reviewing old field notes and/or memos
that have already been coded once at an
earlier stage or by coding newly gathered
data.

Strauss and Corbin proposed a "coding

paradigm" that involved "conditions,
context, action/interactional strategies
and consequences."[19]

Memoing

Theoretical memoing is "the core stage of

grounded theory methodology" (Glaser
1998). "Memos are the theorizing write-up
of ideas about substantive codes and their
theoretically coded relationships as they
emerge during coding, collecting and
analyzing data, and during memoing"
(Glaser 1998).

Memoing is also important in the early

phase of a grounded theory study (e.g.,
during open coding). In memoing, the
researcher conceptualizes incidents,
helping the process along. Theoretical
memos can be anything written or drawn in
the context of the constant comparative
method, an important component of
grounded theory.[23]Memos are important
tools to both refine and keep track of ideas
that develop when researchers compare
incidents to incidents and then concepts
to concepts in the evolving theory. In
memos, investigators develop ideas about
naming concepts and relating them to
each other. They examine relationships
between concepts with the help of fourfold
tables, diagrams, figures, or other means
generating comparative power.

Without memoing, the theory is superficial

and the concepts generated are not very
original. Memoing works as an
accumulation of written ideas into a bank
of ideas about concepts and how they
relate to each other. This bank contains
rich parts of what will later be the written
theory. Memoing is total creative freedom
without rules of writing, grammar or style
(Glaser 1998). The writing must be an
instrument for outflow of ideas, and
nothing else. When people write memos,
the ideas become more realistic, being
converted from thoughts into words, and
thus ideas communicable to the
afterworld.

In grounded theory the preconscious

processing that occurs when coding and
comparing is recognized. The researcher is
encouraged to register ideas about the
ongoing study that eventually pop up in
everyday situations, and awareness of the
serendipity of the method is also
necessary to achieve good results.
Serendipity pattern

Building on the work of sociologist Robert

K. Merton,[24] his idea of serendipity
patterns has come to be applied in
grounded theory research. Serendipity
patterns refer to fairly common
experiences when observing the world.
Serendipity patterns include unanticipated
and anomalous events. These patterns
can become the impetus for the
development of a new theory or the
extension of an existing theory. Merton
also coauthored (with Elinor Barber) The
Travels and Adventures of Serendipity,[25]
which traces the origins and uses of the
word "serendipity" since it was coined. The
book is "a study in sociological semantics
and the sociology of science," as the
subtitle declares. Merton and Barber
further develop the idea of serendipity as
scientific "method," as contrasted with
purposeful discovery by experiment or
retrospective prophecy.

Sorting

In the next step memos are sorted, which

is the key to formulating a theory that
could be clearly presented to others.
Sorting puts fractured data back together.
During sorting new ideas can emerge. The
new ideas can, in turn, be recorded in new
memos, giving rise to the memo-on-
memos phenomenon. Sorting memos can
help generate theory that explains the main
action in the studied area. A theory written
from unsorted memos may be rich in ideas
but the connections among concepts are
likely to be weak.

Writing

Writing up the sorted memos follows the

sorting process. At this stage, a written
theory takes shape. The different
categories are now related to each other
and the core variable. The theory should
encompass the important emergent
concepts and their careful description. The
researcher may also construct tables
and/or figures to optimize readability.

In a later rewriting stage, the relevant

scholarly literature is woven into the
theory. Finally, the theory is edited for style
and language. Eventually, the researcher
submits the resulting scholarly paper for
publication. Most books on grounded
theory do not explain what methodological
details should be included in a scholarly
article; however, some guidelines have
been suggested.[26]
No pre-research literature review and
no talk

Grounded theory gives the researcher

freedom to generate new concepts in
explaining human behavior.[7] Research
based on grounded theory, however,
follows a number of rules. These rules
make grounded theory different from most
other methods employed in qualitative
research.

No pre-research literature review. Reviewing

the literature of the area under study is
thought to generate preconceptions about
what to find. The researcher is said to
become sensitized to concepts in the
extant literature. According to grounded
theory, theoretical concepts should
emerge from the data unsullied by what
has come before. The literature should
only be read at the sorting stage and be
treated as more data to code and
compared with what has already been
coded and generated.

No talk. Talking about the theory before it

is written up drains the researcher of
motivational energy. Talking can either
render praise or criticism. Both can
diminish the motivational drive to write
memos that develop and refine the
concepts and the theory.[16] Positive
feedback, according to Glaser, can make
researchers content with what they have
and negative feedback hampers their self-
confidence. Talking about the grounded
theory should be restricted to persons
capable of helping the researcher without
influencing their final judgments.[16]

The use of preexisting theory

Different approaches to grounded theory

reflect different views on how preexisting
theory should be used in research. In The
Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser and
Strauss[7] advanced the view that, prior to
conducting research, investigators should
come to an area of study without any
preconceived ideas regarding relevant
concepts and hypotheses. In this way, the
investigator, according to Glaser and
Strauss, avoids imposing preconceived
categories upon the research endeavor.

Glaser later attempted to address the

tension between not reading and reading
the literature before a qualitative study
begins.[17] Glaser raised the issue of the
use of a literature review to enhance the
researchers' "theoretical sensitivity," i.e.,
their ability to identify a grounded theory
that is a good fit to the data. He suggested
that novice researchers might delay
reading the literature to avoid undue
influence on their handling of the
qualitative data they collect. Glaser
believed that reading the relevant research
literature (substantive literature) could lead
investigators to apply preexisting concepts
to the data, rather than interpret concepts
emerging from the data. He, however,
encouraged a broad reading of the
literature to develop theoretical sensitivity.
Strauss felt that reading relevant material
could enhance the researcher's theoretical
sensitivity.[27]
Split in methodology and
methods

There has been some divergence in the

methodology of grounded theory. Over
time, Glaser and Strauss came to disagree
about methodology and other qualitative
researchers have also modified ideas
linked to grounded theory.[9] This
divergence occurred most obviously after
Strauss published Qualitative Analysis for
Social Scientists (1987).[28] In 1990,
Strauss, together with Juliet Corbin,
published Basics of Qualitative Research:
Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques.[19] The publication of the book
was followed by a rebuke by Glaser
(1992), who set out, chapter by chapter, to
highlight the differences in what he argued
was the original grounded theory and why
what Strauss and Corbin had written was
not grounded theory in its "intended
form."[11] This divergence in methodology
is a subject of much academic debate,
which Glaser (1998) calls a "rhetorical
wrestle".[16] Glaser continues to write
about and teach the original grounded
theory method.

Grounded theory methods, according to

Glaser, emphasize induction or emergence,
and the individual researcher's creativity
within a clear stagelike framework. By
contrast, Strauss has been more interested
in validation criteria and a systematic
approach.[29] According to Kelle (2005),
"the controversy between Glaser and
Strauss boils down to the question of
whether the researcher uses a well-defined
"coding paradigm" and always looks
systematically for "causal conditions,"
"phenomena/context, intervening
conditions, action strategies," and
"consequences" in the data (Straussian), or
whether theoretical codes are employed
as they emerge in the same way as
substantive codes emerge, but drawing on
a huge fund of "coding families"
(Glaserian).[29]

Constructivist grounded theory

A later version of grounded theory called

constructivist grounded theory, which is
rooted in pragmatism and constructivist
epistemology, assumes that neither data
nor theories are discovered, but are
constructed by researchers as a result of
their interactions with the field and study
participants.[30] Proponents of this
approach include Charmaz[31][32][33][34] and
Bryant.[35]
In an interview, Charmaz justified her
approach as follows: "Grounded theory
methodology had been under attack. The
postmodern critique of qualitative
research had weakened its legitimacy and
narrative analysts criticized grounded
theory methodology for fragmenting
participants' stories. Hence, grounded
theory methodology was beginning to be
seen as a dated methodology and some
researchers advocated abandoning it. I
agreed with much of the epistemological
critique of the early versions of grounded
theory methodology by people like Kenneth
Gergen. However, I had long thought that
the strategies of grounded theory
methodology, including coding, memo
writing, and theoretical sampling were
excellent methodological tools. I saw no
reason to discard these tools and every
reason to shift the epistemological
grounds on which researchers used
them."[36]

Data are co-constructed by the researcher

and study participants, and colored by the
researcher's perspectives, values,
privileges, positions, interactions, and
geographical locations. This position takes
a middle ground between the realist and
postmodernist positions by assuming an
"obdurate reality" at the same time as it
assumes multiple perspectives on that
reality. Within the framework of this
approach, a literature review prior to data
collection is used in a productive and data-
sensitive way without forcing the
conclusions contained in the review on the
collected data.[37][38]

Critical realist

More recently, a critical realist version of

grounded theory has been developed and
applied in research devoted to developing
mechanism-based explanations for social
phenomena.[39][40][41][42] Critical realism
(CR) is a philosophical approach
associated with Roy Bhaskar, who argued
for a structured and differentiated account
of reality in which difference, stratification,
and change are central. A critical realist
grounded theory produces an explanation
through an examination of the three
domains of social reality: the "real," as the
domain of structures and mechanisms; the
"actual," as the domain of events; and the
"empirical," as the domain of experiences
and perceptions.

Use in various disciplines

Grounded theory has been "shaped by the

desire to discover social and
psychological processes."[43] Grounded
theory, however, is not restricted to these
two areas study. As Gibbs points out, the
process of grounded theory can be and
has been applied to a number of different
disciplines, including medicine, law, and
economics. The reach of grounded theory
has extended to nursing, business, and
education.

Grounded theory focuses more on

procedures than on the discipline to which
grounded theory is applied. Rather than
being limited to a particular discipline or
form of data collection, grounded theory
has been found useful across multiple
research areas.[44] Here are some
examples:

1. In psychology, grounded theory is

used to understand the role of
therapeutic distance for adult clients
with attachment anxiety.
2. In sociology, grounded theory is used
to discover the meaning of spirituality
in cancer patients, and how their
beliefs influence their attitude
towards cancer treatments.
3. Public health researchers have used
grounded theory to examine nursing
home preparedness needs in relation
 to Hurricane Katrina refugees
sheltered in nursing homes.
4. In business, grounded theory is used
by managers to explain the ways in
which organizational characteristics
explain co-worker support.
5. In software engineering, grounded
theory has been used to study daily
stand-up meetings.[45]
6. Grounded theory has also helped
researchers in the field of information
technology to study the use of
computer technology in older
adults.[46][47]
 7. In nursing, grounded theory has been
used to examine how change-of-shift
reports can be used to keep patients
safe.[48] It was further developed in
relation to students learning and
working by Kath M. Melia.[49]

Benefits

The benefits of using grounded theory

include ecological validity, the discovery of
novel phenomena, and parsimony..

Ecological validity refers to the extent to

which research findings accurately
represent real-world settings. Research
based on grounded theories are often
thought to be ecologically valid because
the research is especially close to the real-
world participants. Although the
constructs in a grounded theory are
appropriately abstract (since their goal is
to explain other similar phenomenon), they
are context-specific, detailed, and tightly
connected to the data.

Because grounded theories are not tied to

any preexisting theory, grounded theories
are often fresh and new and have the
potential for novel discoveries in science
and other areas.
Parsimony refers to a heuristic often used
in science that suggests that when there
are competing hypotheses that make the
same prediction, the hypothesis that relies
on the fewest assumptions is preferable.
Grounded theories aim to provide practical
and simple explanations of complex
phenomena by attempting to link those
phenomena to abstract constructs and
hypothesizing relationships among those
constructs.

Grounded theory has further significance

because:
 It provides explicit, sequential guidelines
for conducting qualitative research.
It offers specific strategies for handling
the analytic phases of inquiry.
It provides ways to streamline and
integrate data collection and analysis
and
It legitimizes qualitative research as
scientific inquiry.

Grounded theory methods have earned

their place as a standard social research
methodology and have influenced
researchers from varied disciplines and
professions.[50]
Criticisms

Grounded theory has been criticized based

on the scientific idea of what a theory is.
Thomas and James,[51] for example,
distinguish the ideas of generalization,
overgeneralization, and theory, noting that
some scientific theories explain a broad
range of phenomena succinctly, which
grounded theory does not. Thomas and
James observed that "The problems come
when too much is claimed for [for a
theory], simply because it is empirical;
problems come in distinguishing
generalization from over-generalization,
narrative from induction." They also write
that grounded theory advocates
sometimes claim to find causal
implications when in truth they only find an
association.

There has been criticism of grounded

theory on the grounds that it opens the
door to letting too much researcher
subjectivity enter.[51][52] The authors just
cited suggest that it is impossible to free
oneself of preconceptions in the collection
and analysis of data in the way that Glaser
and Strauss assert is necessary. Popper
also undermines grounded theory's idea
that hypotheses arise from data
unaffected by prior expectations.[53]
Popper wrote that "objects can be
classified and can become similar or
dissimilar, only in this way--by being
related to needs and interests."
Observation is always selective, based on
past research and the investigators' goals
and motives, and that preconceptionless
research is impossible. Critics also note
that grounded theory fails to mitigate
participant reactivity and has the potential
for an investigator steeped in grounded
theory to over-identify with one or more
study participants.[52]
Although they suggest that one element of
grounded theory worth keeping is the
constant comparative method, Thomas
and James point to the formulaic nature of
grounded theory methods and the lack of
congruence of those methods with open
and creative interpretation, which ought to
be the hallmark of qualitative inquiry.[51]

The grounded theory approach can be

criticized as being too empiricist, i.e., that
it relies too heavily on the empirical data.
Grounded theory considers fieldwork data
as the source of theory. Thus the theories
that emerge from a new fieldwork are set
against the theories that preceded the
fieldwork.[54]

Strauss's version of grounded theory has

been criticized in several other ways:[55]

Grounded theory researchers

sometimes have a quasi-objective
focus, emphasizing hypotheses,
variables, reliability, and replicability.
This multi-faceted focus leads to
contradictory findings.
It is inappropriate to ignore the existing
theories by not paying attention to the
literature.
 Grounded theory offers a complex
methodology and confusing terminology
rather than providing a practical
orientation to research and data
analysis. Also see Tolhurst.[56]
Some grounded theory researchers have
produced poorly explained theories;
concept generation rather than the
generation of formal theory may be a
more practical goal for grounded theory
researchers.

Grounded theory was developed during an

era when qualitative methods were often
considered unscientific. But as the
academic rigor of qualitative research
became known, this type of research
approach achieved wide acceptance. In
American academia, qualitative research is
often equated with grounded theory
methods. Such equating of most
qualitative methods with grounded theory
has sometimes been criticized by
qualitative researchers who take different
approaches to methodology (for example,
in traditional ethnography, narratology, and
storytelling).

One alternative to grounded theory is

engaged theory. Engaged theory equally
emphasizes the conducting of on-the-
ground empirical research but linking that
research to analytical processes of
empirical generalization. Unlike grounded
theory, engaged theory derives from the
tradition of critical theory. Engaged theory
locates analytical processes within a
larger theoretical framework that specifies
different levels of abstraction, allowing
investigators to make claims about the
wider world.[57]

Braun and Clarke[58] regard thematic

analysis as having fewer theoretical
assumptions than grounded theory, and
can be used within several theoretical
frameworks. They write that in comparison
to grounded theory, thematic analysis is
freer because it is not linked to any
preexisting framework for making sense of
qualitative data. Braun and Clarke,
however, concede that there is a degree of
similarity between grounded theory and
thematic analysis but prefer thematic
analysis.

See also

Antipositivism
Engaged theory
Formal concept analysis
Grounded practical theory
Qualitative research
 Postpositivism
Social research
Content analysis

Notes

a. See the section: "The emergence of

categories and their properties from the
data" in:[22]: p. 193 "It becomes possible to
differentiate incidents in the data or text
passages classified as dealing with social
loss according to the subcategory ‘degree
of social loss’ by forming further
subcategories ‘high social loss,’ ‘medium
social loss,’ and ‘low social loss.’ The whole
range or set of these three subcategories
 then represents a theoretical property of
the category social loss."
b. "The purpose of constant comparison is to
see if the data support and continue to
support merging categories. At the same
time, the process further builds and
substantiates the emerging categories by
defining their properties and dimensions"
[22] : 277

c. See the section "Codes, categories,

concepts" of [22]

References

1. Patricia Yancey Martin & Barry A. Turner,

"Grounded Theory and Organizational
Research," The Journal of Applied
 Behavioral Science, vol. 22, no. 2 (1986),
141.
2. Faggiolani, C. (2011). "Perceived Identity:
Applying Grounded Theory in Libraries" (htt
p://leo.cilea.it/index.php/jlis/article/view/4
592) . JLIS.it. University of Florence. 2 (1).
doi:10.4403/jlis.it-4592 (https://doi.org/10.
4403%2Fjlis.it-4592) . Retrieved 29 June
2013.
3. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded
Theory Methodology: An Overview. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln Handbook of Qualitative
Research. 1st ed. (pp. 273–284).
4. G. Allan, "A Critique of Using Grounded
Theory as a Research Method," Electronic
Journal of Business Research Methods, vol.
2, no. 1 (2003) pp. 1-10.
5. Cauhapé, E. (1983). Fresh starts: Men and
women after divorce. New York: Basic
Books.
6. Broadhead, R.S. (1983). The private lives
and professional identity of medical
students. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
7. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967) The
discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
8. Fletcher-Watson, B (2013). "Toward a
Grounded Dramaturgy: Using Grounded
Theory to Interrogate Performance
Practices in Theatre for Early Years". Youth
Theatre Journal. 27 (2): 134.
doi:10.1080/08929092.2013.837706 (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F08929092.2013.83
7706) . S2CID 144813527 (https://api.sem
anticscholar.org/CorpusID:144813527) .
 9. Ralph, N.; Birks, M.; Chapman, Y. (2015).
"The methodological dynamism of
grounded theory" (http://eprints.usq.edu.a
u/28092/1/Ralph_Birks_Chapman_PV.pdf)
(PDF). International Journal of Qualitative
Methods. 14 (4): 160940691561157.
doi:10.1177/1609406915611576 (https://d
oi.org/10.1177%2F1609406915611576) .
S2CID 31136971 (https://api.semanticscho
lar.org/CorpusID:31136971) .
10. Aldiabat, Khaldoun; Navenec, Carole-Lynne
(4 July 2011). "Philosophical Roots of
Classical Grounded Theory: Its Foundations
in Symbolic Interactionism" (http://www.no
va.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-4/aldiabat.pdf)
(PDF). The Qualitative Report. 16: 1063–80.
Retrieved 5 December 2014.
11. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded
theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.
12. "Clarification of the Blurred Boundaries
between Grounded Theory and
Ethnography: Differences and Similarities"
(http://www.tojqi.net/articles/TOJQI_2_3/T
OJQI_2_3_Article_1.pdf) (PDF). Turkish
Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry. 2. July
2011. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
13. Glaser & Strauss 1967
14. Glaser, B.G. (2001). The grounded theory
perspective I: Conceptualization contrasted
with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.
15. Glaser, B.G. (2003). The grounded theory
perspective II: Description's remodeling of
grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.
16. Glaser, B.G. (1998). Doing grounded theory
– Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
17. Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity:
Advances in the methodology of grounded
theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
18. Schonfeld, I. S., & Farrell, E. (2010).
Qualitative methods can enrich quantitative
research on occupational stress: An
example from one occupational group. In
D. C. Ganster & P. L. Perrewé (Eds.),
Research in occupational stress and
wellbeing series. Vol. 8. New developments
in theoretical and conceptual approaches
to job stress (pp. 137-197). Bingley, UK:
Emerald. doi:10.1108/S1479-
3555(2010)0000008007
19. Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of
qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010).
Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic
Approaches. California, CA: Sage
Publication.
21. Ralph, N.; Birks, M.; Chapman, Y. (29
September 2014). "Contextual Positioning:
Using Documents as Extant Data in
Grounded Theory Research" (https://doi.or
g/10.1177%2F2158244014552425) .
SAGE Open. 4 (3): 215824401455242.
doi:10.1177/2158244014552425 (https://d
oi.org/10.1177%2F2158244014552425) .
22. Antony Bryant; Kathy Charmaz (23 August
2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded
Theory (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=HlHHVV8qt4gC) . SAGE Publications.
ISBN 978-1-4462-7572-6.
23. Savin-Baden, M.; Major, C. (2013).
Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide
to Theory and Practice (http://www.routled
ge.com/books/details/9780415674782/) .
London and New York: Routledge.
ISBN 978-0-415-67478-2.
24. Merton, R.K. (1949). Social theory and
social structure. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press.
25. Merton, R.K., & Barber, E. (2003). The
travels and adventures of serendipity: A
study in sociological semantics and the
sociology of science. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
26. Stol, K., Ralph, P. & Fitzgerald, B. (2016)
Grounded Theory Research in Software
Engineering: A Critical Review and
Guidelines? Proceedings of the
International Conference on Software
Engineering. Austin, Texas: ACM, May.
27. Thistoll, Tony; Hooper, Val; Pauleen, David
J. (2015-02-03). "Acquiring and developing
theoretical sensitivity through undertaking
a grounded preliminary literature review".
Quality & Quantity. Springer Science and
Business Media LLC. 50 (2): 619–636.
doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0167-3 (https://d
oi.org/10.1007%2Fs11135-015-0167-3) .
ISSN 0033-5177 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/0033-5177) . S2CID 254985492 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:254
985492) .
28. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for
social scientists. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
29. Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing"
of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of
"Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative Social Research [On-line
Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50.
[1] (http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-
texte/2-05/05-2-27-e.pdf)
30. Mills, J.; Bonner, A.; Francis, K. (2006). "The
development of constructivist grounded
theory" (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F16094
0690600500103) . International Journal of
Qualitative Methods. 5: 25–35.
doi:10.1177/160940690600500103 (http
s://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690600500
103) .
31. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory:
Objectivist and constructivist methods. In
N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–
535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded
theory. London: Sage.
33. Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and
the grounded theory method. In J.A.
Holstein & J.F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of
constructionist research (pp. 397–412).
New York: The Guilford Press.
34. Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K. (2012).
Grounded theory. In S. D. Lapan, M.
Quartaroli, & F. Reimer (Eds.), Qualitative
research: An introduction to methods and
designs (pp. 41–67). San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley/Jossey–Bass.
35. Bryant, A (2002). "Re-grounding grounded
theory". Journal of Information Technology
Theory and Application. 4: 25–42.
36. A Personal Journey with Grounded Theory
Methodology: Kathy Charmaz in
Conversation With Reiner Keller. FQS,
Volume 17, No. 1, Art. 16 – January 2016.
https://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/25
41/3936#g4
37. Thornberg, R (2012). "Informed grounded
theory" (http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/ge
t/diva2:433790/FULLTEXT01) .
Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research. 56 (3): 243–259.
doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F00313831.2011.58
1686) . S2CID 39486623 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:39486623) .
38. Ramalho, Rodrigo; Adams, Peter; Huggard,
Peter; Hoare, Karen (2015). "Literature
Review and Constructivist Grounded Theory
Methodology" (https://doi.org/10.17169%2
Ffqs-16.3.2313) . Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social
Research. 16 (3). doi:10.17169/fqs-
16.3.2313 (https://doi.org/10.17169%2Ffqs
-16.3.2313) .
39. Kemf)pster, Parry; Parry, Ken (2011).
"Grounded theory and leadership research:
A critical realist perspective" (https://eprint
s.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/58975/1/10.pdf)
(PDF). The Leadership Quarterly. 22: 106–
120. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.010 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.leaqua.2010.12.0
10) .
40. Oliver, Carolyn (2012). "Critical Realist
Grounded Theory: A New Approach for
Social Work Research". The British Journal
of Social Work. 42 (2): 371–387.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr064 (https://doi.org/1
0.1093%2Fbjsw%2Fbcr064) .
41. Bunt, Sarah (2016). "Critical realism and
grounded theory: Analysing the adoption
outcomes for disabled children using the
retroduction framework". Qualitative Social
Work. 17 (2): 176–194.
doi:10.1177/1473325016664572 (https://d
oi.org/10.1177%2F1473325016664572) .
S2CID 151878799 (https://api.semanticsch
olar.org/CorpusID:151878799) .
42. Hoddy, Eric (2018). "Critical realism in
empirical research: employing techniques
from Grounded theory methodology" (htt
p://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/151694/3/Revi
sed%20CR%20manuscript%202.pdf)
(PDF). International Journal of Social
Research Methodology. 22: 111–124.
doi:10.1080/13645579.2018.1503400 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1080%2F13645579.2018.1
503400) . S2CID 149952268 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:149952268) .
43. Gibbs. "Core Emlements Part 2. Grounded
Theory" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=dbntk_xeLHA) . YouTube. Archived (http
s://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/202
11213/dbntk_xeLHA) from the original on
2021-12-13.
44. Pettigrew, Simone F. (2000). "Ethnography
and Grounded Theory: A Happy Marriage?"
(http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-co
nference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8400) . Acr
North American Advances. NA-27.
45. Stray, Viktoria; Sjøberg, Dag; Dybå, Tore
(2016-01-11). "The daily stand-up meeting:
A grounded theory study". Journal of
Systems and Software. 114: 101–124.
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.01.004 (https://doi.
org/10.1016%2Fj.jss.2016.01.004) .
hdl:11250/2478996 (https://hdl.handle.net/
11250%2F2478996) . S2CID 206539494 (h
ttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:20
6539494) .
46. "Grounded Theory Research" (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20141210124027/http://re
searchcenter.waldenu.edu/Documents/Gro
unded_Full_Captions.pdf) (PDF). Archived
from the original (http://researchcenter.wal
denu.edu/Documents/Grounded_Full_Capti
ons.pdf) (PDF) on 10 December 2014.
47. White, Jo; Weatherall, Ann (2000). "A
grounded theory analysis of older adults
and information technology". Educational
Gerontology. 26 (4): 371–386.
doi:10.1080/036012700407857 (https://do
i.org/10.1080%2F036012700407857) .
S2CID 145187791 (https://api.semanticsch
olar.org/CorpusID:145187791) .
48. Groves, Patricia S.; Manges, Kirstin A.;
Scott-Cawiezell, Jill (2016-02-08). "Handing
Off Safety at the Bedside". Clinical Nursing
Research. 25 (5): 473–493.
doi:10.1177/1054773816630535 (https://d
oi.org/10.1177%2F1054773816630535) .
ISSN 1054-7738 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/1054-7738) . PMID 26858262 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26858262) .
S2CID 11356718 (https://api.semanticscho
lar.org/CorpusID:11356718) .
49. Melia, Kath M. (1987). Learning and
working : the occupational socialization of
nurses (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/164
73186) . London: Tavistock. ISBN 0-422-
60130-6. OCLC 16473186 (https://www.wo
rldcat.org/oclc/16473186) .
50. Charmaz, Kathy. "Grounded Theory." The
SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science
Research Methods. 2003. SAGE
Publications. 24 May. 2009.
51. Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006).
Reinventing grounded theory: some
questions about theory, ground and
discovery, British Educational Research
Journal, 32, 6, 767–795.
52. Schonfeld, I.S., & Mazzola, J.J. (2013).
Strengths and limitations of qualitative
approaches to research in occupational
health psychology. In R. Sinclair, M. Wang, &
L. Tetrick (Eds.), Research methods in
occupational health psychology: State of
the art in measurement, design, and data
analysis (pp. 268-289). New York:
Routledge.
53. Popper, K. (1963). Science: Conjectures
and refutations. In K. R. Popper (Ed.),
Conjectures and refutations: The growth of
scientific knowledge. New York: Basic
Books.
54. "Parker, L.D. and Roffey, B.H. (1997)
Methodological themes: Back to the
drawing board: Revisiting grounded theory
and the everyday accountant's and
manager's reality. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 10, 212-247" (http
s://doi.org/10.1108/0951357971016673
0) . doi:10.1108/09513579710166730 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1108%2F09513579710166
730) .
55. Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis
and introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
56. Tolhurst, E. (2012). Grounded Theory
Method: Sociology's quest for exclusive
items of inquiry (http://www.qualitative-res
earch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/186
0/3432) , Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social
Research, 13, 3, Art.26.
57. See P. James, Globalism, Nationalism,
Tribalism: Bringing theory Back In, Sage
Publications, London, 2006; and P. James,
Y. Nadarajah, K. Haive, and V. Stead,
Sustainable Communities, Sustainable
Development: Other Paths for Papua New
Guinea, Honolulu, University of Hawaii
Press, 2012
58. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using
thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Aldmouz, R. s. (2009). Grounded theory

as a methodology for theory generation
in information systems research.
European journal of economics, finance
and administrative sciences (15).
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data
analysis and introduction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Charmaz K. (2000) 'Grounded Theory:
Objectivist and Constructivist Methods',
in Denzin N.K. and Y. S. Lincoln (eds)
Handbook of Qualitative Research,
second edition, London, Sage
Publications.
Strauss A. and J. Corbin (1998) Basics
of Qualitative Research – Techniques
and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory, second edition,
London, Sage Publications
Groves, P. S., Manges, K. A., & Scott-
Cawiezell, J. (2016). Handing Off Safety
at the Bedside. Clinical nursing research,
1054773816630535.
Further reading

Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.) (2007)

The SAGE Handbook of Grounded
Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
Birks, M. & Mills, J. (2015) Grounded
Theory: A practical Guide. London: SAGE
Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructing
Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chun Tie, Ylona, Birks, Melanie, and
Francis, Karen (2019) Grounded theory
research: a design framework for novice
researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7.
pp. 1–8.
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis:
Grounded Theory After the Postmodern
Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded
theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded Theory: A
Practical Guide for Management,
Business and Market Researchers.
London: Sage.
Kelle, Udo (2005). "Emergence" vs.
"Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial
Problem of "Grounded Theory"
Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative
Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2),
Art. 27, paragraphs 49 & 50. [2] (http://w
ww.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-
05/05-2-27-e.pdf)
Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J.,
Bowers, B., Charmaz, K. & Clarke, A. E.
(Eds.) (2009). Developing Grounded
Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press.
Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (Eds.) (2007).
Grounded Theory Reader. Historical
Social Research, Suppl. 19. 337 pages.
Oktay, J. S. (2012) Grounded Theory.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Stebbins, Robert A. (2001) Exploratory
Research in the Social Sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis
for social scientists. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, G.; James, D. (2006). "Re-
inventing grounded theory: some
questions about theory, ground and
discovery" (http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/
ws/files/2921100/Thomas_BriEdResJ_
2006.pdf) (PDF). British Educational
Research Journal. 32 (6): 767–795.
doi:10.1080/01411920600989412 (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F0141192060098
9412) . S2CID 44250223 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:4425022
3) .
Glaser

Glaser BG, The Constant Comparative

Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 445, 1965.
Glaser BG, Strauss A. Discovery of
Grounded Theory. Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Sociology Press,
1967
Glaser BG. Theoretical Sensitivity:
Advances in the methodology of
Grounded Theory. Sociology Press,
1978.
Glaser BG (ed). More Grounded Theory
Methodology: A Reader. Sociology
Press, 1994.
Glaser BG (ed). Grounded Theory 1984–
1994. A Reader (two volumes).
Sociology Press, 1995.
Glaser BG (ed). Gerund Grounded
Theory: The Basic Social Process
Dissertation. Sociology Press, 1996.
Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory –
Issues and Discussions. Sociology
Press, 1998.
Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory
Perspective I: Conceptualization
Contrasted with Description. Sociology
Press, 2001.
Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory
Perspective II: Description's Remodeling
of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press,
2003.
Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory
Perspective III: Theoretical coding.
Sociology Press, 2005.
Strauss and Corbin

Anselm L. Strauss; Leonard Schatzman;

Rue Bucher; Danuta Ehrlich & Melvin
Sabshin: Psychiatric ideologies and
institutions (1964)
Barney G. Glaser; Anselm L. Strauss: The
Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies
for Qualitative Research (1967)
Anselm L. Strauss: Qualitative Analysis
for Social Scientists (1987)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, Sage (1990)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin:
"Grounded Theory Research:
Procedures, Canons and Evaluative
Criteria", in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19.
Jg, S. 418 ff. (1990)
Anselm L. Strauss: Continual
Permutations of Action (1993)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin:
"Grounded Theory in Practice", Sage
(1997)
Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: "Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques".
2nd edition. Sage, 1998.
Juliet Corbin; Anselm L. Strauss: "Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques". 3rd
edition. Sage, 2008.
Constructivist grounded theory
Bryant, Antony (2002) 'Re-grounding
grounded theory', Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application,
4(1): 25–42.
Bryant, Antony and Charmaz, Kathy
(2007) 'Grounded theory in historical
perspective: An epistemological
account', in Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K.
(eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.
pp. 31–57.
Charmaz, Kathy (2000) 'Grounded
theory: Objectivist and constructivist
methods', in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln,
Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. pp. 509–535.
Charmaz, Kathy (2003) 'Grounded
theory', in Smith, J.A. (ed.), Qualitative
Psychology: A Practical Guide to
Research Methods. London: Sage.
pp. 81–110.
Charmaz, Kathy (2006) Constructing
Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Charmaz, Kathy (2008) 'Constructionism
and the grounded theory method', in
Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (eds.),
Handbook of Constructionist Research.
New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 397–
412.
Charmaz, Kathy (2009) 'Shifting the
grounds: Constructivist grounded theory
methods', in J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J.
Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz and A. E.
Clarke (eds.), Developing Grounded
Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press. pp. 127–154.
Charmaz, Kathy (forthcoming)
Constructing Grounded Theory 2nd ed.
London: Sage.
Mills, Jane, Bonner, Ann, & Francis, Karen
(2006) 'Adopting a constructivist
approach to grounded theory:
Implications for research design'
International Journal of Nursing
Practice, 12(1): 8–13.
Mills, Jane, Bonner, Ann, & Francis, Karen
(2006) 'The development of
constructivist grounded theory',
International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 5 (1): 25–35.
Thornberg, Robert (2012) 'Informed
grounded theory', Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 56: 243–259.
Thornberg, Robert and Charmaz, Kathy
(2011) 'Grounded theory', in Lapan, S.D.,
Quartaroli M.T. and Reimer F.J. (eds.),
Qualitative Research: An Introduction to
Methods and Designs. San Francisco,
 CA: John Wiley/Jossey–Bass. pp. 41–
67.
Thornberg, Robert & Charmaz, K.
(forthcoming) 'Grounded theory and
theoretical coding', in Flick, U. (ed.), The
SAGE handbook of qualitative analysis.
London: Sage.

External links

The Grounded Theory Institute (http://w

ww.groundedtheory.com/) (Glaser
tradition)
Grounded Theory Online (http://www.gro
undedtheoryonline.com/) (Supporting
grounded theory researchers)
 Grounded Theory Review (http://www.gr
oundedtheoryreview.com)
Sociology Press (http://www.sociologyp
ress.com)
Grounded Theory Research Tutorial (htt
p://researchcenter.waldenu.edu/Docum
ents/Grounded_Full_Captions.pdf)

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Grounded_theory&oldid=1193162877"

This page was last edited on 2 January 2024, at

11:18 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless
otherwise noted.