Instant Download Grounded Theory For Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Urquhart PDF All Chapter

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.
com
Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research 2nd

Edition Urquhart
For dowload this book click LINK or Button below
https://ebookmeta.com/product/grounded-theory-for-
qualitative-research-2nd-edition-urquhart/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD EBOOK
Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Nursing Research Using Grounded Theory Qualitative

Designs and Methods in Nursing 1st Edition Mary De
Chesnay
https://ebookmeta.com/product/nursing-research-using-grounded-
theory-qualitative-designs-and-methods-in-nursing-1st-edition-
mary-de-chesnay/
Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies 2nd

Edition Bonnie S. Brennen
https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-for-
media-studies-2nd-edition-bonnie-s-brennen/
Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development

2nd Edition Robert Mark Silverman
https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-research-methods-for-
community-development-2nd-edition-robert-mark-silverman/
Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing

Data Across Multiple Perspectives 2nd Edition Alecia
Youngblood Jackson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/thinking-with-theory-in-
qualitative-research-viewing-data-across-multiple-
perspectives-2nd-edition-alecia-youngblood-jackson/
Doing Qualitative Research Online, 2nd Edition Janet
Salmons
https://ebookmeta.com/product/doing-qualitative-research-
online-2nd-edition-janet-salmons/
Qualitative Methods for Health Research 4th Edition

Judith Green
https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-methods-for-health-
research-4th-edition-judith-green/
The Science of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Martin

J. Packer
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-science-of-qualitative-
research-2nd-edition-martin-j-packer/
The How To of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Janice

Aurini
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-how-to-of-qualitative-
research-2nd-edition-janice-aurini/
Qualitative Research in Marketing and Management Doing

Interpretive Research Projects 2nd Edition Chris
Hackley
https://ebookmeta.com/product/qualitative-research-in-marketing-
and-management-doing-interpretive-research-projects-2nd-edition-
chris-hackley/
GROUNDED
THEORY FOR
QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH
SAGE was founded in 1965 by Sara Miller McCune to support
the dissemination of usable knowledge by publishing inno-
vative and high-quality research and teaching content. Today,
we publish over 900 journals, including those of more than
400 learned societies, more than 800 new books per year, and
a growing range of library products including archives, data,
case studies, reports, and video. SAGE remains majority-
owned by our founder, and after Sara’s lifetime will become
owned by a charitable trust that secures our continued
independence.
Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

2nd
Edition
GROUNDED
THEORY FOR
QUALITATIVE
RESEARCH
A Practical
Guide
Cathy Urquhart
SAGE Publications Ltd © 2023 Cathy Urquhart
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road First published in 2023
London EC1Y 1SP
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research,
SAGE Publications Inc. private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under
2455 Teller Road the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 publication may not be reproduced, stored or transmitted
in any form, or by any means, without the prior
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd permission in writing of the publisher, or in the case of
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms
Mathura Road of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency.
New Delhi 110 044 Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms
should be sent to the publisher.
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022932794
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
Editor: Jai Seaman

A catalogue record for this book is available from the
Editorial assistant: Nicola Gauld
British Library
Production editor: Rachel Burrows
Project management: TNQ Technologies
Marketing manager: Ruslana Khatagova
Cover design: Shaun Mercier
Typeset by: TNQ Technologies ISBN 978-1-5264-7669-2
Printed in the UK ISBN 978-1-5264-7668-5 (pbk)
At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using FSC papers and
boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the PREPS grading
system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.
This book is respectfully dedicated to Barney Glaser (1930–2022) and Anselm
Strauss (1916–1996) for their gift to the world that is grounded theory.
It is also dedicated to Kathy Charmaz (1939–2021) for her transformational
contribution of constructivist grounded theory.
Contents
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
How this book is structured xv
About the author xviii
Preface to the second edition xix
Acknowledgements xx
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
What this book does not do 2

Is grounded theory method difficult to use? 3
What is grounded theory method? 4
Why is it useful? 10
Summary 11
Exercises 12
Web resources 12
Further reading 13
Frequently asked questions 13
Chapter 2 Grounded theory method 15
The discovery of grounded theory 15

The evolution of grounded theory 16
Characteristics of grounded theory method 18
Evolving coding procedures in grounded theory 24
Myths in grounded theory 31
Summary 35
Exercises 36
Web resources 37
Further reading 37
Chapter 3 What is theory? 39
What is a theory? Components of a theory 40
vii
viii CONTENTS
Explanation in theory development 44

Mechanisms for theory development 47
Causality in theory development 52
Abduction 53
Levels of theory 55
Positioning a grounded theory against the extant literature 56
Summary 61
Exercises 62
Web resources 62
Further reading 63
Chapter 4 Understanding coding and theory building 65
Coding – a first example 66

Different approaches to coding – what is and isn’t GTM? 67
Coding as theory building – not just concepts but relationships, too 70
Coding procedures in grounded theory method 74
Summary 80
Exercises 81
Web resources 81
Further reading 81
Chapter 5 Research design using GTM 83
Introduction 83
Philosophical position 84
Methodology 94
Data collection methods 98
Ethics 98
Reflexivity 99
Breadth versus depth in research design 100
Summary 100
Exercises 101
Web resources 102
Further reading 102
Chapter 6 Open and selective coding 106
Open coding – Example 1 107

Selective coding – Example 1 115
Open coding – Example 2 118
Selective coding – Example 2 124
Tips for first time coders 126
CONTENTS ix
A word about gerunds 127

Summary 128
Exercises 129
Web resources 129
Further reading 129
Chapter 7 Theoretical Coding 131
What is a theoretical code? 132

Theoretical memos 135
Integrative diagrams 138
Theoretical coding – Example 1 139
Theoretical coding – Example 2 144
Tips for theoretical coding 147
Relating the emergent theory to the literature 147
Summary 154
Exercises 155
Web resources 155
Further reading 156
Chapter 8 Theoretical sampling – Deeper and Wider 158
Glaser and Strauss’s recommendations for theoretical sampling 160

Enacting Glaser and Strauss’s recommendations for theoretical
sampling 162
Considering theory scope in relation to theoretical sampling 165
Theoretical sampling for our previous examples 166
Examples of theoretical sampling in dissertations 169
Slices of data in theoretical sampling 173
Summary 175
Exercises 176
Web resources 177
Further reading 177
Chapter 9 Writing up your grounded theory study 179
Introduction 179
Why scale up the theory? 180
The writing up process 181
Challenges of writing-up a grounded theory study 184
How much context of the study should be presented? 185
Representing the coding procedure 186
x CONTENTS
Presenting a chain of evidence 191

Presenting findings 194
Presenting the substantive theory 198
Theoretical integration and presenting the literature 202
Summary 208
Exercises 210
Web resource 210
Further reading 210
Frequently asked question 210
Chapter 10 The contribution of grounded theory – some reflections 212
Introduction 212
Key insights 213
Guidelines for grounded theory 219
The future of grounded theory 223
Summary 226
Exercises 228
Web resources 228
Further reading 228
Glossary 230
References 234
Index 244
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Theory and data and the scientific continuum
(Alexander 1982, in Abend 2008) 44
Figure 3.2 Hedström and Swedberg’s typology of mechanisms (1998) 48
Figure 3.3 Levels of theory (Urquhart 2019) 55
Figure 3.4 Example of a sensitising device that decomposes the research
problem 58
Figure 3.5 Example of an overarching theoretical framework used in
a grounded theory study (Dı́az Andrade 2007) 58
Figure 4.1 Transcript excerpt for coding 66
Figure 4.2 Approaches to coding 69
Figure 4.3 Relating categories to build a theory 71
Figure 4.4 The wall of theory 71
Figure 4.5 Spradley’s (1979) semantic relationships 72
Figure 4.6 Lines of a transcript for open coding 74
Figure 4.7 Example of open coding 75
Figure 6.1 Excerpt from President Obama’s inauguration speech,
20 January 2009 108
Figure 6.2 Open coding of first section of excerpt 109
Figure 6.3 Open coding of second section of excerpt 110
Figure 6.4 Open coding of third section of excerpt 111
Figure 6.5 Open coding of fourth section of excerpt 112
Figure 6.6 Open coding of fifth section of excerpt 114
Figure 6.7 Excerpt of interview about evaluation of projects in
developing countries 118
Figure 6.8 Excerpt split into data chunks 119
Figure 6.9 Open coding of first chunk of interview excerpt 120
Figure 6.10 Open coding of second chunk of interview excerpt 122
Figure 6.11 Open coding of third chunk of interview excerpt 123
Figure 6.12 Tips for first-time coders 127
Figure 7.1 Spradley’s semantic relationships (Spradley 1979) 135
Figure 7.2 Rules for theoretical memos 136
Figure 7.3 Example of a theoretical memo (Urquhart 1999) 137
Figure 7.4 Possibilities for memos (Charmaz 2014) 138
Figure 7.5 Rules of thumb for integrative diagrams 139
Figure 7.6 An example of an integrative diagram 140
xi
xii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 7.7 Potential selective codes for Example 1 142

Figure 7.8 Spradley’s semantic relationships (Spradley 1979) 143
Figure 7.9 Example fragment of a theoretical memo 144
Figure 7.10 Relating categories in Example 2 146
Figure 7.11 Example of a theoretical memo for Example 2 147
Figure 7.12 Tips on theoretical coding 148
Figure 7.13 Emergent categories in Example 1 149
Figure 7.14 Emergent categories in Example 2 151
Figure 8.1 Theory scope and conceptual level 165
Figure 8.2 Theoretical sampling in NGO study (Sheombar 2019) 172
Figure 8.3 Theoretical sampling in the England Golf study (Mills 2021) 174
Figure 9.1 Unblocking exercise 184
Figure 9.2 Example of vignette 186
Figure 9.3 Representing the coding process (Olesen 2006) 187
Figure 9.4 Diagram by Dr. Gillian Reid showing relationship paths
between selective codes (Reid 2007) 190
Figure 9.5 Overall coding process by Dr. Gillian Reid (2007) 190
Figure 9.6 Example of theoretical memo giving the ‘why’ of conflict
in a project (Fernández 2003) 194
Figure 9.7 Example of grounded theory findings (Hekkala et al. 2009) 196
Figure 9.8 Incorporating quotes and codes in a diagram
(Diaz Andrade 2007) 196
Figure 9.9 Reporting of findings in a narrative (Urquhart 1999) 197
Figure 9.10 Project power in an IOIS project (Hekkala and
Urquhart 2013) 198
Figure 9.11 Example of substantive theory diagram (Reid 2007) 199
Figure 9.12 A model of volunteer engagement in english associational
golf clubs 200
Figure 9.13 Example of reporting grounded theory as a set of
propositions (Fernández 2003) 201
Figure 9.14 Example of theoretically integrating a category 202
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Components of a theory in GTM 9
Table 2.1 Foundational books on grounded theory method 23
Table 2.2 Different grounded theory coding procedures 25
Table 2.3 The evolving nature of the Strauss and Corbin paradigm 28
Table 2.4 A selection of coding families from Glaser (1978) and Glaser (2005) 29
Table 3.1 Whetten’s building blocks of theory (Whetten 1989) 41
Table 3.2 Types of explanations (Keil 2006) 45
Table 3.3 Types of mechanisms of social change 52
Table 3.4 Differences between deduction, induction and abduction
(Bamberger 2018) 54
Table 4.1 Different coding approaches in the context of GTM 73
Table 4.2 Example of selective coding 78
Table 5.1 Epistemology and ontology definitions 85
Table 5.2 Research philosophies (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991;
Brooks and Hesse-Biber 2007; Iwowo 2014; Browne and
Nash 2016; Delgado and Stefancic 2017; Gillborn and
Ladson-Billings 2019; Myers 2019; Saunders et al. 2019;
Weston and Imas 2019; Clark et al. 2021) 87
Table 6.1 Initial selective codes 115
Table 6.2 Second pass of selective coding 117
Table 6.3 Possible selective codes for second example 125
Table 6.4 Possible selective codes for second example – second pass 126
Table 7.1 A selection of open codes from Glaser (1978) and Glaser (2005) 133
Table 7.2 Selective codes for Example 1 141
Table 7.3 Selective codes for Example 2 145
Table 7.4 Relating the literature to Example 1 in Chapters 5 and 6 150
Table 7.5 Relating literature to categories in Example 2 152
Table 8.1 Sampling types 159
Table 8.2 Consequences of minimizing and maximizing differences
in comparison groups for generation of theory (Glaser and
Strauss 1967, p. 58) 161
Table 8.3 Example of theory building using Glaser and Strauss’s
recommendations for comparison groups (Urquhart 2019) 163
Table 8.4 Using theoretical sampling to extend the scope of a theory 167
xiii
xiv LIST OF TABLES
Table 8.5 Establishing theoretical sampling requirements for the next

case (Lehmann 2010) 170
Table 8.6 Options for theoretical sampling (Sheombar 2019, drawing on
Urquhart 2013, 2019 and adapted from Glaser and Strauss 1967) 171
Table 9.1 Example of open coding from Dr. Gillian Reid (2007) 187
Table 9.2 Example of selective codes from Dr. Gillian Reid (2007) 189
Table 9.3 Example of a chain of evidence of codes (Urquhart 1999) 191
Table 9.4 Demonstrating a chain of evidence over a number of cases
(Urquhart 1999) 193
Table 9.5 Introducing some grounded theory findings
(Hekkala et al. 2009) 195
Table 9.6 Example of theoretical integration in a positivist grounded
theory study (Rodriguez et al. 2022) 203
Table 9.7 Illustrating contribution using (Walsham 1995) analytic
generalisations (Diaz Andrade 2007) 206
Table 9.8 Theoretical contributions and their classification (Mills 2021) 207
Table 10.1 GTM as a contested concept 213
Table 10.2 Guidelines for using grounded theory (Urquhart,
Lehmann et al. 2010) 222
Table 10.3 Comparing the SAGE handbooks on grounded theory
(Bryant and Charmaz 2007, 2019) 224
How this book
is structured
This book is designed for you to use how you want, and contains three major
strands, aimed not only at the first-time user of grounded theory but also the
more experienced who wants to delve a bit deeper into GTM. Each chapter
covers a particular aspect and ends with exercises, Web resources, further
reading and frequently asked questions (FAQs) to extend your knowledge
further.
The first strand (Chapters 1, 2 and 3) gives the background and intellectual
foundations of GTM. Chapter 3, a new addition for this second edition, dis-
cusses the vexed issue of what theory actually is – a key question for those of us
interested in generating theories using GTM.
The second strand (Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7) addresses the practical business of
getting started with GTM by first getting started with coding in general (Chapter
4), designing a grounded theory research study (Chapter 5), then open and
selective coding (Chapter 6) and theoretical coding (Chapter 7) using extended
worked examples.
The final strand goes deeper into the practice of GTM by proffering examples
of theoretical sampling in a brand new chapter (Chapter 8), discussing the
issues of writing up and presenting a grounded theory study, with examples
(Chapter 9), and finally revisits GTM and its contribution to qualitative
research, with some speculations on how GTM is evolving (Chapter 10).
Below is a more detailed outline of the contents of each chapter.
· Chapter 1 introduces the purpose of the book, which is to be a clear accessible

guide to GTM, and then gives a brief overview of GTM under four headings –
Theory, GTM and the Literature, Using GTM in the field and Data Analysis using
GTM.
· Chapter 2 gives some further background on grounded theory method and how
it has evolved into several different versions. This chapter considers some of the
intellectual history of GTM. It also explores some myths about GTM you may
also encounter along the way.
· Chapter 3 discusses something crucial, something often taken for granted in
academic disciplines, especially newer disciplines such as business and man-
agement – the subject of what theory is. This chapter discusses the components
xv
xvi HOW THIS BOOK IS STRUCTURED
of theory and how explanation is key to theory development. It also discusses

theoretical mechanisms and their similarities to theoretical coding families. It
covers why causation can be a vexed issue, and abduction in GTM. It discusses
what different levels of theory might look like, and how a grounded theory might
be positioned against the extant literature.
· Chapter 4 shows how to do coding in the context of GTM. It’s important to see
how GTM fits within broader approaches to qualitative analysis. This chapter
discusses the importance of distinguishing between description and analysis,
a vital skill for the grounded theorist. It also discusses how coding builds
theory. A brief example of how grounded theory approaches theory building is
also provided, in preparation for Chapters 6 and 7 where we look at coding in
detail.
· Chapter 5 discusses research design using GTM. In this chapter, we look at
key first questions about the use of grounded theory in a research design and
how the research philosophy, methodology and method might be considered
when designing a grounded theory study. A range of research philosophies are
considered, and also how adopting any one of these philosophies might
impact on the research design. It also discusses how grounded theory might fit
into various research designs. It briefly considers how theoretical sampling
might be built into the research design, in preparation for a more detailed
discussion in Chapter 8. It also looks at types of data collection, reflexivity and
ethics.
· Chapter 6 explains the open coding and selective coding stages in GTM, using
examples and exercises. It looks at whether to code at the word, sentence or
paragraph level. Through two detailed examples, it also discusses when to
‘elevate’ an open code and when to decide which are dimensions of other
codes. It also considers the option to use gerunds when coding.
· Chapter 7 explains theoretical coding, the all important stage in GTM for
creating a theory, building on the examples in Chapter 6. Theoretical memos
and their key role in theorising are introduced. Integrative diagrams as a key tool
for understanding relationships in the theory are also introduced. Theoretical
coding and linking categories are discussed, and the importance of doing so for
building theory. Glaser’s coding families and other options for building con-
ceptual relationships are also covered. How links at lower levels of coding also
help the theory is also discussed.
· Chapter 8 discusses theoretical sampling in depth and provides a number of
examples of how people have tackled the issue in their dissertations. It first
discusses the centrality of theoretical sampling to grounded theory and gives an
example of how to apply theoretical sampling using Glaser and Strauss’s advice
in the 1967 book. After providing some alternative examples in the form of
postgraduate approaches to theoretical sampling, the chapter considers what
might comprise a slice of data when theoretical sampling.
· Chapter 9 tackles the issues around writing up and presenting a grounded
theory study. Whether the theory should be scaled up as part of that process is
considered. The chapter discusses why the daily process of writing is important
and how we can overcome blocks in writing. The chapter considers how to
present the context of the study, how much of the coding procedure should be
presented, how to present a chain of evidence, how to present findings and,
HOW THIS BOOK IS STRUCTURED xvii
finally, how to present the substantive theory. There is also a discussion on how
to present the theoretical integration of the nascent theory.
· Chapter 10 concludes the book by revisiting GTM, its contributions and its
strengths as a research method. Some key insights are considered as well as
some guidelines for grounded theory studies. The future of GTM as a living and
evolving qualitative method is our final consideration.
About the author
Cathy Urquhart is Professor Emeritus of Digital Business at Manchester
Metropolitan University Business School and Visiting Professor at the Depart-
ment of Informatics, Lund University, Sweden. Before returning to the UK in
2009, she worked at the Universities of Tasmania, Melbourne and the Sunshine
Coast in Australia, and the University of Auckland in New Zealand. She
also worked as a systems analyst for eight years in public sector computing in
the UK.
Her broad area of research centres round the use of digital innovation for
societal good. She is interested in how social media and all forms of ICTs can
help us meet societal challenges, such as sustainable development, individual
well-being and social justice. She writes regularly on developments in grounded
theory and qualitative research methodology in general.
She holds or has held various editorial and board positions with the Journal of
the Association of Information Systems, Information Technology and Development,
European Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems Journal and MIS
Quarterly. She is a subject expert for the Association of Business Schools
Scientific Journal Ranking Committee in the UK. She is a Fellow of the Asso-
ciation of Information Systems. Her website can be found here: https://
www.mmu.ac.uk/business-school/about-us/staff/otehm/staff/profile/professor-
cathy-urquhart
xviii
Preface to the
second edition
Dear readers, welcome to the Second Edition. This second edition has come
about because, as I continued to teach (and learn) about grounded theory, it
became obvious to me that the first edition needed updating.
As I continued to teach grounded theory at MMU Business School, and all
over the world, a few things became clear to me. First, that while the declared
object of grounded theory method is to produce a theory, there are few dis-
cussions about what theory is and what it constitutes. This dearth of discus-
sion seems particularly the case in business and management. Second, as I
continued to delve into the intellectual foundations of grounded theory, I
became fascinated with Glaser and Strauss’s recommendations for theoretical
sampling and their suggestions for moving from substantive to formal theory.
Third, as I continued to work with my wonderful PhD students, they too
made explorations which I wanted to share with you. Fourth, I wanted to
accommodate a much broader range of research perspectives than in the
previous edition.
Accordingly, this edition is completely revised to include a new chapter on
theory (Chapter 3), a new chapter on Theoretical Sampling (Chapter 8). I’ve also
expanded the chapter on Research Design (Chapter 5 in this edition) to include
critical realist, feminist, post-colonial, queer and critical race philosophies.
Chapter 2 (Grounded Theory Method) and the chapter on Contribution of GTM
(Chapter 10 in this edition) have been revised to include recent developments
on grounded theory – one of the continued joys of grounded theory is the
continuing vigorous intellectual tradition and debate. Finally, the chapter on
Writing up a Grounded Theory Study (Chapter 9 in this edition) has been
updated with new examples.
Again, my hope is always that you, dear reader, will take this book, enjoy it
and allow it to make some independent and creative decisions about your use
of grounded theory. As with the previous book, I have aimed to take some of
the mystique out of the research process when using grounded theory – the aim
is first, to pass on what I have learned (why keep the joy of ground theory to
yourself?) and second, to give practical advice wherever possible.
xix
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to my editor Jai Seaman at SAGE for her faith in me and the
concept of a Second Edition. She provided both patient support and the impetus
to keep going when things got tough. My thanks too to SAGE editorial assistants
Charlotte Bush and Nicola Gauld – unfailingly reliable and helpful. Thanks to
the anonymous peer reviewers who provided feedback on the first edition and
the brand new chapters – I am very grateful to you! Thanks also to Rachel
Burrows, and Imogen Roome, production editors, and copyeditor Vijay at TNQ
who helped the prose run more smoothly. My thanks too to Rhiannon Holt and
the design team that produced a cover worthy of the second edition.
I’d like to thank all those colleagues and students with whom I have debated
and discussed grounded theory over the years – I have learnt so much from you
and formed so many new ideas in those debates, thank you. Those individuals
include my former postgraduate students Gillian Reid, Antonio Dı́az Andráde
(Auckland University of Technology (AUT)), Karin Olesen (University of
Auckland), Christopher Mills, Anand Sheombar (HU University of Applied
Sciences Utrecht) and colleagues Walter Fernández, Hans Lehmann, Emilia
Mendes and Pilar Rodrı́guez, who have all generously contributed examples to
this book.
I’d also like to thank Michael Myers for broader discussions on qualitative
research and Darren McDonald for the opportunity to discuss grounded theory
in Japan. I’d also like to thank the wider grounded theory community I have
come to know – Vivian Martin, Barry Gibson, Tom Andrews, Anna Sandgren,
Alvita Nathaniel, Astrid Gynnild, Helen Scott, Tom Andrews, Pernilla Pergert,
Tony Bryant, Jörg Strubing, Carrie Friese – it was a joy to be part of World
Grounded Theory Day with you in 2020!
Thank you too to those people who have emailed me over the years with
positive feedback about the book and the news that it made a difference to
them – this book is for you, you have inspired me to do the second edition.
Finally, my thanks to my wonderful husband Chris for moral and formatting
support, my children for general love and encouragement, and Alfie the dog for
being patiently by my side while all this writing was going on.
xx
1
Introduction
This book aims to provide a simple and practical introduction to grounded
theory. I’ve used grounded theory in research for many years, and I feel there is
real need for a book that provides examples and gives as much guidance as
possible. This is not to say that this is a prescriptive text – there is no one way to
do grounded theory – but the book does aim to be as clear as possible. The idea
is to give the reader the basic techniques to be able to do their own grounded
theory study, and enough information to then proceed with their own adap-
tations and exploration in grounded theory. This book:
· Explains the grounded theory analysis process through clearly worked examples
· Explains how the grounded theory process can lead to new theory and new
insights about data
· Explains how to engage your findings from your grounded theory study with
existing literature
· Gives advice on research design and how to write and present your grounded
theory study
· Discusses key grounded theory tenets such as theoretical sensitivity and
theoretical sampling
· Provides exercises, web resources, further reading and frequently asked
questions for each chapter
This book largely came about through requests from my postgraduate students
about the ‘how’ of grounded theory method (GTM) because a lack of practical
guidance and examples in grounded theory. This set me thinking about the best
way to explain the ‘how’, without being prescriptive about the method. Although
they were convinced by my passionate advocacy of it as a method of analysing
qualitative data, and the grounded theory studies they had read, they still faced a
real problem with understanding and applying the method. So this book aims to
fill that gap – to explain the ‘how’, without sacrificing the flexibility of the method
in the process. It aims above all else to be an accessible guide to GTM for the first
time user, and I make no apologies for the straightforward tone of this book. While
sometimes precise terms are needed to explain complex concepts, I believe it’s
also important not to hide behind terms that complicate rather than illuminate!
This book is also a highly personal view of grounded theory – it is very much
the product of my own experiences, and those of my wonderful students. The
1
2 GROUNDED THEORY FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
book aims to be the sum total of the advice I might give a first time user of
grounded theory and to distil the experiences of over 25 years of using
grounded theory in many contexts. It has become apparent to me how much
knowledge about the actual practice of coding remains opaque and not avail-
able in either research texts or journal papers. There are probably some good
reasons for this. First, it is difficult to explain how the coding process is carried
out – the best type of learning in this case is to try it out. So, in this book there
are lots of examples and exercises. When I teach grounded theory, I try to get
people to apply the method to an example as soon as possible – there is simply
no substitute for doing it! Second, journal articles do not afford researchers
space to explain how they have analysed their data in detail. The process of
analysis is often messy and iterative, and this sort of truth telling does not fit
well with the notion of a finished piece of research. So often, researchers do not
discuss their processes of analysis, for fear of being criticised for not following
the right path. What happens in research is real and often untidy, and any
analysis procedure is prone to be affected by the context, how the data was
collected, the circumstances of the field, who is carrying out the analysis, and
many other factors. So this book aims to show the reflexive nature of the coding
process and to encourage readers to embark on the coding process as soon as
possible. You’ll hear a lot about the ‘coding process’ in this book. Put simply,
the coding process is the process of attaching concepts to data, for the purposes
of analysing that data.
My experience with the method in the field of business and management has
led me to believe that many researchers use grounded theory as a practical
coding method, concentrating on the mechanics of coding, rather than as the
theorising device it was designed to be. This is a pity because in doing so
researchers are using the first part of the method only and neglecting the
unique power of grounded theory. This is rather like an artist deciding to paint
pictures, but never frame them, exhibit them or describe what they are doing in
the context of current art practice. So throughout the book, the issue of what a
theory is, how it might be built, and then engaged with other theories, is dis-
cussed. You can read this book to find out about coding procedures in grounded
theory and not propose to build any theory yourself, but the examples in this
book do show how to build theory.
Throughout the book, you’ll see the term grounded theory method (GTM)
used, rather than the more common ‘grounded theory’. Antony Bryant uses this
term in his 2002 paper to make the useful point that grounded theory is a
method that produces a grounded theory (Bryant 2002).
What this book does not do
This book does not claim to be a definitive book on GTM or stake out particular
territory. The method has a history that started in 1967, and there are many
views and variants of GTM. It is an evolving method as researchers
INTRODUCTION 3
increasingly turn to it as a powerful tool in qualitative work. It does aim to

share some useful rules of thumb about applying GTM, and it is a personal
view. It does not claim to be applying ‘pure’ grounded theory, as there are
many debates about what ‘pure’ grounded theory might be – it is almost
inevitable that I am bound to offend someone in my view of grounded theory
because it has a very lively intellectual foundation and tradition.
This book does not spend a lot of time talking about the philosophical posi-
tion of GTM, interesting and important though that issue is. Students often ask
me if GTM is ‘valid’. What they mean by this is whether GTM is seen as a
scientific method within the positivist paradigm. These issues are further dis-
cussed in Chapter 2, but for now suffice it to say that GTM can be used within
positivist, interpretivist and critical paradigms of research.
Is grounded theory method difficult to use?
When a research student says they wish to use GTM, often they are told that
GTM is difficult to use. This book is written to support those students and also
to defend their use of GTM. GTM was a revolutionary method of analysing
qualitative data when it was launched in 1967, and it still retains its contro-
versial qualities to this day.
Why should it be controversial, and why do scholars still debate and some-
times criticise GTM? One reason is found in the chequered history of the
method itself. From the foundational book The Discovery of Grounded Theory
published in 1967 (Glaser and Strauss 1967), there have been countless appli-
cations of GTM, but also many adaptations and evolutions of the method. With
the publication of Strauss and Corbin’s book in 1990 (Strauss and Corbin 1990)
came a very real disagreement between the co-originators about the very
nature of GTM itself. So any student of GTM has to acquaint themselves with
the Strauss and Glaser variants of the method and decide which they are using.
This book inclines towards the Glaserian strand, for reasons explained later.
A student of the method also has to deal with the fact that many journal
articles use the term ‘grounded theory’ as a blanket term for coding and ana-
lysing qualitative data. When we attach a code to the data, we are also attaching
a concept to that data, and it is those concepts that help us build theory, as we
discuss in Chapter 3. GTM is indeed a method that can be used to analyse
qualitative data, using codes attached to data, but it is so much more than that,
too. It also builds relationships between concepts informed by the codes, which
allows us to build theory. As previously remarked, this is an important, and in
my opinion, sadly underutilised aspect of GTM, especially when one considers
the original aim of GTM was to build theory.
GTM, in my opinion, is a wonderful method of analysing data and building
theory. In this book, I want to share what is for me the excitement and passion
of doing analysis in this way. For me, the experience of using grounded theory
as a PhD student (Urquhart 2001) was life-changing. The features of the method
mean that you are so close to the data you gain all sorts of rich insights; these
insights almost invariably result in excellent research. To me, it is a joyful
method – and I hope to be able to convey the thrill and joy of GTM in this book,
and I hope that after reading this book, you will share my excitement! I have
become an advocate of GTM not so much because I used it in my own PhD but
because experience using the method with postgraduate students has led me to
see that it produces strong theory grounded in the data. From a postgraduate
perspective, I have found that the use of GTM all but guarantees an excellent
piece of research, if applied carefully in all its stages.
Of course, GTM is not for everyone. I have two sorts of graduate student –
the first sort, when encountering grounded theory, looks as if they wish to run
from my office immediately and begs to be able to use a framework or theory
from the literature instead. The second sort looks somewhat nervous, asks
some questions about how long the analysis will take and generally has some
unexpected joys along the way as they build concepts from their data and
experience theory building. It is to those students that this book is dedicated,
and I hope this book is a useful companion on their journey. I also hope fellow
researchers will find this book a useful reference on grounded theory.
What is grounded theory method?
It is perhaps best to start with how the creators of grounded theory defined
their method, in their foundational book which launched grounded theory
(Glaser and Strauss 1967). They defined it as ‘the discovery of theory from
data – systematically obtained and analysed in social research’. The key point
here is that the theory produced is grounded in the data.
The emphasis on theory in the original book is in sharp contrast to the use of
grounded theory method today where it is known primarily as a method
of qualitative data analysis. So one of the emphases of this book, as well as
helping with practical issues of coding and data analysis, is what to do with that
coding – how to build the theory from the coding.
For the record, these are the key features of GTM as explained by Cresswell
(1998) and Dey (1999). They provide a good starting point, and we’ll discuss
them in the next sections.
1 The aim of grounded theory is to generate or discover a theory.

2 The researcher has to set aside theoretical ideas in order to let the substantive
theory emerge.
3 Theory focuses on how individuals interact with the phenomena under study.
4 Theory asserts a plausible relationship between concepts and sets of
concepts.
5 Theory is derived from data acquired from fieldwork interviews, observation
and documents.
6 Data analysis is systematic and begins as soon as data is available.
INTRODUCTION 5
7 Data analysis proceeds through identifying categories and connecting them.

8 Further data collection (or sampling) is based on emerging concepts.
9 These concepts are developed through constant comparison with additional
data.
10 Data collection can stop when no new conceptualisations emerge.
11 Data analysis proceeds from open coding (identifying categories, properties
and dimensions) through selective coding (clustering around categories), to
theoretical coding.
12 The resulting theory can be reported in a narrative framework or a set of
propositions.
Theory
Let’s consider first the statements about theory.
The aim of grounded theory is to generate or discover a theory;

Theory asserts a plausible relationship between concepts and sets of concepts;
and
The resulting theory can be reported in a narrative framework or a set of
propositions
It is important to appreciate then, that GTM is all about theory, even though its
procedures are often more commonly used to analyse data than to generate
theories. Chapter 1 of the revolutionary book The Discovery of Grounded Theory
(Glaser and Strauss 1967), which started grounded theory, states that the aim of
the book is to generate theory based on data, rather than to verify ‘grand the-
ory’. The authors also contended that the classic theories of sociology did not
cover all the new areas of social life that needed exploration. They also dis-
cussed the idea of qualitative versus quantitative data and concluded that both
types of data were needed for both generation and verification of theories. So,
the very first book on GTM begins by putting forward two major points – the
need to generate new theories rather than to force data into a few existing
theories and the idea that qualitative data and quantitative data are both useful.
It is worth, at this point, discussing what a theory actually is. We all
formulate theories in everyday life – for instance, we might say, based on our
experience, that people who are good at maths tend to be more introverted (and
my apologies at this point to all those people who are both fine mathematicians
and extroverts – this is just an example ☺). This working theory is based on our
experience of the world and may not be true. It is after all an individual
perception, so not really grounded in the true sense of the word. But it has the
key components of a theory – some constructs – ‘good at maths’ ‘introversion’
and a relationship between the two.
Shirley Gregor in her 2006 paper on theory (Gregor 2006) gives some useful
building blocks of a theory. In the table below, I comment on how these theory
components appear in GTM.
So, the theory discovered or generated by use of GTM is often represented

by a narrative framework, a diagram or a set of hypotheses. In all three cases
of representation, it is important that there be a relationship between the
constructs, because this is a cornerstone of all theories. So there must be a
plausible relationship between the constructs – in GTM, this is not usually
causal, because in the majority of cases, GTM uses qualitative data. So the
relationships between constructs tend to be more a case of ‘A is a part of B’, or
‘A influences B’. There is also extensive guidance in GTM as to how to
formulate these relationships between constructs in Glaser (1978) and Corbin
and Strauss (2008). These aspects are also the most controversial aspects of
GTM, as we will discuss later. For now, though the important thing to note is
that GTM is a method of generating theories, and theories contain relationships
between constructs.
GTM and literature

A key feature of GTM is that
The researcher has to set aside theoretical ideas in order to let the substantive
theory emerge.
Of all the features of GTM, this is the one that causes most difficulty for new
users. The idea here is that the literature about whatever you are researching is
referenced after, not before, you build the theory. Glaser and Strauss recom-
mended this because they wanted the data to speak to the researcher, rather
than the researcher forcing theories on the data. To me, this is one of the
reasons why GTM was revolutionary in its time, and still is tremendously
relevant today. The idea that we should seek to see what the data indicates,
rather than shoehorning that data into a theory that already exists, means that
there is more chance of discovering something new. It also seems to have more
integrity as a research process because it does not seek to impose preconceived
ideas on the world.
Of course, no one enters the research process as a blank slate – we will all
have read something about the phenomena. The founders of GTM ask that we
put that aside, so we do not influence the coding of our data. In practice, it’s
quite possible to do a literature review before we enter the field – on the
understanding though that this literature does not influence the coding process.
Once the theory is developed, then we engage our theory with existing theories
and use those existing theories to help the densification of our emergent theory.
The literature review we developed initially, then, may change. This is not the
barrier to use that people might think – in Chapter 2, I give some more advice
and information as to how to deal with the literature, but for now suffice to say
that I have seen many students conduct a literature review and do a successful
INTRODUCTION 7
grounded theory study! It’s the use to which the literature is put, not the act of
literature searching, that is the key point here.
Using GTM in the field

These aspects all relate to using GTM in the field:
Theory focuses on how individuals interact with the phenomena under study.
Theory is derived from data acquired from fieldwork interviews, observation, and
documents.
Further data collection (or sampling) is based on emerging concepts.
It is true to say that many GTM studies do focus on how individuals might
interact with the phenomena under study – for instance, how a work group
might react to a new information system – but the use of GTM is quite flexible
and varied. I have seen it applied to all sorts of phenomena, from analysing
citation information, to the design of software. GTM is perfect for studying
micro phenomena, because of its close examination of the data, but it’s worth
considering that GTM can study larger units as well, such as firms. This is
consistent with the idea of theory building – where we build larger theories
from smaller, substantive ones. So, we’ll discuss further in Chapter 5 how the
unit of analysis may influence a GTM research design.
As previously stated, GTM builds its theory from data acquired from field-
work interviews, observation and documents. All these data sources are qual-
itative, and the use of qualitative data fits well with the inductive process that
GTM is. When we say that GTM is inductive, what we mean is that GTM
reasons from the ground up – from specific instances in the data, to more
general conclusions. How the data is analysed – completely or partially – will
again depend on the research design, to be discussed in Chapter 5. As a point of
interest, it’s worth noting too, that quantitative data can be used in GTM, as
part of a mixed-method design, and again, we’ll look at this option in Chapter 5.
It’s also important to note that the use of GTM implies overlapping data
collection and analysis. This means that the researcher will be analysing the data
in the field and using the emerging concepts from that analysis to decide where
to sample from next. This process is known as theoretical sampling because the
emerging theory directs future data collection. So, for instance, if a particular
concept, such as the effects of job losses on remaining staff, arises from an
interview, the researcher could decide to interview more individuals who have
witnessed such job losses. This strategy may not always be practical depending
on the access that the researcher is allowed, of course. Sometimes there may be
only a set amount of interviews permitted in an organisation, for instance. So,
one good idea for a grounded theory study is to allow for more than one phase
of data collection, as Charmaz (2014) suggests. We will return to this issue in
Chapter 5 when we discuss research design.
Theoretical sampling does two things: first, it enables the researcher to build
up justification for concepts in the theory by finding more instances of a
particular concept; and second, it also allows the researcher to follow an
emerging storyline suggested by the data.
Data analysis using GTM
Data analysis is systematic and begins as soon as data is available.

Data analysis proceeds through identifying categories and connecting them.
These concepts are developed through constant comparison with additional
data.
Data collection can stop when no new conceptualisations emerge.
Data analysis proceeds from open coding (identifying categories, properties
and dimensions) through selective coding (clustering around categories), to
theoretical coding.
The characteristics above are all to do with data analysis, the core of grounded
theory method and the aspect most often leveraged independently of theory
building. It is certainly true to say that the data analysis procedures are sys-
tematic, and this is one reason why the procedures are so frequently leveraged
by those who may not be building a theory – these coding procedures are well
known and described in the literature, and as such they are seen as a very
legitimate way of analysing qualitative data.
In a systematic fashion, often analysing the data line by line, categories are
attached to the data. This is ‘coding’, and we will discuss this extensively in
Chapters 5, 6 and 7. A category is generally a low-level concept, attached to a
particular piece of data. So, for instance, we might look at a line of text and
decide that, in this line, the person is trying to justify a decision. So, we might
call this category justification and find more instances of this in other parts of the
data we are analysing.
The important thing to note here is that the connecting of those categories is as
important as naming those categories – because, if you recall, in Table 1.1, an
important component of a theory is building of relationships between con-
structs. So, it’s helpful to see the data analysis in grounded theory – which
concentrates on naming categories and connecting them – as laying the foun-
dation for constructs and relationships. As previously stated, further data
collection is ideally based on the emerging concepts from the analysis.
Constant comparison is the process of constantly comparing instances of data
labelled as a particular category, with other instances of data in the same
category and is often described as the heart of GTM. It is no more than a simple
rule of thumb, but it is also a way of thinking – to ask yourself ‘how does this
instance I have labelled x, compare to all the other instances of x I have
labelled?’. It really does work as a method of analysis because it encourages the
researcher to consider closely what they are analysing.
INTRODUCTION 9
Table 1.1 Components of a theory in GTM

Theory component Definition In grounded theory
Means of representation The theory must be represented Theories in GTM are often
physically in some way: in represented by a narrative
words, mathematical terms, framework, diagrams or
symbolic logic, diagrams, tables statements of hypotheses.
or graphically.
Constructs These refer to the phenomena of In GTM, the aim is to get to
interest in the theory (Dubin’s one to two core categories or
‘units’). All of the primary constructs. This makes for a
constructs in the theory should more coherent theory. All the
be well defined. Many different constructs in a grounded
types of constructs are possible: theory are, well, grounded in
for example, observational (real) observations. They come from
terms, theoretical (nominal) the data.
terms and collective terms.
Statements of relationship These show relationships In GTM, because the theory is
among the constructs. Again, often based on qualitative
these may be of many types: data, relationships are not
associative, compositional, often causal. There is a lot of
unidirectional, bidirectional, guidance in GTM about the
conditional or causal. The nature sort of relationships that are
of the relationship specified possible between constructs,
depends on the purpose of the in the form of coding families
theory. Very simple relationships (Glaser 1978) and a coding
can be specified: for example, ‘x paradigm (Corbin and Strauss
is a member of class A’. 2008).
Scope The scope is specified by the GTM aims to produce
degree of generality of the substantive theories which
statements of relationships pertain to the area being
(signified by modal qualifiers investigated. The scope and
such as ‘some’, ‘many’, ‘all’ and generalisability can be
‘never’) and statements of extended by theoretical
boundaries showing the limits of sampling (Glaser 1978). The
generalisations. substantive theory can and
should be engaged with
existing theories – in grounded
theory, existing theories can
also be seen as slices of data
which help build the theory.
Source: Adapted from Gregor (2006).
It is actually quite obvious, in a grounded theory study, when to stop data

collection – the researcher finds that no new concepts are emerging from the
data, and that all that is happening is more instances of existing categories. In
this way, ‘theoretical saturation’ is reached; the particular category is seen to be
‘saturated’, i.e. full!
While different versions of grounded theory use slightly different stages of
coding, I find it helpful to think of just three – first open coding, second,
selective coding, and third, theoretical coding. These are the stages recom-
mended by Glaser (1978), and they have the virtue of simplicity. Open coding
means just that – going through the data, line by line or paragraph by para-
graph, and attaching codes to the data, and very much staying open – seeing
what the data might be telling you. Second, those codes are grouped into
larger categories in the stage of selective coding, on the basis of the key cat-
egories that are shaping the theory. Third, in theoretical coding, those cate-
gories are related to each other and the relationships between them
considered. Attentive readers will again spot that this is the act of building
theory – finding constructs, and connecting them, and considering the nature
of that relationship.
Why is it useful?
Let me count the ways! In this book, I am an unashamed advocate of grounded

theory because of my experience in using it for research and with graduate
students. I can honestly say that every time I have experienced grounded
theory research, I have experienced new insights. Why should this be so? I
think it is because that GTM encourages a close look at the data. Coding line by
line or at the paragraph level encourages this close relationship with the data.
Of course, critics of the method will tell you that what is produced is a hope-
lessly detailed theory – but there are, of course, ways you can ‘scale up’ that
theory so it can then be engaged with other theories – and this a vital part of the
process to get value from the method.
GTM has an obvious appeal where no previous theory exists – so, for new
phenomena, it’s an ideal choice. In information systems, my own discipline we
are constantly grappling with new technological developments that cause
something of a rethink, especially when it comes to how people relate to
information technology – social networking web sites are one such example.
GTM is also said to be good for studying processes (Glaser 1978), and the
concept of a process in research is a very useful one. I have found it particularly
useful when analysing interview data probably because close attention to what
people say is likely to lead to new concepts. It simply encourages more
analytical thought to look at the data line by line as Strauss (1987) suggests. So,
while a larger grained thematic analysis of interviews might seem superficially
attractive, it does not give the results that GTM does, and I have seen this many
times with postgraduate students’ projects.
The most innovative and exciting aspects of grounded theory, in my opinion,
are twofold: First, the focus on building theory, as opposed to simply trying out
existing theories to see if they hold in a particular instance, encourages schol-
arship and innovation in all disciplines. Second, the fact that the researcher is
encouraged not to think about existing theories helps that innovation. It should
be noted though that this does not mean that researchers should ignore existing
theories – one is under a strict obligation to engage your emergent theory with
existing literature (Strauss 1987). The idea is beautifully put by Dey (1999,
p. 63), when he says that researchers should have an open mind, as opposed to
INTRODUCTION 11
an empty head. So the literature review is delayed – in practice most people

find a non-committal literature review helpful, but it should be noted that the
relevance of that literature review is completely determined by the emergent
theory.
It is perhaps best to conclude this section with a comment from an ex PhD
student, whom I overheard talking to someone else about his experience with
grounded theory. He said he found it hard, and time-consuming, but that it
had given him an excellent PhD. So, grounded theory is not for the
faint-hearted. But it is for anyone interested in doing academically rigorous
and exciting work!
Summary
· This chapter first explains the aim of the book – in short, the aim is to be a clear
and accessible introduction to GTM using worked examples to explain the
coding and theory-building process.
· The chapter also points out that this is a personal view of GTM, derived from
practical experience – GTM has a complicated intellectual history, as we will see
in the next chapter, and there are many contesting views of how GTM should be
done. I have opted for what in my view is simplest, and most flexible, while
remaining true to its original ideas advanced in 1967.
· The chapter then examines the issue of whether GTM is in fact difficult. It is
true to say that GTM has its fair share of complexity – but at its heart, it is an
elegant and simple method for analysing data and building theory. The type of
analysis demanded by GTM does require a patient and optimistic tempera-
ment on the part of the researcher – who will then be richly rewarded for their
effort.
· We then have a brief foray into the features of GTM. Twelve features, divided
into three themes, are discussed – theory, GTM and literature, using GTM in the
field and data analysis using GTM.
· When discussing theory and GTM, several points are covered. First, what a
theory actually consists of is examined and then discussed in the context of
theories produced by GTM.
· The stance that GTM has toward literature is discussed as a feature that
sometimes causes difficulty to novice users. The main idea is that the literature
about the phenomenon being researched should be referenced after the
theory has been built, not before. The main reason for this advice is to avoid
concepts being forced on the data, and this advice is probably still as
controversial as it was in 1967 when the first book on GTM was published. It is
one of the reasons, I think, that GTM as a method continually allows us to
discover new things in the data before us. Of course, no one can forget what
they have read – but GTM asks that we put this on one side when analysing the
data, and keep an open mind. There is actually a real discipline about literature
within GTM – it asks of us that we engage our findings with existing literature in
a systematic fashion.
· The chapter then briefly discusses some issues around using GTM in the field.
One of the major ideas of GTM is the idea that the emerging analysis should
dictate future data collection – a process known as theoretical sampling. This of
course may not always be possible or practical in all situations, but the fieldwork
can be constructed to allow future phases. This issue is further discussed in
Chapter 5.
· We then have a brief introduction to data analysis procedures in GTM, where
categories are identified in the data and connected to other categories. This
process of conceptualising about the data, and connecting those concepts, is
of course, theory building. These procedures are also leveraged independently
of theory-building purposes because they do provide a systematic and
well-known route for analysing data.
· I finally conclude with a section in which I unabashedly put forward the many
reasons I think GTM is a wonderful research method. I argue that the
theory-building focus of GTM is excellent for scholarship and innovation in all
disciplines, and the fact that the scholar is initially asked not to take into
account existing theories assists that innovation. Also, the detailed engage-
ment with the data that the coding procedures demand, in my view, increase
the chance of finding something new that can then be substantiated in other
settings.
EXERCISES
1 Type the words ‘Grounded Theory’ into a search engine such as Google or
Bing. Analyse the first page of results. What academic disciplines do the results
come from? Pick any result that has as its subject ‘What is grounded theory?’.
Name three differences between the description in this chapter and three
commonalities.
2 Type the words ‘Grounded Theory Method’. Is there any difference in the
search results? Name three key differences. For the research papers in the
results, identify which academic disciplines from which those papers come. Are
they different from the first set of results?
WEB RESOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory. This Wikipedia entry gives a

fairly comprehensive overview of GTM. It is weighted towards the Glaserian view
of GTM, but does acknowledge the Straussian and constructivist strands. It also
mentions pragmatist and critical realist grounded theory. Further discussion
of the differences between the major strands of grounded theory is contained
in Chapter 2.
https://methods.sagepub.com/. This is a good compendium of research

methods resources, subscribed to by many universities. Even if you are unable
INTRODUCTION 13
to access a subscription, this resource allows you to see the wide range of
possibilities for qualitative research in general and grounded theory in
particular.
http://www.mendeley.com/. This is a free citation manager and researchers’

social network. New research students can find it effective in helping them orga-
nise their literature searches and finding other colleagues with similar interests.
FURTHER READING
From Suddaby (2006), this is an interesting editorial, directed at the management

discipline. In the article, Suddaby discusses the characteristics of GTM and tackles
the problem of mislabelling grounded theory.
Suddaby, R. (2006). “From the Editors: What Grounded Theory Is Not.”
Academy of Management Journal, 49: 633–642.
At the same time Suddaby published his article, unbeknown to us, a colleague and
I considered the myths of grounded theory in a conference article. This article is a
simple introduction to grounded theory – and the myths surrounding it – from the
perspective of someone new to grounded theory. We followed it up with a later
journal article (Urquhart and Fernandez 2013).
Urquhart, C., and Fernandez, W. (2013). “Using Grounded Theory Method in
Information Systems: The Researcher as Blank Slate and Other Myths.” Journal
of Information Technology, 28(3): 224–236.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Grounded theory looks really difficult. Is it more difficult than other

qualitative research methods?
Personally, I don’t think it’s any more difficult than any other method. All methods
of analysis require investment in time to learn. GTM does differ in several key
respects from other qualitative methods. First, it has a controversial intellectual
tradition. This means that the first time user has to make sure that they are across
the main issues around the tradition and make sure that they can defend their use
of GTM. Second, it is unique in its very detailed examination of data, which can
and does result in new insights. This detailed examination requires patience and an
analytical eye, and both are skills which can be acquired. Third, it is interested
in building theory, which means one has to understand theory and levels of theory.
These three aspects mean that the first time user has to be scholarly – no bad thing
and no bad foundation for an academic career if just starting out! Generally a piece
of grounded theory work, especially in a PhD thesis, will yield several good journal
articles, so the investment in the method is usually worthwhile.
If GTM is so good, why isn’t it more used in my academic department?

Why isn’t it more popular?
The answer to this question lies in the dominance of quantitative approaches in
some academic disciplines. Qualitative research is in the minority in many dis-
ciplines, and GTM is one method among many. GTM is alone in qualitative
research methods, in having an emphasis on building theory. Interestingly, this
means that it does actually have the potential to contribute to quantitative
research because it should be possible to build a theory using GTM for future
testing. As for popularity, the searches you have done in the exercises should
have shown you that it is used widely in many disciplines. Most people who have
used the method will tell you it works, and I think this is because it is systematic in
approach. In Chapter 2, we will talk more about defending your use of GTM from
an academic perspective.
2
Grounded theory
method
This chapter:
· Explains how grounded theory method (GTM) started in 1967

· Explains the key characteristics of grounded theory method
· Discusses how grounded theory method has evolved into several strands
· Discusses different coding procedures in grounded theory
· Discusses how various myths surround the use of grounded theory
The discovery of grounded theory
Grounded theory started with a revolutionary book in revolutionary times. In

1967, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss published a book entitled The Dis-
covery of Grounded Theory. This book outlined a research methodology that
aimed at systematically deriving theories of human behaviour from empirical
data (Glaser and Strauss 1967). It was a reaction against the use of ‘armchair’
functionalist theories in sociology. Glaser and Strauss claimed that there was a
trend afoot in sociology, where was felt that the ‘great men’ (p. 10) of sociology
has generated enough outstanding theories, and all that was left to do was to
test them. They further charged that the ‘great men’ played ‘theoretical capi-
talist’ to a mass of ‘proletariat’ testers where sociologists were trained only to
test, not to imitate. The book gives a strong call to generate and ground theory
and to refocus on qualitative data rather than quantitative verification of the-
ories. Many people find it difficult to read the original 1967 book, which is a
pity – Melia (1996) says it has some ‘near mystical passages’, and that is true.
The book has to be seen in the historical context in which it was written, which
was in a decade where many new, groundbreaking ideas emerged and changed
society forever. I would highly recommend reading this book at some point
during your use of grounded theory – but perhaps not as your first read, as the
15
text is definitely of its time. It is indeed a classic, and it is always good schol-
arship to return to the original source of ideas. I have found myself turning
back to it again and again while writing this book. No elaborate procedures are
given, and there is a focus on what theory actually is, as well as the means of
developing it. It also provides the baseline for understanding the many debates
that have arisen around grounded theory method.
Several more books and articles by the co-originators followed, which
developed, and later debated, the method. Glaser published Theoretical Sensi-
tivity in 1978 (Glaser 1978), which introduced several key concepts that are
useful in grounded theory. First, he talked about the role of the literature, and
induction. The need to be theoretically sensitive was explained as the need
understand theories and how they are constructed, but without then imposing
those concepts on the emergent theory. He also introduced the notion of
‘coding families’ to help with relating concepts in the data.
In 1990, the Basics of Qualitative Research was published by Anselm Strauss
and Juliet Corbin (Glaser 1978; Strauss and Corbin 1990). A long and bitter
dispute erupted between Glaser and Strauss and what was at stake was nothing
less than the heart and identity of grounded theory. We shall return to the
dispute and why it was so important, later in the chapter.
The evolution of grounded theory
Following the publication of the seminal work in 1967, grounded theory spread
fairly quickly as a qualitative research method within the social sciences and
many other fields. For example, there was a 30-fold increase in published
papers with ‘grounded theory’ as a keyword in the health field from the 1980s
to the 1990s (Benoliel 1996). By the mid-1990s the methodological procedures
of grounded theory had permeated qualitative research to such an extent that
Miles and Huberman (1994) labelled it a ‘“common feature” [of qualitative]
analytic methods’.
Tony Bryant helpfully lays out the evolution of GTM in his book Varieties of
Grounded Theory (Bryant 2019). He highlights the work of Jeanne Quint (later
Jeanne Quint Benoliel) as a distinct and hitherto unacknowledged contribution
to the first generation of grounded theory. She worked with Glaser and Strauss
on data collection on the death and dying project, the first grounded theory
project, published as Awareness of Dying in 1965 (Glaser and Strauss 1965) and
published The Nurse and the Dying Patient in 1967 (Quint 1967).
The late Kathy Charmaz conceived and popularised constructivist grounded
theory (Charmaz 2006, 2014) and it is fair to say she has made grounded theory
accessible for a whole new generation of users. She sought to free that gener-
ation of what she saw as some outdated epistemological assumptions of posi-
tivism in grounded theory, and located herself in the ‘interpretive turn’ that
took place at the beginning of the 21st century, where a growing number of
GROUNDED THEORY METHOD 17
scholars sought to move grounded theory away from its positivist foundations
(see, for instance, Bryant 2002). She states the following in Charmaz (2014):
Researchers can use grounded theory strategies without endorsing mid-century

assumptions of an objective external reality, a passive, neutral observer, or a
detached, narrow empiricism. If, instead, we start with the assumption that
social reality is multiple, processual, and constructed, then we must take the
researcher’s position, privileges, perspective, and interactions into account as
an inherent part of the research reality. It, too, is a construction.
(p. 12)
She leaves a hugely helpful legacy for a new generation of researchers

navigating the intellectual terrain of grounded theory, precisely because she
was trained in the method by the co-founders. Her books are also packed with
practical examples of coding challenges, and a deep experience of grounded
theory – I routinely recommend these books to my students.
It is also important here to mention the work of Adele Clarke (2005), working
at the same time as Kathy Charmaz, who extended the Straussian strand of
grounded theory by looking closely at how ‘context’ was conceptualised. She
also locates herself in the ‘interpretive turn’ that took place at the beginning of
the 21st century, and makes I think a serious intellectual challenge to the
binary notion of context, as for instance, portrayed in the conditional matrix put
forward by Strauss and Corbin in 1990. Instead, Clarke suggests that we need to
understand not a context but a situation, drawing on influences such as Fou-
cault, Deleuze and Denzin. She also builds on the notion of a ‘structural pro-
cess’, the idea first advanced by Glaser and Strauss (1967) of structure and
process being more complexly related than previously thought. Moreover, she
gives us a tool to understand those situations – situational mapping. The
practical application of these ideas have been further extended in Clarke et al.
(2017).
As well as the groundbreaking work of Charmaz and Clarke, the turn of the
century saw a flurry of books, all representing different takes on grounded
theory, many of them taking a pluralistic view. In addition to the Charmaz
books, we have seen Birks and Mills (2011, 2015), who take a distinct and very
practical approach in the Straussian tradition. Gibson and Hartman (2014) in
their book Rediscovering Grounded Theory place grounded theory firmly within
the sociological debates that were occurring around the time when the 1967
book was published, and is all the better for it. It is a thoughtful book, and also
gives people practical advice on coding, theoretical sampling and moving to
formal theory. Gibson and Hartman are also firmly of the view that a pluralistic
view of grounded theory is needed, but with the proviso that we look at the
foundational texts – a position I entirely agree with. In the classic (Glaserian)
tradition, Walsh et al. (2020) give some concrete guidance to business and
management students, including drawing attention to some important
differences in the Glaserian strand – for instance, transcription of interviews is

not encouraged.
Characteristics of grounded theory method
We’ve already had a detailed overview of the features of grounded theory in

Chapter 1. What are the key characteristics that make GTM different? Glaser
and Strauss (1967) defined their method as ‘the discovery of theory from data –
systematically obtained and analysed in social research’. It’s interesting to note
then that the systematic nature of the method was emphasised from day one –
and page one – of the very first book on grounded theory, by the founders
themselves. This of course makes it attractive to novice researchers. As a
novice researcher myself in 1997, I can remember stating that it offered well
signposted procedures for new researchers (Urquhart 1997). The signposting of
procedures is most clear in Strauss (1987) and the controversial book by Strauss
and Corbin (1990). Of course, this can also be the Achilles heel of the method,
in that just simply following the procedures without thought can lead to lack of
creativity. One thing I warn my postgrads about with grounded theory is that it
is not a failsafe cookbook recipe for research. Even if you do follow all the
prescribed steps in grounded theory, you cannot necessarily turn the handle
and expect a theory to drop out. Like any methodology of any kind, it requires
flexibility, thought and creativity in application.
In Urquhart et al. (2010), we identified four key characteristics of GTM.
1 The main purpose of the GTM method is theory building.

2 As a general rule, the researcher should make sure that they have no precon-
ceived theoretical ideas before starting the research.
3 Analysis and conceptualisation are engendered through the core process of
constant comparison, where every slice of data is compared with all existing
concepts and constructs, to see if it enriches an existing category (i.e. by
adding/enhancing its properties), forms a new one, or points to a new relation.
4 ‘Slices of data’ of all kinds are selected by a process of theoretical sampling,
where the researcher decides on analytical grounds where to sample from next.
The first characteristic implies that researchers who leverage GTM only for
coding procedures are ignoring the main purpose of the method – which is to
build theory. Theory building is why grounded theory was developed in the
first place. Glaser and Strauss make a distinction between substantive theories
(pertaining to the phenomena at hand) and formal theories. This distinction is
discussed in more detail later in the book. In developing either type of theory,
the researcher needs to be capable of theoretical sensitivity. Theoretical sensi-
tivity is based on being steeped in the field of investigation and associated
general ideas (Glaser 1978) so that a researcher understands the context in
which the theory is developed. This concept of theoretical sensitivity is key –
how can we build theories ourselves, unless we understand what a theory is?
GROUNDED THEORY METHOD 19
The second characteristic (of having no preconceived theoretical ideas) is

often held (erroneously) to imply that the researcher should not look at the
existing literature before doing the empirical research. According to Glaser
(1992), the dictum in grounded theory is that there is no need to review the
literature in the substantive area under study and that this idea is:
brought about by the concern that literature might contaminate, stifle or

contaminate or otherwise impede the researchers’ effort to generate categories.
(Glaser 1992, p. 31)
He hastens to add though, that this applies only in the beginning, and that
when the theory is sufficiently developed, that the researcher needs to review
the literature in the substantive field and relate that literature to their own work
(Glaser 1992).
From my experience of working with postgraduates, and coding for the first
time, it’s very hard for those postgraduates not to impose what they have read
on the data in front of them. Being faced with the task of looking for emergent
concepts in the data, without any help from anything other than your own
mind, is a scary process – so small wonder that, when looking for patterns in
the data, people might want to fall back on what they have read already.
If, however, we privilege other theories, rather than looking at the data, we
lose what is for me the key delight – and the key edge of the method – what
Glaser (1992) calls ‘emergence’. The idea of emergence, for me, is that we stay
true to our data – that we look for what the data is telling us. Of course, the idea
of some inherent truth residing in the data depends on your point of view – I
prefer to think of constructing meanings about the data – but the idea that you
give the data due consideration, due respect, before imposing other theories on it,
makes perfect sense. It makes even more sense when we are dealing with new
phenomena, such as information technology, that has permeated most aspects of
social life. For instance, if we base our understanding of how people interact with
information technology on psychological theories, and those theories are based
on large samples of American undergraduate students, how relevant might be
the theory we are imposing? Far better then, to allow the data to tell its own story
in the first instance, build a theory and then subsequently engage your theory
with the theory you thought you might impose, initially. You can then see if your
emergent theory confirms or challenges existing theories. So, potentially, GTM
has a huge role to play in theory building, in all disciplines.
The third characteristic, constant comparison, is a key component of grounded
theory. Comparative analysis was a standard method in social research long
before 1967, but in GTM, it is a key part of the method. As discussed in Chapter
1, it is the process of constantly comparing instances of data labelled in one
category and comparing with other instances of data labelled for that category.
It is an incredibly simple, but deceptively powerful, rule of thumb for analysing
data. The process of constant comparison, in my view, allows the meaning and
construction of concepts to remain under review. Consciously comparing the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
»Kyllä tarkataan kaikki selväksi ennenkuin aloitetaan…»
»Sitä minäkin…», sanoi patruuna.
»Eipä niitä ole vahingoita minun tähteni tullut», kellahti Jussi. »Vai
onko?»
»Ei ole tullut… ei ole tullut… Ei ole todellakaan koskaan sattunut,

kun sinä olet ollut matkassa!»
Patruuna kävi keveämmälle tuulelle, kun sen nyt tässä yhtäkkiä

muisti.
»Kun eivät maistelisi itseään ylen humalaan», sanoi hän. »Alkavat

remuta ja huutaa niinkuin tavallisesti. Juoppo se taitaa olla
Hermannikin?»
»Väliä nyt siitä, jos joisikin, vaan se ei humalassaan malta olla

siivosti, vaan remuaa ja huutaa ja hakee riitaa tuttujen miesten
kanssa», vastasi Jussi.
»Jaa», sanoi patruuna. »Mutta kyllä kai nyt määrän pitää?»
»Pitää määrän, kun ei anneta…»
Jussi iski silmää ja patruuna ymmärsi, mitä Jussi tarkoitti.
Jussi viipyi Lampalla koko päivän. Hän istui pirtissä; söi silavaa ja
leipää ja tähyili ikkunoista ulos. Jos joku outo pirttiin tuli, vilahti Jussi
uunin taakse. Puolenpäivän aikana hiihtelivät tullimiehetkin pihalle.
Tarkastelivat Suomen puolelta tulevien rekiä, kävivät puodissakin ja
puhelivat pihalta. Ikkunan pielestä seurasi Jussi heidän liikkeitään ja
koetti Saalkreenin kasvoista päättää, oliko tämä jo rakkauden kirjeen
saanut.
Siinä viipyivät pihalta tunnin verran, hiihtelivät ympäri rakennuksia

ja kävivät makasiinin luona ikäänkuin jälkiä nuuskien. Fynke kävi
halkovajassakin, jossa Joonas pilkkoi puita, ja Saalkreeni ja
Jönssonni hiihtelivät joelta mutkin. Koko talossa oli kuitenkin hyvin
hiljaista eikä missään näkynyt mitään sellaista, josta olisi voinut
epäillä, että oltiin puuhaamassa suurta kavallusta. Puodissa olivat he
tiedustelleet patruunaa, ja Tilta oli patruunan neuvon mukaan
vastannut, että patruuna oli ollut pahoinvoipa jo monta päivää.
Jussia eivät saaneet nähdä, vaikka Fynke kävi pirtissäkin.
— Mitähän ne tarkastelivat! — mietti Jussi, ja päätteli, että ne

katselivat, oliko talossa minkäänlaisia hommia… tohtisiko
huoletonna viettää Tirkan syntymäpäivää…
Vihdoin läksivät hiihtelemään, kun alkoi jo hämärtää. Silloin

Jussikin ilmestyi pirtistä, selitti jotakin Joonaalle ja nousi suksilleen.
Hän hiihti Suomen puolelle, mutta ei lähtenyt mökkiään kohden,
vaan oikaisi suoraan Keskitalon rantaan.
Hermanni oli jo levottomana vartonut häntä, kuullakseen kuinka

alkaa käydä. Aletaanko yrittää vai eikö?
Jussi selitti, että valmiiksi piti taittaa reet ja hevoset, selitti senkin,
että Lampalta tulee puoti-Heikki ruunalta ja että Friikon veljekset
otetaan mukaan. Ja saisi Hermanni jo molemmat kuormansa panna
valmiiksi…
Kaikista asiaan kuuluvista seikoista Jussi selitti ja lopuksi kuiskasi

Hermannille jotakin korvaan. Se oli hyvä uutinen Hermannille, koska
nauruun meni suu. Mutta sen jätti Jussi sanomatta, että tullimiehet
oli aiottu narrata Tirkan luokse syntymäpäivää viettämään. Eikä
Hermannikaan ymmärtänyt mitään kysyä. Oli aivan niinkuin ei
tullimiehiä olisi ollut laisinkaan.
— On siinä kerran tolvana mies, kun ei mitään »hurtista» muista

kysyä! — ajatteli Jussi.
Pimeän tultua erosivat miehet. Hermanni läksi nopeasti

hiihtämään Ranta-Jussin mökille konjakkia noutamaan, mutta Jussi
hiihteli Ruotsin puolelle. Hän ei mennyt Lampan rantaan, vaan
suoraan Rantakäyrään, jossa Saalkreeni asui. Saalkreenin
huoneessa oli pimeä, eikä pihaltakaan näkynyt ketään. Hetkeksi
Jussi seisahtui suksilleen, mutta kun ei ketään kuulunut, hiihti hän
läpi pihan maantielle, sen poikki suoraan metsän laitaan. Metsän
rantaa pitkin läksi hän verkalleen hiihtämään Tirkan tuvalle päin,
jonka sivuikkunasta sopi valo näkymään metsän puolelle. Tirkan
mökkiä lähestyessään hän seisahtui vähän väliä kuuntelemaan.
Hitaasti hiihtäen hän lähestyi lähestymistään mökkiä metsän
puolelta. Pääsi jo niin likelle, että näki ikkunan läpi miehiä liikkuvan
pirtissä edestakaisin. Hiihti vielä muutamia syliä ja tunsi sisällä olijat.
Siellä oli Jönssonni, joka nauraa hähätti, totilasi kädessä, Fynke,
joka parhaillaan teki totia, ja Kruuki, joka istui pöydän päässä ja
näkyi maistavan lasistaan. Tirkka näytti passailevan ja hoitavan tulta,
uunissa. Mutta Saalkreenia ei näkynyt…
Jussin teki mieli mennä vielä likemmäksi kuullakseen mitä sisällä

puheltiin, sillä puhelevan ne näkyivät ja nauroivat väliin ja olivat
iloisen näköisiä. Mutta juuri kun hän oli seinän viereen pääsemässä,
kuului nopeatahtinen aisatiu'un helke maantieltä… ja tulija kääntyi
Tirkan tietä mökille…
Jussi painausi seinää vasten, toivoen, että hänelle pimeästä olisi
apua… Hän kyykötti siinä, sompasauvat kädessä ja suksen kärjet
metsään päin käännettynä, eikä uskaltanut juuri hengittääkään…
Pirtistä alkoi kuulua liikettä ja nopeaa puhelua, niinkuin kuuluu,

kun monta miestä yhtaikaa puhuu… Jussi kuuli mainittavan
Saalkreenia… Ovi aukeni, ja Jussi erotti nyt selvään Saalkreenin
äänen…
»Terve tulemaan… terve tulemaan!» kuului Tirkka toivottavan.
— Mitähän perhanaa tämä nyt on! — mietti Jussi ja teroitti kaikki

kuulohermonsa.
»Kiitän», kuului Saalkreenin ääni. »Mutta ikäväkseni en voi nyt

viettää syntymäpäivää, niinkuin lupasin…» Tirkka ja toiset tullimiehet
alkoivat päivitellä ja tiedustella, mikä este nyt niin äkkiä tuli… että
sepä nyt oli…
»Luin aivan vasta kirjeen ja se on niin tärkeä, että… Viivyn päivän

tai pari matkalla… Mutta halusin tulla ilmoittamaan…»
— Ahaa, — mietti Jussi ja hytkyi hyvästä mielestä.
»No jopa se nyt oli, ja minä Saalkreenia varten nisutkin leivotin»,

kuului Tirkan ääni.
»Halusin sanoa, että ette joisi humalaan itseänne ja muistaisitte

velvollisuutenne», kuului taas Saalkreenin ääni.
»Ei ole isoja juotavia», kuului Tirkka vakuuttavan.

Sitten alkoivat puhella kaikin yhteen ääneen, niin ettei Jussi
saanut selvää eikä kuullut kuin joitakin sanoja. Lamppaa kuuli hän
mainittavan useamman kerran, ja kerran oli kuulevinaan Keskitalon
Hermanninkin nimen.
— Nyt siellä pohtivat, ja Saalkreeni antaa ohjeitaan, — mietti Jussi

seinän takana, koettaen saada kuuloonsa joka sanan. — Nyt puhuu
Jönssonni… nyt… Se on Fynken ääni… Nyt… rämisee Saalkreeni…
Jo hyvästelevät!… jo hyvästelevät!…
Kuului, että ovi aukeni ja portailta alkoi häly kuulua, mutta Jussi ei
liikahtanut paikaltaan. Jo käännettiin hevosta, ja äänten seasta
kuului aisatiuku helähtävän harvakseen hevosen kääntyessä…
Mutta muutaman minuutin perästä se alkoi helistä nopeatahtisesti,
josta Jussi ymmärsi, että hevonen oli poismenossa…
Samalla ilmestyivät tullimiehet pirttiin ja alkoivat puhua

kovemmalla äänellä. Tirkka pyöri joukossa, pullo kädessä, ja käski
uutta totia tekemään…
— Hyvä tulee! — myhähti Jussi, astui suksilleen ja hiihti suoraan

Lampalle.
Joonas sattui olemaan tallin luona. Hänelle puhui Jussi muutamia

sanoja melkein kuiskaamalla ja puhalsi menemään rantakujasta
jäälle. Konttorin ikkunaan ei vielä ollut vedetty kaihtimia, ja Jussi näki
patruunan kävelevän lattialla sikaari suussa…
Vinkeää vauhtia hiihti Jussi Suomen puolelle ja suoraan

Keskitaloon.
Pihalla pyöri miehiä, ja kaksi korkeaa kuormaa oli valmiiksi
pantuna ranta-aitan edessä, mutta hevosia ei ollut valjastettu. Friikon
veljekset olivat kumpikin hevosineen saapuneet ja olivat juuri
lähtemässä kuormia panemaan, kun Jussi ilmestyi joukkoon.
»Hee, mitä kuuluu?» kysyi Hermanni Jussin nähtyään. Hän oli

nähtävästi ottanut hyvänlaisia ryyppyjä, — rohkeimmillaan oli ja
puhuessaan höysti lauseensa kirouksilla. Maistaneet olivat jo Friikon
veljeksetkin ja talon renki Käyrä-Helmeri jahkaili, sikaari suupielessä,
että eikö jo saa valjastaa hevosia…
»Malttakaa hetkinen vielä!» sanoi Jussi, käski sitten Hermannin

nurkan taakse ja siellä kuiskailivat keskenään tovin aikaa. Hermanni
keskustelun lopussa remahti nauruun ja virkkoi:
»Voi saakeli!»
Sitten erosivat.
Jussi läksi takaisin Ruotsin puolelle. Ilma oli nyt lauhtunut,

kuunpohja oli ja taivas oli paksussa pilvessä. Ei erottanut Ruotsin
puolen taloista tulia eikä joella äskeistä suksen latua. Jussi noudatti
tikkatietä, joka vei suoraan Lampalle.
Kun hän pääsi pihaan, ajoi siihen samassa hevonen, Ruotsin

puolen maantietä tullen. Yksin istui ajaja kappireessä ja löysäsi
menemään tallin seinälle. Joonas pyrähti samassa tallista, kun
Jussikin ehti tulijan luokse…
Se oli Sammelin Pekka, joka oli ollut Makon kylän tienhaarassa

vahtaamassa Saalkreenia ja nyt laukkaa tuli asiasta ilmoittamaan.
»Niin ajoi, että höyry reen perässä punoi», selitti Sammelin Pekka.
»Minä seisoin tienvieressä, kuusen suojassa…»
»Kääntyikö Rovanjärven tielle?» tiedusti Jussi, silmät kiiluen ja

hyvillään.
»Varmaan… tienhaarassahan minä seisoin…»
»Ja tunsit varmaan, että oli Saalkreeni?»
»No aivan varmaan… aisatiuku pauhasi ja näin selvästi lakin ja

viikset…»
»Nyt, pojat!»
Jussi sanoi sen ilosta väräjävin äänin.
»Joonas, anna soida!» käski hän sitten. »Joko puoti-Heikki on

mennyt?» kysyi hän samaan hengenvetoon.
»Jo lähti palasta ennen kuin sinä tulit», vastasi Joonas,

juostessaan suuren ruokakellon nauhaan, joka riippui pirtin
päädyssä olevasta pienestä kellokatoksesta. Hän alkoi sitä tahtiinsa
vetää, ja kello moikui…
Patruuna, joka konttoriinsa kuuli soiton ja tiesi, ettei vielä ollut

iltasen aika, rynnisti kuistin eteen ja huusi, että mikä siellä…
Joonas ei kuullut häntä, vaan veteli rihmasta, niin että koko

pirttirakennus jytisi.
Mutta ennenkuin patruuna ehti mihinkään päin lähteä, livahti Jussi

nopeasti hänen eteensä ja melkein kuiskaamalla kehoitti:
»Menkää sisälle vain… Annamme lähtömerkkejä… Kaikki on
käynyt hyvin…»
Patruuna seisoi hetken ällistyneenä, eikä ymmärtänyt mitään

vastata. Samassa Jussi katosi pimeään, ja ruokakello lakkasi
soimasta. Hän palasi noutamaan lakin päähänsä konttorista ja meni
pihalle, kävi tallissa ja haeskeli puuvajasta ja nurkkain takaa, mutta
ei tavannut ketään. Pirtissä oli pimeä, mutta pihalla tallin seinässä oli
hevonen kiinni. Näin pimeällä hän ei tuntenut hevosta. Hän meni
pirttiin ja kysyi kovalla äänellä ovessa:
»Onko täällä ketään! Mihin helvettiin ne katosivat?»
Penkiltä kuului vastaus:
»On täällä muuan…»
Patruuna ei tuntenut äänestä ja kysyi toistamiseen, mutta

hiljaisemmalla äänellä:
»Kuka se on?»
Se oli Sammelin Pekka. Pekka kertoi siinä kuiskaamalla, että oli

nähnyt Saalkreenin ajavan kovaa vauhtia Rovanjärveen, mutta
muuta hän ei tiennyt…
Mutta se uutinen oli jo itsestään patruunalle erinomaisen hauska.

Lyhyttä naurua hökerrellen käski hän Sammelin Pekan mennä
puotiin ja komensi Tiltan Pekalle antamaan hyvät ryypyt ja sikaarit.
IV
Talonsa rannassa oli Keskitalon Hermanni kuunnellut, koska Lampan

ruokakello helähtäisi. Se oli merkki, että saisivat lähteä. Kun kello,
jonka ääni nyt helposti kuului Suomen puolelle, ensi kerran helähti,
juoksi Hermanni pihaan.
Kaikilla kavaltajilla olivat jo kuormat pantuina ja hevoset

valjastettuina. Pihaan oli kellon ääni kuitenkin kuulunut yhtä selvään
kuin rantaankin; kun Hermanni rannasta saapui juosten, istuivat
miehet jo kuormillaan, valmiina lähtemään minä hetkenä hyvänsä.
Ennenkuin lähtivät, tarjosi Hermanni vielä pullostaan ryypyn

kaikille muille paitsi Käyrä-Helmerille, joka oli jo melkein liiaksi
maistanut.
Jussi oli määrännyt, että ainoastaan yksi kuorma kerrallaan saisi

ajaa poikki. Kaikki tiu'ut ja muut helisevät piti ottaa pois ja joen yli oli
ajettava kävelyä ja noustava Ruotsin puolen maantielle sitä tietä,
joka vei kylän laitaan ja siitä vasta nousi maantiehen. Maantietä oli
sitten ajettava pikkuhölkkää Korven Israeliin asti.
Hermanni muisti Jussin neuvon. Hän lasketti ensimäisenä jäälle ja

käski toisten tulla perässä kymmenen minuutin väliajalla. Käyrä-
Helmeri ei kuitenkaan malttanut vartoa, vaan sukaisi hevostaan
ruoskalla ja antoi nelistää Hermannin perään. Friikon veljekset
vartoivat hetken, mutta ajaa tomahuttivat sitten peräkkäin jäälle.
Lampan puoti-Heikki ei halunnut yksin jäädä ja päästi menemään
Friikon veljesten perään.
Ruotsinpuolisella rannalla olivat jo kaikin peräkkäin, äänettöminä

kuormiensa päällä istuen. Ei kuulunut isoa ääntä, vaikka viisi
kuormaa jonona meni, sillä kun pakkanen oli lauhtunut, eivät
reenjalaksetkaan naukuneet eivätkä reslat natisseet. Eikä yhtään
tiukua ollut helisemässä!
Hermannin hevonen nousi jo maantielle, ja hän läksi hölkkää

ajamaan ja katosi pian pimeään. Käyrä-Helmeri saapui perässä,
istuen korkealla kuorman päällä. Kun hänen piti kääntää Hermannin
perään, notkahti hän tienkäänteessä kuormalta ja putosi pää edellä
utukkaan. Ohjat sekaantuivat jalkoihin, hevonen kääntyi liiaksi ojaan
päin ja kuorma kellahti kumoon, kuitenkin niin, ettei mitään pudonnut
Helmerin päälle.
Kun jälessä tulevat saapuivat paikalle, kirosi ja puikkaroi Helmeri

kinoksessa. Hevonen oli kääntynyt poikki päin, mutta aisa ei, kumma
kyllä, ollut katkennut. Kuormana olleet säkit ja laatikot olivat
singonneet sikin sokin utukkaan. Onneksi ei näkynyt ketään kulkijaa
tiellä, ja ensimäisiin mökkeihinkin oli melko matka.
»Hiidessä siinä huuda ja kiroile!» sanoivat Friikon veljekset ja

riensivät auttamaan Helmeriä pystyyn ja kuormaa kuntoon. Lampan
puoti-Heikkikin ehti avuksi ja pian saivat kuorman reilaan, Helmerin
kirotessa ja puhdistaessa lunta korvistaan.
»Onko ryyppyä kenelläkään?» rämisi hän.

»Tule kuormallesi eläkä äykkää siellä», vastattiin. »Hermannilla
ryypyt ovat, ei muilla ole… Ka, joudu, tule… Pian aikaa olemme
hukassa kaikin… Saattavat olla hurtat liikkeellä ja tulla milloin
hyvänsä…»
»Tulkootpa… tässä… äh!»
Helmeri kompuroi kuormalleen ja yhä äykkyi ryyppyä. Kun sai

ohjat käsiinsä, niin kiljaisi ja sivalsi hevosta ruoskalla ja ajoi laukkaa
menemään. Toiset seurasivat perässä, täyttä neliä hekin.
Niin katosivat eikä sattunut yhtään tulijaa vastaan ennenkuin siinä

kohden, jossa Korven Israelin tie erkani maantiestä. Mutta sekin
vastaantulija oli vain joku rahdista palaava mies, joka näytti
nukkuvan raanujen alla.
Kun ehtivät Korven Israelin pihaan ja ajoivat kookkaan aitan eteen,

olivat Hermanni ja Israeli jo kuormaa purkamassa. Nopeasti ja
supattamalla puhuen siinä liikuttiin ja keveästi nousivat säkit,
nousivat varsinkin Friikon veljeksillä, jotka olivat kuuluisia
voimastaan.
Käyrä-Helmeri kyllä vieläkin äykkäili, eikä hänestä ollut isoa apua

kuormien purkauksessa, mutta työ sujui hänen avuttaan niin, että
ylen äkkiä olivat kaikki reslat tyhjennetyt.
Kun kaikki tuodut tavarat oli saatu aittaan ja ovi lukittu, otti
Hermanni pullonsa ja tarjosi kaikille, tarjosi Israelillekin, joka, vaikka
ei ollutkaan viinamies, otti aika siemauksen.
Sitten lähtivät täyttä juoksua ajamaan Makon kylään päin, josta

vasta oli määrä poiketa Suomen puolelle. Nyt ajoivat kaikin
peräkkäin, tyhjillä liisteillä istuen ja rallatellen. Ennen Makon kylää
tuli taas joitakuita kuormahevosia vastaan, mutta kavaltajat ajoivat
juoksua sivu, että lumi pölisi. Makon kylästä ajoivat jäälle ja siitä
Suomen puolelle.
Kun pääsivät perille Keskitaloon, oli määrä, että heti pannaan

uudet kuormat ja lähdetään yhtäkyytiä toistamiseen, ellei Ranta-
Jussi ole kieltoa lähettänyt. Mutta konjakki oli loppunut, sillä Jussi ei
ollut Hermannille antanut kuin verrattain vähän, luvaten poikansa
Jannen matkassa lähettää lisää, jotta saavat uudet virkistykset, kun
toisen kerran lähtevät poikki viemään.
Ja kun nyt yhtaikaa tomahuttivat ajaa Keskitalon pihaan, ilmestyi

Ranta-Jussin Janne tallin porstuasta ja kuiskasi Hermannin korvaan:
»Apepurtilossa on kaksi pulloa… Mutta käski olla vinkeästi

matkassa ja panna heti uudet kuormat…»
»Hyvä on!» sanoi Hermanni. »Mitä sanoi Jussi kuuluvan?» kysyi

hän sitten Jannelta.
»Käski sanoa, että tie on auki taivasta myöten», vastasi Janne,

hänkin innostuneena kavalluksen onnistumisesta.
Hermanni komensi toiset miehet panemaan kuormia ja alkoi itse

kiskoa pulloista korkkia…
»Vähänpä sitä tuli!» sanoi Käyrä-Helmeri, kun näki, ettei

Hermannilla ollut kuin kaksi pulloa.
»Ei kaikkia yhdellä kertaa», vastasi Hermanni.

Ryyppyjen toiveessa Helmerikin innostui uusia kuormia
panemaan.
Yö oli jo silloin alkanut, ja kylän joka talossa nukuttiin.
*****
Kun Joonas oli ruokakelloa soittanut, oli hän, Jussin käskyä

totellen, mennyt maantielle vahtiin, mutta Jussi hiihteli itse Tirkan
tuvalle, nähdäkseen ja ollakseen varma, ettei mitään vaaraa ollut
pelättävissä.
Metsän puolelta hän taas lähestyi pirttiä ja näki peitteettä olevan

ikkunan läpi, että syntymäpäivän vietto oli kauniissa alussa. Jönssoni
oli jo aika lailla humalassa ja lisää näkyi juovan. Fynke ja Kruuki
näyttivät vielä olevan verrattain selviä, mutta vilkkaasti puhelivat ja
nauroivat. Tirkka nousi kai kellarista, koska ilmestyi äkkiä keskelle
lattiaa, aukaisematon pullo kädessään…
Sen nähtyään tullimiehet hurrasivat ja nauroivat päälle.
— Hyvä tulee! — arveli Jussi itsekseen, loittoni sitten metsän

reunaan ja kuunteli siellä.
Pari tuntia hän vahtaili. Tullimiehet pyörähtelivät jo aika keveästi,

ja laulunloilotus kuului joukkoon. Silloin Jussi lähti hiihtämään
Lampalle päin ja tapasi tiellä Joonaan, joka koko ajan oli kävellyt
kahakäteen, tarkastellen kulkijoita.
»Jää sinä nyt tähän vielä, minä käyn tuolla ylempänä», sanoi
Jussi, mutta ylemmäksi hän ei hiihtänytkään, vaan meni suoraan
Lampalle. Siellä olivat jo puodin ovet kiinni ja talossa näyttiin
nukkuvan.
Mutta patruuna valvoi konttorissaan, ja valveilla oli Tiltakin, vaikka
liike jo oli Jussin neuvon mukaan lopetettu. Hiljaa hiipien Jussi meni
konttoriin ja kuiskaamalla puheli patruunan kanssa.
Lähtiessä olisi Jussilla povi täynnä konjakkipulloja. Niistä hän antoi

kaksi pojalleen, joka vartoi ulkona ja oli tullut niitä noutamaan. Ne oli
pojan määrä viedä Keskitalon Hermannille.
»Eikö ole Rämä-Heikkiä näkynyt?» tiedusteli Jussi.
»Ei ole!» vastasi poika ja sanoi sitten kuin nuhdellen isäänsä:
»Menittekin antamaan semmoiselle juopolle koko säkillisen…»
Sitä oli Jussikin katunut, vaikkei vielä tiennytkään, oliko Heikki

myyntihommassaan menestynyt vai eikö. Mutta pahinta Jussi
kuitenkin pelkäsi, sillä huhuja oli kulkemassa, että Suomen puolen
tullimiehet nykyisin olivat vireitä ja valppaita ja kävivät
metsäkylissäkin viinanmyyjiä ahdistelemassa.
Mutta sitä hän ei kuitenkaan nyt joutanut miettimään, vaan läksi

hiihtämään ylöspäin siihen kohtaan, jossa tie joelta nousi Ruotsin
puolen valtatiehen ja jota kavaltajien oli määrä kulkea. Kun hän ehti
käänteeseen, huomasi hän heti pimeässäkin, että tienhaarassa oli
kuorma kaatunut ja laaja siljo polkeentunut lumeen molemmin puolin
tienhaaraa. Se harmitti Jussia samoin kuin sekin, etteivät poikkituojat
olleet kääntäneet niin varovasti haarassa kuin Jussi oli neuvonut. Nyt
näkyi selvään, että jalaksenjäljet veivät Makon kylään päin.
— Ei ole siitäkään Hermannista! — sanoi hän ja häntä alkoi

arveluttaa.
Kuitenkin hän toivoi parasta ja palasi maantietä myöten Lampalle.
Joonas käveli vielä tiellä eikä sanonut ketään sellaista henkilöä
olleen liikkeellä, josta olisi mitään epäiltävää.
Ehtivät siinä muutaman sanaparin vaihtaa, niin alkoi Tirkan tuvalta

päin kuulua tallatusta. Jussi ja Joonas kuuntelivat henkeä pidättäen,
ja Jussin tarkka korva erotti Jönssonin äänen.
»Se piru on lähtenyt liikkeelle!» kuiskasi hän Joonaalle.
Rallatus tuntui tulevan yhä likemmäksi, kuuluen nyt jo tieltä,

suoraan heidän edestään.
»Jönssoni on!» vakuutti Jussi, ja he lähtivät molemmin

kävelemään
Lampan tienhaaraan, josta kääntyivät pihaan.
»Menemme piiloon, jos pihaan tulee», sanoi Jussi. »Jos se piru

tuntee meidät, niin se arvaa, että jotakin on tekeillä!»
He kuulivat Jönssonin rallattavan tienhaarassa ja askelen äänestä

päättivät, että pihaan kääntyy. Ja kuta likemmäksi taloa saapui, sitä
hiljemmin alkoi rallattaa, ja kun pihaan tuli, niin lopetti laulunsa
kokonaan.
Joonas ja Jussi piiloutuivat halkovajaan. He kuulivat Jönssonin

kävelevän ympäri pihaa ja itsekseen kiroilevan. Talo oli aivan
pimeänä ja ovet lukossa. Konttorista ei päässyt valo tuikkimaan, ja
muissa huoneissa oli pimeää. Jönssoni kävi kuistin ovella, jyskytti
pirtin ovea ja tallin oveen potkaisi ja itsekseen kuului kiroilevan.
»Kyllä se siitä lähtee ja menee takaisin Tirkan tuvalle», toivoi

Jussi… »Eivät sieltä juotavat kesken lopu!»
Tallin luona tuntui Jönssoni kuitenkin seisahtuvan, koska ei
askelten ääntä kuulunut. Mutta hetken kuluttua alkoi kuulua niinkuin
kävelisi keskellä pihaa. Nyt ei kiroillut, vaan ärisi muuten.
»Jo lähtee maantielle päin!» kuiskasi Jussi.
Askelten ääni kuuluikin jo maantiehen nousevalta tieltä, mutta

samalla alkoi maantieltä päin kuulua muita ääniä, jotka Jussi hoksasi
heti Fynken ja Kruukin ääniksi.
»No nyt tuli kumma! Ne tulevat toisetkin! Kelvotonta miestä sitä

Tirkkaa, kun ei saattanut nyt noita viekastella pysymään sisällä, vaan
päästi ulos!» päivitteli Jussi.
Hän toivoi kuitenkin, että poistuvat pian takaisin, kun eivät mitään
näe eivätkä kuule. Mutta tullimiehet olivat jo siksi maistelleet, ettei
heidän ollut kylmä eikä nälkä. Jussin ja Joonaan harmiksi jäivät he,
kun vastakkain tulivat, juttelemaan keskelle tietä.
Yö oli hiljainen, lauhkea ja pimeä, eikä mistään päin kuulunut

ääniä. Kerran kuitenkin tuntui Jussista, että ylempää, missä
kavaltajain tuli poikki kulkea, kuului kuin ulvova huuto.
— No, ei hätää vielä, — mietti Jussi. — Mutta jos lähtevät

ylöspäin, niin…
Hän ei saanut selvää, mistä tullimiehet puhelivat, mutta Jönssonin

nauru kuului joskus joukosta.
Silloin yhtäkkiä otti Jussin korva ääntä joelta päin, suoraan

Lampan rannasta. Se ääni tuntui syntyvän siitä, että hevonen juoksi
ja reki ratisi.
»Kuka perkele…!»
Jussi ei ehtinyt sanoa muuta ennenkuin hevonen porhalsi pihaan,

ajaja istuen korkean kuorman päällä. Silloin vasta tullimiehetkin
tulijan äkkäsivät, ja rohkeimmillaan kun olivat humalassa, karkasivat
he hevoseen kiinni…
Syntyi kauhea meteli. Jussi tunsi selvästi Keskitalon Hermannin

äänen… Huutoa, kirouksia ja pauketta kuului, laukesi kerran
revolverikin…
Jussi kuunteli kuin tulisten hiilten päällä ja hänen ajatuksensa

lensivät kuin salama… Sen se teki Hermanni! Siinä nyt patruuna
näkee!
»Missä Ranta-Jussi on? Hoi!» kuuli Jussi Hermannin hoilaavan.
»Sinä saatana!» noitui Jussi, mutta hän ymmärsi hyvin, ettei

mikään enää auttanut. Ja äkkiä selvisi hänelle sekin, minkävuoksi
Hermanni oli suoraan Lampalle ajanut. Oli tahtonut näyttää, että hän
uskaltaa! Ja ehkä sen vuoksi, että saisi lisää konjakkia!
Melun kestäessä aukenivat paukahtaen molemmat kuistin ovet

selälleen, ja patruuna pullahti pihalle niinkuin viskattu…
»Kuka perkele…! Minun pihallani…» kuului patruunan järeä ääni.
Salaman nopeudella käsitti Jussi, kuinka asiat ovat, ja Joonaan

rientäessä joukkoon livisti hän suksilleen ja painui kujasta jäälle.
Yhteen mellakkaan ja rähinään sotkeutuivat tullimiesten,

patruunan, Joonaan ja Hermannin äänet. Mutta Jussi hiihti jäälle ja
tielle. Hän arveli toistenkin poikkitulevien olevan yhtä hulluja kuin
Hermannikin ja päätti ehtiä palauttamaan heidät… etteivät joutuisi
tullimiesten käsiin.
Oikein oli hän arvannutkin. Puolijoessa jo ajaa kaahatti Käyrä-

Helmeri ja huusi, ja vaikka Jussi asian selitti, ei Helmeri sittenkään
aikonut totella, vaan aikoi ajaa Lampalle. Jussi sai kuitenkin ohjat
käsiinsä ja käänsi hevosen takaisin Suomen puolelle. Helmeriltä hän
kuuli, että Friikon veljekset ja Puoti-Heikki olivat ajaneet entistä tietä,
jota oli ollut määrä kulkea…
Hän pyörsi takaisin Lampalle ja kirosi Hermannin tyhmää

menettelyä.
»Koko hyvän yrityksen pilasi!» hän noitui. »Mitä nyt patruuna

sanonee!»
Kun hän saapui pihaan, olivat kuorma, hevonen ja tullimiehet

kadonneet. Pihalla makasi Hermanni ja valitti, että häntä oli potkaistu
rinnan alle…
Konttorista kuului kauhea elämä. Patruuna kirosi, polki jalkaa ja

pui nyrkkiä Joonaalle, joka seisoi oven suussa.
»Auta minua ylös!» pyysi Hermanni Jussia. »Itsehän kehuit

tullimiesten juovan Tirkassa…»
»Mitä varten ajoit tänne!… Nyt menetit hevosesi ja pilasit koko

hyvän yrityksen…»
»Pimeässä kääntyi…» puolusteli Hermanni tekoaan.
Jussi mietti hetkisen mitä tekisi. Patruunan puheille ei nyt ollut

hyvä mennä ja koston himosta sekä patruunalle että Hermannille
hän jätti Hermannin makaamaan pihalle ja lähti hiihtämään Suomen
puolelle.
»Siitä korjatkoon omansa!» arveli hän.
Häntä kaiveli niin koko epäonnistunut yritys, että hän päätti jättää
siihen kaikki. Kuka käski patruunaa ottamaan semmoista tolvanaa
joukkoon ja johtajaksi vielä, joka tahallaan tekee tyhmyyksiä!
Pitäköön nyt vahinkonaan…
Mutta jäälle tultuaan alkoi hän kuitenkin katua ja päätti hiihtää

Keskitaloon toisia kieltämään. Voisivat vielä joutua tullimiesten käsiin
hekin. Ja patruunan vahinko oli jo melkoinen, sillä Hermannin
kuormassa oli ollut viisi isoa voiastiaa, jotka olisivat olleet
Jällivaaraan menevät.
Kun hän rantakujasta nousi Keskitalon pihaan, seisoi Käyrä-

Helmerin ajettava hevonen tallin edessä ja Helmeri itse oksenteli,
kuorman päällä oihkaten. Jussi riisui hevosen ja vei talliin.
Silloin ajoivat Friikon veljekset pihaan ja vähän ajan perästä puoti-

Heikkikin. He palasivat jo kolmannelta kierrokselta, ja hyvin oli
onnistunut.
Mutta kuultuaan kuinka Hermannille oli käynyt he kirosivat, ja

miehissä pantiin kaikki Hermannin syyksi.
Jussi ojensi Friikon veljeksille pullon ja pyysi ryyppäämään. Ja kun

olivat ryypänneet, niin alkoivat mainoa Hermannin tyhmyyttä.
»Itse se joikin kuin sika ja tuota renkipörröään juotti, niin sillälailla

nyt kävi», sanoivat Friikon veljekset, mutta ehdottelivat Jussille, että
yritettäisiin vielä. Sillä hyvin luultavaa oli, että tullimiehet saadessaan
monesta aikaa voikuorman ja hyvän hevosen eivät enää tänä yönä
vahtaisi, varsinkin kun humalassa olivat ja Saalkreeni oli poissa. Sitä
oli Jussikin miettinyt jo poikki hiihtäessään, sillä hän ymmärsi vallan
hyvin, että tämän homman jälkeen oli mahdoton saada mitään
viedyksi yli.
Siinä nyt tuumailivat, hevosten seistessä valjaissa ja miesten

ottaessa naukkuja Jussin pullosta. Käyrä-Helmeri torkkui vielä
kuormansa päällä ja väliin yökkäili…
Silloin kuulivat he jonkun hiihtävän saaloen ja huokuen rannasta

pihaan. Mutta vaikka oli pimeä, tunsi Jussi pian hiihtäjän Tirkaksi,
joka oli hiihtänyt, ettei tahtonut saattaa puhua, niin läähätti.
Miehet kokoontuivat Tirkan ympärille, sillä he arvasivat hyvin, että

hänellä oli tärkeitä uutisia. Ja kun Tirkka sen verran oli hengähtänyt,
että alkoi saattaa puhua, niin kummia kertoi…
Tullimiehet olivat ajaneet takavarikkoon ottamallaan hevosella

kuormineen Tirkan pihaan, huutaneet kuinka he Keskitalon
Hermannilta olivat saaneet viisi astiaa voita ja hyvän hevosen
»peslaakiin». Hevonen oli pantu kiinni seinään ja itse olivat tulleet
sisälle syntymäpäiväjuominkia jatkamaan. Tirkka kuultuaan kuinka
oli käynyt oli lyönyt pullon pöytään ja käskenyt maistella sillä aikaa
kun hän muka käy lisää juotavaa hakemassa. Oli selittänyt, että
hänellä muka oli jonkun tuttavan huostassa vielä… Siihen olivat
jääneet juomaan, nauraneet ja olleet hyvillään… Tirkka oli lähtenyt
hengen hädässä asiasta ilmoittamaan, että nyt sopii… että nyt ne
ryyppäävät siinä aamuun asti…
»Ja siihen ne vielä nukkuvatkin», lopetti Tirkka. »Nyt joutukaa,

pojat!»

Instant Download Grounded Theory For Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Urquhart PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download Grounded Theory For Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Urquhart PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download Grounded Theory For Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Urquhart PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.

Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research 2nd

For dowload this book click LINK or Button below

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

Nursing Research Using Grounded Theory Qualitative

Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies 2nd

Qualitative Research Methods for Community Development

Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing

Qualitative Methods for Health Research 4th Edition

The Science of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Martin

The How To of Qualitative Research 2nd Edition Janice

Qualitative Research in Marketing and Management Doing

Los Angeles | London | New Delhi | Singapore | Washington DC | Melbourne

Library of Congress Control Number: 2022932794

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

Editor: Jai Seaman

What this book does not do 2

Chapter 2 Grounded theory method 15

The discovery of grounded theory 15

Chapter 3 What is theory? 39

What is a theory? Components of a theory 40

Explanation in theory development 44

Chapter 4 Understanding coding and theory building 65

Coding – a ﬁrst example 66

Chapter 5 Research design using GTM 83

Chapter 6 Open and selective coding 106

Open coding – Example 1 107

A word about gerunds 127

Chapter 7 Theoretical Coding 131

What is a theoretical code? 132

Chapter 8 Theoretical sampling – Deeper and Wider 158

Glaser and Strauss’s recommendations for theoretical sampling 160

Chapter 9 Writing up your grounded theory study 179

Presenting a chain of evidence 191

Chapter 10 The contribution of grounded theory – some reﬂections 212

Figure 7.7 Potential selective codes for Example 1 142

Table 8.5 Establishing theoretical sampling requirements for the next

· Chapter 1 introduces the purpose of the book, which is to be a clear accessible

of theory and how explanation is key to theory development. It also discusses

What this book does not do

increasingly turn to it as a powerful tool in qualitative work. It does aim to

Is grounded theory method difficult to use?

What is grounded theory method?

1 The aim of grounded theory is to generate or discover a theory.

7 Data analysis proceeds through identifying categories and connecting them.

The aim of grounded theory is to generate or discover a theory;

So, the theory discovered or generated by use of GTM is often represented

GTM and literature

Using GTM in the field

Data analysis using GTM

Data analysis is systematic and begins as soon as data is available.

Table 1.1 Components of a theory in GTM

Source: Adapted from Gregor (2006).

It is actually quite obvious, in a grounded theory study, when to stop data

Let me count the ways! In this book, I am an unashamed advocate of grounded

an empty head. So the literature review is delayed – in practice most people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory. This Wikipedia entry gives a

https://methods.sagepub.com/. This is a good compendium of research

http://www.mendeley.com/. This is a free citation manager and researchers’