grounded theory different from other qualitative research

Home » Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Grounded Theory

Definition:

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

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

History of Grounded Theory

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

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

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

Types of Grounded Theory

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

Classic Grounded Theory

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

Constructivist Grounded Theory

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

Grounded Theory Conducting Guide

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

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

Data Collection Methods

Grounded Theory Data Collection Methods are as follows:

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

Data Analysis Methods

Grounded Theory Data Analysis Methods are as follows:

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

Applications of Grounded Theory

Here are some of the key applications of Grounded Theory:

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

Examples of Grounded Theory

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

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

Grounded Theory Research Example

A Grounded Theory Research Example Would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purpose of Grounded Theory

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

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

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

When to use Grounded Theory

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

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

Characteristics of Grounded Theory

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

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

Advantages of Grounded Theory

Advantages of Grounded Theory are as follows:

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

Limitations of Grounded Theory

Limitations of Grounded Theory are as follows:

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

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Regression Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Factor Analysis – Steps, Methods and Examples

Uniform Histogram – Purpose, Examples and Guide

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Grounded Theory Methodology: Principles and Practices

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

grounded theory different from other qualitative research

Linda Liska Belgrave 2 &
Kapriskie Seide 2

2673 Accesses

19 Citations

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

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

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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

Article Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

Book Google Scholar

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

Chapter Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Linda Liska Belgrave & Kapriskie Seide

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Liska Belgrave .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

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

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

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

Download citation

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

Published : 13 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

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

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

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

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Qualitative study design: Grounded theory

Qualitative study design
Phenomenology

Grounded theory

Ethnography
Narrative inquiry
Action research
Case Studies
Field research
Focus groups
Observation
Surveys & questionnaires
Study Designs Home

Theory development.

Grounded theory proposes that careful observation of the social world can lead to the construction of theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). It is iterative and evolving, aiming to construct new theory from collected data that accounts for those data. It is also known as the “grounded theory method”, although the terms have become interchangeable (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).

Grounded theory characteristics include:

Data collection and analysis occurring simultaneously, with one informing the other.
Data grouped into concepts, categories and themes.
A data collection process influenced by the simultaneous development of those concepts, categories and themes.

Notably, data collection is cyclical and reflective. This is different from the more linear processes occurring in other methodologies.

Theoretical sampling is a key aspect of the sampling stage of grounded theory. Recruitment continues until the sample finally represents all aspects that make up the theory the data represent (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Participants are recruited based on their different experiences of a phenomenon.

Researchers collect participant data using these methods:

Examination of documents
Focus groups and interviews

Focus groups and interviews are typically being more practical in health research than observation (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007).

After the initial phase of data collection, researchers repeat the following cycle of steps:

Researchers’ developing understanding of the concepts, categories and relationships informs their actions at each step. These elements result in a theoretical framework explaining the data.

This cycle reflects two crucial components of grounded theory:

The process of coding, sorting and organising data. This aims to increasingly move towards more abstract terms in order to develop a related theory for the data
The principle of constant comparison. This refers to the process of noting issues of interest in data and comparing them to other examples to identify similarities and differences.
Widely used across a wide range of disciplines (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).
Facilitates theory construction and the construction of fresh concepts. It also avoids assuming structures are stable (Charmaz, 2017).
Useful for when researchers wish to explain a process, not to test an existing theory.

Limitations

Inherently not useful for the application of received theory.
Not useful for testing hypotheses.
Analysis of data involves elements of researcher’s own subjective judgement.

Example questions

How do perioperative nurses foster a culture of safety and risk aversion?
What is the impact of hand nerve disorders on a person’s function, activity and participation?
What are the barriers to health care access for a refugee population?

Example studies

Attree, M. (2001). Patients' and relatives' experiences and perspectives of 'Good' and 'Not so Good' quality care . J Adv Nurs , 33(4), 456-466. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01689.x

Lingard, L., Reznick, R., Espin, S., Regehr, G., & DeVito, I. (2002). Team communications in the operating room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices . Acad Med , 77(3), 232-237. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200203000-00013

Pettersson, S., Ekstrom, M. P., & Berg, C. M. (2013). Practices of weight regulation among elite athletes in combat sports: a matter of mental advantage? J Athl Train , 48(1), 99-108. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.04

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory : SAGE Publications Ltd.

Charmaz, K. (2017). An introduction to grounded theory : SAGE Publications Ltd.

Lingard, L., Albert, M., & Levinson, W. (2008). Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research . BMJ , 337, a567. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47

Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: a health focus . South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory . Qualitative Health Research , 17(10), 1372-1380. doi: 10.1177/1049732307307031

<< Previous: Phenomenology
Next: Ethnography >>
Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 11:12 AM
URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs

- Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

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

Search form

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

Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research

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

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

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

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

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

What are the key features of grounded theory?

Key features of grounded theory are its iterative study design, theoretical (purposive) sampling, and system of analysis.[3] An iterative study design entails cycles of simultaneous data collection and analysis, where analysis informs the next cycle of data collection. In a study of the experience of caring for a dying family member, for instance, preliminary analysis of interviews with family care providers may suggesta theme of “care burdens,” and this theme could be refined by interviewing participants who are at variouspoints in the care trajectory, who might offer different perspectives. Analysis of the subsequent phase of data collection will lead to further adaptations of the data collection process to refine and complicate the emerging theory of care burdens. In keeping with this iterative design, the sampling process proceeds on theoretical grounds: the sample is not set at the outset but is selected purposefully as the analysis progresses; participants are chosen for their ability to confirm or challenge an emerging theory.

The central principle of data analysis in grounded theory research is constant comparison. As issues of interest are noted in the data, they are compared with other examples for similarities and differences. Through the process of constant comparison, for which a number of formal approaches are available,[4] emerging theoretical constructs are continually being refined through comparisons with “fresh” examples from ongoing data collection, which produces the richness that is typical of grounded theory analysis.

Iterative study design, theoretical sampling, and system of analysis are intimately related. An iterative study design requires theoretical sampling for iterations to be meaningful, and constant comparative analysis allows the integration of new and existing data in this iterative cycle, towards a well grounded theory. Therefore, a study must use all three of these features to allow the emergence of new conceptual models—such as “clinical oversight” (box 1)—that extend beyond conventional thinking.

Box 1 Grounded theory study

A study of clinical supervision using interviews and observations took place in the emergency departments and inpatient teaching wards (general internal medicine) in two teaching hospitals.[5] Its aim was to understand how clinical teachers in these settings balanced the goals of supervising trainees to ensure patient safety and allowing trainees sufficient independence to develop their competence. In an era of increasing concern for patient safety, the authors aimed to develop a conceptual model of clinical supervision to inform and guide policy and research.

The principal author (a licensed physician) and a trained research assistant conducted non-participant observations of 12 internal medicine and emergency medicine teaching teams during regular clinical activities. Observations focused on the interactions among trainees and teachers. During and after the observation phase they interviewed 65 team members (teachers, trainees, and nurses) about supervision.

The researchers used an iterative approach to analyse field notes and interview transcripts on an ongoing basis throughout the study. This allowed them to pursue emergent themes in subsequent data collection. Saturation sampling was used, in which observations and interviews stopped when no new, dominant issues were emerging in the dataset. Triangulation among multiple datasets (observations in four distinct settings, interviews with teachers and trainees) provided the basis for a comprehensive model of the range and pattern of supervision strategies (clinical oversight) used by clinical teachers on these teams.

Mixed methods: what is it and when is it used?

Mixed methods research combines elements from both qualitative and quantitative paradigms to produce converging findings in the context of complex research questions. There are tensions between these methods in terms of their values and processes, but these very tensions can generate new insights. In medicine, mixed methods have arisen in the wake of attention to the psychosocial determinants of health and the human aspects of medical care. For instance, a study of quality of care in people with diabetes might measure the frequency of foot and eye examinations, or glycated haemoglobin (HgA 1c ) concentrations, and interviews with patients might address barriers to achieving these goals.

What are the key features of mixed methods?

The mixing of methods may happen within one study or across several studies in a research programme. The strategy for mixing methods must be explicit and justified in terms of the sequence of methods (concurrent, qualitative first, or quantitative first), the priority among methods (equal, or either method prioritised), and the nature and timing of integration (full or partial, during data collection, analysis, or interpretation).[6] A study of nurses’ perceptions of medical error might first distribute an attitude survey, followed by focus groups, so that the focus groups can be organised to include participants with a range of attitudes for the purposes of exploring the implications of varying attitudes towards error. In this study, the methods are integrated during data collection and analysis, with the quantitative method first in the sequence and the qualitative method prioritised in terms of the dominant aim of the research.

Central to the effectiveness of a mixed methods study is a clear and strategic relationship among the methods in order to ensure that the data converge or triangulate to produce greater insight than a single method could. Because qualitative and quantitative methods derive from different traditions, mixed methods research must take care to negotiate back and forth between these different approaches rather than dichotomising their values and methods. Qualitative research emphasises an inductive-subjective-contextual approach and quantitative research emphasises a deductive-objective-generalising approach, but these broad tendencies are neither absolute nor mutually exclusive.[7] Good mixed methods research negotiates these tendencies by articulating how and why criteria from both paradigms are integrated.

Box 2 Mixed methods study

A study of caregiver burden sought to extend understanding of the social experience of mothering children with disabilities.[8] It aimed to explore in depth the nature of the burdens perceived and the possibility of benefits of the maternal care giving role through a concurrent, mixed method approach. It surveyed 81 mothers of children with disabilities and followed up with in-depth interviews with a purposeful sample of seven of these mothers 1-3 years after the survey.

Interviewees were selected on the basis of the degree to which they represented the diversity of background characteristics among survey participants. In interviews, mothers were asked to share the stories of their children’s births and diagnoses and their own and their children’s interactions with family members, neighbours, friends, service providers, and members of the wider community. They were not specifically queried about stigma, burden, or perceived benefits (designated survey items) but were asked to talk about how their parenting experiences had affected them.

Data from the survey and the interviews were triangulated in the analysis in order to produce greater insight than would be gained by a single method. For instance, while the survey results emphasised the sociostructural constraints that produce a burden of care, the interview results illustrate that, despite these sociostructural constraints, most mothers perceive valuable benefits in having a child with a disability. These perceived benefits can be negatively affected by perceived stigma.

Action research: what is it and when is it used?

In action research studies (also referred to as community based research, participatory action research, or collaborative inquiry),[9] research is not done on or with participants; research is designed, carried out, and integrated by the participants in partnership with the researchers. Based in emancipatory social theory and designed to democratise the research process, action research is an iterative process in which researchers and practitioners act together in the context of an identified problem to discover and effect positive change within a mutually acceptable ethical framework. For example, researchers and community leaders might explore approaches to obesity prevention through surveys or interviews conducted in local churches, community centres, or schools. Because it embraces a tension between local solutions and transferable knowledge, action research can help make results of such research more generally applicable.[10]

What are the key features of action research?

The key features of action research include its collaborative nature, its egalitarian approach to power and education in the research process, and its emphasis on taking action on an issue. The extensive collaboration between researchers and partners in action research must extend across each stage of research, from identifying the problem to disseminating the results. This collaboration entails shared control of the agenda and also involves reciprocal education to improve researchers’ and research partners’ understanding of one another’s positions and contributions. Finally, the study must blend scientific inquiry with social action by creating knowledge that is relevant to the research partners’ needs and interests. For instance, in an action research project for preventing falls in a long term care facility, researchers and staff would collaboratively define the problem and the research design; the staff might conduct interviews with colleagues and patients, and the solutions that are decided and implemented will be based on the needs and priorities of the staff.

Box 3 Action research study

A study of the impact of interprofessional care coordinators took place in the general and emergency medicine service of an inner London hospital trust.[11] The study sought to explore the characteristics and impact of the development of the new role of interprofessional care coordinator (IPCC) on the working of the interprofessional team in an acute medical inpatient setting. In the context of changing models of service delivery in UK health and social care, the authors aimed to understand the impact of a new support worker role on the work of existing practitioners.

Data were collected using a variety of methods, including 37 individual semistructured interviews and 16 focus groups with IPCCs, managers, and interprofessional team colleagues; 24 half day observations of IPCCs; field notes from two years of participant observation; and systematic analysis of relevant documents from the hospital trust.

The study unfolded within three main action research cycles. In each cycle, the lead investigator worked collaboratively with participants to consider findings to date, decide what (if any) changes were needed in response to the findings, and take forward any developments that had been agreed. These main cycles were “communicating about the IPCC role,” “exploring issues of accountability,” and “improving interprofessional working.” Further data were collected to illuminate the process and outcomes of change within each of the cycles.

These methods can be useful in answering clinical and health delivery research questions in ways that challenge conventional thinking, offer multidimensional insights, and provide local solutions. Box 4 lists key elements to look for in research papers written using each of these approaches.

Box 4 Key elements to look for in research papers

Grounded theory.

Does the research question indicate that a theory is needed?

Is the study designed to support iterative data collection and analysis in a context of theoretical sampling?

Does the discussion explain how the theory responds to the original research question?

Mixed methods

Is the research question appropriate for mixed methods or would a single method suffice?

Is the relation among the methods clear in terms of their sequence, priority, and integration?

Does the discussion relate the findings to a complex understanding of a multifaceted phenomenon?

Action research

Does the research question arise from a situated problem that is best understood through a collaborative research partnership?

Are the research agenda and activities shared by researchers and partners?

Do the results meet the partners’ needs in a collaborative and equitable manner? Is the identified problem acted on in a substantive way?

Summary points

Understanding the appropriate uses and key features of qualitative methodologies can help readers in critically appraising the literature

Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research are commonly used in health research

Each methodology is appropriate for particular research questions and contexts, yielding insights of relevance to clinical and health delivery issues

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a567

Related to doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a288
doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a1020
doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a879
doi: , 10.1136/bmj.a949
doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1035

This is the second in a series of six articles that aim to help readers to critically appraise the increasing number of qualitative research articles in clinical journals. The series editors are Ayelet Kuper and Scott Reeves.

For a definition of terms, see the first article in this series.

Contributors: LL, MA, and WL researched, wrote, and revised the article. LL is guarantor.

Funding: None.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research . Chicago: Aldine, 1967 .
Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968 .
Kennedy T, Lingard L. Making sense of grounded theory. Med Educ 2006 ; 40 : 101 -8. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998 .
Kennedy TJ, Lingard L, Baker GR, Kitchen L, Regehr G. Clinical oversight: conceptualizing the relationship between supervision and safety. J Gen Intern Med 2007 ; 2 : 1080 -5. OpenUrl
Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003 .
Morgan DL. Paradigms lost and paradigms regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 2007 ; 1 : 48 -76. OpenUrl CrossRef
Green SE. “We’re tired, not sad”: benefits and burdens of mothering a child with a disability. Soc Sci Med 2007 ; 64 : 150 -63. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
Gibson N, Gibson G, Macaulay A. Community-based research: negotiating research agendas and evaluating outcomes. In: Morse J, Swanson J, Kuzel A, eds. The nature of qualitative evidence . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001 :161-84.
Meyer J. Action research. In: Pope C, Mays N, eds. Qualitative research in health care . 3rd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006 :121-42.
Bridges J, Meyer J, Glynn M, Bentley J, Reeves S. Interprofessional care co-ordinators: the benefits and tensions associated with a new role in UK acute health care. Int J Nurs Stud 2003 ; 40 : 599 -607. OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science

No products in the cart.

An Overview of Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research

Using grounded theory, you can examine a specific process or phenomenon and develop new theories derived from the collected real-world data and their analysis.

Grounded theory research is an inductive approach in which a theory is developed based on data. This is the opposite of the traditional hypothesis-deductive research approaches where hypotheses are formulated and are then tried to be proved or disproved.

20k grant for early career researchers banner

In grounded theory, the process of collecting data, and developing theory is a continuous one and should be incorporated in the research design. The process of collecting and analyzing data is repeated until theoretical saturation is reached or no new insights will be gained from additional data.

In Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory with Dr. Adele Clarke, Clarke discusses situational analysis as an extension of grounded theory for analyzing qualitative data including interview, ethnographic, historical, visual, and/or other discursive materials. Clarke describes how it is especially useful for multi-site research, feminist, and critical inquiry. To dive deeper into the messy complexities in data and understand relations among the elements constitutive of the situation, watch Clarke’s webinar Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory.

>> View Webinar: Situational Analysis Extending Grounded Theory

What is Grounded Theory Approach in Research?

The grounded theory approach is a qualitative research methodology that attempts to unravel the meanings of people's interactions, social actions, and experiences. In other words, these explanations are grounded in the participants' own interpretations or explanations.

In 1967, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss published the book, The Discovery Of Grounded Theory which introduced this method. Many disciplines have since used grounded theory, including anthropology, sociology, economics, psychology, and public health.

Qualitative research using grounded theory was regarded as being groundbreaking upon its introduction. By using the inductive methodology, data (such as interviews and observations, and on rare occasions, historical data, archival data, and more) could be analyzed as they are being collected. They sought to move away from the dominant practice in the 1950s and 60s of starting with a theoretical framework which needed to be verified. They turned that practice on its head by starting with the data to develop theory.

Grounded theory has the following salient features:

Begins with data- Researchers using the grounded theory approach typically start with a case study by observing an individual or group in action. Through an analysis of cases, researchers formulate a tentative definition of their concept. An explanation for the construct is later crafted based on this case analysis.

A personal approach- In this method, researchers study participants as they go about their daily activities, observe them interacting with others, conduct individual or group interviews, and ask participants specific questions about their observations, daily lives, experiences, or other sources relevant to the study.

The application of grounded theory qualitative research is a dynamic and flexible way to answer questions that can't be addressed by other research methods.

What is Grounded Theory in Research?

A grounded theory is often used in cases where there is no existing theory that explains the phenomenon being studied. It is also possible to use it if there is an existing theory, but it is potentially incomplete because the information wasn’t gathered from the group you intend to research.

Check out ScienceDirect's page for more examples on how grounded theory can be applied .

What are the Advantages of Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory offers various advantages.

Results reflect real-world settings

By using grounded theory, one can develop theories that are based on observations and interviews with real subjects in real situations. This results in findings that more closely reflect reality. In contrast, other types of research take place in less natural settings, such as focus groups and lab settings.

Excellent for discovering new things

The premise of grounded theory is that you discover new theories by inductive means. In other words, you don't assume anything about the outcome and aren't concerned about validating or describing it. Instead, you use the data you collect to inform your analysis and your theoretical construct, resulting in new insights.

Streamlined data gathering and analysis

Analyzing and collecting data go hand in hand. Data is collected, analyzed, and as you gain insight from analysis, you continue gathering more data. In this way, your data collection will be adequate to explain the results of your analysis.

Findings are tightly connected to the data

In grounded theory, the outcome is determined primarily by collected data, so findings are tightly tied to those data. It contrasts with other research methods that are primarily constructed through external frameworks or theories that are so far removed from the data.

Protection from confirmation bias

Because gathering data and analyzing it are closely intertwined, researchers are truly observing what emerges from data. By having a buffer, you avoid confirming preconceived notions about the topic.

Provides analysis strategies

An important aspect of grounded theory is that it provides specific strategies for analysis. Grounded theory may be characterized as an open-ended method, but its analysis strategies keep you organized and analytical throughout the research process.

Disadvantages of Grounded Theory

In addition to the multiple advantages of grounded theory listed above, there are a few disadvantages of grounded theory, and qualitative methods in general, that are important to consider.

Grounded theory is often a time-consuming process that involves collecting data from multiple sources, analyzing the data for patterns and themes, and then finally coding the data – all steps that can take significant time if not using qualitative data analysis software like NVivo.

Additional disadvantages in grounded theory include a researcher’s own biases and assumptions which may impact their data analysis and the quality of their data – whether it’s low quality or simply incomplete.

How to Use NVivo for Grounded Theory

If you’re ready to start using grounded theory, using tools like NVivo can help!

With NVivo, you can analyze interviews (and occasionally survey) data by visually exploring datasets with the Detail View feature. This ability lets you limit the amount of data you’re viewing and filter to help identify patterns in your data.

Additionally, NVivo can help with transcribing, making connections between themes and participants, and keeping your interview data organized. Learn more about how to use NVivo for interview data in Thematic Analysis of Interview Data: 6 Ways NVivo Can Help .

Learn more about how to use NVivo for grounded theory in this paper Using NVivo to Facilitate the Development of a Grounded Theory Project: An Account of a Worked Example and the video below.

Learn more about how to use NVivo for grounded theory >>

Start transforming your qualitative research by requesting a free demo of NVivo today!

Try Qualtrics for free

Your complete guide to grounded theory research.

11 min read If you have an area of interest, but no hypothesis yet, try grounded theory research. You conduct data collection and analysis, forming a theory based on facts. Read our ultimate guide for everything you need to know.

What is grounded theory in research?

Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then creates a theory ‘grounded’ in the results.

The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book, Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory.

Research teams use grounded theory to analyze social processes and relationships.

Because of the important role of data, there are key stages like data collection and data analysis that need to happen in order for the resulting data to be useful.

The grounded research results are compared to strengthen the validity of the findings to arrive at stronger defined theories. Once the data analysis cannot continue to refine the new theories down, a final theory is confirmed.

Grounded research is different from experimental research or scientific inquiry as it does not need a hypothesis theory at the start to verify. Instead, the evolving theory is based on facts and evidence discovered during each stage.Also, grounded research also doesn’t have a preconceived understanding of events or happenings before the qualitative research commences.

Free eBook: Qualitative research design handbook

When should you use grounded theory research?

Grounded theory research is useful for businesses when a researcher wants to look into a topic that has existing theory or no current research available. This means that the qualitative research results will be unique and can open the doors to the social phenomena being investigated.

In addition, businesses can use this qualitative research as the primary evidence needed to understand whether it’s worth placing investment into a new line of product or services, if the research identifies key themes and concepts that point to a solvable commercial problem.

Grounded theory methodology

There are several stages in the grounded theory process:

1. Data planning

The researcher decides what area they’re interested in.

They may create a guide to what they will be collecting during the grounded theory methodology. They will refer to this guide when they want to check the suitability of the qualitative data, as they collect it, to avoid preconceived ideas of what they know impacting the research.

A researcher can set up a grounded theory coding framework to identify the correct data. Coding is associating words, or labels, that are useful to the social phenomena that is being investigated. So, when the researcher sees these words, they assign the data to that category or theme.

In this stage, you’ll also want to create your open-ended initial research questions. Here are the main differences between open and closed-ended questions:

These will need to be adapted as the research goes on and more tangents and areas to explore are discovered. To help you create your questions, ask yourself:

What are you trying to explain?
What experiences do you need to ask about?
Who will you ask and why?

2. Data collection and analysis

Data analysis happens at the same time as data collection. In grounded theory analysis, this is also known as constant comparative analysis, or theoretical sampling.

The researcher collects qualitative data by asking open-ended questions in interviews and surveys, studying historical or archival data, or observing participants and interpreting what is seen. This collected data is transferred into transcripts.

The categories or themes are compared and further refined by data, until there are only a few strong categories or themes remaining. Here is where coding occurs, and there are different levels of coding as the categories or themes are refined down:

Data collection (Initial coding stage): Read through the data line by line
Open coding stage: Read through the transcript data several times, breaking down the qualitative research data into excerpts, and make summaries of the concept or theme.
Axial coding stage: Read through and compare further data collection to summarize concepts or themes to look for similarities and differences. Make defined summaries that help shape an emerging theory.
Selective coding stage: Use the defined summaries to identify a strong core concept or theme.

During analysis, the researcher will apply theoretical sensitivity to the collected data they uncover, so that the meaning of nuances in what they see can be fully understood.

This coding process repeats until the researcher has reached theoretical saturation. In grounded theory analysis, this is where all data has been researched and there are no more possible categories or themes to explore.

3. Data analysis is turned into a final theory

The researcher takes the core categories and themes that they have gathered and integrates them into one central idea (a new theory) using selective code. This final grounded theory concludes the research.

The new theory should be a few simple sentences that describe the research, indicating what was and was not covered in it.

An example of using grounded theory in business

One example of how grounded theory may be used in business is to support HR teams by analyzing data to explore reasons why people leave a company.

For example, a company with a high attrition rate that has not done any research on this area before may choose grounded theory to understand key reasons why people choose to leave.

Researchers may start looking at the quantitative data around departures over the year and look for patterns. Coupled with this, they may conduct qualitative data research through employee engagement surveys , interview panels for current employees, and exit interviews with leaving employees.

From this information, they may start coding transcripts to find similarities and differences (coding) picking up on general themes and concepts. For example, a group of excepts like:

“The hours I worked were far too long and I hated traveling home in the dark”
“My manager didn’t appreciate the work I was doing, especially when I worked late”
There are no good night bus routes home that I could take safely”

Using open coding, a researcher could compare excerpts and suggest the themes of managerial issues, a culture of long hours and lack of traveling routes at night.

With more samples and information, through axial coding, stronger themes of lack of recognition and having too much work (which led people to working late), could be drawn out from the summaries of the concepts and themes.

This could lead to a selective coding conclusion that people left because they were ‘overworked and under-appreciated’.

With this information, a grounded theory can help HR teams look at what teams do day to day, exploring ways to spread workloads or reduce them. Also, there could be training supplied to management and employees to engage professional development conversations better.

Advantages of grounded theory

No need for hypothesis – Researchers don’t need to know the details about the topic they want to investigate in advance, as the grounded theory methodology will bring up the information.
Lots of flexibility – Researchers can take the topic in whichever direction they think is best, based on what the data is telling them. This means that exploration avenues that may be off-limits in traditional experimental research can be included.
Multiple stages improve conclusion – Having a series of coding stages that refine the data into clear and strong concepts or themes means that the grounded theory will be more useful, relevant and defined.
Data-first – Grounded theory relies on data analysis in the first instance, so the conclusion is based on information that has strong data behind it. This could be seen as having more validity.

Disadvantages of grounded theory

Theoretical sensitivity dulled – If a researcher does not know enough about the topic being investigated, then their theoretical sensitivity about what data means may be lower and information may be missed if it is not coded properly.
Large topics take time – There is a significant time resource required by the researcher to properly conduct research, evaluate the results and compare and analyze each excerpt. If the research process finds more avenues for investigation, for example, when excerpts contradict each other, then the researcher is required to spend more time doing qualitative inquiry.
Bias in interpreting qualitative data – As the researcher is responsible for interpreting the qualitative data results, and putting their own observations into text, there can be researcher bias that would skew the data and possibly impact the final grounded theory.
Qualitative research is harder to analyze than quantitative data – unlike numerical factual data from quantitative sources, qualitative data is harder to analyze as researchers will need to look at the words used, the sentiment and what is being said.
Not repeatable – while the grounded theory can present a fact-based hypothesis, the actual data analysis from the research process cannot be repeated easily as opinions, beliefs and people may change over time. This may impact the validity of the grounded theory result.

What tools will help with grounded theory?

Evaluating qualitative research can be tough when there are several analytics platforms to manage and lots of subjective data sources to compare. Some tools are already part of the office toolset, like video conferencing tools and excel spreadsheets.

However, most tools are not purpose-built for research, so researchers will be manually collecting and managing these files – in the worst case scenario, by pen and paper!

Use a best-in-breed management technology solution to collect all qualitative research and manage it in an organized way without large time resources or additional training required.

Qualtrics provides a number of qualitative research analysis tools, like Text iQ , powered by Qualtrics iQ, provides powerful machine learning and native language processing to help you discover patterns and trends in text.

This also provides you with research process tools:

Sentiment analysis — a technique to help identify the underlying sentiment (say positive, neutral, and/or negative) in qualitative research text responses
Topic detection/categorisation — The solution makes it easy to add new qualitative research codes and group by theme. Easily group or bucket of similar themes that can be relevant for the business and the industry (eg. ‘Food quality’, ‘Staff efficiency’ or ‘Product availability’)

Related resources

Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, qualitative research questions 11 min read, qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

Search Menu
Sign in through your institution
Advance Articles
Editor's Choice
Supplements
Patient Perspectives
Methods Corner
Science for Patients
Invited Commentaries
ESC Content Collections
Author Guidelines
Instructions for reviewers
Submission Site
Why publish with EJCN?
Open Access Options
Self-Archiving Policy
Read & Publish
About European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
About ACNAP
About European Society of Cardiology
ESC Publications
Editorial Board
Advertising & Corporate Services
War in Ukraine
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, distinguishing features of grounded theory, the role and timing of the literature review.

< Previous

Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Carley Turner, Felicity Astin, Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?, European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2021, Pages 285–289, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaa034

Permissions Icon Permissions

Grounded theory (GT) is both a research method and a research methodology. There are several different ways of doing GT which reflect the different viewpoints of the originators. For those who are new to this approach to conducting qualitative research, this can be confusing. In this article, we outline the key characteristics of GT and describe the role of the literature review in three common GT approaches, illustrated using exemplar studies.

Describing the key characteristics of a Grounded theory (GT) study.

Considering the role and timing of the literature review in different GT approaches.

Qualitative research is a cornerstone in cardiovascular research. It gives insights in why particular phenomena occur or what underlying mechanisms are. 1 Over the past 2 years, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing published 20 qualitative studies. 2–21 These studies used methods such as content analysis, ethnography, or phenomenology. Grounded theory (GT) has been used to a lesser extent.

Grounded theory is both a methodology and a method used in qualitative research ( Table 1 ). It is a research approach used to gain an emic insight into a phenomenon. In simple terms, this means understanding the perspective, or point of view, of an ‘insider’, those who have experience of the phenomenon. 22 Grounded theory is a research approach that originated from the social sciences but has been used in education and health research. The focus of GT is to generate theory that is grounded in data and shaped by the views of participants, thereby moving beyond description and towards theoretical explanation of a process or phenomenon. 23

Grounded theory as a method and methodology

One of the key issues with using GT, particularly for novices, is understanding the different approaches that have evolved as each specific GT approach is slightly different.

The tradition of GT began with the seminal text about classic GT written by Glaser and Strauss, 24 but since then GT has evolved into several different types. The approach to GT chosen by the researcher depends upon an understanding of the epistemological underpinnings of the different approaches, the match with the topic under investigation and the researcher’s own stance. Whilst GT is frequently used in applied health research, very few studies detail which GT approach has been used, how and why. Sometimes published studies claim to use GT methodology but the approaches that form the foundation of GT are not reported. This may be due to the word limit in academic journals or because legitimate GT approaches have not been followed. Either way, there is a lack of clarity about the practical application of GT. The purpose of this article is to outline the distinguishing characteristics of GT and outline practical considerations for the novice researcher regarding the place of the literature review in GT.

There are several distinguishing features of GT, as outlined by Sbaraini et al. 25 The first is that GT research is conducted through an inductive process. This means that the researcher is developing theory rather than testing it and must therefore remain ‘open’ throughout the study. In essence, this means that the researcher has no preconceived ideas about the findings. Taking an inductive approach means that the focus of the research may evolve over time as the researchers understand what is important to their participants through the data collection and analysis process.

With regards to data analysis, the use of coding is initially used to break down data into smaller components and labelling them to capture the essence of the data. The codes are compared to one another to understand and explain any variation in the data before they are combined to form more abstract categories. Memos are used to record and develop the researcher’s analysis of the data, including the detail behind the comparisons made between categories. Memos can stimulate the researcher’s thinking, as well as capturing the researcher’s ideas during data collection and analysis.

A further feature for data analysis in a GT study is the simultaneous data analysis and sampling to facilitate theoretical sampling. This means that as data analysis progresses participants are purposefully selected who may have characteristics or experiences that have arisen as being of interest from data collection and analysis so far. Questions in the topic guide may also be modified to follow a specific line of inquiry, test ideas and interpretations, or fill gaps in the analysis to build an emerging substantive theory. This evolving and non-linear methodology is to allow the evolution of the study as indicated by data, rather than analysing at the end of data collection. This approach to data analysis supports the researcher to take an inductive approach as discussed above.

Theoretical sampling facilitates the construction of theory until theoretical saturation is reached. Theoretical saturation is when all the concepts that form the theory being developed are well understood and grounded in data. Finally, the results are expressed as a theory where a set of concepts are related to one another and provide a framework for making predictions. 26 These key features of GT are summarized in Table 2 .

Distinguishing features of a GT study (adapted from Sbaraini et al. 25 )

The identification of a gap in the published literature is typically a requirement of successful doctoral studies and grant applications. However, in GT research there are different views about the role and timing of the literature review.

For researchers using classic Glaserian GT, the recommended approach is that the published literature should not be reviewed until data collection, analysis and theory development has been completed. 24 The rationale for the delay of the literature review is to enable the researcher to remain ‘open’ to discover theory emerging from data and free from contamination by avoiding forcing data into pre-conceived concepts derived from other studies. Furthermore, because the researcher is ‘open’ to whichever direction the data takes they cannot know in advance which aspects of the literature will be relevant to their study. 27

In Glaserian GT, the emerging concepts and theory from data analysis inform the scope of the literature review which is conducted after theory development. 24 This approach to the literature review aligns with the rather positivist stance of Glaser in which the researcher aims to remain free of assumptions so that the theory that emerges from the data is not influenced by the researcher. Reviewing the literature prior to data analysis would risk theory being imposed on the data. Perhaps counterintuitively, Glaser does recommend reading literature in unrelated fields to understand as many theoretical codes as possible. 28 However, it is unclear how this is different to reading literature directly related to the topic and could potentially still lead to the contamination of the theory arising from data that delaying the literature review is intended to avoid. It is also problematic regarding the governance processes around research, whereby funders and ethics committees would expect at least an overview of the existing literature as part of the justification for the study.

A study by Bergman et al. 29 used a classic Glaserian GT approach to examine and identify the motive of power in myocardial infarction patients’ rehabilitation process. Whilst the key characteristics of GT were evident in the way the study was conducted, there was no discussion about how the literature review contributed to the final theory. This may have been due to the word limit but illustrates the challenges that novice researchers may have in understanding where the literature review fits in studies using GT approaches.

In Straussian GT, a more pragmatic approach to the literature view is adopted. Strauss and Corbin 30 recognized that the researcher has prior knowledge, including that of the literature, before starting their research. They did not recommend dissociation from the literature, but rather that the literature be used across the various stages of the research. Published literature could identify important areas that could contribute to theory development, support useful comparisons in the data and stimulate further questions during the analytical process. According to Strauss and Corbin, researchers should be mindful about how published work could influence theory development. Whilst visiting the literature prior to data collection was believed to enhance data analysis, it was not thought necessary to review all the literature beforehand, but rather revisit the literature at later stages in the research process. 30

A study published by Salminen-Tuomaala et al. 31 used a Straussian GT approach to explore factors that influenced the way patients coped with hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. The authors described a reflexive process in which the researcher noted down their preconceived ideas about the topic as part of the data analysis process. The literature review was conducted after data analysis.

The most recent step in the evolution of GT is the move towards a constructivist epistemological stance advocated by Charmaz. 32 In simple terms, this means that the underlying approach reflects the belief that theories cannot be discovered but are instead constructed by the researcher and their interactions with the participants and data. As the researcher plays a central role in the construction of the GT, their background, personal views, and culture will influence this process and the way data are analysed. For this reason, it is important to be explicit about these preconceptions and aim to maintain an open mind through reflexivity. 32 Therefore, engaging in a preliminary literature review and using this information to compare and contrast with findings from the research undertaken is desirable, alongside completing a comprehensive literature review after data analysis with a specific aim to present the GT.

A study published by Odell et al. 33 used the modified GT approach recommended by Charmaz 32 to study patients’ experiences of restenosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The authors described the different GT approaches and key features of GT methodology which clearly informed the conduct of the study. However, there was no detail about how the literature review was used to shape the data analysis process and findings.

A solution: be clear on the approach taken to the literature review and why

Despite the clear differences in the approach to the literature review in GT, there appears to be a lack of precise guidance for novice researchers regarding how in depth or exhaustive a preliminary literature review should be. This lack of guidance can lead to a variety of different approaches as evidenced in the GT studies we have cited as examples, which is a challenge for the novice researcher. This uncertainty is further compounded by the concurrent approach to data collection and analysis which allows for the research focus to evolve as the study progresses. The complexity of the research process and the role and timing of the literature review is summarized in Figure 1 .

Literature review in Grounded Theory.

Taking a pragmatic approach, researchers will need to familiarize themselves with the literature to receive funding and approval for their study. This preliminary literature review can be followed up after data analysis by a more comprehensive review of the literature to help support the theory that was developed from the data. The key is to ensure transparency in reporting how the literature review has been used to develop the theory. The preliminary literature review can be used to set the scene for the research as part of the introduction, and the more extensive literature review can then be used during the discussion section to compare the theory developed from the data with existing literature, as per Probyn et al. 34

Whilst this pragmatic approach aligns with Straussian GT and Charmaz’s constructivist GT, it is at odds with Glaserian GT. Therefore, if Glaserian GT is chosen, the researcher should be explicit about deviation and provide a rationale.

Word count for journal articles is often a limiting factor in how much detail is included in why certain methodologies are used. Submitting detail about the methodology and rationale behind it can be presented as online supplementary material, thereby allowing interested readers to access further information about how and why the research was executed.

The use of GT as a methodology and method can shed light on areas where little knowledge is already known, generating theory directly from data. The traditional format of a published article does not always reflect the iterative approach to the literature review and data collection and analysis in GT. This can generate tension between how the research is presented in relation to how it was conducted. However, one simple way to ensure clarity in reporting is to be transparent in how the literature review is used.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest : The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Greenhalgh T , Taylor R. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) . Br Med J 1997 ; 315 : 740 – 743 .

Google Scholar

Wilson RE , Rush KL , Reid RC , et al. The symptom experience of early and late treatment seekers before an atrial fibrillation diagnosis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :231--242.

Lauck SB , Achtem L , Borregaard B , et al. Can you see frailty? An exploratory study of the use of a patient photograph in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :252--260.

Sundelin R , Bergsten C , Tornvall P , Lyngå, P. et al. Self-rated stress and experience in patients with Takotsubo syndrome: a mixed methods study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120919387.

Janssen DJ , Ament SM , Boyne J , et al. Characteristics for a tool for timely identification of palliative needs in heart failure: the views of Dutch patients, their families and healthcare professionals . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120918962.

Steffen EM , Timotijevic L , Coyle A. A qualitative analysis of psychosocial needs and support impacts in families affected by young sudden cardiac death: the role of community and peer support . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120922347.

Molzahn AE , Sheilds L , Bruce A , Schick-Makaroff K , Antonio M , Clark AM. Life and priorities before death: a narrative inquiry of uncertainty and end of life in people with heart failure and their family members . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 629 – 637 .

Wistrand C , Nilsson U , Sundqvist A-S. Patient experience of preheated and room temperature skin disinfection prior to cardiac device implantation: a randomised controlled trial . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 529 – 536 .

Widell C , Andréen S , Albertsson P , Axelsson ÅB. Octogenarian preferences and expectations for acute coronary syndrome treatment . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 521 – 528 .

Ferguson C , George A , Villarosa AR , Kong AC , Bhole S , Ajwani S. Exploring nursing and allied health perspectives of quality oral care after stroke: a qualitative study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 505 – 512 .

Sutantri S , Cuthill F , Holloway A. ‘ A bridge to normal’: a qualitative study of Indonesian women’s attendance in a phase two cardiac rehabilitation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 , doi: 10.1177/1474515119864208.

Liu X-L , Willis K , Fulbrook P , Wu C-J(J) , Shi Y , Johnson M. Factors influencing self-management priority setting and decision-making among Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 700 – 710 .

Wingham J , Frost J , Britten N , Greaves C , Abraham C , Warren FC , Jolly K , Miles J , Paul K , Doherty PJ , Singh S , Davies R , Noonan M , Dalal H , Taylor RS. Caregiver outcomes of the REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 611 – 620 .

Olsson K , Näslund U , Nilsson J , Hörnsten Å. Hope and despair: patients’ experiences of being ineligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 593 – 600 .

Heery S , Gibson I , Dunne D , Flaherty G. The role of public health nurses in risk factor modification within a high-risk cardiovascular disease population in Ireland – a qualitative analysis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 584 – 592 .

Brännström M , Fischer Grönlund C , Zingmark K , Söderberg A. Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 577 – 583 .

Haydon G , van der Riet P , Inder K. Long-term survivors of cardiac arrest: a narrative inquiry . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 458 – 464 .

Freysdóttir GR , Björnsdóttir K , Svavarsdóttir MH. Nurses’ Use of Monitors in Patient Surveillance: An Ethnographic Study on a Coronary Care Unit . London, England : SAGE Publications ; 2019 . p 272 – 279 .

Google Preview

Pokorney SD , Bloom D , Granger CB , Thomas KL , Al-Khatib SM , Roettig ML , Anderson J , Heflin MT , Granger BB. Exploring patient–provider decision-making for use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the INFORM-AF study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 280 – 288 .

Instenes I , Fridlund B , Amofah HA , Ranhoff AH , Eide LS , Norekvål TM. ‘ I hope you get normal again’: an explorative study on how delirious octogenarian patients experience their interactions with healthcare professionals and relatives after aortic valve therapy . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 224 – 233 .

Palmar-Santos AM , Pedraz-Marcos A , Zarco-Colón J , Ramasco-Gutiérrez M , García-Perea E , Pulido-Fuentes M. The life and death construct in heart transplant patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 48 – 56 .

De Chesnay M , Banner D. Nursing Research Using Grounded Theory: Qualitative Designs and Methods . New York, NY : Springer Publishing Company ; 2015 .

Corbin J , Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 3rd ed. California : SAGE ; 2007 .

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

Sbaraini A , Carter SM , Evans RW , Blinkhorn A. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices . BMC Med Res Methodol 2011 ; 11 : 128 – 128 .

Charmaz K. ‘ Discovering’ chronic illness: using grounded theory . Soc Sci Med 1990 ; 30 : 1161 – 1172 .

Thornberg R , Dunne C. Literature review in grounded theory. In Bryant A , Charmaz K , eds. The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory . London : SAGE Publications ; 2019 .

Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions . California : Sociology Press ; 1998 .

Bergman E , Berterö C. ‘ Grasp Life Again’. A qualitative study of the motive power in myocardial infarction patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2003 ; 2 : 303 – 310 .

Strauss A , Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques . 2nd ed. California : Sage ; 1998 .

Salminen-Tuomaala M , Åstedt-Kurki P , Rekiaro M , Paavilainen E. Coping—seeking lost control . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012 ; 11 : 289 – 296 .

Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory . 2nd ed. Los Angeles : SAGE ; 2014 .

Odell A , Grip L , Hallberg LRM. Restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): experiences from the patients' perspective . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006 ; 5 : 150 – 157 .

Probyn J , Greenhalgh J , Holt J , Conway D , Astin F. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients’ and cardiologists’ experiences of the informed consent process in Northern England: a qualitative study . BMJ Open 2017 ; 7 : e015127 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to Your Librarian
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1873-1953
Print ISSN 1474-5151
Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

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

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

10 Grounded Theory Examples (Qualitative Research Method)

grounded theory definition, pros and cons, explained below

Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that involves the construction of theory from data rather than testing theories through data (Birks & Mills, 2015).

In other words, a grounded theory analysis doesn’t start with a hypothesis or theoretical framework, but instead generates a theory during the data analysis process .

This method has garnered a notable amount of attention since its inception in the 1960s by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

Grounded Theory Definition and Overview

A central feature of grounded theory is the continuous interplay between data collection and analysis (Bringer, Johnston, & Brackenridge, 2016).

Grounded theorists start with the data, coding and considering each piece of collected information (for instance, behaviors collected during a psychological study).

As more information is collected, the researcher can reflect upon the data in an ongoing cycle where data informs an ever-growing and evolving theory (Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2017).

As such, the researcher isn’t tied to testing a hypothesis, but instead, can allow surprising and intriguing insights to emerge from the data itself.

Applications of grounded theory are widespread within the field of social sciences . The method has been utilized to provide insight into complex social phenomena such as nursing, education, and business management (Atkinson, 2015).

Grounded theory offers a sound methodology to unearth the complexities of social phenomena that aren’t well-understood in existing theories (McGhee, Marland & Atkinson, 2017).

While the methods of grounded theory can be labor-intensive and time-consuming, the rich, robust theories this approach produces make it a valuable tool in many researchers’ repertoires.

Real-Life Grounded Theory Examples

Title: A grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology

Citation: Weatherall, J. W. A. (2000). A grounded theory analysis of older adults and information technology. Educational Gerontology , 26 (4), 371-386.

Description: This study employed a grounded theory approach to investigate older adults’ use of information technology (IT). Six participants from a senior senior were interviewed about their experiences and opinions regarding computer technology. Consistent with a grounded theory angle, there was no hypothesis to be tested. Rather, themes emerged out of the analysis process. From this, the findings revealed that the participants recognized the importance of IT in modern life, which motivated them to explore its potential. Positive attitudes towards IT were developed and reinforced through direct experience and personal ownership of technology.

Title: A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study

Citation: Jacobson, N. (2009). A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study. BMC International health and human rights , 9 (1), 1-9.

Description: This study aims to develop a taxonomy of dignity by letting the data create the taxonomic categories, rather than imposing the categories upon the analysis. The theory emerged from the textual and thematic analysis of 64 interviews conducted with individuals marginalized by health or social status , as well as those providing services to such populations and professionals working in health and human rights. This approach identified two main forms of dignity that emerged out of the data: “ human dignity ” and “social dignity”.

Title: A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose

Citation: Bronk, K. C. (2012). A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research , 27 (1), 78-109.

Description: This study explores the development of noble youth purpose over time using a grounded theory approach. Something notable about this study was that it returned to collect additional data two additional times, demonstrating how grounded theory can be an interactive process. The researchers conducted three waves of interviews with nine adolescents who demonstrated strong commitments to various noble purposes. The findings revealed that commitments grew slowly but steadily in response to positive feedback, with mentors and like-minded peers playing a crucial role in supporting noble purposes.

Title: A grounded theory of the flow experiences of Web users

Citation: Pace, S. (2004). A grounded theory of the flow experiences of Web users. International journal of human-computer studies , 60 (3), 327-363.

Description: This study attempted to understand the flow experiences of web users engaged in information-seeking activities, systematically gathering and analyzing data from semi-structured in-depth interviews with web users. By avoiding preconceptions and reviewing the literature only after the theory had emerged, the study aimed to develop a theory based on the data rather than testing preconceived ideas. The study identified key elements of flow experiences, such as the balance between challenges and skills, clear goals and feedback, concentration, a sense of control, a distorted sense of time, and the autotelic experience.

Title: Victimising of school bullying: a grounded theory

Citation: Thornberg, R., Halldin, K., Bolmsjö, N., & Petersson, A. (2013). Victimising of school bullying: A grounded theory. Research Papers in Education , 28 (3), 309-329.

Description: This study aimed to investigate the experiences of individuals who had been victims of school bullying and understand the effects of these experiences, using a grounded theory approach. Through iterative coding of interviews, the researchers identify themes from the data without a pre-conceived idea or hypothesis that they aim to test. The open-minded coding of the data led to the identification of a four-phase process in victimizing: initial attacks, double victimizing, bullying exit, and after-effects of bullying. The study highlighted the social processes involved in victimizing, including external victimizing through stigmatization and social exclusion, as well as internal victimizing through self-isolation, self-doubt, and lingering psychosocial issues.

Hypothetical Grounded Theory Examples

Suggested Title: “Understanding Interprofessional Collaboration in Emergency Medical Services”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Coding and constant comparative analysis

How to Do It: This hypothetical study might begin with conducting in-depth interviews and field observations within several emergency medical teams to collect detailed narratives and behaviors. Multiple rounds of coding and categorizing would be carried out on this raw data, consistently comparing new information with existing categories. As the categories saturate, relationships among them would be identified, with these relationships forming the basis of a new theory bettering our understanding of collaboration in emergency settings. This iterative process of data collection, analysis, and theory development, continually refined based on fresh insights, upholds the essence of a grounded theory approach.

Suggested Title: “The Role of Social Media in Political Engagement Among Young Adults”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Open, axial, and selective coding

Explanation: The study would start by collecting interaction data on various social media platforms, focusing on political discussions engaged in by young adults. Through open, axial, and selective coding, the data would be broken down, compared, and conceptualized. New insights and patterns would gradually form the basis of a theory explaining the role of social media in shaping political engagement, with continuous refinement informed by the gathered data. This process embodies the recursive essence of the grounded theory approach.

Suggested Title: “Transforming Workplace Cultures: An Exploration of Remote Work Trends”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Constant comparative analysis

Explanation: The theoretical study could leverage survey data and in-depth interviews of employees and bosses engaging in remote work to understand the shifts in workplace culture. Coding and constant comparative analysis would enable the identification of core categories and relationships among them. Sustainability and resilience through remote ways of working would be emergent themes. This constant back-and-forth interplay between data collection, analysis, and theory formation aligns strongly with a grounded theory approach.

Suggested Title: “Persistence Amidst Challenges: A Grounded Theory Approach to Understanding Resilience in Urban Educators”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Iterative Coding

How to Do It: This study would involve collecting data via interviews from educators in urban school systems. Through iterative coding, data would be constantly analyzed, compared, and categorized to derive meaningful theories about resilience. The researcher would constantly return to the data, refining the developing theory with every successive interaction. This procedure organically incorporates the grounded theory approach’s characteristic iterative nature.

Suggested Title: “Coping Strategies of Patients with Chronic Pain: A Grounded Theory Study”

Suggested Data Analysis Method: Line-by-line inductive coding

How to Do It: The study might initiate with in-depth interviews of patients who’ve experienced chronic pain. Line-by-line coding, followed by memoing, helps to immerse oneself in the data, utilizing a grounded theory approach to map out the relationships between categories and their properties. New rounds of interviews would supplement and refine the emergent theory further. The subsequent theory would then be a detailed, data-grounded exploration of how patients cope with chronic pain.

Grounded theory is an innovative way to gather qualitative data that can help introduce new thoughts, theories, and ideas into academic literature. While it has its strength in allowing the “data to do the talking”, it also has some key limitations – namely, often, it leads to results that have already been found in the academic literature. Studies that try to build upon current knowledge by testing new hypotheses are, in general, more laser-focused on ensuring we push current knowledge forward. Nevertheless, a grounded theory approach is very useful in many circumstances, revealing important new information that may not be generated through other approaches. So, overall, this methodology has great value for qualitative researchers, and can be extremely useful, especially when exploring specific case study projects . I also find it to synthesize well with action research projects .

Atkinson, P. (2015). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid qualitative research strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 6 (1), 83-86.

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide . London: Sage.

Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2016). Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field Methods, 18 (3), 245-266.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . Sage publications.

McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2017). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29 (3), 654-663.

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2017). Adopting a Constructivist Approach to Grounded Theory: Implications for Research Design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 13 (2), 81-89.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Forest Schools Philosophy & Curriculum, Explained!
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori's 4 Planes of Development, Explained!
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori vs Reggio Emilia vs Steiner-Waldorf vs Froebel

What is Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research?

What Is Grounded Theory And How Does It Work?

April 15, 2022

You may have come across the term “ grounded theory ” in qualitative and quantitative research. Typically, grounded theory is discussed in academic research, though as market researchers, we find that we often use this framework when developing studies. In this post, we’ll try to break grounded theory down for market research usage and help provide an understanding of how impactful this mode of framing research can be for B2B and B2C studies.

First off, what is grounded theory – in real-speak?

Let’s explain grounded theory in non-academic jargon to make this simple to digest:

Use grounded theory methods when you’re not sure what you’re looking for in a study or there is no clear theory as to why certain behaviors or patterns are occurring.

Or to make it even more clear:

Use grounded theory methods when you don’t know what you don’t know.

In typical research methods (both quantitative and qualitative), teams come together with a clear hypothesis about what they’re studying.

For example, “When travelers are booking flights online, they will go for the best prices and flight times.”

That’s a clear hypothesis, likely based on previous data and studies. The research team may be tasked with investigating this hypothesis further and adding more details to it – or even disproving it, to uncover whether there are other factors at play in how people choose and book airline flights. To test the hypothesis, the research team would design a user experience study, where they observe how people book flights online (with screensharing), while asking them questions as the traveler goes through the process. This will help gather essential data that can be analyzed, thematically, to further prove or disprove the initial hypothesis.

However, that’s not what grounded theory would do, because in this case we just described, the hypothesis was set from the beginning.

What if, however, the researchers instead had a situation such as this: A product team wants to understand how people react to working from home exclusively during the pandemic so that they can develop software tools for remote teams.

In this example, the team doesn’t have a clear hypothesis to work from. For this specific case, the study question was posed in early 2020, when working from home for entire teams was new. The pandemic situation was unprecedented in the modern tech age, so the development team wasn’t sure exactly what hypothesis question to pose – or, to put it more simply – they didn’t know what they were looking for exactly, but they did know that there were likely software tools they could develop that could be helpful for remote teams.

This is a perfect example of when to apply grounded theory research. Let’s explore this example further, through the lens of grounded theory.

How to set up a grounded theory study

When you’re not sure exactly what you’re looking for, using grounded theory methods helps you explore themes, in an iterative research style.

So let’s go back to our remote-team software example.

Because the research team wasn’t sure exactly how people were adapting to at-home work, they first assembled a small sample to study. Using mobile ethnographies , the team had a sample of at-home workers record their daily work patterns. They were asked more general questions about highs and lows, efficiencies, and inefficiencies, and where they were feeling frustrated or lost by not having in-person collaboration. They also explored “workarounds” that teams were doing to stay productive.

Once they received the data back and did follow-up in-depth interviews with the participants, the team then sorted the themes into “codes.” Codes essentially sum up patterns in the data that are reoccurring. For example “ workers are less efficient when brainstorming new creative ideas” was a code that came out of the initial round.

From the initial round, some ideas started to take place and patterns emerged. The research team realized they needed to expand their participant pool to also include in-house designers, and not just product managers. The research team then devised a second round of research, also using mobile ethnographies and in-depth interviews, but this time with in-house designers and product managers.

After this second round, even more themes and codes emerged, and the product design team felt like they were getting closer to specific issues that they could develop software to address.

But they needed more data.

After analyzing the second round, the research team decided to hone in on a specific topic: in this case, how to improve brainstorming and enhance the creative process for remote teams. So they developed a third round of research, and they pulled in creative design teams, product managers, and upper-level managers.

The questions the researchers posed in this third round were now quite specific, and they designed exercises around remote creative brainstorming (also using mobile ethnographies and in-depth interviews). This round was especially illuminating because they now were much closer to proving and disproving new hypotheses that had emerged from the initial research rounds.

After analyzing the third round, the product team felt ready to design software prototypes that would address some of the issues they found in the exploratory research phases. In short: They had come up with a hypothesis, which was “Remote teams are struggling to collaborate creatively using their current software.” Now they had a hypothesis (a problem statement) and a mission for their software design work.

Let’s now break down that case study to uncover the steps of grounded theory research

We just took you through a real-world example of using grounded theory research methods to uncover patterns and arrive at a hypothesis. Grounded theory, as you can see from this example, is the opposite of typical research projects, where teams know what they’re looking for, so they recruit participants, design specific questions and exercises, and then spend the bulk of the research proving or disproving the hypothesis they’re testing.

In grounded theory, it’s exploratory, from the very beginning. Teams start with some initial ideas, recruit samples to test, and from the early tests, start to see patterns. They then may have to shift and recruit different personas and start to ask questions specific to the themes from the first round of research. In each subsequent round of research, the team uncovers ideas and then tests and poses hypotheses based on what they’re learning.

Grounded theory is a great method for specific types of research issues

Grounded theory is best applied when research teams come into a problem with uncertainty about the full landscape and situation. Because it requires multiple rounds of research, it’s more costly and time-consuming than studies where the hypothesis and testing is clear, from the very beginning. However, hopefully as the example we used illustrated, it’s a fantastic method to generate new product ideas. The key is to have an open mind and be able to first cast a wide net of ideas, before narrowing down on emerging themes to test.

Do you have a study that could benefit from grounded theory research? Request a proposal today >

Request Proposal
Participate in Studies
Our Leadership Team
Our Approach
Mission, Vision and Core Values
Qualitative Research
Quantitative Research
Research Insights Workshops
Customer Journey Mapping
Millennial & Gen Z Market Research
Market Research Services
Our Clients
InterQ Blog

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List
Iran Red Crescent Med J
v.18(11); 2016 Nov

Observation in Grounded Theory and Ethnography: What are the Differences?

Tahereh fathi najafi.

1 PhD Student in Reproductive Health, Student Research Committee, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

Robab Latifnejad Roudsari

2 Associated Professor, Evidence-Based Care Research Centre, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, IR Iran

Hossein Ebrahimipour

3 Associate Professor in Health Services Management, Management and Social Determinant of Health Research Center, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Department of Health Care Management

Narjes Bahri

Dear Editor,

Concurrently with the development of qualitative research methods, the tools of data collection have also greatly developed. Observation along with an interview helps researchers to understand the participants’ experiences in more depth. The observation means applying eyes more than ears and tongue through the data collection process. It is also a practice for better understanding of the facts and their relationship to each other, which is achieved by the use of all five senses ( 1 ).

The observation in qualitative research differs from observation in daily routines ( 2 ). Daily observation is just limited to people’s visual sense, but observation in qualitative research is the use of all senses to better understand the phenomenon ( 2 ). A qualitative researcher is looking for an answer to these two questions: "What do people do" and "why do they do it?". Also careful observation is a very useful method used to understand the hidden meanings of a phenomenon ( 2 ).

Grounded theory and ethnography are two research methodologies which use observation as data collection tool. However, there are differences in the focus of observation in these two methodologies. The objective of this paper is to discuss the differences between the focus of observation in grounded theory and ethnography. Grounded theory allows the researcher to explore the process of the occurrence of a social process in a particular context and is used in order to study the social processes in human interactions, the structure, and the process that led to it. The widespread use of grounded theory in explaining the social processes is related to its underlying philosophical perspective, which is a symbolic interaction ( 3 ). Apparently, observation in ethnography is like as grounded theory and the other qualitative studies but ethnography observers have more holistic views. In a way, Charmaz believes that the observer in the grounded theory, according to the objectives of the research, discusses the details of only one aspect of the research, whereas the observer in the ethnographies examines the details of all the aspects available, therefore, she believes that the observation in grounded theory has a narrower lens than in ethnographies ( 4 ).

While sociology scholars emphasize on the role of culture in shaping human behavior, researchers who adopt symbolic interactionism prefer to observe human behavior in present and changeable circumstances and consider it as an active issue ( 5 ). Therefore, the dynamic approach in dealing with symbolic interactionism and the static approach in ethnographies separate the path of these two ( 2 ).

Furthermore, due to the research method being convergent, by focusing on actions-interactions in the grounded theory studies and interactions in ethnographic approaches, it can be acknowledged that these two methods are different ( 6 ). In the grounded theory, the researcher relies more on the phenomenon and the process and revolves all field notes around these two issues, which results to the researchers concepts becoming senses of actions and interactions. He also moves from setting the process details, but in ethnography the focus is more on the social setting ( 7 ). On the other hand, the approach of ethnography is often in a way that focuses on issues such as religious beliefs and networks of kinship or culture in specific communities and pays more attention to structure than process; therefore, it deals with observation with respect to the purpose and the title of the research ( 8 ). However, field notes in ethnography describe the research subject as an object, without considering the available process which is incorporated in it ( 9 , 10 ).

Moving from data to the analysis and back enables the researcher to get a full mastery over the data and prevents the researcher from dodging in the data analysis. Moreover, this helps the theoretical purity of the output of the study to be increased, however the lack of a two-way path for observation in the ethnographic studies only increases the amount of data, which sometimes may lead to confusion of the novice researchers because it has not been as focused on as an observation in the grounded theory studies ( 11 ).

Sometimes the mass of data with no relationship to each other is a common problem in ethnographic observations ( 4 ). However, the observation of grounded theory, due to explaining the process incorporated in the phenomenon, creates a comprehensive picture and leads the observer to shift from the state of being completely inactive, which exists in ethnographical observation, towards the desired scene and the scenes surrounding it, and with a very careful observation through scrutinizing the evolution of social processes, actively ( 4 ). Charmaz states that researchers have faced a dilemma trying to identify the knowledge and enhance the understanding of the phenomenon, one way is around the subject and the other is the entrance way ( 4 ). She believes that the ethnographers choose the second option, and the grounded theorists, initially conduct their study around the subject to get a complete picture of the phenomenon from outside. Then in order to proceed they may enter the second option. However, they eventually will be able to provide a comprehensive picture of the phenomenon from different perspectives and views ( 4 ). Table 1 showed some differences.

Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest exists.

Ethnographic vs. Grounded Theory

What's the difference.

Ethnographic and Grounded Theory are both qualitative research methodologies that aim to understand social phenomena in depth. Ethnographic research involves immersing oneself in the culture or community being studied, often through participant observation and interviews, in order to gain a holistic understanding of the subject. Grounded Theory, on the other hand, focuses on developing theories based on the data collected, allowing themes and patterns to emerge organically from the data rather than imposing preconceived ideas. While both methodologies prioritize rich, detailed data collection and analysis, Ethnographic research tends to be more descriptive and interpretive, while Grounded Theory is more focused on theory development and testing.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Ethnographic and Grounded Theory are two popular research methodologies used in social sciences and qualitative research. While both approaches aim to understand social phenomena, they differ in their theoretical foundations, data collection methods, and analytical techniques. In this article, we will compare the attributes of Ethnographic and Grounded Theory to highlight their similarities and differences.

Theoretical Foundations

Ethnographic research is rooted in anthropology and sociology, focusing on understanding cultures and social practices through participant observation and in-depth interviews. Ethnographers immerse themselves in the field, observing and interacting with participants to gain a holistic understanding of the culture or community under study. In contrast, Grounded Theory is based on symbolic interactionism and pragmatism, emphasizing the generation of theory from data. Grounded theorists collect data without preconceived theories, allowing concepts and theories to emerge from the data analysis process.

Data Collection Methods

One of the key differences between Ethnographic and Grounded Theory is their approach to data collection. Ethnographers typically use a combination of methods, including participant observation, interviews, and document analysis. They spend extended periods in the field, building rapport with participants and gaining insights into their everyday lives. In contrast, Grounded Theory researchers primarily rely on interviews and focus groups to collect data. They use open-ended questions to explore participants' perspectives and experiences, allowing theories to emerge from the data.

Analysis Techniques

When it comes to data analysis, Ethnographic and Grounded Theory employ different techniques to make sense of the collected data. Ethnographers use thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes in the data, often drawing on cultural theories to interpret their findings. They may also use coding techniques to categorize and analyze the data, uncovering underlying meanings and relationships. Grounded Theory researchers, on the other hand, use constant comparison to analyze the data iteratively. They compare new data with existing data to refine concepts and theories, leading to the development of grounded theory.

Role of Theory

While both Ethnographic and Grounded Theory emphasize the importance of theory in qualitative research, they differ in their approach to theory development. Ethnographers often draw on existing theories to guide their research and interpret their findings. They may use theoretical frameworks to analyze the data and make sense of the cultural practices observed in the field. In contrast, Grounded Theory researchers aim to develop theory from the data itself, allowing concepts and relationships to emerge organically. They prioritize empirical data over preconceived theories, focusing on building theory grounded in the data.

Validity and Generalizability

Validity and generalizability are important considerations in qualitative research, and Ethnographic and Grounded Theory have different implications for these concepts. Ethnographic research prioritizes internal validity, aiming to provide a rich and detailed description of the culture or community under study. Ethnographers focus on capturing the complexity and nuances of social phenomena, often sacrificing external validity for in-depth understanding. Grounded Theory, on the other hand, aims for theoretical generalizability, seeking to develop concepts and theories that can be applied to similar contexts. Grounded theorists focus on building theory that is grounded in empirical data and can be tested and refined in future research.

In conclusion, Ethnographic and Grounded Theory are two distinct research methodologies with unique attributes and approaches. While Ethnographic research emphasizes cultural immersion and holistic understanding, Grounded Theory focuses on theory generation from data. Both approaches have their strengths and limitations, and researchers should carefully consider their research questions and objectives when choosing between Ethnographic and Grounded Theory. By understanding the differences between these methodologies, researchers can make informed decisions about the most appropriate approach for their research projects.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

11 Types of qualitative research marketers navigate every day

Types of qualitative research methods, when to conduct qualitative research, get the best of both worlds with attest market research platform.

Is your marketing or product development a bit weak and under the weather, or isn’t it as punchy as it used to be? Qualitative research might just be the pick-me-up it needs. Now, not just any type of qualitative market research (it’s not some magic cure-all). You need to pick the right type of qualitative research — and we’re here to help you do that.

But what you need to know about qualitative research at its core, is that it’s about exploring the qualities and nuances of human behavior and preferences. Using discussions, observations, and analysis, you try to uncover not just what people do, but why they do it.

Conducting qualitative research provides you with rich, detailed feedback that gives depth to – and compliments – quantitative research, and can help you formulate direct actions to take. Here’s which qualitative methods we’ll be exploring today.

Focus groups
Observation
Content analysis
Narrative analysis
Historical records management and case studies
Ethnographic research
Phenomenological research
Grounded theory method
Action research

1. Qualitative research surveys

Surveys are great for tapping into the minds of your audience: you can ask direct questions to gather feedback on everything, in a variety of formats.

With the flexibility to reach a broad audience and the ability to tailor your questions for specific insights, surveys are one of the most used tools for gathering qualitative data at scale, and in record speed.

Collect feedback from a wide range of participants quickly.
Tailor surveys to explore various aspects of consumer behavior, from product preferences to brand perception.
Compared to other qualitative methods, surveys are relatively low-cost and can be distributed widely with minimal resources.

Challenges and solutions:

Formulating questions that get deep, meaningful responses can be tricky. Focus on open-ended questions and avoid leading or biased phrasing.
Keeping respondents interested and encouraging thoughtful responses is tricky. Offer incentives and ensure the survey is quick and clear to boost engagement and completion rates.
The pile of qualitative data from open-ended survey responses can be a lot to work through, xo make sure you’re prepped for your qualitative data analysis.

When to use:

Use surveys to explore consumer sentiments, identify unmet needs and pain points, and evaluate what drives brand loyalty.

Send out survey questions and collect written answers or even video responses with Attest . Our platform takes care of everything, from survey templates to get you started, to best-in-class research advice to help you run truly great research.

See how qual research with Attest works

You can get high-quality video responses from your target audiences with Attest, and our team of research pros is on hand to help you run awesome research

2. Interviews

If you want to go deep, and not necessarily get a lot of data from different participants, interviews are your thing. By sitting down for a one-on-one with people from your target audience you can gather detailed feedback and personal stories

You can follow the conversation wherever it leads, asking follow-up questions that bring out detailed or surprising insights.
Human-to-human interactions can lead to more genuine responses, giving you a clearer picture of your audience.
Interviews take a lot of time to conduct and analyze. Using transcription software and focusing your questions can speed things up.
People might tell you what they think you want to hear. Make sure you create a comfortable setting and assure anonymity to encourage brutal honesty and fight bias.
Data from interviews can be hard to compare. Sticking to a set of core questions while allowing for (controlled) personal exploration can help.

Use Interviews for qualitative research when developing new products or features to deeply understand user needs and reactions, and for branding or campaigns to gather stories and emotions that tie people to your brand, enriching your next marketing initiative.

3. Focus groups

Learn to read the room. Focus groups bring together a small group of people from your target market to discuss their opinions and experiences regarding your product or service. The setup of these groups often encourages participants to share their thoughts and ideas.

Bringing together a variety of viewpoints and hearing how they compare to each other helps you understand the nuances of your target audience.
Group discussions can lead to surprising angles and new insights into consumer attitudes and perceptions that individual interviews may not capture.
Participants might sway towards consensus opinions. Encouraging open dialogue and using a skilled moderator can help avoid this. And make sure your group is diverse enough as well.
Individuals can be overlooked in group settings. Feel like some voices are overpowering? Complement focus groups with one-on-one interviews for deeper insights.
Organizing focus groups is pretty resource-intensive. Virtual focus groups or streamlined in-person sessions are more flexible.

Use focus groups for brand perception studies to delve into group discussions about your brand and for concept testing to gather immediate reactions to new product ideas, packaging, or marketing strategies.

4. Observation

Watching how people interact with your product or service in their natural environment (in person or through video recordings), without interference, is a great way to get real-life insights into user behavior, preferences, and potential improvements that might not be revealed through direct questioning.

Beat assumptions and get a contextual understanding of how people interact with your product or service in real-world settings.
Body language and other non-verbal signals can tell you a lot about how consumers feel when handling your product.
the presence of an observer might make people change their behavior. Unobtrusive methods like video recording can help avoid that.
Observers might interpret actions through their own bias. Make sure they are well-trained to avoid this, and that you work with multiple observers to compare interpretations.
Translating observations into actionable data can be challenging. Structured observation guides and analytical frameworks can streamline your analysis.

Use Observation for user experience research to see how people interact with your product in real settings and for environmental impact studies to understand how different environments influence consumer behavior towards your brand.

5. Content analysis

The words, images or videos related to your brand or product that people create and share tell a story. With content analysis, you collect all these elements and try to find themes, patterns or issues that stand out.

You don’t have to worry about getting brand-new data in, which also makes it a more cost-effective and sometimes faster qualitative research method.
With social listening and content analysis, you can identify emerging trends early in. All you need to do is really zoom in.
The amount of available content is probably going to be overwhelming, but there are plenty of software tools for sentiment analysis out there that do the heavy lifting for you.
Unhappy customers might be louder than the happy ones, so the content might not represent the broader audience. Balance your content analysis with direct research methods like surveys or interviews to mitigate this bias.

Use content analysis for uncovering insights into brand perception and evaluating the impact of marketing campaigns on public sentiment through social media content analysis.

6. Narrative analysis

Narrative analysis delves into the stories people tell about their experiences with your product or service. It focuses on understanding the sequence of events, the context, and the emotional journeys described by consumers.

Unpacks the emotional journey and personal experiences of consumers, offering a rich understanding of their relationship with your product or service.
By analyzing stories, you capture not just the facts but the context around consumer decisions and experiences, revealing deeper motivations.
Stories often reflect broader cultural and social influences, helping you see how these factors impact consumer behavior.
Personal biases can influence how narratives are interpreted. Establishing a clear analytical framework and involving multiple analysts can reduce bias.
Narrative analysis can be detail-oriented and time-consuming. Using software to assist in data coding and thematic analysis can streamline the process.
It can be challenging to ensure that the narratives collected are directly relevant to your research questions. Carefully designing the prompt and selection criteria for participants can help focus the stories gathered.

Use narrative analysis to map out detailed consumer journeys from first awareness to loyalty and to craft compelling brand stories that resonate deeply with your audience.

7. Historical records management and case studies

This method involves analyzing existing documents and records related to your market or industry, and conducting case studies on specific examples within your field. You look at historical trends, previous campaigns, product launches, and customer feedback over time, providing a context for current market dynamics and guiding future strategies.

Offers a perspective on how consumer behaviors and market trends have evolved, giving you context for current data.
You can measure the impact of changes or interventions tend to make in your marketing strategy or product development.
Historical records may be scattered or difficult to access, so digitize records and maintain a centralized database now for future researchers.
Ensuring that historical data is still relevant to current contexts can be challenging, so regularly update your data collection and analysis methods to reflect current market conditions.

Use historical records management and case studies for analyzing long-term market trends, assessing the effectiveness of marketing campaigns over time, and understanding the evolution of product life cycles influenced by consumer preferences.

8. Ethnographic research

Ethnographic research immerses you in the everyday lives of your target audience, observing them in their natural settings to understand their behaviors, rituals, and the social context of product usage. This gives you culturally grounded insights into how and why your product fits into consumers’ lives.

By observing people in their natural environments, you get to see how they genuinely interact with products or services, unfiltered by self-reporting biases.
You get detailed descriptions of people’s lives and interactions, and much more nuanced insights than numbers and charts.
You’ll need significant time in the field and enough resources to do it right. Streamlining focus areas and using digital tools for data collection can help manage the workload.
Immersion in a community or culture can lead to biased perspectives. Regular reflection sessions and involving multiple researchers can help maintain a balanced viewpoint.

Use ethnographic research to understand how user environments and cultures affect product use, tailor offerings for specific markets or cultural groups, and innovate with designs centered on real-world user behavior.

9. Phenomenological research

Phenomenological research focuses on the lived experiences of individuals regarding a particular phenomenon. Through in-depth interviews and discussions, you gather detailed personal accounts, looking for the underlying meanings and emotions attached to experiences with your product or service.

It centers on the lived experiences of users, giving you a true-to-life image of understanding their needs, desires, and motivations.
Captures the essence of consumer experiences, delivering authentic insights that can guide more empathetic and effective marketing strategies.
The depth of phenomenological data can make analysis challenging. Working with thematic analysis and seeking expert advice can make it more manageable.
Finding participants willing to share deeply personal experiences may be difficult. Offer assurances of confidentiality and create a safe, respectful environment.

Use phenomenological research to dive deep into the emotions and experiences of new market segments, refine user experiences for greater satisfaction, and create brand messages that forge stronger emotional connections with your audience.

10. Grounded theory method

The grounded theory method starts with data collection without a predefined hypothesis, allowing theories to emerge from the data itself. Through continuous comparison of data from interviews, surveys, or observations, you develop a theory that explains a particular aspect of consumer behavior or market trends.

Exploring data without preconceived theories is ideal for uncovering fresh insights and new perspectives on consumer behavior.
Based on the data, you can develop theories that explain patterns and relationships within your market, setting up a strong foundation for strategic decisions.
As data collection and analysis proceed in tandem, you can refine your research focus based on emerging insights, ensuring the relevance and depth of findings.
The open-ended nature of grounded theory means you’ll get piles of data. Using software for data management and employing selective sampling techniques to focus the research.
The iterative process of coding and recoding data to develop a theory is complex. Training in grounded theory methods and regular team discussions can help clarify the process.

Use the grounded theory method to innovate products, tackle complex consumer issues, and craft strategies that deeply align with consumer preferences and behaviors.

11. Action research

Action research is a participatory method where researchers work alongside participants to identify and solve problems or improve practices. In the context of market research, it could involve collaborating with consumers to co-create solutions or enhance product design.

Findings and insights can be applied in real-time, allowing for fast adjustments to products, services, or marketing strategies.
Active involvement from participants, leads to a deeper engagement with your brand and a sense of ownership over the solutions developed.
Balancing the input and engagement of participants without overwhelming them can be challenging. Set clear expectations and provide structured feedback.
The focus on immediate solutions might overlook deeper, underlying issues. Supplement with other qualitative methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding.
The cyclical nature of action research, with its continuous cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, requires dedication and flexibility. Agile project management techniques can keep the project on track.

Use action research to develop products informed by user feedback, enhance customer experiences through targeted improvements, and strengthen relationships with communities or stakeholders through collaborative engagement.

Conduct qualitative research when you need in-depth understanding of consumer attitudes, feelings, or behaviors—areas where quantitative research’s numbers and statistics can’t provide the full picture.

Qualitative research is best used in tandem with quantitative research – they really do compliment each other. You can use qualitative research to help inspire you at the beginning of a project, or to flesh out ideas that emerge during preceding quantitative research.

It’s especially useful for exploring new concepts, enhancing product development, or deepening brand engagement, complementing quantitative data by adding context and depth to the insights gained.

With Attest’s market research platform, you can seamlessly blend qualitative and quantitative data, giving you the insights you need for smarter marketing and better product development. See how Attest is helping businesses in a variety of industries to better understand their audiences.

Andrada Comsa

Principal Customer Research Manager

6 qualitative data examples for thorough market researchers, making it personal – using tech to build connections with consumers | diageo, panel discussion – future-proofing your brand with consumer insights, subscribe to our newsletter.

Fill in your email and we’ll drop fresh insights and events info into your inbox each week.

* I agree to receive communications from Attest. Privacy Policy .

You're now subscribed to our mailing list to receive exciting news, reports, and other updates!

COMMENTS

Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers
Figure 1. Research design framework: summary of the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and processes. Grounded theory research involves the meticulous application of specific methods and processes. Methods are 'systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection and analysis of data'. 25 While GT studies can ...
Comparisons of Adaptations in Grounded Theory and Phenomenology
The most widely used qualitative research methodologies are grounded theory and phenomenology (Gelling, 2011; Goulding, 2005; Padgett, 2017; Strandmark, 2015). Grounded Theory (GT) is a design of inquiry where subjective data collection and conceptual analysis undergo an emergent iterative process to develop a theory (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).
Grounded Theory
Grounded Theory. Definition: Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to generate theories based on data that are grounded in the empirical reality of the research context. The method involves a systematic process of data collection, coding, categorization, and analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data.
Grounded Theory: The FAQs
Since being developed as a research methodology in the 1960s, grounded theory (GT) has grown in popularity. In spite of its prevalence, considerable confusion surrounds GT, particularly in respect of the essential methods that characterize this approach to research. Misinformation is evident in the literature around issues such as the various ...
The pursuit of quality in grounded theory
Introduction. American sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss's (Citation 1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research not only proposed a new method of analysis, but also led the charge of defending the quality of qualitative research.Grounded theory is a systematic method of conducting research that shapes collecting data and provides explicit ...
Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers
The aim of all research is to advance, refine and expand a body of knowledge, establish facts and/or reach new conclusions using systematic inquiry and disciplined methods. 1 The research design is the plan or strategy researchers use to answer the research question, which is underpinned by philosophy, methodology and methods. 2 Birks 3 defines philosophy as 'a view of the world encompassing ...
Grounded theory
Grounded theory is a systematic methodology that has been largely applied to qualitative research conducted by social scientists.The methodology involves the construction of hypotheses and theories through the collecting and analysis of data. Grounded theory involves the application of inductive reasoning.The methodology contrasts with the hypothetico-deductive model used in traditional ...
Grounded Theory Methodology: Principles and Practices
Since Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss' (The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Adline De Gruyter, 1967) publication of their groundbreaking book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, grounded theory methodology (GTM) has been an integral part of health social science.GTM allows for the systematic collection and analysis of qualitative data to ...
LibGuides: Qualitative study design: Grounded theory
Grounded theory proposes that careful observation of the social world can lead to the construction of theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). ... This is different from the more linear processes occurring in other methodologies. ... A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372-1380. doi ...
Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide
This stepping up of the analysis is called "paradigm model" (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 127; Urquhart, 2013): evaluation of the data based on this type of coding assists the researcher in ...
The Grounded Theory Method
Abstract. The term "grounded theory" was introduced to the research lexicon by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s, particularly with the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967. The term itself is somewhat misleading since it actually refers to a method that facilitates the development of new theoretical insights ...
Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research
These commonly used methods are appropriate for particular research questions and contexts Qualitative research includes a variety of methodological approaches with different disciplinary origins and tools. This article discusses three commonly used approaches: grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. It provides background for those who will encounter these methodologies in their ...
An Overview of Grounded Theory Qualitative Research
An Overview of Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research. Published: Dec. 1, 2023. Using grounded theory, you can examine a specific process or phenomenon and develop new theories derived from the collected real-world data and their analysis. Grounded theory research is an inductive approach in which a theory is developed based on data.
PDF Introduction to Qualitative Research and Grounded Theory
This presentation concentrates on a short introduction of qualitative research, and a more detailed presentation of Grounded Theory. Qualitative Research. Qualitative research seeks the specific quality that is typical of a phenomenon (Eneroth, 1984; Malterud, 2014; Denscombe, 2017). It answers questions beginning with "what" and "how ...
Towards a Versatile and Impactful Qualitative Research Paradigm: A
The chapter also discusses the different approaches to grounded theory, including the original approach of Glaser and Strauss, and the variations developed by other researchers, such as Charmaz and Clarke. Chapter 3: What is Theory? This chapter defines theory, its components, and the role of theory in grounded theory research.
Grounded Theory Research: The Complete Guide
Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then creates a theory 'grounded' in the results. The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book, Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory.
Qualitative Methods in Health Care Research
The major difference between grounded theory and other approaches lies in its emphasis on theory generation and development. ... Sage Publications; 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. [Google Scholar] 28. McCann TV, Clark E. Grounded theory in nursing research: Part 1 - Methodology. Nurse Res. 2004 ...
Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?
Introduction. Qualitative research is a cornerstone in cardiovascular research. It gives insights in why particular phenomena occur or what underlying mechanisms are. 1 Over the past 2 years, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing published 20 qualitative studies. 2-21 These studies used methods such as content analysis, ethnography, or phenomenology.
Grounded Theory Approaches Used in Educational Research Journals
Grounded theory methodology has taken on different iterations since its introduction. In 1990, Strauss and Corbin published a revisionist methodology, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, which included a number of derivations and extrapolations from the original 1967 methodology. Their work spawned a division in what came to be known as "Straussian ...
Grounded Theory: A Guide for Exploratory Studies in Management Research
Grounded theory was first introduced more than 50 years ago, but researchers are often still uncertain about how to implement it. This is not surprising, considering that even the two pioneers of this qualitative design, Glaser and Strauss, have different views about its approach, and these are just two of multiple variations found in the literature.
Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research
Straightforward and accessible, this pragmatic guide takes you step-by-step through doing grounded theory research. With hands-on advice focussed around designing real projects, it demonstrates best practice for integrating theory building and methods. Its extensive examples and case studies are drawn from across the social sciences, presenting students with a range of options for both ...
10 Grounded Theory Examples (Qualitative Research Method)
Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that involves the construction of theory from data rather than testing theories through data (Birks & Mills, 2015).. In other words, a grounded theory analysis doesn't start with a hypothesis or theoretical framework, but instead generates a theory during the data analysis process.. This method has garnered a notable amount of attention since ...
(PDF) Qualitative Research Method: Grounded Theory
reports details of informants, and conducts the study in a natural setting'. Qualitative research is based upon the observations and inte rpretations of people's perception of different events ...
What is Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research?
Grounded theory is a great method for specific types of research issues. Grounded theory is best applied when research teams come into a problem with uncertainty about the full landscape and situation. Because it requires multiple rounds of research, it's more costly and time-consuming than studies where the hypothesis and testing is clear ...
Observation in Grounded Theory and Ethnography: What are the
Apparently, observation in ethnography is like as grounded theory and the other qualitative studies but ethnography observers have more holistic views. In a way, Charmaz believes that the observer in the grounded theory, according to the objectives of the research, discusses the details of only one aspect of the research, whereas the observer ...
Ethnographic vs. Grounded Theory
Ethnographic and Grounded Theory are both qualitative research methodologies that aim to understand social phenomena in depth. Ethnographic research involves immersing oneself in the culture or community being studied, often through participant observation and interviews, in order to gain a holistic understanding of the subject.
11 Types of Qualitative Research for Market Researchers
11. Action research. Action research is a participatory method where researchers work alongside participants to identify and solve problems or improve practices. In the context of market research, it could involve collaborating with consumers to co-create solutions or enhance product design. Benefits:

Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory

History of Grounded Theory

Types of Grounded Theory

Classic Grounded Theory

Constructivist Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory Conducting Guide

Data Collection Methods

Data Analysis Methods

Applications of Grounded Theory

Examples of Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory Research Example

Purpose of Grounded Theory

When to use Grounded Theory

Characteristics of Grounded Theory

Advantages of Grounded Theory

Limitations of Grounded Theory

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Regression Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Factor Analysis – Steps, Methods and Examples

Uniform Histogram – Purpose, Examples and Guide

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Grounded Theory Methodology: Principles and Practices

Access this chapter

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

Share this entry

Qualitative study design: Grounded theory

Grounded theory

Limitations

Example questions

Example studies

Search form

Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research

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

What are the key features of grounded theory?

Box 1 Grounded theory study

Mixed methods: what is it and when is it used?

What are the key features of mixed methods?

Box 2 Mixed methods study

Action research: what is it and when is it used?

What are the key features of action research?

Box 3 Action research study

Box 4 Key elements to look for in research papers

Mixed methods

Action research

Further reading

Summary points

An Overview of Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research

What is Grounded Theory Approach in Research?

What is Grounded Theory in Research?

What are the Advantages of Grounded Theory?

Results reflect real-world settings

Excellent for discovering new things

Streamlined data gathering and analysis

Findings are tightly connected to the data

Protection from confirmation bias

Provides analysis strategies

Disadvantages of Grounded Theory

How to Use NVivo for Grounded Theory

Try Qualtrics for free

What is grounded theory in research?

When should you use grounded theory research?

Grounded theory methodology

1. Data planning

2. Data collection and analysis

3. Data analysis is turned into a final theory

An example of using grounded theory in business

Advantages of grounded theory

Disadvantages of grounded theory

What tools will help with grounded theory?