icricr

Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations

Grounded theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain
unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this
article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (March 2009)

Grounded theory (GT) is a systematic qualitative research methodology in the social

sciences emphasizing generation of theory from data in the process of conducting
research[1].

It is a research method that operates almost in a reverse fashion from traditional research
and at first may appear to be in contradiction of the scientific method. Rather than
beginning by researching and developing a hypothesis, the first step is data collection,
through a variety of methods. From the data collected, the key points are marked with a
series of codes, which are extracted from the text. The codes are grouped into similar
concepts in order to make them more workable. From these concepts, categories are
formed, which are the basis for the creation of a theory, or a reverse engineered
hypothesis. This contradicts the traditional model of research, where the researcher
chooses a theoretical framework, and only then applies this model to the studied
phenomenon[2].

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Four Stages of Analysis

• 2 Development
• 3 Split in methodology
• 4 Glaser
o 4.1 Goals of grounded theory
o 4.2 GT nomenclature
o 4.3 Memoing
o 4.4 Sorting
 o 4.5 Writing
o 4.6 No pre-research literature review, no taping and no talk
o 4.7 The Grounded Theory Institute
• 5 Strauss
o 5.1 Differences
• 6 Criticism
• 7 See also
• 8 References
• 9 External links
• 10 Further reading
o 10.1 Glaser

o 10.2 Strauss

[edit] Four Stages of Analysis

Stage Purpose
Codes Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data to be gathered
Concepts Collections of codes of similar content that allows the data to be grouped
Categories Broad groups of similar concepts that are used to generate a theory
Theory A collection of explanations that explain the subject of the research

[edit] Development
Grounded theory was developed by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss.
Their collaboration in research on dying hospital patients led them to write the book
Awareness of Dying. In this research they developed the constant comparative method
later known as Grounded Theory; see The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967).

[edit] Split in methodology

Since their original publication in 1967, Glaser and Strauss have disagreed on 'how to do'
GT, resulting in a split in the theory between Glaserian and Straussian paradigms. This
split occurred most obviously after Strauss published Qualitative Analysis for Social
Scientists (1987). Thereafter Strauss in 1990 published Basics of Qualitative Research:
Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques together with Juliet Corbin. This was
followed by a rebuke by Glaser (1992) who set out, chapter by chapter, to highlight the
differences in what he argued was original grounded theory and why, according to
Glaser, what Strauss had written was not grounded theory in its intended form. This
divergence in the GT methodology is a subject of much academic debate, which Glaser
(1998) calls a "rhetorical wrestle".
According to Kelle (2005), "the controversy between Glaser and Strauss boils down to
the question of whether the researcher uses a well defined 'coding paradigm' and always
looks systematically for 'causal conditions,' 'phenomena/context, intervening conditions,
action strategies' and 'consequences' in the data, or whether theoretical codes are
employed as they emerge in the same way as substantive codes emerge, but drawing on a
huge fund of 'coding families.' Both strategies have their pros and cons. Novices who
wish to get clear advice on how to structure data material may be satisfied with the use of
the coding paradigm. Since the paradigm consists of theoretical terms which carry only
limited empirical content the risk is not very high that data are forced by its application.
However, it must not be forgotten that it is linked to a certain micro-sociological
perspective. Many researchers may concur with that approach especially since qualitative
research always had a relation to micro-sociological action theory, but others who want to
employ a macro-sociological and system theory perspective may feel that the use of the
coding paradigm would lead them astray." [3]

The Glaserian strategy is not a qualitative research method, but claims the dictum "all is
data". This means that not only interview or observational data but also surveys or
statistical analyses or "whatever comes the researcher's way while studying a substantive
area" (Glaser quote) can be used in the comparative process as well as literature data
from science or media or even fiction. Thus the method according to Glaser is not limited
to the realm of qualitative research, which he calls "QDA" (Qualitative Data Analysis).
QDA is devoted to descriptive accuracy while the Glaserian method emphasizes
conceptualization abstract of time, place and people. A grounded theory concept should
be easy to use outside of the substantive area where it was generated.

[edit] Glaser
The first book, "The Discovery of Grounded Theory", from 1967, was "developed in
close and equal collaboration" (Strauss, 1993, p. 12) by Glaser and Strauss. Glaser wrote
a methodology "Theoretical Sensitivity" in 1978 and has since then written five more
books on the method and edited five readers with a collection of GT articles and
dissertations (see Literature at end). The Grounded Theory Review[2] is a peer-reviewed
journal publishing grounded theories and articles on different aspects of doing GT.

Strauss and Juliet Corbin (Strauss & Corbin 1990) took GT in a different direction from
what Glaser had outlined in Theoretical Sensitivity and the 1967 book. There was a clash
of ideas between the discoverers, and Glaser in 1992 wrote a book arguing against the
Strauss & Corbin book chapter by chapter.

Hence GT was divided into Strauss & Corbin’s method, see grounded theory (Strauss)
and Glaser’s GT with the original ideas from 1967 and 1978 still in operation. The
following article deals with GT according to Glaser.

[edit] Goals of grounded theory

GT is a systematic generation of theory from data that contains both inductive and
deductive thinking. One goal of a GT is to formulate hypotheses based on conceptual
ideas. Others may try to verify the hypotheses that are generated by constantly comparing
conceptualized data on different levels of abstraction, and these comparisons contain
deductive steps. Another goal of a GT is to discover the participants’ main concern and
how they continually try to resolve it. The questions you keep on asking in GT are
"What’s going on?" and "What is the main problem of the participants and how are they
trying to solve it?" These questions will be answered by the core variable and its subcores
and properties in due course (see below). GT does not aim for the "truth" but to
conceptualize what's going on by using empirical data. In a way GT resembles what
many researchers do when retrospectively formulating new hypotheses to fit data.
However, in GT the researcher does not pretend to have formulated the hypotheses in
advance since preformed hypotheses are prohibited (Glaser & Strauss 1967).

If your research goal is accurate description, then another method should be chosen since
GT is not a descriptive method. Instead it has the goal of generating concepts that explain
people’s actions regardless of time and place. The descriptive parts of a GT are there
mainly to illustrate the concepts.

In most behavioral research endeavors persons or patients are units of analysis, whereas
in GT the unit of analysis is the incident (Glaser & Strauss 1967). There are normally at
least several hundred incidents analyzed in a GT study since every participant normally
reports many incidents. When comparing many incidents in a certain area, the emerging
concepts and their relationships are in reality probability statements. Consequently, GT is
not a qualitative method but a general method that can use any kind of data even if
qualitative at the moment are most popular (Glaser, 2001, 2003). However, although
working with probabilities, most GT studies are considered as qualitative since statistical
methods are not used, and figures not presented. The results of GT are not a reporting of
facts but a set of probability statements about the relationship between concepts, or an
integrated set of conceptual hypotheses developed from empirical data (Glaser 1998).
Validity in its traditional sense is consequently not an issue in GT, which instead should
be judged by fit, relevance, workability, and modifiability (Glaser & Strauss 1967, Glaser
1978, Glaser 1998).

Fit has to do with how closely concepts fit with the incidents they are representing, and
this is related to how thoroughly the constant comparison of incidents to concepts was
done.

Relevance. A relevant study deals with the real concern of participants, evokes "grab"
(captures the attention) and is not only of academic interest.

Workability. The theory works when it explains how the problem is being solved with
much variation.
Modifiability. A modifiable theory can be altered when new relevant data is compared to
existing data. A GT is never right or wrong, it just has more or less fit, relevance,
workability and modifiability.

[edit] GT nomenclature

A concept is the overall element and includes the categories which are conceptual
elements standing by themselves, and properties of categories, which are conceptual
aspects of categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The core variable explains most of the
participants’ main concern with as much variation as possible. It has the most powerful
properties to picture what’s going on, but with as few properties as possible needed to do
so. A popular type of core variable can be theoretically modeled as a basic social process
that accounts for most of the variation in change over time, context, and behavior in the
studied area. "GT is multivariate. It happens sequentially, subsequently, simultaneously,
serendipitously, and scheduled" (Glaser, 1998).

All is data is a fundamental property of GT which means that everything that gets in the
researcher’s way when studying a certain area is data. Not only interviews or
observations but anything is data that helps the researcher generating concepts for the
emerging theory. Field notes can come from informal interviews, lectures, seminars,
expert group meetings, newspaper articles, Internet mail lists, even television shows,
conversations with friends etc. It is even possible, and sometimes a good idea, for a
researcher with much knowledge in the studied area to interview herself, treating that
interview like any other data, coding and comparing it to other data and generating
concepts from it. This may sound silly since you don’t have to interview yourself to know
what you know, but you don’t know it on the conceptual level! And GT deals with
conceptual level data.

Open coding or substantive coding is conceptualizing on the first level of abstraction.

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

Selective coding is done after having found the core variable or what is thought to be the
core, the tentative core. The core explains the behavior of the participants in resolving
their main concern. The tentative core is never wrong. It just more or less fits with the
data. After having chosen your core variable you selectively code data with the core
guiding your coding, not bothering about concepts with little importance to the core and
its subcores. Also, you now selectively sample new data with the core in mind, which is
called theoretical sampling – a deductive part of GT. Selective coding delimits the
study, which makes it move fast. This is indeed encouraged while doing GT (Glaser,
1998) since GT is not concerned with data accuracy as in descriptive research but is
about generating concepts that are abstract of time, place and people. Selective coding
could be done by going over old field notes or memos which are already coded once at
an earlier stage or by coding newly gathered data.

Theoretical codes integrate the theory by weaving the fractured concepts into hypotheses
that work together in a theory explaining the main concern of the participants. Theoretical
coding means that the researcher applies a theoretical model to the data. It is important
that this model is not forced beforehand but has emerged during the comparative process
of GT. So the theoretical codes just as substantives codes should emerge from the
process of constantly comparing the data in field notes and memos.

[edit] Memoing

Theoretical memoing is "the core stage of grounded theory methodology" (Glaser

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

Memoing is also important in the early phase of a GT study such as open coding. The
researcher is then conceptualizing incidents, and memoing helps this process. Theoretical
memos can be anything written or drawn in the constant comparison that makes up a GT.
Memos are important tools to both refine and keep track of ideas that develop when you
compare incidents to incidents and then concepts to concepts in the evolving theory. In
memos you develop ideas about naming concepts and relating them to each other. In
memos you try the relationships between concepts in two-by-two tables, in diagrams or
figures or whatever makes the ideas flow, and generates comparative power. Without
memoing the theory is superficial and the concepts generated not very original. Memoing
works as an accumulation of written ideas into a bank of ideas about concepts and how
they relate to each other. This bank contains rich parts of what will later be the written
theory. Memoing is total creative freedom without rules of writing, grammar or style
(Glaser 1998). The writing must be an instrument for outflow of ideas, and nothing else.
When you write memos the ideas become more realistic, being converted from thoughts
in your mind to words, and thus ideas communicable to the afterworld. In GT the
preconscious processing that occurs when coding and comparing is recognized. The
researcher is encouraged to register ideas about the ongoing study that eventually pop up
in everyday situations, and awareness of the serendipity of the method is also necessary
to achieve good results.

[edit] Sorting

In the next step memos are sorted, which is the key to formulate the theory for
presentation to others. Sorting puts fractured data back together. During sorting lots of
new ideas emerge, which in turn are recorded in new memos giving the memo-on-memos
phenomenon. Sorting memos generates theory that explains the main action in the studied
area. A theory written from unsorted memos may be rich in ideas but the connection
between concepts is weak.

[edit] Writing

Writing up the sorted memo piles follows after sorting, and at this stage the theory is
close to the written GT product. The different categories are now related to each other
and the core variable. The theoretical density should be dosed so concepts are mixed with
description in words, tables, or figures to optimize readability. In the later rewriting the
relevant literature is woven in to put the theory in a scholarly context. Finally, the GT is
edited for style and language and eventually submitted for publication.

[edit] No pre-research literature review, no taping and no talk

GT according to Glaser gives the researcher freedom to generate new concepts explaining
human behavior. This freedom is optimal when the researcher refrains from taping
interviews, doing a pre research literature review, and talking about the research before it
is written up. These rules makes GT different from most other methods using qualitative
data.

No pre-research literature review. Studying the literature of the area under study gives
preconceptions about what to find and the researcher gets desensitized by borrowed
concepts. Instead, grounded theories in other areas, and GT method books increase
theoretical sensitivity. The literature should instead be read in the sorting stage being
treated as more data to code and compare with what has already been coded and
generated.

No taping. Taping and transcribing interviews is common in qualitative research, but is

counterproductive and a waste of time in GT which moves fast when the researcher
delimits her data by field-noting interviews and soon after generates concepts that fit with
data, are relevant and work in explaining what participants are doing to resolve their main
concern.

No talk. Talking about the theory before it is written up drains the researcher of
motivational energy. Talking can either render praise or criticism, and both diminish the
motivational drive to write memos that develop and refine the concepts and the theory
(Glaser 1998). Positive feedback makes you content with what you've got and negative
feedback hampers your self-confidence. Talking about the GT should be restricted to
persons capable of helping the researcher without influencing her final judgments.

[edit] The Grounded Theory Institute

Glaser founded the Grounded Theory Institute in 1999 as a non-profit web-based

organization (www.groundedtheory.com), which describes itself on its webpage as
"dedicated to the evolving methodology of Dr.Barney G. Glaser, Ph.D.". The Institute
provides an online forum for the discussion of grounded theory, and publishes the
journal, "The Grounded Theory Review." The Institute also includes the Sociology Press,
which Dr. Glaser founded in 1970.

[edit] Strauss
Generally speaking, grounded theory is an approach for looking systematically at
(mostly) qualitative data (like transcripts of interviews or protocols of observations)
aiming at the generation of theory. Sometimes, grounded theory is seen as a qualitative
method, but grounded theory reaches farther: it combines a specific style of research (or a
paradigm) with pragmatic theory of action and with some methodological guidelines.

This approach was written down and systematized in the 1960s by Anselm Strauss
(himself a student of Herbert Blumer) and Barney Glaser (a student of Paul Lazarsfeld),
while working together in studying the sociology of illness at the University of
California, San Francisco. For and with their studies, they developed a methodology,
which was then made explicit and became the foundation stone for an important branch
of qualitative sociology.

Important concepts of grounded theory are categories, codes and codings. The research
principle behind grounded theory is neither inductive nor deductive, but combines both in
a way of abductive reasoning (coming from the works of Charles Sanders Peirce). This
leads to a research practice where data sampling, data analysis and theory development
are not seen as distinct and disjunct, but as different steps to be repeated until one can
describe and explain the phenomenon that is to be researched. This stopping point is
reached when new data does not change the emerging theory anymore.

[edit] Differences

Grounded theory according to Glaser emphasizes induction or emergence, and the

individual researcher's creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Strauss is more
interested in validation criteria and a systematic approach. This methodical way of
creating grounded theory (and still be acceptable to scientific standards) is explained in
Strauss and Corbin (1990).

In an interview that was conducted shortly before Strauss' death, he named three basic
elements every grounded theory approach should include (Legewie/Schervier-Legewie
(2004)). These three elements are:

• Theoretical sensitive coding, that is, generating theoretical strong concepts from
the data to explain the phenomenon researched;
• theoretical sampling, that is, deciding whom to interview or what to observe next
according to the state of theory generation, and that implies to start data analysis
with the first interview, and write down memos and hypotheses early;
• the need to compare between phenomena and contexts to make the theory strong.
[edit] Criticism
Critiques of grounded theory have focused on its status as theory (is what is produced
really 'theory'?), on the notion of 'ground' (why is an idea of 'grounding' one's findings
important in qualitative inquiry -- what are they 'grounded' in?) and on the claim to use
and develop inductive knowledge. These criticisms are summed up by Thomas and
James.[4] These authors also suggest that it is impossible to free oneself of preconceptions
in the collection and analysis of data in the way that Glaser and Strauss say is necessary.
They also point to the formulaic nature of grounded theory and the lack of congruence of
this with open and creative interpretation - which ought to be the hallmark of qualitative
inquiry. They suggest that the one element of grounded theory worth keeping is constant
comparative method.

Grounded theory was developed in a period when other qualitative methods were often
considered not scientific and became the main qualitative method mostly accepted as
academic enough. Thus, especially in American academia qualitative research is often
equated to grounded theory. This is criticized by qualitative researchers using other
methodologies (such as traditional ethnography, narratology, storytelling, etc.).

[edit] See also

• Social research
• Social science
• Sociology
• Positivism
• Antipositivism

[edit] References
1. ^ Martin, Patricia Yancey, Turner, Barry A.. (1986). Grounded Theory and
Organizational Research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141.
Retrieved June 21, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID:
1155984).
2. ^ Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method,
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2(1) pp 1-10
3. ^ Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial
Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung
/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs
49 & 50. [1]
4. ^ Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: some
questions about theory, ground and discovery, British Educational Research
Journal, 32, 6, 767–795.

[edit] External links

 • The Grounded Theory Institute (Glaser tradition)
• Grounded Theory Online (Supporting (Glaserian) GT researchers)
• Chinese version of introduction (Text in Chinese, References in English)
• Grounded Theory Review
• Sociology Press
• An Introduction to GT by the Action Research Unit, Southern Cross University
Management School

[edit] Further reading

• Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
• Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern
Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Kelle, Udo (2005). "Emergence" vs. "Forcing" of Empirical Data? A Crucial
Problem of "Grounded Theory" Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung
/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 6(2), Art. 27, paragraphs
49 & 50. [3]
• Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (Eds.) (2007). Grounded Theory Reader (HSR-Supplement
19). Cologne: ZHSF. 337 pages
• Thomas, G. & James, D. (2006). Re-inventing grounded theory: some questions
about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32
(6), 767–795.
• Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management,
Business and Market Researchers. London: Sage.
• Stebbins, Robert A. (2001) Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[edit] Glaser

• Glaser BG, Strauss A. Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative

Research. Sociology Press [4], 1967
• Glaser BG. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of Grounded
Theory. Sociology Press [5], 1978.
• Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Sage, 1990.
• Glaser BG. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs Forcing.
Sociology Press [6], 1992
• Glaser BG (ed). Examples of Grounded Theory: A Reader. Sociology Press [7],
1993.
• Glaser BG (ed). More Grounded Theory Methodology: A Reader. Sociology
Press [8], 1994.
 • Glaser BG (ed). Grounded Theory 1984-1994. A Reader (two volumes).
Sociology Press [9], 1995.
• Glaser BG (ed). Gerund Grounded Theory: The Basic Social Process Dissertation.
Sociology Press [10], 1996.
• Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory - Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press
[11], 1998.
• Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory Perspective I: Conceptualization Contrasted
with Description. Sociology Press [12], 2001.
• Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description's Remodeling of
Grounded Theory. Sociology Press [13], 2003.
• Glaser BG. The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical coding. Sociology
Press, 2005.
• Goulding, C. Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and
Market Researchers. London: Sage Publications, 2002.

[edit] Strauss

• Anselm L. Strauss; Leonard Schatzman; Rue Bucher; Danuta Ehrlich & Melvin
Sabshin: Psychiatric ideologies and institutions (1964)
• Barney G. Glaser; Anselm L. Strauss: The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967)
• Anselm L. Strauss: Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987)
• Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: Basics of Qualitative Research (1990)
• Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures,
Canons and Evaluative Criteria", in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19. Jg, S. 418 ff.
(1990)
• Anselm L. Strauss: Continual Permutations of Action (1993)
• Anselm L. Strauss; Juliet Corbin: "Grounded Theory in Practice" (1997)
• Legewie, Heiner & Schervier-Legewie, Barbara (September 2004). "Forschung ist
harte Arbeit, es ist immer ein Stück Leiden damit verbunden. Deshalb muss es auf
der anderen Seite Spaß machen". Anselm Strauss interviewed by Heiner Legewie
and Barbara Schervier-Legewie. Forum: Qualitative Social Research On-line
Journal, 5(3), Art. 22. Interview as MP3 audio (english) / edited German
translation of interview. Accessed on May 20, 2005.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory"

Categories: Research methods | Social sciences methodology | Educational psychology
research methods | Psychological theories
Hidden categories: Articles lacking in-text citations from March 2009 | All articles
lacking in-text citations

Personal tools

• New features
• Log in / create account

Namespaces
 • Article
• Discussion

Variants

Views

• Read
• Edit
• View history

Actions

Search

Search

Navigation

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article

Interaction

• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Help

Toolbox

• What links here

• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page

Print/export

• Create a book
• Download as PDF
 • Printable version

Languages

• Česky
• Deutsch
• Español
• 한국어
• Italiano
• 日本語
• Polski
• Suomi
• Svenska

• This page was last modified on 6 July 2010 at 12:54.

• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-
profit organization.
• Contact us

• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers