3.5 Grounded Theory
Marcos Antonio de Lima Filho, PhD.
Since the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967/2006), grounded theory has grown in popularity to become one of the most frequently cited research methodologies (Holton & Walsh, 2017). It is reportedly the most invoked method in qualitative research worldwide (Gynnild & Martin, 2011). It was first developed in the discipline of sociology and now is used in fields such as business, education, medicine, nursing, psychology, public health, and social work (Hernandez, 2010).
However, how grounded theorists use their methodological strategies differs from other qualitative researchers, and research actions distinguish grounded theory from other types of qualitative inquiry (Patton, 2015). Grounded theorists often engage in the following activities (Charmaz, 2014):
Conduct data collection and analysis simultaneously in an iterative process.
Analyse actions and processes rather than themes and structure.
Use comparative methods.
Draw on data (e.g., narratives and descriptions) in service of developing new conceptual categories.
Develop inductive categories through systematic data analysis.
Emphasise theory construction rather than description or application of current theories.
Engage in theoretical sampling.
Search for variation in studied categories or process.
Pursue developing a category rather than covering a specific empirical topic.
Grounded theory is meant to “build theory rather than test theory” (Patton, 2015). As explained by Holton & Walsh (2017), to understand the nature of the classic grounded theory methodology, one must understand the distinction between conceptualisation and description:
Classic grounded theory is not about accurate, descriptive reporting of findings in a study, nor is it an act of interpreting meaning as ascribed by the participants in a study; rather, it is an act of conceptual abstraction. For a classic grounded theorist, what matters are the concepts, the relationships among those concepts, and their power to offer the reader a conceptual explanation of significant behaviour within the social setting under study, free of the particularistic details of specific empirical incidents (indicators) (Holton & Walsh, 2017).
A grounded theory study is not the reporting of facts, but the generation of probability statements about the relationships between concepts, a set of conceptual hypotheses/propositions developed from empirical data (Glaser, 1998, p. 3, 22). Also, while descriptive findings in qualitative research can be valuable, descriptions alone cannot provide the conceptual abstraction necessary to generate theory. The ability to abstract the conceptual explanations from empirical indicators (incidents in the data under analysis), without the burden of descriptive detail, is what distinguishes classic grounded theory methodology from other qualitative approaches (Holton & Walsh, 2017).
Contrary to popular belief, grounded theory is not a qualitative research method (Holton & Walsh, 2017), despite the fact that it is mainly used by qualitative researchers (Gynnild & Martin, 2011). Glaser (1992, 1998, 2003) defends that grounded theory should not be framed as qualitative (leaning towards constructivism) nor quantitative (leaning towards positivism). It is a general research methodology that uses all types of data, both quantitative and qualitative (Holton & Walsh, 2017).
Classic Grounded Theory
Although The Discovery of Grounded Theory is considered a seminal book, it serves more as an introduction to the method than a procedural guide (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Hence, Glaser went on to write a second book, Theoretical Sensitivity, detailing more specifically what has become the classic methodology for doing grounded theory (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Since then, the method has undergone a number of revisions. Most significantly, Glaser and Strauss parted company and proposed different ways grounded theory ought to be practiced (Willig, 2013, p. 70). Researchers must be aware of these distinctions when choosing a methodology for their work (Hernandez, 2010).
Regarding its classic approach, Glaser says that “grounded theory is the systematic generation of theory from data acquired by a rigorous research method” and the product is an “integrated set of hypotheses which account for much of the behaviour seen in the substantive area” (1998, p. 3). The method was designed to offer a rigorous basis for doing qualitative research, putting it on par with quantitative approaches (Bryant, 2017).
As with many other methods, grounded theory evolved with practice, and this evolution resulted in a colourful public disagreement between Glaser and Strauss as to how to conduct grounded theory research (Fernández, 2004). The publication of Strauss and Corbin’s book in 1990, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, although dedicated to Glaser “with admiration and appreciation”, upset him (Gummesson, 2011). Since then, many revisions of the method have emerged. Currently, three main versions dominate the field (McCallin, 2004; Bryant, 2017). These include the “Classical” (Glaserian) version, Strauss and Corbin’s more structured approach, and Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist version, all taking their lead from the founding trilogy but differing in their methodological and philosophical bases and orientations (Bryant, 2017). Unfortunately, this series of reformulations resulted in much confusion about the nature of grounded theory:
Much of the current confusion about grounded theory stems from the later collaboration between Strauss and Corbin (1990), who together published two books and several articles on “grounded theory” but did not acknowledge that their method was different from Glaserian grounded theory until they published their final book (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, pp. 10, 12). The method described in that book, published after Strauss’s death in 1996, deviated completely from original grounded theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) because of its descriptive, deductive, and verificational focus — as opposed to grounded theory’s explanatory, inductive, and discovery focus. Most recently, Corbin (2007) has called their method Straussian Grounded Theory and has asserted that it is not a research methodology but rather a qualitative data analysis approach (Hernandez, 2010).
One of the strengths of the classical approach is that it explains what is actually happening in practical life, rather than describing what should be going on (McCallin, 2004). The purpose of grounded theory is to generate “concepts and their relationships that explain, account for and interpret the variation in behaviour in the substantive area under study” (Glaser, 1992, p. 19). It is the systematic generation of theory from data that has itself been systematically obtained (Glaser, 1978, p. 2). Grounded theory aims to produce a theory that fits, works, has relevance, and is readily modifiable on the basis of new data (Glaser, 1978).
The grounded theory method is built upon two fundamental procedures: “constant comparison”, in which data are collected and analysed simultaneously, and “theoretical sampling”, in which decisions about which data should be collected next are determined by the theory that is being constructed (Suddaby, 2006). Making constant comparisons refers to the act of taking one piece of datum and examining it against another piece of datum both within and between documents (Glaser & Strauss, 1967/2006).
This approach to data analysis is unlike other common quantitative and qualitative analytical methods because data collection, analysis and theory building are carried out simultaneously rather than one after another in a linear process. The research develops iteratively through constant comparison and theoretical sampling. According to Suddaby (2015), these procedures violate longstanding positivist assumptions about how the research process should work:
Constant comparison contradicts the myth of a clean separation between data collection and analysis. Theoretical sampling violates the ideal of hypothesis testing in that the direction of new data collection is determined, not by a priori hypotheses, but by ongoing interpretation of data and emerging conceptual categories (Suddaby, 2006).
Quantitative and Qualitative
Although grounded theory studies most commonly feature qualitative data, according to Glaser (1998), this distinction is of “little help” since “all is data”. Grounded theory’s primary purpose is, and has always been, theory building with any type of data; It was conceived for that purpose, rather than as a qualitative analysis method (Walsh, 2015). Therefore, grounded theory should be considered as a general research methodology that is not restricted to any particular epistemological perspective or type of data.
In a grounded theory study, when one uses quantitative data, it may be useful to remember that the numbers themselves are not what matters in social sciences: It is the meaning behind the numbers which is important (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Hence, quantitative techniques can be used, but never in a mechanical fashion without fully understanding the meaning behind the techniques (Glaser, 2008). It is not the descriptive detail that concerns the grounded theorist but the abstract concepts that lie within the data (Holton, 2007, p. 268).
The Epistemology of Grounded Theory
Classic grounded theory methodology uses data of all types and media and accommodates a range of epistemological and ontological perspectives without having to espouse any one perspective; that is, the methodology is epistemologically and ontologically flexible (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Simmons argues that grounded theory does not easily fit into the constructivist-objectivist dichotomy, as it incorporates elements from both without fully aligning with either; its research process minimises constructivism while still considering multiple perspectives and meaning-making (Simmons, 2011).
In critiquing Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory, Glaser (2002) clarifies that the method is neutral and flexible in terms of ontological and epistemological viewpoints, accommodating any philosophical perspective the researcher may hold (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Glaser’s assertions that classic grounded theory is epistemologically and ontologically neutral have been attacked as non-committal and naive (Bryant, 2009). In defence, Holton (2007) has provided a helpful clarification of Glaser’s position:
This is not to say that classic grounded theory is free of any theoretical lens but rather that it should not be confined to any one lens; that as a general methodology, classic grounded theory can adopt any epistemological perspective appropriate to the data and the ontological stance of the researcher (Holton, 2007, p. 269).
As a general methodology, classic grounded theory can adopt any epistemological perspective appropriate to the data and the ontological stance of the researcher (Holton, 2008). The Straussian version of Grounded Theory has also followed such neutrality.
The Ontology of Grounded Theory
There is a vacuum about the ontological assumptions that underpin the method of Grounded Theory. Since Glaser and Strauss rarely discussed ontology, published speculations about the ontological position of grounded theory abound; These speculations may be responsible in some measure for erratic attempts to remodel the method by others (Nathaniel, 2011). The method has been reframed under a plethora of conflicting labels, such as realist, constructivist, critical realist, objectivist, relativist, interactionist, pragmatist, positivist, post-positivist, and others.
Inferences from Glaser’s seminal works can help to clarify the method’s ontological position (Nathaniel, 2011). Glaser recognises that:
There is an objective reality that can be observed;
Inasmuch as it is possible, the researcher gathers data from the perspective of the research participant and;
Grounded theory sheds light on latent patterns.
In sum, its philosophical stance is limited to the assumption that social life is patterned, and that these patterns can be discovered and explained by the methodological approach of Classic Grounded Theory (Christiansen, 2017).
The goal of a grounded theorist is to find out what is going on in a substantive area (Glaser, 1978). This cannot occur if the researcher goes into the field with preconceptions; thus, the researcher should go into the field without an identified problem or specific research question (Nathaniel, 2021). Opportunities for introducing constructivist elements from the researcher are present during both data collection and analysis; However, Classic Grounded Theory is designed to prevent this, to the extent possible (Simmons, 2011).
Last updated