analysis

What actually is Grounded Theory? A brief introduction

“It’s where you make up as you go along!” For a lot of students, Grounded Theory is used to describe a qualitative analytical method, where you create a coding framework on the fly, from interesting topics that emerge from the data. However, that's not really accurate. There is a lot more to it

Daniel Turner

Jul 8, 2016 • 7 min read

Founder and director of Quirkos, Dr Daniel Turner has 20 years of expertise in qualitative research in academia and wider social research

This post is hosted by Quirkos, qualitative analysis software that makes your qualitative text analysis simple, fun and beautiful. Get closer to your data by starting a free trial today!

“It’s where you make up as you go along!”

For a lot of students, Grounded Theory is used to describe a qualitative analytical method, where you create a coding framework on the fly, from interesting topics that emerge from the data. However, that's not really accurate. There is a lot more to it, and a myriad of different approaches.

What is grounded theory?

Basically, grounded theory aims to create a new theory of interpreting the world, either when it’s an area where there isn’t any existing theory, or you want to challenge what is already out there. An approach that is often overused, it is a valuable way of approaching qualitative research when you aren’t sure what questions to ask. However, it is also a methodological box of worms, with a number of different approaches and confusing literature.

Types of grounded theory

There are several main types of grounded theory:

Classical grounded theory (CGT) is the original formation of grounded theory as a methodology for theory generation
Modified (or Straussian) grounded theory introduced a staged, iterative coding process which is now often associated with grounded theory as a whole
Constructivist grounded theory foregrounds the researcher's intervention, and the subjectivity and bias of both researchers and participants as part of the theory generation process, encouraging researcher reflexivity
Feminist grounded theory is usually also constructivist in nature, but it focuses specifically on gender and identity dynamics, using feminist theory and perspectives
Postmodern grounded theory adds teachings from postmodernism around the fluidity and politics of meaning-making, the futility of actually generating a complete theory about the world, and the importance of what is unsaid or unquestioned

One of my favourite quotes on grounded theory is from Dey (1999) who says that there are “probably as many versions of grounded theory as there are grounded theorists”. And it can be a problem: a quick search of Google Scholar will show literally hundreds of qualitative research articles with the phrase “grounded theory was used” and no more explanation than this. If you are lucky, you’ll get a reference, probably to Strauss and Corbin (1990). And you can find many examples in peer-reviewed literature describing grounded theory as if there is only one approach.

Classical grounded theory (CGT)

Classical grounded theory is based on the Glaser and Strauss (1967) book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory”, in which it is envisaged more as a theory generation methodology, rather than just an analytical approach. The idea is that you examine data and discover in it new theory – new ways of explaining the world. Here everything is data, and you should include your fieldwork notes and reflexive journals as well as other literature in your process. However, a gap is recommended so that literature is not examined first (like when doing a literature review), creating bias too early. Rather, you should engage with existing theory as something to be challenged.

Here the common coding types are substantive and theoretical – creating an iterative one-two punch which gets you from data to theory. At first, coding is very inductive/in vivo, having less initial focus from the literature.

Modified (Straussian) grounded theory

The way most people think about grounded theory probably links closest to the Strauss and Corbin (1990)* interpretation of grounded theory, which is more systematic and concerned with coding and structuring qualitative data. Modified grounded theory traditionally proposes a three (or sometimes two) stage iterative coding approach, first creating open codes (inductive), then grouping and relating them with axial coding, and finally a process of selective coding. In this approach, you may consider a literature review to be a restrictive process, binding you to prejudices from existing theory. But depending on the different interpretations, modified grounded theory might be more action oriented, and allow more theory to come from the researcher as well as the data. Speaking of which…

Constructivist grounded theory

The seminal work on constructivist grounded theory is from Charmaz (2000 or 2006), and it’s about the way researchers create their own interpretations of theory from the data. It aims to challenge the idea that theory can be ‘discovered’ from the data – as if it was just lying there, neutral and waiting to be unearthed. Instead it tries to recognise that theory will always be biased by the way researchers and participants create their own understanding of society and reality. This engagement between participants and researchers is often cited as a key part of the constructivist approach.

Coding stages would typically be open, focused and then theoretical. Whether you see this as being substantively different from the ‘open – axial – selective’ modified grounded theory strategy is up to you. You’ll see many different interpretations and implementations of all these coding approaches, so focus more on choosing the philosophy that lies behind them.

Feminist grounded theory

A lot of the literature here comes from the nursing field, including Kushner and Morrow (2003), Wuest (1995), and Keddy et al. (2006). There are clear connections here with constructivist and post-modern approaches: especially the rejection of positivist interpretations (even in grounded theory!), the recognition of multiple possible interpretations of reality, and the examination of diversity, privilege and power relations.

Postmodern grounded theory

Again, a really difficult segmentation to try and label, but for starters think Foucault, power and discourse. Mapping of the social world can be important here, and some writers argue that the practice of trying to generate theory at all is difficult to include in a postmodern interpretation. This is a reaction against the positivist approach some see as inherent in classical grounded theory. For where this leaves the poor researcher practically, there are at least one main suggested approach here from Clarke (2005) who focuses on mapping the social world, including actors and noting what has been left unsaid.

Other/hybrid grounded theory approaches

There are also a variety of approaches that combine grounded theory with another methodology, such as discursive grounded theory where the focus is on the language used in the data (McCreaddie and Payne 2010). It integrates discourse analysis to look at how participants use language to describe themselves and their worlds. However, many different ways of analysing data can be combined with grounded theory approaches, so I am not sure they are a category of their own right.

How to do grounded theory

To do grounded theory justice, you really need to do more than read this crude blog post! I’d recommend the chapter on Grounded Theory in Savin-Baden and Howell Major’s (2013) textbook on Qualitative Research. There’s also the wonderfully titled "A Novice Researcher’s First Walk Through the Maze of Grounded Theory" by Evans (2013). Grounding Grounded Theory (Dey 1999) is also a good read – much more critical and humorous than most. However, grounded theory is such a pervasive trope in qualitative research, and indeed is seen by some to define qualitative research, that it does require some understanding and engagement.

It’s also worth noting that for practical purposes, it’s not necessary to get involved in all the infighting and debate in the grounded theory literature. For most researchers the best advice is to read a little of each, and decide which approach is going to work best for you based on your research questions and personal preferences. Even better is if you can find another piece of research that describes a grounded theory approach you like, then you can just follow their lead: either citing them or their preferred references. Or, as Dey (1999) notes, you can just create your own approach to grounded theory! Many argue that grounded theory encourages such interpretation and pluralism, so just be clear to yourself and your readers what you have chosen to do and why!

Want to learn more about qualitative research? Try our free qualitative research course, an interactive journey through the whole research process from designing a good research question, to collecting qualitative data and qualitative analysis, through to writing up your research.

Qualitative software for grounded theory

If you want to give Quirkos a try for your qualitative analysis, and see how it makes grounded theory fun and engaging, you can get the free trial here.