Grounded Theory

Overview Grounded theory is a form of comparative explanation-building popularized in sociology by Glaser and Strauss (1967), related to ethnography, though data may be gathered by diverse techniques such as interviewing, case studies, participant observation, and other means. Grounded theory is context-based and process-oriented, and advocates of grounded theory seek a continuous interplay between data collection and theoretical analysis. Both grounded theory and ethnography focus on meanings emerging from the phenomena studied rather than conceptualized à priori by the researcher, but grounded theory is seen as a construct-identifying and theory-building strategy in social science research whereas ethnographic studies often allow subject-supplied narratives and meanings to "stand on their own." Whereas the conventional scientific method starts with à priori theories to be tested, after which the researcher collects data, in contrast grounded theory starts with data collection and then induces theory. "Grounded theory" implies a focus on generation of categories by the subjects themselves, not à priori creation of typologies by the researcher. In this it is similar to phenomenology. The researcher may even try to label variables in the terminology used by subjects in their perception of a phenomenon. The data for "grounded theory" may be broader than traditional case studies, and may include participant observations, field notes, event chronologies, or other textual transcripts. As analysis of such transcripts is central, coding becomes an important issue, though it ranges from the informal to the quantitatively structured. As a rule, research based on grounded theory will have a tabular schedule of coded variables which are being tracked in the transcripts.

Contents Key concepts and terms Assumptions Frequently asked questions Bibliography

Key Concepts and Terms

• Paradigms, in the jargon of grounded theory, consist of the following elements: the phenomenon (the dependent variable of interest), the causal conditions (the set of causes and their properties), the context (value ranges and conditions of the causal variables which affect the model), intervening conditions (intervening, endogenous variables in the model), action strategies (goal-oriented activities subjects take in response to conditions), and consequences (outcomes of action strategies).

• Straussian vs. Glaserian strategies. Following their joint, seminal publication in 1967, the two "founding fathers" of grounded theory diverged in their views, creating with their followers two different schools of thought. The Straussian school emphasizes induction from qualitative field data, inferring variable labels ("codes") from statements of and artifacts associated with subjects being studied, allowing for multiple and possibly conflicting "coding families". The Glaserian school takes a more social scientific approach, emphasizing a unified "coding paradigm" developed by the researcher and applied systematically to the study of causal relationships. In addition, the Glaserian school embraces paradigm development using all data (ex., survey data and other quantitative data), not just qualitative data (ex., interviews). Thus the Glaserian approach sometimes goes under the rubric of "qualitative data analysis" (QDA).

• Theoretical sampling is the means to uncover paradigms. The researcher can use "What would happen if..." questions to understand relevant comparisons among respondent-perceived concepts and relationships (see Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 92-93). Sampling starts broadly and is narrowed by the researcher to better define the topic of inquiry.
  • Theoretical saturation occurs when the researcher finds only repeated patterns in the sampling process. Saturation demonstrates that the research process is complete.

• Stages of grounded theory research. As described by Strauss and Corbin (1990), there are four stages to grounded theory research:
  1. Selection of the research question. Although the researcher in grounded theory does not wish to impose an à priori theoretical framework, it is necessary that the researcher frame a testable research question.

  2. Gathering data. While the focal data acquisition method in grounded theory is interviewing of subjects, data may be acquired by a wide variety of qualitative and quantitative methods common to the social sciences, such as focus groups, surveys, and archival research. The researcher selects subjects who are similar on many variables but who differ on a dependent variable in order to discern unique causal factors. Similarly, the researcher may examine subjects who are similar on the dependent variable in order to discern common causal factors.

  3. Data coding. After acquisition, data must be organized. "Open coding" initially identifies, labels, and groups in categories the variables associated with the phenomenon being studied. (An example is given in the FAQ section below). Second, "axial coding" organizes the open codes into a "coding paradigm," which is a framework which draws causal relationships between categories and sub-categories. Third, "selective coding" fleshes out the paradigm model by systematically relating core categories to other categories.

  4. Validating the story line. Flowing from the selective coding phase, the researcher seeks to validate all relationships in the model through further field testing of generated hypotheses. The final stage enables final development the "story line" of the phenomenon, a narrative focused on the central categories, embodying the "grounded theory" of the phenomenon under study.

Assumptions

• Inductive subjectivity vs. intersubjectivity. Advocates of grounded theory tend to assume that through a process of induction, researchers can start with a broad and general topic of interest and narrow the focus by being sensitive to respondent-supplied concepts and relationships, eventually arriving at a unified grounded theory. Indeed, Strauss & Corbin, 1990: 22) define theory as "a set of well developed categories that are systematically interrelated through statements of relationship to form a theoretical framework that explains some relevant social phenomenon." Phenomenologists, in contrast, may use similar approaches but do not expect to arrive at "a set of well-developed categories," at least not a single set, but rather assume that multiple respondents will bring multiple concepts and perspectives to the table, and the researcher's task is to present multiple induced sets of meanings and relationships, each forming a different perspective on the topic. Knowing, under phenomenology, is based on intersubjective meaning in a Rashomon like revealing of multiple perspectives. (The "Rashomon effect" alludes to multiple perspectives on an event, illustrated in Akira Kurosawa's 1950 movie, Rashomon, which focuses on several perspectives on a rape and murder.)

• Researcher subjectivity. Glaser (1978) developed the concept of "theoretical sensitivity" of the researcher as an acknowledgment of the subjective, creative nature of grounded theory development, necessary to identify what data are most salient to theory-building. Nonetheless, inherent in the inductive approach of grounded theory is the possibility that while the researcher claims that theoretical constructs "emerge" from below, in fact the researcher may be forcing them from above. See Kelle (2005).

• Sampling and generalization. When the researcher selects the "ground" upon which grounded theory is to be built, sampling and generalization issues arise. Strauss & Corbin (1990) are aware of these problems, noting that good grounded theory meets the four criteria of fit of theory to the data (validated when theory makes sense to those active in the phenomenon being studied); understanding comprehensively the phenomenon studied; generality enabling generalization of the findings to a variety of other contexts, and control, meaning the story line anticipates possible confounding variables that may be brought up by challengers to the theory. In spite of these objectives, in any given piece of grounded theory research, one may ask if the "ground" is representative of the universe to which the researcher wishes to generalize whatever theory is developed. Most of the criticisms of case studies, discussed separately, may apply to grounded theory research.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is an example of grounded theory construction?
  A brief example of grounded theory construction is provided by Strauss and Corbin (1990: 78):

  Text fragment: "Pain relief is a major problem when you have arthritis. Sometimes, the pain is worse than other times, but when it gets really bad, whew! It hurts so bad, you don't want to get out of bed. You don't feel like doing anything. Any relief you get from drugs that you take is only temporary or partial. "

  Grounded theory-building: "One thing that is being discussed here is PAIN. One of the properties of pain is INTENSITY: it varies from a little to a lot. (When is it a lot and when is it little?) When it hurts a lot, there are consequences: don't want to get out of bed, don't feel like doing things (what are other things you don't do when in pain?). In order to solve this problem, you need PAIN RELIEF. One AGENT OF PAIN RELIEF is drugs (what are other members of this category?). Pain relief has a certain DURATION (could be temporary), and EFFECTIVENESS (could be partial). "

• What is the Grounded Theory Institute?
  This is the organization associated with the Glaserian school, promoting the work of Barney Glaser through its affiliated journal, The Grounded Theory Review, and the Sociology Press, though the work of other authors is also disseminated. The website is http://www.groundedtheory.com/.

Bibliography

• Allen, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2(1), 1-10.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm Strauss (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co. The seminal work in grounded theory.
• Glaser, Barney G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
• Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: Sage Publications.
• Kelle, U. (2005). "Emergence" vs. "forcing" of empirical data? A crucial problem of "grounded theory" reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 6(2), Art. 27 (online journal).
• Mey, G. & Mruck, K., eds. (2007). Grounded theory reader. HSR-Supplement 19. Cologne: ZHSF.
• Morse, Janice M & Lyn Richards (2002). Gounded theory. Pp. 54-59 in Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Strauss, Anselm (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Strauss, Anselm & Juliet Corbin (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Thomas, G. & James, D. (2006). Re-inventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (6), 767–795.