grounded theory qualitative dissertation

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
• SAGE Open Med

Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers

Ylona chun tie.

1 Nursing and Midwifery, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

Melanie Birks

Karen francis.

2 College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Australia, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Background:

Grounded theory is a well-known methodology employed in many research studies. Qualitative and quantitative data generation techniques can be used in a grounded theory study. Grounded theory sets out to discover or construct theory from data, systematically obtained and analysed using comparative analysis. While grounded theory is inherently flexible, it is a complex methodology. Thus, novice researchers strive to understand the discourse and the practical application of grounded theory concepts and processes.

The aim of this article is to provide a contemporary research framework suitable to inform a grounded theory study.

This article provides an overview of grounded theory illustrated through a graphic representation of the processes and methods employed in conducting research using this methodology. The framework is presented as a diagrammatic representation of a research design and acts as a visual guide for the novice grounded theory researcher.

Discussion:

As grounded theory is not a linear process, the framework illustrates the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and iterative and comparative actions involved. Each of the essential methods and processes that underpin grounded theory are defined in this article.

Conclusion:

Rather than an engagement in philosophical discussion or a debate of the different genres that can be used in grounded theory, this article illustrates how a framework for a research study design can be used to guide and inform the novice nurse researcher undertaking a study using grounded theory. Research findings and recommendations can contribute to policy or knowledge development, service provision and can reform thinking to initiate change in the substantive area of inquiry.

Introduction

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 the questions and mechanisms for finding answers that inform that view’ (p. 18). Researchers reflect their philosophical beliefs and interpretations of the world prior to commencing research. Methodology is the research design that shapes the selection of, and use of, particular data generation and analysis methods to answer the research question. 4 While a distinction between positivist research and interpretivist research occurs at the paradigm level, each methodology has explicit criteria for the collection, analysis and interpretation of data. 2 Grounded theory (GT) is a structured, yet flexible methodology. This methodology is appropriate when little is known about a phenomenon; the aim being to produce or construct an explanatory theory that uncovers a process inherent to the substantive area of inquiry. 5 – 7 One of the defining characteristics of GT is that it aims to generate theory that is grounded in the data. The following section provides an overview of GT – the history, main genres and essential methods and processes employed in the conduct of a GT study. This summary provides a foundation for a framework to demonstrate the interplay between the methods and processes inherent in a GT study as presented in the sections that follow.

Glaser and Strauss are recognised as the founders of grounded theory. Strauss was conversant in symbolic interactionism and Glaser in descriptive statistics. 8 – 10 Glaser and Strauss originally worked together in a study examining the experience of terminally ill patients who had differing knowledge of their health status. Some of these suspected they were dying and tried to confirm or disconfirm their suspicions. Others tried to understand by interpreting treatment by care providers and family members. Glaser and Strauss examined how the patients dealt with the knowledge they were dying and the reactions of healthcare staff caring for these patients. Throughout this collaboration, Glaser and Strauss questioned the appropriateness of using a scientific method of verification for this study. During this investigation, they developed the constant comparative method, a key element of grounded theory, while generating a theory of dying first described in Awareness of Dying (1965). The constant comparative method is deemed an original way of organising and analysing qualitative data.

Glaser and Strauss subsequently went on to write The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967). This seminal work explained how theory could be generated from data inductively. This process challenged the traditional method of testing or refining theory through deductive testing. Grounded theory provided an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to determine truths about the world. 11 Glaser and Strauss 5 challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory. After publishing The Discovery of Grounded Theory , Strauss and Glaser went on to write independently, expressing divergent viewpoints in the application of grounded theory methods.

Glaser produced his book Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) and Strauss went on to publish Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987). Strauss and Corbin’s 12 publication Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques resulted in a rebuttal by Glaser 13 over their application of grounded theory methods. However, philosophical perspectives have changed since Glaser’s positivist version and Strauss and Corbin’s post-positivism stance. 14 Grounded theory has since seen the emergence of additional philosophical perspectives that have influenced a change in methodological development over time. 15

Subsequent generations of grounded theorists have positioned themselves along a philosophical continuum, from Strauss and Corbin’s 12 theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism, through to Charmaz’s 16 constructivist perspective. However, understanding how to position oneself philosophically can challenge novice researchers. Birks and Mills 6 provide a contemporary understanding of GT in their book Grounded theory: A Practical Guide. These Australian researchers have written in a way that appeals to the novice researcher. It is the contemporary writing, the way Birks and Mills present a non-partisan approach to GT that support the novice researcher to understand the philosophical and methodological concepts integral in conducting research. The development of GT is important to understand prior to selecting an approach that aligns with the researcher’s philosophical position and the purpose of the research study. As the research progresses, seminal texts are referred back to time and again as understanding of concepts increases, much like the iterative processes inherent in the conduct of a GT study.

Genres: traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory

Grounded theory has several distinct methodological genres: traditional GT associated with Glaser; evolved GT associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke; and constructivist GT associated with Charmaz. 6 , 17 Each variant is an extension and development of the original GT by Glaser and Strauss. The first of these genres is known as traditional or classic GT. Glaser 18 acknowledged that the goal of traditional GT is to generate a conceptual theory that accounts for a pattern of behaviour that is relevant and problematic for those involved. The second genre, evolved GT, is founded on symbolic interactionism and stems from work associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke. Symbolic interactionism is a sociological perspective that relies on the symbolic meaning people ascribe to the processes of social interaction. Symbolic interactionism addresses the subjective meaning people place on objects, behaviours or events based on what they believe is true. 19 , 20 Constructivist GT, the third genre developed and explicated by Charmaz, a symbolic interactionist, has its roots in constructivism. 8 , 16 Constructivist GT’s methodological underpinnings focus on how participants’ construct meaning in relation to the area of inquiry. 16 A constructivist co-constructs experience and meanings with participants. 21 While there are commonalities across all genres of GT, there are factors that distinguish differences between the approaches including the philosophical position of the researcher; the use of literature; and the approach to coding, analysis and theory development. Following on from Glaser and Strauss, several versions of GT have ensued.

Grounded theory represents both a method of inquiry and a resultant product of that inquiry. 7 , 22 Glaser and Holton 23 define GT as ‘a set of integrated conceptual hypotheses systematically generated to produce an inductive theory about a substantive area’ (p. 43). Strauss and Corbin 24 define GT as ‘theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analysed through the research process’ (p. 12). The researcher ‘begins with an area of study and allows the theory to emerge from the data’ (p. 12). Charmaz 16 defines GT as ‘a method of conducting qualitative research that focuses on creating conceptual frameworks or theories through building inductive analysis from the data’ (p. 187). However, Birks and Mills 6 refer to GT as a process by which theory is generated from the analysis of data. Theory is not discovered; rather, theory is constructed by the researcher who views the world through their own particular lens.

Research process

Before commencing any research study, the researcher must have a solid understanding of the research process. A well-developed outline of the study and an understanding of the important considerations in designing and undertaking a GT study are essential if the goals of the research are to be achieved. While it is important to have an understanding of how a methodology has developed, in order to move forward with research, a novice can align with a grounded theorist and follow an approach to GT. Using a framework to inform a research design can be a useful modus operandi.

The following section provides insight into the process of undertaking a GT research study. Figure 1 is a framework that summarises the interplay and movement between methods and processes that underpin the generation of a GT. As can be seen from this framework, and as detailed in the discussion that follows, the process of doing a GT research study is not linear, rather it is iterative and recursive.

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 commence with a variety of sampling techniques, many commence with purposive sampling, followed by concurrent data generation and/or collection and data analysis, through various stages of coding, undertaken in conjunction with constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling and memoing. Theoretical sampling is employed until theoretical saturation is reached. These methods and processes create an unfolding, iterative system of actions and interactions inherent in GT. 6 , 16 The methods interconnect and inform the recurrent elements in the research process as shown by the directional flow of the arrows and the encompassing brackets in Figure 1 . The framework denotes the process is both iterative and dynamic and is not one directional. Grounded theory methods are discussed in the following section.

Purposive sampling

As presented in Figure 1 , initial purposive sampling directs the collection and/or generation of data. Researchers purposively select participants and/or data sources that can answer the research question. 5 , 7 , 16 , 21 Concurrent data generation and/or data collection and analysis is fundamental to GT research design. 6 The researcher collects, codes and analyses this initial data before further data collection/generation is undertaken. Purposeful sampling provides the initial data that the researcher analyses. As will be discussed, theoretical sampling then commences from the codes and categories developed from the first data set. Theoretical sampling is used to identify and follow clues from the analysis, fill gaps, clarify uncertainties, check hunches and test interpretations as the study progresses.

Constant comparative analysis

Constant comparative analysis is an analytical process used in GT for coding and category development. This process commences with the first data generated or collected and pervades the research process as presented in Figure 1 . Incidents are identified in the data and coded. 6 The initial stage of analysis compares incident to incident in each code. Initial codes are then compared to other codes. Codes are then collapsed into categories. This process means the researcher will compare incidents in a category with previous incidents, in both the same and different categories. 5 Future codes are compared and categories are compared with other categories. New data is then compared with data obtained earlier during the analysis phases. This iterative process involves inductive and deductive thinking. 16 Inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning can also be used in data analysis. 26

Constant comparative analysis generates increasingly more abstract concepts and theories through inductive processes. 16 In addition, abduction, defined as ‘a form of reasoning that begins with an examination of the data and the formation of a number of hypotheses that are then proved or disproved during the process of analysis … aids inductive conceptualization’. 6 Theoretical sampling coupled with constant comparative analysis raises the conceptual levels of data analysis and directs ongoing data collection or generation. 6

The constant comparative technique is used to find consistencies and differences, with the aim of continually refining concepts and theoretically relevant categories. This continual comparative iterative process that encompasses GT research sets it apart from a purely descriptive analysis. 8

Memo writing is an analytic process considered essential ‘in ensuring quality in grounded theory’. 6 Stern 27 offers the analogy that if data are the building blocks of the developing theory, then memos are the ‘mortar’ (p. 119). Memos are the storehouse of ideas generated and documented through interacting with data. 28 Thus, memos are reflective interpretive pieces that build a historic audit trail to document ideas, events and the thought processes inherent in the research process and developing thinking of the analyst. 6 Memos provide detailed records of the researchers’ thoughts, feelings and intuitive contemplations. 6

Lempert 29 considers memo writing crucial as memos prompt researchers to analyse and code data and develop codes into categories early in the coding process. Memos detail why and how decisions made related to sampling, coding, collapsing of codes, making of new codes, separating codes, producing a category and identifying relationships abstracted to a higher level of analysis. 6 Thus, memos are informal analytic notes about the data and the theoretical connections between categories. 23 Memoing is an ongoing activity that builds intellectual assets, fosters analytic momentum and informs the GT findings. 6 , 10

Generating/collecting data

A hallmark of GT is concurrent data generation/collection and analysis. In GT, researchers may utilise both qualitative and quantitative data as espoused by Glaser’s dictum; ‘all is data’. 30 While interviews are a common method of generating data, data sources can include focus groups, questionnaires, surveys, transcripts, letters, government reports, documents, grey literature, music, artefacts, videos, blogs and memos. 9 Elicited data are produced by participants in response to, or directed by, the researcher whereas extant data includes data that is already available such as documents and published literature. 6 , 31 While this is one interpretation of how elicited data are generated, other approaches to grounded theory recognise the agency of participants in the co-construction of data with the researcher. The relationship the researcher has with the data, how it is generated and collected, will determine the value it contributes to the development of the final GT. 6 The significance of this relationship extends into data analysis conducted by the researcher through the various stages of coding.

Coding is an analytical process used to identify concepts, similarities and conceptual reoccurrences in data. Coding is the pivotal link between collecting or generating data and developing a theory that explains the data. Charmaz 10 posits,

codes rely on interaction between researchers and their data. Codes consist of short labels that we construct as we interact with the data. Something kinaesthetic occurs when we are coding; we are mentally and physically active in the process. (p. 5)

In GT, coding can be categorised into iterative phases. Traditional, evolved and constructivist GT genres use different terminology to explain each coding phase ( Table 1 ).

Comparison of coding terminology in traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory.

Adapted from Birks and Mills. 6

Coding terminology in evolved GT refers to open (a procedure for developing categories of information), axial (an advanced procedure for interconnecting the categories) and selective coding (procedure for building a storyline from core codes that connects the categories), producing a discursive set of theoretical propositions. 6 , 12 , 32 Constructivist grounded theorists refer to initial, focused and theoretical coding. 9 Birks and Mills 6 use the terms initial, intermediate and advanced coding that link to low, medium and high-level conceptual analysis and development. The coding terms devised by Birks and Mills 6 were used for Figure 1 ; however, these can be altered to reflect the coding terminology used in the respective GT genres selected by the researcher.

Initial coding

Initial coding of data is the preliminary step in GT data analysis. 6 , 9 The purpose of initial coding is to start the process of fracturing the data to compare incident to incident and to look for similarities and differences in beginning patterns in the data. In initial coding, the researcher inductively generates as many codes as possible from early data. 16 Important words or groups of words are identified and labelled. In GT, codes identify social and psychological processes and actions as opposed to themes. Charmaz 16 emphasises keeping codes as similar to the data as possible and advocates embedding actions in the codes in an iterative coding process. Saldaña 33 agrees that codes that denote action, which he calls process codes, can be used interchangeably with gerunds (verbs ending in ing ). In vivo codes are often verbatim quotes from the participants’ words and are often used as the labels to capture the participant’s words as representative of a broader concept or process in the data. 6 Table 1 reflects variation in the terminology of codes used by grounded theorists.

Initial coding categorises and assigns meaning to the data, comparing incident-to-incident, labelling beginning patterns and beginning to look for comparisons between the codes. During initial coding, it is important to ask ‘what is this data a study of’. 18 What does the data assume, ‘suggest’ or ‘pronounce’ and ‘from whose point of view’ does this data come, whom does it represent or whose thoughts are they?. 16 What collectively might it represent? The process of documenting reactions, emotions and related actions enables researchers to explore, challenge and intensify their sensitivity to the data. 34 Early coding assists the researcher to identify the direction for further data gathering. After initial analysis, theoretical sampling is employed to direct collection of additional data that will inform the ‘developing theory’. 9 Initial coding advances into intermediate coding once categories begin to develop.

Theoretical sampling

The purpose of theoretical sampling is to allow the researcher to follow leads in the data by sampling new participants or material that provides relevant information. As depicted in Figure 1 , theoretical sampling is central to GT design, aids the evolving theory 5 , 7 , 16 and ensures the final developed theory is grounded in the data. 9 Theoretical sampling in GT is for the development of a theoretical category, as opposed to sampling for population representation. 10 Novice researchers need to acknowledge this difference if they are to achieve congruence within the methodology. Birks and Mills 6 define theoretical sampling as ‘the process of identifying and pursuing clues that arise during analysis in a grounded theory study’ (p. 68). During this process, additional information is sought to saturate categories under development. The analysis identifies relationships, highlights gaps in the existing data set and may reveal insight into what is not yet known. The exemplars in Box 1 highlight how theoretical sampling led to the inclusion of further data.

Examples of theoretical sampling.

Thus, theoretical sampling is used to focus and generate data to feed the iterative process of continual comparative analysis of the data. 6

Intermediate coding

Intermediate coding, identifying a core category, theoretical data saturation, constant comparative analysis, theoretical sensitivity and memoing occur in the next phase of the GT process. 6 Intermediate coding builds on the initial coding phase. Where initial coding fractures the data, intermediate coding begins to transform basic data into more abstract concepts allowing the theory to emerge from the data. During this analytic stage, a process of reviewing categories and identifying which ones, if any, can be subsumed beneath other categories occurs and the properties or dimension of the developed categories are refined. Properties refer to the characteristics that are common to all the concepts in the category and dimensions are the variations of a property. 37

At this stage, a core category starts to become evident as developed categories form around a core concept; relationships are identified between categories and the analysis is refined. Birks and Mills 6 affirm that diagramming can aid analysis in the intermediate coding phase. Grounded theorists interact closely with the data during this phase, continually reassessing meaning to ascertain ‘what is really going on’ in the data. 30 Theoretical saturation ensues when new data analysis does not provide additional material to existing theoretical categories, and the categories are sufficiently explained. 6

Advanced coding

Birks and Mills 6 described advanced coding as the ‘techniques used to facilitate integration of the final grounded theory’ (p. 177). These authors promote storyline technique (described in the following section) and theoretical coding as strategies for advancing analysis and theoretical integration. Advanced coding is essential to produce a theory that is grounded in the data and has explanatory power. 6 During the advanced coding phase, concepts that reach the stage of categories will be abstract, representing stories of many, reduced into highly conceptual terms. The findings are presented as a set of interrelated concepts as opposed to presenting themes. 28 Explanatory statements detail the relationships between categories and the central core category. 28

Storyline is a tool that can be used for theoretical integration. Birks and Mills 6 define storyline as ‘a strategy for facilitating integration, construction, formulation, and presentation of research findings through the production of a coherent grounded theory’ (p. 180). Storyline technique is first proposed with limited attention in Basics of Qualitative Research by Strauss and Corbin 12 and further developed by Birks et al. 38 as a tool for theoretical integration. The storyline is the conceptualisation of the core category. 6 This procedure builds a story that connects the categories and produces a discursive set of theoretical propositions. 24 Birks and Mills 6 contend that storyline can be ‘used to produce a comprehensive rendering of your grounded theory’ (p. 118). Birks et al. 38 had earlier concluded, ‘storyline enhances the development, presentation and comprehension of the outcomes of grounded theory research’ (p. 405). Once the storyline is developed, the GT is finalised using theoretical codes that ‘provide a framework for enhancing the explanatory power of the storyline and its potential as theory’. 6 Thus, storyline is the explication of the theory.

Theoretical coding occurs as the final culminating stage towards achieving a GT. 39 , 40 The purpose of theoretical coding is to integrate the substantive theory. 41 Saldaña 40 states, ‘theoretical coding integrates and synthesises the categories derived from coding and analysis to now create a theory’ (p. 224). Initial coding fractures the data while theoretical codes ‘weave the fractured story back together again into an organized whole theory’. 18 Advanced coding that integrates extant theory adds further explanatory power to the findings. 6 The examples in Box 2 describe the use of storyline as a technique.

Writing the storyline.

Theoretical sensitivity

As presented in Figure 1 , theoretical sensitivity encompasses the entire research process. Glaser and Strauss 5 initially described the term theoretical sensitivity in The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to know when you identify a data segment that is important to your theory. While Strauss and Corbin 12 describe theoretical sensitivity as the insight into what is meaningful and of significance in the data for theory development, Birks and Mills 6 define theoretical sensitivity as ‘the ability to recognise and extract from the data elements that have relevance for the emerging theory’ (p. 181). Conducting GT research requires a balance between keeping an open mind and the ability to identify elements of theoretical significance during data generation and/or collection and data analysis. 6

Several analytic tools and techniques can be used to enhance theoretical sensitivity and increase the grounded theorist’s sensitivity to theoretical constructs in the data. 28 Birks and Mills 6 state, ‘as a grounded theorist becomes immersed in the data, their level of theoretical sensitivity to analytic possibilities will increase’ (p. 12). Developing sensitivity as a grounded theorist and the application of theoretical sensitivity throughout the research process allows the analytical focus to be directed towards theory development and ultimately result in an integrated and abstract GT. 6 The example in Box 3 highlights how analytic tools are employed to increase theoretical sensitivity.

Theoretical sensitivity.

The grounded theory

The meticulous application of essential GT methods refines the analysis resulting in the generation of an integrated, comprehensive GT that explains a process relating to a particular phenomenon. 6 The results of a GT study are communicated as a set of concepts, related to each other in an interrelated whole, and expressed in the production of a substantive theory. 5 , 7 , 16 A substantive theory is a theoretical interpretation or explanation of a studied phenomenon 6 , 17 Thus, the hallmark of grounded theory is the generation of theory ‘abstracted from, or grounded in, data generated and collected by the researcher’. 6 However, to ensure quality in research requires the application of rigour throughout the research process.

Quality and rigour

The quality of a grounded theory can be related to three distinct areas underpinned by (1) the researcher’s expertise, knowledge and research skills; (2) methodological congruence with the research question; and (3) procedural precision in the use of methods. 6 Methodological congruence is substantiated when the philosophical position of the researcher is congruent with the research question and the methodological approach selected. 6 Data collection or generation and analytical conceptualisation need to be rigorous throughout the research process to secure excellence in the final grounded theory. 44

Procedural precision requires careful attention to maintaining a detailed audit trail, data management strategies and demonstrable procedural logic recorded using memos. 6 Organisation and management of research data, memos and literature can be assisted using software programs such as NVivo. An audit trail of decision-making, changes in the direction of the research and the rationale for decisions made are essential to ensure rigour in the final grounded theory. 6

This article offers a framework to assist novice researchers visualise the iterative processes that underpin a GT study. The fundamental process and methods used to generate an integrated grounded theory have been described. Novice researchers can adapt the framework presented to inform and guide the design of a GT study. This framework provides a useful guide to visualise the interplay between the methods and processes inherent in conducting GT. Research conducted ethically and with meticulous attention to process will ensure quality research outcomes that have relevance at the practice level.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

• Correspondence
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2011

How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices

• Alexandra Sbaraini 1 , 2 ,
• Stacy M Carter 1 ,
• R Wendell Evans 2 &
• Anthony Blinkhorn 1 , 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  11 , Article number:  128 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

385k Accesses

205 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.

We documented a worked example of using grounded theory methodology in practice.

We describe our sampling, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. We explain how these steps were consistent with grounded theory methodology, and show how they related to one another. Grounded theory methodology assisted us to develop a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and to analyse variation in this process in different dental practices.

Conclusions

By employing grounded theory methodology rigorously, medical researchers can better design and justify their methods, and produce high-quality findings that will be more useful to patients, professionals and the research community.

Peer Review reports

Qualitative research is increasingly popular in health and medicine. In recent decades, qualitative researchers in health and medicine have founded specialist journals, such as Qualitative Health Research , established 1991, and specialist conferences such as the Qualitative Health Research conference of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology, established 1994, and the Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research, established 2011 [ 1 – 3 ]. Journals such as the British Medical Journal have published series about qualitative methodology (1995 and 2008) [ 4 , 5 ]. Bodies overseeing human research ethics, such as the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research [ 6 , 7 ], have included chapters or sections on the ethics of qualitative research. The increasing popularity of qualitative methodologies for medical research has led to an increasing awareness of formal qualitative methodologies. This is particularly so for grounded theory, one of the most-cited qualitative methodologies in medical research [[ 8 ], p47].

Grounded theory has a chequered history [ 9 ]. Many authors label their work 'grounded theory' but do not follow the basics of the methodology [ 10 , 11 ]. This may be in part because there are few practical examples of grounded theory in use in the literature. To address this problem, we will provide a brief outline of the history and diversity of grounded theory methodology, and a worked example of the methodology in practice. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of 'grounded theory' research published in the medical literature.

The history, diversity and basic components of 'grounded theory' methodology and method

Founded on the seminal 1967 book 'The Discovery of Grounded Theory' [ 12 ], the grounded theory tradition is now diverse and somewhat fractured, existing in four main types, with a fifth emerging. Types one and two are the work of the original authors: Barney Glaser's 'Classic Grounded Theory' [ 13 ] and Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin's 'Basics of Qualitative Research' [ 14 ]. Types three and four are Kathy Charmaz's 'Constructivist Grounded Theory' [ 15 ] and Adele Clarke's postmodern Situational Analysis [ 16 ]: Charmaz and Clarke were both students of Anselm Strauss. The fifth, emerging variant is 'Dimensional Analysis' [ 17 ] which is being developed from the work of Leonard Schaztman, who was a colleague of Strauss and Glaser in the 1960s and 1970s.

There has been some discussion in the literature about what characteristics a grounded theory study must have to be legitimately referred to as 'grounded theory' [ 18 ]. The fundamental components of a grounded theory study are set out in Table 1 . These components may appear in different combinations in other qualitative studies; a grounded theory study should have all of these. As noted, there are few examples of 'how to do' grounded theory in the literature [ 18 , 19 ]. Those that do exist have focused on Strauss and Corbin's methods [ 20 – 25 ]. An exception is Charmaz's own description of her study of chronic illness [ 26 ]; we applied this same variant in our study. In the remainder of this paper, we will show how each of the characteristics of grounded theory methodology worked in our study of dental practices.

Study background

We used grounded theory methodology to investigate social processes in private dental practices in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This grounded theory study builds on a previous Australian Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) called the Monitor Dental Practice Program (MPP) [ 27 ]. We know that preventive techniques can arrest early tooth decay and thus reduce the need for fillings [ 28 – 32 ]. Unfortunately, most dentists worldwide who encounter early tooth decay continue to drill it out and fill the tooth [ 33 – 37 ]. The MPP tested whether dentists could increase their use of preventive techniques. In the intervention arm, dentists were provided with a set of evidence-based preventive protocols to apply [ 38 ]; control practices provided usual care. The MPP protocols used in the RCT guided dentists to systematically apply preventive techniques to prevent new tooth decay and to arrest early stages of tooth decay in their patients, therefore reducing the need for drilling and filling. The protocols focused on (1) primary prevention of new tooth decay (tooth brushing with high concentration fluoride toothpaste and dietary advice) and (2) intensive secondary prevention through professional treatment to arrest tooth decay progress (application of fluoride varnish, supervised monitoring of dental plaque control and clinical outcomes)[ 38 ].

As the RCT unfolded, it was discovered that practices in the intervention arm were not implementing the preventive protocols uniformly. Why had the outcomes of these systematically implemented protocols been so different? This question was the starting point for our grounded theory study. We aimed to understand how the protocols had been implemented, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process. We hoped that such understanding would help us to see how the norms of Australian private dental practice as regards to tooth decay could be moved away from drilling and filling and towards evidence-based preventive care.

Designing this grounded theory study

Figure 1 illustrates the steps taken during the project that will be described below from points A to F.

Study design . file containing a figure illustrating the study design.

A. An open beginning and research questions

Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact . This shows the influence of symbolic interactionism, a social psychological approach focused on the meaning of human actions [ 39 ]. Grounded theory studies begin with open questions, and researchers presume that they may know little about the meanings that drive the actions of their participants. Accordingly, we sought to learn from participants how the MPP process worked and how they made sense of it. We wanted to answer a practical social problem: how do dentists persist in drilling and filling early stages of tooth decay, when they could be applying preventive care?

We asked research questions that were open, and focused on social processes. Our initial research questions were:

What was the process of implementing (or not-implementing) the protocols (from the perspective of dentists, practice staff, and patients)?

How did this process vary?

B. Ethics approval and ethical issues

In our experience, medical researchers are often concerned about the ethics oversight process for such a flexible, unpredictable study design. We managed this process as follows. Initial ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Sydney. In our application, we explained grounded theory procedures, in particular the fact that they evolve. In our initial application we provided a long list of possible recruitment strategies and interview questions, as suggested by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We indicated that we would make future applications to modify our protocols. We did this as the study progressed - detailed below. Each time we reminded the committee that our study design was intended to evolve with ongoing modifications. Each modification was approved without difficulty. As in any ethical study, we ensured that participation was voluntary, that participants could withdraw at any time, and that confidentiality was protected. All responses were anonymised before analysis, and we took particular care not to reveal potentially identifying details of places, practices or clinicians.

C. Initial, Purposive Sampling (before theoretical sampling was possible)

Grounded theory studies are characterised by theoretical sampling, but this requires some data to be collected and analysed. Sampling must thus begin purposively, as in any qualitative study. Participants in the previous MPP study provided our population [ 27 ]. The MPP included 22 private dental practices in NSW, randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. With permission of the ethics committee; we sent letters to the participants in the MPP, inviting them to participate in a further qualitative study. From those who agreed, we used the quantitative data from the MPP to select an initial sample.

Then, we selected the practice in which the most dramatic results had been achieved in the MPP study (Dental Practice 1). This was a purposive sampling strategy, to give us the best possible access to the process of successfully implementing the protocols. We interviewed all consenting staff who had been involved in the MPP (one dentist, five dental assistants). We then recruited 12 patients who had been enrolled in the MPP, based on their clinically measured risk of developing tooth decay: we selected some patients whose risk status had gotten better, some whose risk had worsened and some whose risk had stayed the same. This purposive sample was designed to provide maximum variation in patients' adoption of preventive dental care.

Initial Interviews

One hour in-depth interviews were conducted. The researcher/interviewer (AS) travelled to a rural town in NSW where interviews took place. The initial 18 participants (one dentist, five dental assistants and 12 patients) from Dental Practice 1 were interviewed in places convenient to them such as the dental practice, community centres or the participant's home.

Two initial interview schedules were designed for each group of participants: 1) dentists and dental practice staff and 2) dental patients. Interviews were semi-structured and based loosely on the research questions. The initial questions for dentists and practice staff are in Additional file 1 . Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The research location was remote from the researcher's office, thus data collection was divided into two episodes to allow for intermittent data analysis. Dentist and practice staff interviews were done in one week. The researcher wrote memos throughout this week. The researcher then took a month for data analysis in which coding and memo-writing occurred. Then during a return visit, patient interviews were completed, again with memo-writing during the data-collection period.

D. Data Analysis

Coding and the constant comparative method.

Coding is essential to the development of a grounded theory [ 15 ]. According to Charmaz [[ 15 ], p46], 'coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data. Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means'. Coding occurs in stages. In initial coding, the researcher generates as many ideas as possible inductively from early data. In focused coding, the researcher pursues a selected set of central codes throughout the entire dataset and the study. This requires decisions about which initial codes are most prevalent or important, and which contribute most to the analysis. In theoretical coding, the researcher refines the final categories in their theory and relates them to one another. Charmaz's method, like Glaser's method [ 13 ], captures actions or processes by using gerunds as codes (verbs ending in 'ing'); Charmaz also emphasises coding quickly, and keeping the codes as similar to the data as possible.

We developed our coding systems individually and through team meetings and discussions.

We have provided a worked example of coding in Table 2 . Gerunds emphasise actions and processes. Initial coding identifies many different processes. After the first few interviews, we had a large amount of data and many initial codes. This included a group of codes that captured how dentists sought out evidence when they were exposed to a complex clinical case, a new product or technique. Because this process seemed central to their practice, and because it was talked about often, we decided that seeking out evidence should become a focused code. By comparing codes against codes and data against data, we distinguished the category of "seeking out evidence" from other focused codes, such as "gathering and comparing peers' evidence to reach a conclusion", and we understood the relationships between them. Using this constant comparative method (see Table 1 ), we produced a theoretical code: "making sense of evidence and constructing knowledge". This code captured the social process that dentists went through when faced with new information or a practice challenge. This theoretical code will be the focus of a future paper.

Memo-writing

Throughout the study, we wrote extensive case-based memos and conceptual memos. After each interview, the interviewer/researcher (AS) wrote a case-based memo reflecting on what she learned from that interview. They contained the interviewer's impressions about the participants' experiences, and the interviewer's reactions; they were also used to systematically question some of our pre-existing ideas in relation to what had been said in the interview. Table 3 illustrates one of those memos. After a few interviews, the interviewer/researcher also began making and recording comparisons among these memos.

We also wrote conceptual memos about the initial codes and focused codes being developed, as described by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We used these memos to record our thinking about the meaning of codes and to record our thinking about how and when processes occurred, how they changed, and what their consequences were. In these memos, we made comparisons between data, cases and codes in order to find similarities and differences, and raised questions to be answered in continuing interviews. Table 4 illustrates a conceptual memo.

At the end of our data collection and analysis from Dental Practice 1, we had developed a tentative model of the process of implementing the protocols, from the perspective of dentists, dental practice staff and patients. This was expressed in both diagrams and memos, was built around a core set of focused codes, and illustrated relationships between them.

E. Theoretical sampling, ongoing data analysis and alteration of interview route

We have already described our initial purposive sampling. After our initial data collection and analysis, we used theoretical sampling (see Table 1 ) to determine who to sample next and what questions to ask during interviews. We submitted Ethics Modification applications for changes in our question routes, and had no difficulty with approval. We will describe how the interview questions for dentists and dental practice staff evolved, and how we selected new participants to allow development of our substantive theory. The patients' interview schedule and theoretical sampling followed similar procedures.

Evolution of theoretical sampling and interview questions

We now had a detailed provisional model of the successful process implemented in Dental Practice 1. Important core focused codes were identified, including practical/financial, historical and philosophical dimensions of the process. However, we did not yet understand how the process might vary or go wrong, as implementation in the first practice we studied had been described as seamless and beneficial for everyone. Because our aim was to understand the process of implementing the protocols, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process, we needed to understand how implementation might fail. For this reason, we theoretically sampled participants from Dental Practice 2, where uptake of the MPP protocols had been very limited according to data from the RCT trial.

We also changed our interview questions based on the analysis we had already done (see Additional file 2 ). In our analysis of data from Dental Practice 1, we had learned that "effectiveness" of treatments and "evidence" both had a range of meanings. We also learned that new technologies - in particular digital x-rays and intra-oral cameras - had been unexpectedly important to the process of implementing the protocols. For this reason, we added new questions for the interviews in Dental Practice 2 to directly investigate "effectiveness", "evidence" and how dentists took up new technologies in their practice.

Then, in Dental Practice 2 we learned more about the barriers dentists and practice staff encountered during the process of implementing the MPP protocols. We confirmed and enriched our understanding of dentists' processes for adopting technology and producing knowledge, dealing with complex cases and we further clarified the concept of evidence. However there was a new, important, unexpected finding in Dental Practice 2. Dentists talked about "unreliable" patients - that is, patients who were too unreliable to have preventive dental care offered to them. This seemed to be a potentially important explanation for non-implementation of the protocols. We modified our interview schedule again to include questions about this concept (see Additional file 3 ) leading to another round of ethics approvals. We also returned to Practice 1 to ask participants about the idea of an "unreliable" patient.

Dentists' construction of the "unreliable" patient during interviews also prompted us to theoretically sample for "unreliable" and "reliable" patients in the following round of patients' interviews. The patient question route was also modified by the analysis of the dentists' and practice staff data. We wanted to compare dentists' perspectives with the perspectives of the patients themselves. Dentists were asked to select "reliable" and "unreliable" patients to be interviewed. Patients were asked questions about what kind of services dentists should provide and what patients valued when coming to the dentist. We found that these patients (10 reliable and 7 unreliable) talked in very similar ways about dental care. This finding suggested to us that some deeply-held assumptions within the dental profession may not be shared by dental patients.

At this point, we decided to theoretically sample dental practices from the non-intervention arm of the MPP study. This is an example of the 'openness' of a grounded theory study potentially subtly shifting the focus of the study. Our analysis had shifted our focus: rather than simply studying the process of implementing the evidence-based preventive protocols, we were studying the process of doing prevention in private dental practice. All participants seemed to be revealing deeply held perspectives shared in the dental profession, whether or not they were providing dental care as outlined in the MPP protocols. So, by sampling dentists from both intervention and control group from the previous MPP study, we aimed to confirm or disconfirm the broader reach of our emerging theory and to complete inductive development of key concepts. Theoretical sampling added 12 face to face interviews and 10 telephone interviews to the data. A total of 40 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 were recruited. Telephone interviews were of comparable length, content and quality to face to face interviews, as reported elsewhere in the literature [ 40 ].

F. Mapping concepts, theoretical memo writing and further refining of concepts

After theoretical sampling, we could begin coding theoretically. We fleshed out each major focused code, examining the situations in which they appeared, when they changed and the relationship among them. At time of writing, we have reached theoretical saturation (see Table 1 ). We have been able to determine this in several ways. As we have become increasingly certain about our central focused codes, we have re-examined the data to find all available insights regarding those codes. We have drawn diagrams and written memos. We have looked rigorously for events or accounts not explained by the emerging theory so as to develop it further to explain all of the data. Our theory, which is expressed as a set of concepts that are related to one another in a cohesive way, now accounts adequately for all the data we have collected. We have presented the developing theory to specialist dental audiences and to the participants, and have found that it was accepted by and resonated with these audiences.

We have used these procedures to construct a detailed, multi-faceted model of the process of incorporating prevention into private general dental practice. This model includes relationships among concepts, consequences of the process, and variations in the process. A concrete example of one of our final key concepts is the process of "adapting to" prevention. More commonly in the literature writers speak of adopting, implementing or translating evidence-based preventive protocols into practice. Through our analysis, we concluded that what was required was 'adapting to' those protocols in practice. Some dental practices underwent a slow process of adapting evidence-based guidance to their existing practice logistics. Successful adaptation was contingent upon whether (1) the dentist-in-charge brought the whole dental team together - including other dentists - and got everyone interested and actively participating during preventive activities; (2) whether the physical environment of the practice was re-organised around preventive activities, (3) whether the dental team was able to devise new and efficient routines to accommodate preventive activities, and (4) whether the fee schedule was amended to cover the delivery of preventive services, which hitherto was considered as "unproductive time".

Adaptation occurred over time and involved practical, historical and philosophical aspects of dental care. Participants transitioned from their initial state - selling restorative care - through an intermediary stage - learning by doing and educating patients about the importance of preventive care - and finally to a stage where they were offering patients more than just restorative care. These are examples of ways in which participants did not simply adopt protocols in a simple way, but needed to adapt the protocols and their own routines as they moved toward more preventive practice.

The quality of this grounded theory study

There are a number of important assurances of quality in keeping with grounded theory procedures and general principles of qualitative research. The following points describe what was crucial for this study to achieve quality.

During data collection

1. All interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed in detail and the transcripts checked against the recordings.

2. We analysed the interview transcripts as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice sampled as shown on Figure 1 . This allowed the process of theoretical sampling to occur.

3. Writing case-based memos right after each interview while being in the field allowed the researcher/interviewer to capture initial ideas and make comparisons between participants' accounts. These memos assisted the researcher to make comparison among her reflections, which enriched data analysis and guided further data collection.

4. Having the opportunity to contact participants after interviews to clarify concepts and to interview some participants more than once contributed to the refinement of theoretical concepts, thus forming part of theoretical sampling.

5. The decision to include phone interviews due to participants' preference worked very well in this study. Phone interviews had similar length and depth compared to the face to face interviews, but allowed for a greater range of participation.

During data analysis

1. Detailed analysis records were kept; which made it possible to write this explanatory paper.

2. The use of the constant comparative method enabled the analysis to produce not just a description but a model, in which more abstract concepts were related and a social process was explained.

3. All researchers supported analysis activities; a regular meeting of the research team was convened to discuss and contextualize emerging interpretations, introducing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives.

Answering our research questions

We developed a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and analysed the variation in this process in different dental practices. Transferring evidence-based preventive protocols into these dental practices entailed a slow process of adapting the evidence to the existing practices logistics. Important practical, philosophical and historical elements as well as barriers and facilitators were present during a complex adaptation process. Time was needed to allow dentists and practice staff to go through this process of slowly adapting their practices to this new way of working. Patients also needed time to incorporate home care activities and more frequent visits to dentists into their daily routines. Despite being able to adapt or not, all dentists trusted the concrete clinical evidence that they have produced, that is, seeing results in their patients mouths made them believe in a specific treatment approach.

Concluding remarks

This paper provides a detailed explanation of how a study evolved using grounded theory methodology (GTM), one of the most commonly used methodologies in qualitative health and medical research [[ 8 ], p47]. In 2007, Bryant and Charmaz argued:

'Use of GTM, at least as much as any other research method, only develops with experience. Hence the failure of all those attempts to provide clear, mechanistic rules for GTM: there is no 'GTM for dummies'. GTM is based around heuristics and guidelines rather than rules and prescriptions. Moreover, researchers need to be familiar with GTM, in all its major forms, in order to be able to understand how they might adapt it in use or revise it into new forms and variations.' [[ 8 ], p17].

Our detailed explanation of our experience in this grounded theory study is intended to provide, vicariously, the kind of 'experience' that might help other qualitative researchers in medicine and health to apply and benefit from grounded theory methodology in their studies. We hope that our explanation will assist others to avoid using grounded theory as an 'approving bumper sticker' [ 10 ], and instead use it as a resource that can greatly improve the quality and outcome of a qualitative study.

Abbreviations

grounded theory methods

Monitor Dental Practice Program

New South Wales

Randomized Controlled Trial.

Qualitative Health Research Journal: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://qhr.sagepub.com/ ]

Qualitative Health Research conference of The International Institute for Qualitative Methodology: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.iiqm.ualberta.ca/en/Conferences/QualitativeHealthResearch.aspx ]

The Global Congress for Qualitative Health Research: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.gcqhr.com/ ]

Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 1995, 311: 182-

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W: Qualitative research: an introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ. 2008, 337: a288-10.1136/bmj.a288.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statemen: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . 1998, website accessed on 13 September 2011, [ http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/introduction.cfm ]

Google Scholar  

The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research: website accessed on 10 June 2011, [ http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm ]

Bryant A, Charmaz K, (eds.): Handbook of Grounded Theory. 2007, London: Sage

Walker D, Myrick F: Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qual Health Res. 2006, 16: 547-559. 10.1177/1049732305285972.

Barbour R: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ: Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007, 7 (3): 375-422. 10.1177/1468794107078517.

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Glaser BG: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Emergence vs Forcing. 1992, Mill Valley CA, USA: Sociology Press

Corbin J, Strauss AL: Basics of qualitative research. 2008, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3

Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. 2006, London: Sage

Clarke AE: Situational Analysis. Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. 2005, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bowers B, Schatzman L: Dimensional Analysis. Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Edited by: Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE. 2009, Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press, 86-125.

Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Charmaz K, Clarke AE, (eds.): Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. 2009, Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press

Carter SM: Enacting Internal Coherence as a Path to Quality in Qualitative Inquiry. Researching Practice: A Discourse on Qualitative Methodologies. Edited by: Higgs J, Cherry N, Macklin R, Ajjawi R. 2010, Practice, Education, Work and Society Series. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2: 143-152.

Wasserman JA, Clair JM, Wilson KL: Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qual Res. 2009, 9: 355-381. 10.1177/1468794109106605.

Scott JW: Relating categories in grounded theory analysis: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix. The Qualitative Report. 2004, 9 (1): 113-126.

Sarker S, Lau F, Sahay S: Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory about virtual team development. Data Base Adv Inf Sy. 2001, 32 (1): 38-56.

LaRossa R: Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. J Marriage Fam. 2005, 67 (4): 837-857. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00179.x.

Kendall J: Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. WJNR. 1999, 21 (6): 743-757.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Kippen S, Liamputtong P: Doing sensitive research: what challenges do qualitative researchers face?. Qual Res. 2007, 7 (3): 327-353. 10.1177/1468794107078515.

Charmaz K: Discovering chronic illness - using grounded theory. Soc Sci Med. 1990, 30,11: 1161-1172.

Curtis B, Evans RW, Sbaraini A, Schwarz E: The Monitor Practice Programme: is non-surgical management of tooth decay in private practice effective?. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 306-313. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00071.x.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Featherstone JDB: The caries balance: The basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2004, 2 (S1): 259-264.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Axelsson P, Nyström B, Lindhe J: The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. J Clin Periodontol. 2004, 31: 749-757. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00563.x.

Sbaraini A, Evans RW: Caries risk reduction in patients attending a caries management clinic. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 340-348. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00076.x.

Pitts NB: Monitoring of caries progression in permanent and primary posterior approximal enamel by bitewing radiography: A review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983, 11: 228-235. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1983.tb01883.x.

Pitts NB: The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. DentoMaxilloFac Rad. 1996, 25: 5-16.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pitts NB: Are we ready to move from operative to non-operative/preventive treatment of dental caries in clinical practice?. Caries Res. 2004, 38: 294-304. 10.1159/000077769.

Tan PL, Evans RW, Morgan MV: Caries, bitewings, and treatment decisions. Aust Dent J. 2002, 47: 138-141. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00317.x.

Riordan P, Espelid I, Tveit A: Radiographic interpretation and treatment decisions among dental therapists and dentists in Western Australia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1991, 19: 268-271. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1991.tb00165.x.

Espelid I, Tveit A, Haugejorden O, Riordan P: Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on approximal caries among dentists in Norway. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1985, 13: 26-29. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1985.tb00414.x.

Espelid I: Radiographic diagnoses and treatment decisions on approximal caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1986, 14: 265-270. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1986.tb01069.x.

Evans RW, Pakdaman A, Dennison P, Howe E: The Caries Management System: an evidence-based preventive strategy for dental practitioners. Application for adults. Aust Dent J. 2008, 53: 83-92. 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.00004.x.

Blumer H: Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. 1969, Berkley: University of California Press

Sturges JE, Hanrahan KJ: Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qual Res. 2004, 4 (1): 107-18. 10.1177/1468794104041110.

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/128/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank dentists, dental practice staff and patients for their invaluable contributions to the study. We thank Emeritus Professor Miles Little for his time and wise comments during the project.

The authors received financial support for the research from the following funding agencies: University of Sydney Postgraduate Award 2009; The Oral Health Foundation, University of Sydney; Dental Board New South Wales; Australian Dental Research Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 632715.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Alexandra Sbaraini, Stacy M Carter & Anthony Blinkhorn

Population Oral Health, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Alexandra Sbaraini, R Wendell Evans & Anthony Blinkhorn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Sbaraini .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design of this study. AS carried out data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. SMC made substantial contribution during data collection, analysis and data interpretation. AS, SMC, RWE, and AB have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

12874_2011_640_moesm1_esm.doc.

Additional file 1: Initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. (DOC 30 KB)

12874_2011_640_MOESM2_ESM.DOC

Additional file 2: Questions added to the initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing questions added to the initial interview schedule (DOC 26 KB)

12874_2011_640_MOESM3_ESM.DOC

Additional file 3: Questions added to the modified interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff. file containing questions added to the modified interview schedule (DOC 26 KB)

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sbaraini, A., Carter, S.M., Evans, R.W. et al. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 128 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128

Download citation

Received : 17 June 2011

Accepted : 09 September 2011

Published : 09 September 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128

Share this article

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

• qualitative research
• grounded theory
• methodology
• dental care

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Illuminating the path: a methodological exploration of grounded theory in doctoral theses

Qualitative Research Journal

ISSN : 1443-9883

Article publication date: 27 November 2023

Issue publication date: 25 June 2024

This article explores challenges faced by doctoral candidates using grounded theory (GT) in their theses, focusing on coding, theory development and time constraints. It also examines the impact of doctoral committees on GT dissertations, addressing epistemological clashes and the desire for familiarity over novelty.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing from a multilevel autoethnography and related literature, this study offers pragmatic solutions and strategies for a seamless research journey.

Coding, theory development and time constraints pose universal challenges, requiring mentorship for effective navigation. Addressing committee dynamics is crucial for developing novel theoretical frameworks.

Originality/value

The article empowers researchers to overcome GT challenges, delving into various positions within the GT paradigm, fostering transparency and facilitating original contributions to their fields.

• Grounded theory
• Doctoral theses
• Qualitative methodology
• Theory development

Guerrero Puerta, L. and Lorente García, R. (2024), "Illuminating the path: a methodological exploration of grounded theory in doctoral theses", Qualitative Research Journal , Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 384-393. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-07-2023-0119

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Laura Guerrero Puerta and Rocío Lorente García

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

In the realm of academic research, grounded theory (GT) has emerged as a prominent qualitative methodology, offering scholars a powerful lens through which to unravel complex phenomena and construct novel theoretical frameworks. Rooted in empirical data, GT emphasizes the inductive approach of theory development, rendering it particularly attractive for aspiring doctoral researchers seeking to illuminate uncharted territories within their respective fields of study. However, while GT presents a promising avenue for generating innovative insights, the journey of crafting a doctoral thesis using this method is akin to traversing a dark forest—fraught with challenges and uncertainties that demand navigational guidance.

This paper endeavors to shed light on the universal challenges encountered by doctoral candidates who embark on the path of employing GT for their theses. Drawing from a comprehensive array of sources, including the seminal works of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Charmaz (2006) , we delve into the three main issues that consistently confront researchers regardless of their geographical location: coding, theory development and time constraints. As we venture through this academic terrain, we strive to provide pragmatic solutions and strategies to empower researchers and facilitate a more seamless journey.

Moreover, the nature of doctoral committees plays a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of GT dissertations. As guardians of academic tradition, committee members wield the authority to endorse research proposals and methodologies. Nonetheless, we unveil the intricate challenges that arise when committee members lack familiarity with qualitative methodologies, particularly GT techniques. The clash of epistemological perspectives and the desire for familiarity over novelty can complicate the development of theoretical frameworks, necessitating a tactful approach to navigate these waters.

With this article, we aim to equip doctoral candidates with the requisite knowledge and tools to surmount the challenges posed by GT in their pursuit of ground-breaking research, using for this matter the knowledge available in literature. By delving into the literature, optimizing coding techniques and fostering productive collaborations with committees, researchers can effectively navigate the enigmatic terrain of GT and illuminate the academic landscape with their original contributions, and this paper seek for a better understanding of this processes. In essence, the paper seeks to answer the question: “What are the primary difficulties and obstacles faced by doctoral students when utilizing GT in their theses, and what are the potential solutions to effectively address these challenges?”

In this endeavor, our paper embodies the essence of a multilevel autoethnography, interweaving personal narratives with scholarly reflection, as advocated by Ellis (2004) . Multilevel autoethnography, a distinctive genre within qualitative research, employs vignettes, reflexivity, multiple voices and introspection to immerse readers in the evolving research journey. It places a strong emphasis on the author's dynamic interaction with data, abstract analysis and pertinent literature ( Ellis et al ., 2015 ; Bochner and Ellis, 1995 ). Thus, this article aligns with these criteria, effectively shedding light on the challenges faced by the primary author during their doctoral journey while also revealing the ongoing shifts in perspective and identity inherent in conducting GT research while pursuing a PhD. Furthermore, it engages with subsequent experiences of both authors in supervising undergraduate, master's and doctoral theses utilizing GT. This multifaceted approach enriches our exploration of the obstacles encountered by doctoral candidates as they navigate the intricacies of the GT methodology.

In the subsequent sections, we will delve into the universal challenges of coding, theory development and time constraints, while exploring the unique dynamics of doctoral committees and the context of GT dissertations. Our intention is to demystify the GT process, empowering researchers to forge ahead with confidence and clarity as they embark on this scholarly odyssey, but before we will make a quick review about what entails using GT.

2. Understanding grounded theory and coexisting paradigms in social sciences

GT is a postpositivist methodology that emerged during the “Golden Age of Rigorous Qualitative Analysis” in the United States after Second World War, pioneered by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss ( Denzin and Lincoln, 2005 ; Birks and Mills, 2011 ). Since its seminal publication, “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” in 1967, GT has extended its application to various disciplines, including nursing, psychology, anthropology, sociology and education, among others, gaining significant recognition in social science research.

The popularity of GT has led to a substantial evolution of the approach, at times reformulating some of its foundational tenets. However, this evolution has also generated significant criticisms and tensions, resulting in controversies surrounding the conceptualization of theorizing and the outcomes of grounded theorization. Additionally, critics have raised concerns about the lack of specificity in certain aspects of the methodology, such as the researcher's positioning during the research process.

Despite this evolution, these different approaches continue to coexist under the umbrella of GT. The creators of GT, Glaser and Strauss, experienced a fierce academic split that led to claims of intellectual property and presented distinct epistemological, methodological and operational differences from each other ( Dey, 2004 ; Eadens, 2012 ).

Indeed, it is crucial to explore the various positions adopted by GT researchers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the implications associated with adhering to a specific perspective. The diverse approaches within the GT paradigm offer distinct ontological, epistemological and methodological premises that shape the research process and outcomes. By examining each position, researchers can make informed decisions about the theoretical underpinnings that align with their research goals and contribute to a deeper appreciation of the implications of their chosen approach. A thorough exploration of these positions enables a more nuanced comprehension of the complexities and potential biases involved in conducting GT studies, thus fostering transparency and robustness in the research process.

2.1 First generation of grounded theorists: from unity to a rift between creators

Initially, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss designed GT as a response to the chaotic and unsystematic qualitative research prevalent at the time, aiming to infuse scientific rigor into the qualitative paradigm. They proposed a method that departed from the dominant paradigm, emphasizing the generation of theory directly from empirical research data, rather than relying on preconceived analytical constructs from existing literature. The GT approach sought to foster the development of entirely novel and context-specific concepts and theories based on the data under investigation. Through systematic comparison, researchers discovered codes and analytic categories that ultimately facilitated theory emergence, where the researcher was considered an “objective and distant discoverer” of the emerging themes ( Charmanz, 2008 ; Lauridsen and Higginbottom, 2014 ). The GT process, as envisioned by Glaser and Strauss, is depicted in Figure 1 .

As illustrated in Figure 1 , the original GT methodology by Glaser and Strauss is characterized by a continuous and systematic process of data collection, coding, analysis and theoretical categorization, relying on data-driven information. Following the coding and categorization of original data, theoretical sampling is used to gather additional data, and constant comparison helps to identify emerging categories until saturation is reached, providing theoretical robustness ( Hood, 2007 ).

In 1990, Strauss, together with Corbin, published “Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory,” signaling the beginning of a division regarding the understanding and application of GT. This publication introduced detailed notions, including a modified terminology and a more systematic coding process, intended to facilitate GT research and universalize its results. Glaser, however, perceived this as a departure from the original GT approach, arguing that Strauss had altered the essence of GT. Glaser contended that GT was solely designed to explore phenomena through coding and that Strauss's approach would merely reproduce preconceived ideas and biases of those following his guidance ( Glaser, 1992 , 2001 ).

2.2 Second generation of theorists: Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory and Thornberg's informed grounded theory

The division among pioneering theorists in GT led to two distinct streams of thought and an intense debate, giving rise to new approaches in GT research. Notably, Charmaz (2006) presented the constructivist version of GT, while Thornberg (2012) introduced the informed version, among other perspectives like hermeneutic or feminist GT ( Engard, 2013 ). Although each of these perspectives' merits individual study beyond the scope of this article, a brief overview of most notables' positions with Charmaz's constructivist GT and Thornberg's informed GT is provided.

2.2.1 Charmaz's constructivist GT

Charmaz introduced a shift in the epistemological stance of GT, placing the role of the researcher as a co-participant in the social construction of knowledge. According to Charmaz (2017) , constructivist GT assumes a relativistic epistemology, recognizing multiple perspectives, roles and realities of both the researcher and the research participants. It emphasizes reflexivity towards the researcher's background, values, actions, and relationships with research participants, situating the investigation within historical, social and situational conditions. Charmaz's constructivist approach attends to language, meanings and actions of researchers and participants alike, acknowledging the co-construction of knowledge through a dialogical process ( Charmaz, 2006 ).

2.2.2 Thornberg's informed GT

Thornberg approached GT with a critical perspective on the ambiguity surrounding literature review in GT research. While Glaser initially advocated avoiding literature review until the final stages of research to maintain independence from preexisting ideas, Thornberg argued that this approach could limit researchers from conducting studies within their own areas of expertise. Thornberg emphasized the importance of recognizing and acknowledging the researcher's existing knowledge and its potential influence on the research process while still adhering to the GT principles of data-driven analysis ( Thornberg, 2012 ).

3. Challenges of using grounded theory in the investigation conducing to doctoral thesis

3.1 coding: the rigorous path to methodological rigor.

GT revolves around the coding process, a critical phase that instills methodological rigor into the entire study. Constant comparison of data, as emphasized by Glaser and Strauss (1967) , is fundamental to the GT methodology, ensuring the emergence of meaningful patterns and categories. However, novice researchers often face coding challenges, complicating an already intricate process ( Scott and Howell, 2008 ). Additionally, the researcher's epistemological approach further adds complexity, with different schools of thought advocating various GT coding types ( Charmaz, 2006 ; Greckhamer and Koro-Ljungberg, 2005 ).

Due to these challenges, novices in qualitative research, including doctoral candidates, often require mentorship and support to navigate coding effectively ( Scott and Howell, 2008 ). The lack of explicit coding guidelines in the literature exacerbates the issue, leaving researchers unsure of the best approach ( Moghaddam, 2006 ; Wasserman et al ., 2009 ).

To address these concerns, doctoral researchers can seek assistance from experienced peers, methodologists and GT experts ( Creswell and Miller, 2000 ). A lack of comprehensive guidance in the literature often leaves novices to navigate coding through trial and error ( Moghaddam, 2006 ; Wasserman et al ., 2009 ). Without a clear understanding of open, axial and selective coding, doctoral candidates may struggle with data analysis, potentially missing valuable insights ( Grbich, 2012 ). Therefore, seeking support from knowledgeable professionals can illuminate the coding path and facilitate the emergence of robust codes ( Wu and Beaunae, 2014 ).

3.2 Theory development: simultaneous journey of insight and interpretation

The relationship between coding and theory development in GT warrants particular attention, as doctoral researchers often face time-consuming revisions due to a lack of simultaneous exploration ( Glaser, 2002 ). Despite its crucial role, theory development remains one of the most challenging stages of a GT dissertation ( Charmaz, 2006 ). Novice researchers may mistakenly expect a theory to naturally emerge once coding is complete ( Moghaddam, 2006 ; Scott and Howell, 2008 ). However, the reality is far more complex, with researchers needing to immerse themselves in the data and interpret the connections between various coding levels and theoretical constructs ( McCallin, 2003 ).

To facilitate smoother theory development, doctoral researchers must avoid linear approaches, allowing coding and theory to intertwine seamlessly. Early involvement in theory development can provide more time to interpret and contextualize the coding levels in relation to the overarching theory ( Glaser, 2007 ). By understanding the iterative nature of GT, researchers can navigate the forest of theory development with greater clarity ( Wu and Beaunae, 2014 ).

3.3 Theory development: navigating uncharted theoretical realms

For doctoral candidates utilizing GT, theory development is often the most challenging stage ( Charmaz, 2006 ). Unlike other research paradigms, where theories might exist a priori , GT proposes a novel theory that emerges from the data. However, this notion can be bewildering to committees seeking familiar theoretical frameworks ( McCallin, 2003 ). The ambiguity and fluidity of theory development necessitate a flexible and iterative approach that dynamically intertwines coding and theory construction ( Glaser, 2002 ).

In the pursuit of constructing a GT-based theory, researchers should anticipate potential resistance from committee members seeking to impose established theories or epistemological viewpoints. Articulating the epistemological basis of GT research and aligning it with the research design can fortify doctoral candidates' arguments in defending their groundbreaking insights ( O'Connor et al ., 2008 ). Furthermore, maintaining open communication and negotiation with committee members can foster a supportive environment for innovative theorizing ( Wu and Beaunae, 2014 ).

3.4 To use a theoretical framework or not to use it when conducting GT?

The decision to use a theoretical framework in the context of conducting GT research is a subject of contention and warrants careful consideration. Proponents of a theoretical framework argue that it can provide a solid foundation and direction for the research, aiding in data collection and analysis ( Charmaz, 2006 ). Additionally, having a theoretical lens can help researchers frame their research questions, focus on specific aspects of the data and identify potential connections to existing literature ( Suddaby, 2006 ). However, the challenge lies in striking a balance between adopting a theoretical framework and adhering to the essence of GT, which emphasizes the emergence of theories from the data itself ( Glaser and Strauss, 1967 ).

On the other hand, adherents of a more purist approach to GT advocate for an initial suspension of theoretical assumptions and a focus on the raw data, allowing theories to emerge organically ( Charmaz, 2005 ). Embracing a more open-ended exploration can lead to novel insights and unexpected connections, fostering theoretical creativity ( McCallin, 2003 ). Nevertheless, the absence of a theoretical framework might raise concerns among committee members, particularly those who prefer more structured research designs ( Kezar, 2004 ). As GT is subject to multiple interpretations, scholars may encounter challenges in defending their methodological choices, especially if committee members are not well-versed in qualitative methodologies ( Madill et al ., 2005 ).

Thornberg's approach provides a way to navigate the complexities of GT while acknowledging the importance of theory in shaping research designs. By blending induction and abduction, researchers using this approach can strike a balance between allowing theories to emerge organically from the data and benefiting from the guidance and insights that a theoretical framework can offer. It presents a promising pathway for doctoral researchers using GT, enabling them to navigate the dark forest of GT with a more focused and purposeful direction, while still being receptive to unexpected discoveries along the way.

3.5 Time constraints: a daunting test of patience and persistence

The inherent complexity and depth of GT studies necessitate considerable time and effort, which can pose significant challenges for doctoral candidates ( Dale and Volpe, 2008 ; Meloy, 2002 ). Completing a robust GT research study demands substantial time to develop research agendas, gather, analyze and code data and develop coherent theories ( McCallin, 2003 ). Unfortunately, the time commitment required by GT may not align with the constraints faced by doctoral candidates, particularly those with limited financial support ( Shortell, 1999 ). For prospective doctoral researchers, it is vital to comprehend the time-intensive nature of GT and plan, accordingly, ensuring adequate resources and support for a successful journey through the forest of qualitative exploration ( Wu and Beaunae, 2014 ).

Completing a doctoral thesis using GT is a time-consuming endeavor ( Dale and Volpe, 2008 ). The intricate process of data collection, analysis and theory development demands substantial time and resources, often exceeding what doctoral candidates can feasibly invest ( McCallin, 2003 ). Limited financial support and academic timelines add pressure to researchers already traversing an intellectually demanding terrain ( Wu and Beaunae, 2014 ).

To address time constraints, doctoral candidates must strike a balance between ambition and pragmatism. Realistic expectations regarding the scale of research and the level of theory development can ensure that projects remain manageable within the allotted time frame ( Glesne, 2016 ). Additionally, candid communication with advisors and committees regarding time limitations can lead to more supportive and constructive guidance throughout the research journey.

3.6 Theory clashes: the struggle for novelty and familiarity

The clash of epistemological perspectives within committees can lead to conflicts concerning the acceptability of emerging theories. Committee members aligned with positivist paradigms may question the validity of constructivist GT studies, perpetuating the challenge of reconciling disparate worldviews ( Glaser, 2007b ). Similarly, the expectation for familiar theories may pressure researchers to fit their GT findings into preexisting frameworks, obscuring the originality of their contributions ( McCallin, 2003 ; Wu and Beaunae, 2014 ).

Fostering an open dialogue with committee members and articulating the theoretical underpinnings of GT can guide researchers toward constructive resolution, shedding light on the forest of theoretical synthesis.

4. Approaching the finish line: sharing a personal journey with grounded theory

As we approach the conclusion of this manuscript, we stand on the verge of comprehending the intricate process of conducting a doctoral thesis using GT. We've navigated the challenging landscape of GT methodology, delving into the realms of coding, theory development, time constraints and the intricacies of working within doctoral committees. Now, it is necessary to embark ourselves on the final stretch of our exploration, where we consolidate our insights and offer a more personal perspective to those who will follow in our footsteps. This concluding section aims to illuminate the lessons learned and chart a course toward a more informed and successful GT-based doctoral research endeavor.

In a style akin to an epistolary narrative, this section unfolds the journey of the primary author during their doctoral pursuit at the University of Granada, Spain. It illuminates the challenges faced and the strategic choices made, with the aim of offering a more personal and relatable guide to novice doctoral candidates embarking on a similar academic path.

One of the initial hurdles was the challenge of finding a position within the multifaceted realm of GT. This difficulty was compounded by the lack of prior experience with GT, as well as the complexities of participating in a broader European research project alongside the second author of this manuscript. While collaboration with senior researchers facilitated extensive discussions and provided a glimpse into the thesis defense process, it was not without its share of obstacles.

Accessing pertinent texts in the Spanish language emerged as a primary challenge, demanding additional effort. Furthermore, the task of designing a thesis firmly grounded in GT, complete with a theoretical framework, posed another significant obstacle. This challenge was overcome by incorporating an informed framework drawn from constructivist GT as expounded upon in this paper.

In addition, the doctoral program in the University of Granada mandated a publication associated with the thesis for its defense. As an emerging researcher, this necessitated grappling with the complexities of publishing qualitative research employing GT in a scientific journal. The challenge lay in justifying the study's validity to scientists unfamiliar with the methodology. To address this, a deliberate emphasis was placed on elucidating the construction of categories, achieving saturation, explaining the chosen approach and providing graphical representations and flowcharts of the process. These efforts aimed to ensure that even readers less acquainted with the methodology could appreciate the rigor of the process.

Amid these challenges, there were moments when the impostor syndrome, the feeling of “not knowing enough to conduct GT,” crept in—a persistent doubt that plagues many researchers throughout their academic journey. It's crucial to acknowledge that these feelings are not unusual or unique. This manuscript serves as a personal testament that we all encounter such moments of self-doubt, and that the struggles we've described are part of a shared experience. Impostor syndrome can indeed make you question your abilities, but it's essential to remember that you are not alone in facing these challenges. As you navigate the academic realm, you will often find peers or senior academics who can provide guidance and support as you navigate your thesis journey.

Ultimately, to end on a positive note, the main author successfully defended their thesis. While questions did arise about GT during the defense, it was applauded how much detail was provided in the methodology description. This accomplishment highlights the value of thorough documentation and understanding the chosen research methodology.

Since the inception of their journey with GT through the aforementioned project and thesis, both authors have guided undergraduate, master's and doctoral theses employing this methodology. It became apparent that many of the challenges described are recurrent for novice researchers. In the spirit of illuminating the path for others, this document is presented not only to share personal experiences but also to incorporate relevant literature that may assist and underpin the future research endeavors of those who engage with it.

5. Conclusion

This article has undertaken a comprehensive exploration of the challenges faced by doctoral candidates employing GT in their theses. GT, as a qualitative methodology, offers a powerful lens to unravel complex phenomena and construct novel theoretical frameworks. However, traversing the path of GT can be likened to navigating a dark forest, fraught with challenges and uncertainties. The universal challenges identified in this paper encompass coding, theory development and time constraints, each presenting unique obstacles to the researcher's journey.

Coding, a fundamental aspect of GT, demands methodological rigor and constant comparison to derive meaningful patterns and categories. Novice researchers often struggle with coding, necessitating mentorship and guidance. The iterative nature of theory development, intertwined with coding, poses another challenge. Researchers must understand that theory does not naturally emerge from coding and that early involvement in theory development is crucial for a successful GT dissertation. Moreover, the clash between the novelty of GT and the desire for familiarity within doctoral committees presents further challenges. Researchers must navigate the expectations of committee members with different epistemological perspectives and advocate for the theoretical underpinnings of GT research. Time constraints serve as a daunting test of patience and persistence for doctoral candidates using GT. The time-intensive nature of GT research, coupled with limited resources, can strain research timelines and ambitions.

To overcome these challenges, this paper advocates seeking support from experienced peers and methodologists (recognizing the potential of communities of learning within academia can greatly enhance the research process), fostering open communication with committees and striking a balance between ambition and pragmatism. Additionally, exploring the coexisting paradigms within GT provides a nuanced understanding of its implications, aiding researchers in making informed decisions aligning with their research goals.

In conclusion, this article illuminates the path of GT for doctoral candidates, offering pragmatic solutions and strategies to empower researchers on their scholarly odyssey. By acknowledging and addressing these challenges, researchers can effectively navigate the enigmatic terrain of GT, leading to illuminating original contributions that enrich the academic landscape.

Diagram illustrating the key components and workflow of the grounded theory model proposed by Glaser and Strauss

Birks , M. and Mills , J. ( 2011 ), “ Essentials of grounded theory ”, in Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide , pp.  11 - 26 .

Bochner , A.P. and Ellis , C. ( 1995 ), Composing Ethnography: Alternative Forms of Qualitative Writing , AltaMira Press Series , City Florida , pp. 1995 - 2006 .

Charmaz , K. ( 2005 ), “ Grounded theory in the 21st century: applications for advancing social justice studies ”, Qualitative Research Conference, May 2003, Carleton University , Ottawa, ON , Canada ; Brief excerpts from earlier drafts in a keynote address,‘ Reclaiming Traditions and Re-forming Trends in Qualitative Research,’ were presented at the aforementioned conference and in a presentation,‘ Suffering and the Self: Meanings of Loss in Chronic Illness,’ at the Sociology Department , University of California , Los Angeles , January 9, 2004 , Sage Publications, London/New Delhi.

Charmaz , K. ( 2006 ), Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis , Sage .

Charmaz , K. ( 2008 ), “ Constructionism and the grounded theory method ”, Handbook of Constructionist Research , Vol.  1 No.  1 , pp.  397 - 412 .

Charmaz , K. ( 2017 ), “ Constructivist grounded theory ”, The Journal of Positive Psychology , Vol.  12 No.  3 , pp.  299 - 300 .

Creswell , J.W. and Miller , D.L. ( 2000 ), “ Determining validity in qualitative inquiry ”, Theory Into Practice , Vol.  39 No.  3 , pp.  124 - 131 .

Dale , L. and Volpe , M. ( 2008 ), Completing your qualitative research: a roadmap from beginning to end , SAGE Publications .

Denzin , N.K. and Lincoln , Y.S. ( 2005 ), “ Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research ”, in Denzin , N. and Lincoln , Y. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research , Sage .

Dey , I. ( 2004 ), “ Grounded Theory ”, Qualitative Research Practice , pp.  80 - 93 .

Eadens , D. ( 2012 ), “ Unpacking grounded theory: a venue for education research ”, Delta Journal of Education , Vol.  2 No.  2 , pp.  44 - 50 .

Ellis , C. ( 2004 ), The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Autoethnography , Rowman Altamira , Oxford , Vol.  13 .

Ellis , C. , Adams , T.E. and Bochner , A.P. ( 2015 ), “ Autoetnografía: un panorama ”, Astrolabio , No.  14 , pp.  249 - 273 .

Engward , H. ( 2013 ), “ Understanding grounded theory ”, Nursing Standard , Vol.  28 No.  7 , p. 37 .

Glaser , B.G. ( 1992 ), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis , Sociology Press , Mill Valley, CA .

Glaser , B.G. ( 2001 ), The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description , Sociology Press , Mill Valley, CA .

Glaser , B.G. ( 2002 ), “ Conceptualization: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory ”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods , Vol.  1 No.  2 , pp.  1 - 31 .

Glaser , B.G. ( 2007 ), “ Constructivist grounded theory? ”, Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung. Supplement , Vol.  19 , pp. 93 - 105 .

Glaser , B. and Strauss , A. ( 1967 ), “ The Discovery of grounded theory ”, in Adeline and Glesne , C. (Eds), Becoming Qualitative Researchers: an Introduction , 2nd ed. , New Chicago , (1999) .

Glesne , C. ( 2016 ), Becoming Qualitative Researchers: an Introduction , Pearson. One Lake Street , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Grbich , C. ( 2012 ), “ Qualitative data analysis: an introduction ”, in Qualitative Data Analysis , pp.  1 - 344 .

Greckhamer , T. and Koro-Ljungberg , M. ( 2005 ), “ The erosion of a method: examples from grounded theory ”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , Vol.  18 No.  6 , pp.  729 - 750 .

Hood , J.C. ( 2007 ), “ Orthodoxy vs power: the defining traits of grounded theory ”, in The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory , pp.  151 - 164 .

Kezar , A. ( 2004 ), “ Wrestling with philosophy: improving scholarship in higher education ”, Journal of Higher Education , Vol.  75 No.  1 , pp.  42 - 55 .

Lauridsen , E.I. and Higginbottom , G. ( 2014 ), “ The roots and development of constructivist grounded theory ”, Nurse Researcher , Vol.  21 No.  5 , pp. 8 - 13 .

Madill , A. , Gough , B. , Lawton , R. and Stratton , P. ( 2005 ), “ How should we supervise qualitative projects? ”, Psychologist , Vol.  18 No.  10 , pp.  616 - 618 .

McCallin , A.M. ( 2003 ), “ Designing a grounded theory study: some practicalities ”, Nursing in Critical Care , Vol.  8 No.  5 , pp.  203 - 208 .

Meloy , J.M. ( 2002 ), Writing the Qualitative Dissertation: Understanding by Doing , Psychology Press , New Jersey .

Moghaddam , A. ( 2006 ), “ Coding issues in grounded theory ”, Issues in Educational Research , Vol.  16 No.  1 , pp.  52 - 66 .

O'Connor , M.K. , Netting , F.E. and Thomas , M.L. ( 2008 ), “ Grounded theory-managing the challenge for those facing institutional review board oversight ”, Qualitative Inquiry , Vol.  14 No.  1 , pp.  28 - 45 .

Scott , K.W. and Howell , D. ( 2008 ), “ Clarifying analysis and interpretation in grounded theory: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix ”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods , Vol.  7 No.  2 , pp.  1 - 15 .

Shortell , S.M. ( 1999 ), “ The emergence of qualitative methods in health services research ”, Health Services Research , Vol.  34 No.  5 , pp.  1083 - 1090 .

Suddaby , R. ( 2006 ), “ From the editors: what grounded theory is not ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol.  49 No.  4 , pp.  633 - 642 .

Thornberg , R. ( 2012 ), “ Informed grounded theory ”, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , Vol.  56 No.  3 , pp.  243 - 259 .

Wasserman , J.A. , Clair , J.M. and Wilson , K.L. ( 2009 ), “ Problematics of grounded theory: innovations for developing an increasingly rigourous qualitative method ”, Qualitative Research , Vol.  9 No.  3 , pp.  355 - 381 .

Wu , C.H.V. and Beaunae , C. ( 2014 ), “ Personal reflections on cautions and considerations for navigating the path of grounded theory doctoral theses and dissertations: a long walk through a dark forest ”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , Vol.  17 No.  3 , pp.  249 - 265 .

Further reading

Alvarez-Cedillo , J.A. , Gonzaga , E.A. , Aguilar-Fernández , M. and Perez-Romero , P. ( 2017 ), “ Internet prospective study ”, Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics , Vol.  6 No.  3 , pp.  235 - 240 .

Acknowledgements

“This research is associated with the project YOUNG_ADULLLT, funded by the European Union, Grant Agreement Number 693167.”

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

10 Grounded Theory Examples (Qualitative Research Method)

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]

Learn about our Editorial Process

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) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Class Group Name Ideas (for School Students)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 19 Top Cognitive Psychology Theories (Explained)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 119 Bloom’s Taxonomy Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ All 6 Levels of Understanding (on Bloom’s Taxonomy)

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Open Access
• Submissions
• Barney Glaser – In Memoriam

Selection of Grounded Theory as an Appropriate Research Methodology for a Dissertation: One Student’s Perspective

James W. Jones, Ed.D.

Doctoral students wanting to use grounded theory as a methodological approach for their dissertation often face multiple challenges gaining acceptance of their approach by their committee. This paper presents the case that the author used to overcome these challenges through the process of eliminating other methodologies, leaving grounded theory as the preferred method for the desired research issue. Through examining the approach used successfully by the author, other doctoral students will be able to frame similar arguments justifying the use of grounded theory in their dissertations and seeing the use of the method continue to spread into new fields and applications. This paper examines the case built for selecting grounded theory as a defensible dissertation approach. The basic research issue that I wanted to investigate was how practitioners in an applied field sought information in their work ; in other words, how they researched. I further narrowed the investigation down to a more specific field, but the paper presented here is left in broader form so that other students can see the approach in more general terms.

Introduction

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable , must be the truth?” … Sherlock Holmes to Watson in The Sign of the Four (Doyle, 1950, p. 163)

Like many other doctoral students aspiring to use grounded theory for their dissertations, I had a graduate committee comprised of members who had never supervised a dissertation that used grounded theory and whose members had never done grounded theory themselves. As there were no other faculty members on campus who were experts in the approach, and because a dissertation exclusively using grounded theory had never been done on that campus, I had to fill the role of both educator and sales representative for the approach.

For me, the key to being successful in this approach was to show how grounded theory was not just one possible approach for the desired purpose of the study, but in fact the only appropriate methodology. I moved from broad research issues down to more focused examples, eliminating all the “impossible” (as Holmes put it), eventually leaving grounded theory as the only acceptable choice for the study.

I deliberately selected texts and references that had been used in previous courses with the committee members as it was felt that they would make relevant exemplars. The intent was to use resources that the committee members were familiar with and already trusted in order to make the case, so that the argument could be kept focused on the methodology rather than the references. Other references that were similar in research intent were also used to illustrate the acceptability in the academic community of the approach, albeit in other disciplines. This resulted in a more limited but focused literature review than might be used in other instances, but one that was intended to be more persuasive.

Research Approach and Intent

Research has been defined as “the formal, systematic application of the scientific and disciplined inquiry approach to the study of problems” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p.3). Just as there are many different types of problems, there are consequently many different types of research methodologies used to investigate them. Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) see the research problem and how to investigate it as intimately intertwined, “The identification of the problem and the choice of methodology may be seen as an interactive process, with each influencing the other” (p. 46). Selecting the appropriate methodology for a research problem is therefore much like selecting the right tool out of your toolbox; you might be able to get the job done with screwdriver, but it will not be as effective or efficient if you really needed a hammer all along.

There are several important factors to consider when selecting a methodology. Madsen (1992) states, “Once you have set forth the research problem…you must set forth precise steps you propose to take to answer your question and solve your problem” (p. 68). Sogunro (2002) describes this process:

When faced with the question of which method to choose in conducting research…the following factors are important for consideration: matching research purposes and questions with methods; depth of study of phenomena; availability of resources (money, time, etc [sic]); availability of supporting literature; ‘knowledge pay off’ (i.e., which approach will produce more useful knowledge); and ‘style’ or preference for a method….and so forth. (p. 8)

Note that the first factor Sogunro (2002) advises us to consider is the research purpose. The purpose of the research will drive the rest of the process of selecting an appropriate methodology. Merriam and Simpson (2000) posit, “Ultimately the value or purpose of research in an applied field is to improve the quality of practice of that discipline” (p. 7). While this lofty goal of improving practice may indeed be the ultimate goal of the researcher, contributing aspects must be examined as well.

First, whose practice is the researcher interested in improving? For the given case of examining how practitioners seek information, the answer to this question may have dramatic effects in the selection of an appropriate methodology. For example, if the researcher was the manager of practitioners and ultimately only wanted to improve the practice of the practitioners directly under his or her charge, this would be a very important consideration. In this case, an action research approach might be most appropriate, since “its purpose is to obtain knowledge that can be applied directly to a particular situation” and does not require hypothesis formulation, extensive procedural planning, or experimental condition control (Merriam & Simpson, 2000).

On the other hand, if the researcher is an information manager at a particular firm who is considering subscribing to an improved online search service, action research may not be the most appropriate choice. Instead, the information manager might really only want to know how much practitioners currently use the current package to evaluate whether or not an upgrade would be worthwhile. In this case, evaluation or evaluation research might be appropriate where a decision will be made based on the systematic collection and analysis of data (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2005; Gay & Airasian, 2003).

In addition to whose practice the researcher is interested in improving, the researcher must consider the intended audience for the research. In the examples discussed above, the action researcher or the evaluation researcher may or may not be interested in preparing and/or presenting the results to anyone else. It may simply be a separate project undertaken in the course of other duties, or it may be formalized in a report to upper management for approval. On the other hand, a pragmatic academic may want to publish the findings in peer reviewed journals that require more rigorous and/or replicable methodological treatments. This too would influence the researcher’s definition of the ultimate purpose for the investigation. Dissertations related to an applied field may want to appeal to audiences in both industry and academia.

The preferences and skills of the researcher must also be honestly evaluated (Brause, 2000; Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). If the researcher dislikes interacting with people, methodologies that use interviews may not be desirable. If the researcher dislikes statistical analysis, a quantitative approach may be unsuitable. Besides simple likes and dislikes, acknowledgement of skills and preferences towards certain methods may be given and evaluated. For example, if the researcher has extensive experience in correlational research but another approach is warranted, new and/or additional skills may have to be obtained.

There are also other practical considerationsl. As mentioned previously by Sogunro (2002), the resources available, particularly money and time, must be considered. There are at least two related aspects of time that might affect the researcher in the selection of a methodology: the time that the results are required or desired and the time that it will take to produce them. As Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) state, “In general, qualitative studies take more time than quantitative ones. Ethnographic studies are especially time-sensitive” (p. 46). If the researcher needs the results in a month, this will clearly limit the choice of methodologies or preclude the proper conduct of the study altogether.

Methodology Selection

With the above considerations in mind, the researcher begins to be guided towards certain methodologies and away from others. For the purposes of this paper, it will be assumed that there are no overriding constraints on methodology, such as publishing in a journal devoted to a particular approach or having to have the results in a month. Further, it will be assumed that the research will not be used or consumed solely by the researcher, but will be presented to at least a limited audience of academics and professionals with the goal of explaining and potentially even predicting this information-seeking behavior. The final product is a defensible dissertation of the quality expected of a doctoral candidate and the utility to be used by practitioners.

Although one of the stated intents of the research is for it to ultimately be applied by practitioners in the field, there is no desire to judge the information-seeking behavior of the participants, only to learn what it is. Although considered a form of applied research, evaluation research approaches would therefore be categorically rejected in this case, as they are intended to be used in rating and making decisions on the subject, as discussed previously.

The process therefore turns back to the research question itself. The key word in the research problem is the interest in how practitioners seek information. In general, a study to of how or why things are a certain way would indicate a qualitative approach would be most suitable (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 13). This allows for the development of hypotheses about how the behavior occurs, in contrast to a quantitative approach, which would test hypotheses (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 8-9). As recommended by Merriam and Simpson, if it is revealed “that no theory fits the phenomenon under investigation, the one study goal may be to formulate a theory and/or hypothesis to explain observed events or behavior” (2000, p. 27).

However, eliminating approaches that are exclusively quantitative only narrows the field of potential methodologies slightly; there are a host of qualitative approaches left to consider. Action research, discussed previously, is considered a qualitative approach, but it is also considered to be nongeneralizable and limited to the specific conditions under which it was conducted (Merriam & Simpson, 2000). Since the researcher has a specific audience of both academics and practitioners in mind, with the intent of the research being applied, action research would therefore be eliminated from consideration. Since the researcher is interested in current practices, historical research methods are also inappropriate. This leaves several other options remaining.

A case study approach would allow detailed investigation into how a practitioner or practitioners seek information. Perry (1998) believes that case studies are particularly suitable for offering realistic portrayals of behavior:

Given this appropriateness of realism for case study research, the research problems addressed in theses are more descriptive than prescriptive, for example, no positivist experiments or cause-and-effect paths are required to solve the research problem. That is, the research problem is usually a “how do?” problem rather than a “how should?” problem. This “how do” rather than “how should” problem captures the positive versus normative dichotomy, for case study research is concerned with describing real world phenomena rather than developing normative decision models. (p. 787)

This fits the stated research problem of how do practitioners research. Case studies are likely to provide some important information, as Stake (2005) discusses:

We recognize a large population of hypothetical cases and a small subpopulation of accessible cases….On representational grounds, the epistemological opportunity seems small, but we are optimistic that we can learn some important things from almost any case. We choose one case or a small number of exemplars. (p. 451)

While learning something is a good start, the case study approach has several drawbacks for the proposed study, which focuses on how practitioners in an applied field seek information. First, it may be difficult to actually define a case to study for this research. Stake (2005) explains:

Custom has it that not everything is a case. A child [patient] may be a case, easy to specify. A doctor may be a case. But his or her doctoring probably lacks the specificity, the boundedness, to be called a case. (p. 444)

Similarly, a practitioner seeking information may likewise not be a suitable case for study. More importantly, while a case study would provide a lot of detail about that particular practitioner being examined, this may be inadequate for the given purpose, since the researcher wants to know how practitioners (plural) seek information. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001) point this limitation of case studies out:

They are not generalisable [sic] in the conventional sense. By definition, case studies can make no claims to be typical….because the sample is small and idiosyncratic, and because data is predominantly non-numerical, there is no way to establish the probability that data is representative of some larger population. For many researchers and others, this renders any case study findings as of little value. (p. 10)

This leaves us to consider other methodologies as more appropriate.

Ethnography is another qualitative approach that could be considered for this project. Gay and Airasian (2003) define ethnography as “a qualitative approach that studies the participants in their natural setting” (p. 16). This definition seems appropriate for the given study, as the researcher wants to know how practitioners seek information in their natural work setting. However, as Groat and Wang (2002) elaborate:

Although it emphasizes in-depth engagement with its subject…the researcher’s aim is not to create an explanatory theory that can be applied to many settings. Rather, ethnographic research culminates in a rich and full delineation of a particular setting that persuades a wide audience of its human validity. (p. 182)

This level of detail and focus on the context, while potentially interesting, are not what the researcher is seeking in this instance, eliminating ethnography as a suitable methodology for this study.

Although not exclusively a qualitative method, a grounded theory approach may also be considered for this research. The researcher is looking for a way of explaining how practitioners in an applied field seek information; in other words, a theory of how this is done in actual practice. Building a theory based on, or grounded in, actual data is specifically what a grounded theory methodology is designed to do. Glaser (1998) defines grounded theory as “the systematic generation of theory from data acquired by a rigorous research method” (p. 3).

Grounded theory is used to investigate problems of why and how in a systematic way, one that is “grounded” in the data itself rather than being deduced logically or hypothetically. It is particularly well suited for fields of practice, as it can be used to “give the practitioner a conceptual tool with which to guide practice” (Merriam & Simpson, 2000, p. 113). This satisfies the aforementioned overall goal of applied research of improving practice.

Another advantage of the grounded theory approach is its flexibility with regard to data collection and analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This is particularly important in this case because the researcher wants to know how the practitioners actually seek information, which presents difficulties with regard to data collection, as the behavior may not be possible to directly observe. As noted in Ellis’ (1993) grounded theory study of the information-seeking patterns of academics, the use of direct observation is “almost totally impracticable” (p. 475) due to the nature of the study. Even if access and timing worked to the researcher’s favor and he was present at the exact moment that a practitioner was seeking information, the actions would not be transparent and would not allow any depth of understanding, specifically regarding the “how” issues, to be obtained. Furthermore, the situation would certainly not ameliorate itself were the researcher to continuously ask the practitioner what they were doing, why they were doing it that way, and what influences were acting upon their decision making process. The observation of research would, by definition, end at that point, with the possible outcome being that the researcher would no longer be welcome in the setting.

Data collection methods other than observation, are therefore required. While journaling or diaries would be possible approaches, they have several drawbacks. First, it is doubtful that they would be properly maintained, if completed at all, by busy practitioners. This is particularly true of personnel in an applied industry, who might not be familiar with journaling and may view the process as strange and/or uncomfortable. As Ellis (1993) stated in regard to his study of academic research activities,

The use of diaries…would have relied on the willingness and ability of the researchers to complete the diaries, and, even if the researchers had been able to complete them, it is questionable whether they would have been able to have done so comprehensively and accurately (p.475).

Furthermore, the data collection would still be post hoc; no one would stop in the middle of their information-seeking to record their actions, thoughts, and motivations. Finally, the collection process would be slowed considerably as the diaries were completed, collected, and read before learning if they contained information of value to the researcher.

Grounded theory often employs interviewing as its data collection technique, and this appears most appropriate in this case. Interviews are particularly suited for this approach; as Fontana and Frey (2005) stated, “the focus of interviews is moving to encompass the hows of people’s lives…as well as the traditional whats ” (p. 698). These hows and whats are exactly what the researcher is seeking.

As with any methodology, there are several potential criticisms of grounded theory as an appropriate research tool for this study. A common criticism of grounded theory studies is that they are not “real” research. These criticisms are nothing new; in 1967 Glaser and Strauss noted that “qualitative research is generally labeled ‘unsystematic,’ ‘impressionistic,’ or ‘exploratory'” (1967, p. 223). However, these criticisms fall short in the case of grounded theory as a methodology. It is not exclusively qualitative; it has a systemic process including sampling, coding, and memoing; it is based on data rather than impressions; and, while it can explore new subject matter, is a complete methodology rather than simply a starting point for further (presumably quantitative) research.

The acceptance of the grounded theory framework has been evinced by its inclusion in a host of research texts, in subjects ranging from architecture (Groat & Wang, 2002) to education (Gay & Airasian, 2003; Merriam & Simpson, 2000) to qualitative research in general (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) (while it uses qualitative data, it is not a qualitative method). As Glaser has noted, grounded theory has “product proof” which nullifies criticisms: “Let the product legitimize it self [sic], as it is doing in health, education, and business professions, where it is crucial to have relevant research that works” (1998, p. 16).

Grounded theory is therefore the most appropriate methodology for this research study. It allows the researcher to determine how practitioners actually seek information in their field and develop a theory to explain and predict this behavior. Although there are minor concerns with the methodology, these are outweighed by its applicability for this situation.

The persuasions described previously convinced my committee that grounded theory was not just the best methodology for this study, but was in fact the only appropriate choice. This allowed me to gain the committee’s acceptance with grounded theory as the methodological approach and for the study to progress. While there were certainly still other challenges to the use of grounded theory for a dissertation proposal, the acceptance of the method in general was a key factor in the overall success of my completing the process and successfully defending my dissertation in the summer of 2008.

James W. Jones, Ed.D. Construction Management Program Coordinator and Assistant Professor of Technology Applied Technology Building 207D Ball State University Muncie, Indiana Email: [email protected]

Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project managers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brause, R. S. (2000). Writing your doctoral dissertation: Invisible rules for success. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Doyle, A. C. (1950). The sign of the four. In The adventures of Sherlock Holmes. NY: Heritage.

Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: AldineTransaction.

Glatthorn, A. A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: Wiley.

Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case study research. In Learning and Skills Development Agency conference: Making an impact on policy and practice. Retrieved June 28, 2007 from www.sfeu.ac.uk/documents/1553/

Madsen, D. (1992). Successful dissertations and theses: A guide to graduate student research from proposal to completion (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults (2nd Edition). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Subscribe to receive updates

Your email:

Call for Papers

Are you developing a classic grounded theory? Do you have data that could be resorted and further developed into a new grounded theory? Are you working on a formal theory, or are you reflecting on a methodological issue? We invite you to submit your paper for consideration for the next issue of Grounded Theory Review, which is published in late December and June each year.

The database of the Grounded Theory Review now contains more than a hundred articles on classic grounded theories—from either a methodological or a theoretical perspective. We would like to expand the open access database with more grounded theories that truly demonstrates the interdisciplinary potential of the classic grounded theory method. Following the 50th anniversary wish of GT’s co-founder Dr. Barney Glaser, we would like to see a conglomerate of new grounded theories that span a wide array of disciplines and topics and that demonstrate general applicability and conceptual strengths in diverse social contexts. The theories will be peer reviewed by experienced members of the advisory board of the Grounded Theory Review.

Please submit your paper no later than April 1 for the June edition and September 15 for the December edition.

Current Issue

• Issue 1, June 2023
• GT Institute
• GT Mentoring
• The Grounded Theory Review is published by Sociology Press ISSN: 1556-1550

Indexed by:

• EBSCO, Google Scholar, and DOAJ
• ESCI (Web of Science)
• Article Archives
• PDF Archives

• < Previous

Home > Student Work > Dissertations > 705

Dissertations

Student nurses who witness critical events in the clinical setting: a grounded theory qualitative study.

Tiffany Lee Hood , University of Northern Colorado

First Advisor

Copeland, Darcy

Document Type

Dissertation

Date Created

Embargo date.

Hood, Tiffany Lee. Student Nurses Who Witness Critical Events in the Clinical Setting: A Grounded Theory Qualitative Study. Published Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 2020. Background: Nursing students often experience critical events in the clinical setting, and too often, the clinical instructor does not have the training to help students through these situations. The literature shows that students often feel alone and abandoned, requiring them to endure these experiences without proper psychological recovery. Clinical nurse educators and staff nurses may not fully understand their role in emotional support, pre-briefing, and debriefing, not knowing what to do to help students through such difficult situations. Procedure: A grounded theory qualitative study was conducted to better understand the experiences of student nurses who have witnessed critical events in the clinical setting, and to better understand the types of support provided and the effectiveness of the support. Fourteen undergraduate student nurses from three four-year universities in Utah, United States, participated in this study. Results: Using a four-stage coding procedure, 50 initial categories were categorized into one core category, nine primary categories, and nine secondary categories. Relationships between categories were identified, and a theory of student nurse support and recovery through critical events in the clinical setting emerged. Conclusion: Student nurses need active faculty and/or staff support during critical events, and pre-briefing whenever possible. Students should be taught coping skills and have risk and support systems assessed prior to entering the clinical setting. Nursing knowledge, life experiences, values, beliefs, coping skills, current mental health state, and prior history of trauma affect student responses to critical events. Immediate debrief positively affects post-event stress response and coping by providing the opportunity for students to gain closure, decrease anxiety, increase understanding, time to mentally process the event, and emotional support. Lack of debrief increases post-event psychological distress and decrease coping and resilience. Support after critical events should continue in the days, weeks, and months following the event. Students should be monitored for signs of increased psychological distress and psychological trauma and be provided resources for help in coping. Students who do not receive adequate support prior to, during, or after a critical event are at risk for psychological trauma.

Local Identifiers

Hood_unco_0161D_10855.pdf

Rights Statement

Copyright is held by the author.

Recommended Citation

Hood, Tiffany Lee, "Student Nurses Who Witness Critical Events in the Clinical Setting: A Grounded Theory Qualitative Study" (2020). Dissertations . 705. https://digscholarship.unco.edu/dissertations/705

Since October 12, 2020

• About UNCOpen
• University Libraries
• Archives & Special Collections

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines
• Policies & Guidelines
• UNC Graduate School

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

ON YOUR 1ST ORDER

Practical Guide To Grounded Theory Research Methods For Your Dissertation

By Laura Brown on 14th February 2024

Developed in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, grounded theory research became a widely used qualitative research approach in a very short period of time. It offers researchers a qualitative research approach in various disciplines.

If you have chosen a qualitative approach for your dissertation methodology , GT research should be your first choice to analyse your data. It allows theories to emerge organically from the data which makes it exceptionally relevant for in-depth study.

Before we move forward on how to conduct a grounded theory approach in qualitative research, we need to dig a bit more into the theory itself.

Understanding Grounded Theory Research

In simple terms, Grounded Theory is like an adventure where you explore and understand things based on what you discover in your study. There are basically three key parts of this approach.

• Inductive Approach

Instead of starting with a set idea or plan, you should begin with an open mind. You are required to collect information and let patterns and ideas emerge naturally.

• Constant Comparison

This means you are always looking at new information and comparing it with what others have collected already. It is like putting puzzle pieces together to see the bigger picture.

• Theoretical Sampling

Imagine you are choosing what to study next based on what you have already learned. This will help you dig deeper and gather the right pieces of information to build a strong understanding.

As we dive into each of these aspects, you will see how they work together to create a method that allows you to uncover new insights without preconceived notions. This understanding is the foundation for successfully using grounded theory in your dissertation journey.

Steps Involved In Grounded Theory Research Design

GT research is not just a set of procedural steps but it is a dynamic journey where you play the lead role in unwinding the complexity of a phenomenon. Let’s walk through each stage together to grasp the true essence of this research.

1. Formulating Research Questions

Your journey begins with crafting thoughtful and incisive research questions that serve as the compass for the study. These questions are not arbitrary, they are the seeds from which your entire research landscape will sprout.

You should meticulously sculpt these inquiries to capture the core of the phenomenon under investigation. It is like setting the stage for a captivating play, where each question is a protagonist, ready to reveal its part in the unfolding narrative.

2. Data Collection Methods

Once you have placed the questions, you should focus your shift to gathering the raw materials which are obviously data. This is not a haphazard gathering, it is a strategic pursuit. Researchers employ an arsenal of research methods, ranging from interviews to observations, to gather a mosaic of perspectives.

It is like going on a treasure hunt, seeking the gems that will later be meticulously examined and pieced together. The richness of the data you have collected lays the foundation for the depth of insights that will emerge.

3. Coding and Analysis

With data in hand, the next step involves the art of coding and analysis. You should think of it as deciphering a cryptic message. Researchers meticulously sift through the data, assigning codes to chunks of information.

These codes act as the building blocks, paving the way for patterns and connections to emerge. The analysis is not a mechanical task, it is a dance with the data, an intricate waltz where researchers and information move in tandem, revealing the nuanced story hidden within the numbers and words.

4. Theoretical Sampling

As the narrative unfolds, the need for depth and complexity intensifies. Theoretical sampling, the next step, is akin to selecting characters for a drama sequel. Researchers purposefully choose additional participants or data sources to delve deeper into emerging patterns.

It is not a random selection but a strategic move to enrich the storyline. Each new addition contributes a layer of meaning, where you can turn the research into a symphony of voices and experiences.

5. Category Development

The final act of this research journey you must follow is the development of categories. These are not arbitrary classifications, they are the threads that weave the entire narrative into a coherent tapestry. Researchers organise the codes into meaningful categories, providing structure and clarity.

Picture it as arranging puzzle pieces, where each category is a distinct section of the complete picture. The categories not only summarise findings but also lay the groundwork for future studies, contributing to the broader scholarly conversation.

Grounded theory is not linear research but a dance of intellect and exploration. From formulating questions to developing categories, each step is an integral part of the choreography.

Some Practical Tips For Grounded Theory

Alright, now that we have got the basics of qualitative grounded theory research, let’s talk about some down-to-earth tips that will surely help you navigate the twists and turns of grounded theory like a pro.

i. Maintaining Theoretical Sensitivity

Think of this like tuning into the subtle vibes of your data. Stay open, be receptive to what it is telling you. It is not about sticking rigidly to a plan but sensing the nuances. Imagine you are picking up on the unsaid, the whispers amidst the data noise. Trust your instincts; they are your best guide in this expedition.

ii. Flexibility in Research Design

Here is a golden nugget: be as flexible as a yoga instructor doing a backbend. Your research design is not carved in stone. If your data takes you on a detour, go with it. Embrace the unexpected. It is the detours that sometimes lead to the most fascinating discoveries. Think of it like a road trip where the unplanned stops end up being the highlight.

iii. Managing Data Overload

Data can feel like standing in front of a buffet with too many options. The key here is not to devour everything at once. Take it one bite at a time. Organise your data, and categorise it neatly. Think of it like sorting a messy room where you would not tackle the whole mess at once, right? Break it down, and suddenly it becomes manageable.

Alright, remember to pay attention to the little details, be prepared to take unexpected turns, and do not let too much data stress you out. Grounded theory is kind of like a dance, and these tips along with our dissertation writing service will help you move smoothly through each part of it.

Look At Grounded Theory Qualitative Research Example

Let’s quickly peek into some groundbreaking studies that used grounded theory.

• In one, researchers delved into family dynamics during illness, unveiling the hidden struggles.
• Another explored workplace interactions, revealing patterns crucial for organisational harmony.

These studies showcase the power of grounded theory research examples to uncover stories within social phenomena. These studies were not just academic exercises, they brought real-world insights which allowed us to learn about the importance of communication in families facing illness, and how acknowledging informal hierarchies can boost workplace collaboration. These examples prove that grounded theory is not just theory, it is a practical tool for understanding and improving real-life situations.

While Summing Up On Grounded Theory Research Methods

Now that you have gone through the complete journey of grounded theory, let’s recap it quickly. We began with questions, collected data like treasures, and pieced it together through coding and analysis. Theoretical sampling filled in the gaps, and category development transformed findings into a coherent narrative.

If you are looking forward to using GT research, remember, it is a unique adventure. Focus on the uncertainties, play with the data, and let the process unfold. Grounded theory is not just a methodology, it is a dynamic journey that can lead to profound discoveries. Trust the process, and you will find yourself at the helm of groundbreaking research.

Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.