Week 4

mloi01

GroundedTheory.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Week 4

Grounded Theory

In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

By: Kathy Charmaz & Karen Henwood

Edited by: Carla Willig & Wendy Stainton-Rogers

Pub. Date: 2011

Access Date: July 5, 2019

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd

City: London

Print ISBN: 9781412907811

Online ISBN: 9781848607927

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927

Print pages: 240-260

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the

online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927

Grounded Theory

KathyCharmazKarenHenwood

Introduction

In this chapter, we present, discuss and illustrate works of some of the many, differently situated researchers

who have, over the last 40 years, originated and developed, employed and reflected upon their use of a

now well-known methodological approach and associated set of inquiry methods known as ‘grounded theory.

These methods provide flexible, successive analytic strategies for constructing inductive theories from the

data. We largely speak about these methods from our two cognate, but sometimes quite different disciplines –

sociology and psychology – although we draw on other contributions, notably those from key grounded theory

researchers and researcher-practitioners within allied health and social disciplines.

While our chapter is, of course, targeted on issues customarily discussed about a particular methodology

and set of inquiry methods, we limit our historical view of the method and instead write very much from the

perspective of the present. We want our readers to have ready, up-to-date access to the substance, character,

and developing use of grounded theory method, and to current debates about these methods. Grounded

theory, as one of us has previously argued (Henwood and Pidgeon, 2003), is not a unitary method but a useful

nodal point where contemporary issues in qualitative social science are discussed. The method originated

in sociology but has become a general method that has informed qualitative inquiry across and between

disciplines. We aim to capture these discussions adequately here.

The Logic, Use and Emergence of Grounded Theory

Grounded theory logic

Grounded theory methods consist of a systematic inductive, comparative, and interactive approach to

inquiry with several key strategies for conducting inquiry (Charmaz, 2006a). Grounded theorists integrate

and streamline data collection and analysis through making systematic comparisons throughout inquiry by

interacting with their data and emergent analyses. We start analysing data from the beginning of our data

collection and begin building inductive theoretical analyses but do not stop with inductive logic. Rather, the

logic of grounded theory requires comparisons and checks that enable us to shape our emerging theoretical

ideas about the data while keeping these ideas grounded in data. We gather data, compare them, remain

open to all possible theoretical understandings of the data, and develop tentative interpretations about

these data through our codes and nascent categories. Then we go back to the field and gather more data

to check and refine our categories. In this sense, grounded theory methods are abductive (Peirce, 1938;

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Deely, 1990; Rosenthal, 2004) because we rely on reasoning about experience to entertain all conceivable

theoretical explanations for the data and then proceed to checking these explanations empirically through

further experience – more data collection – to pursue the most plausible theoretical explanation. Thus, a

strength of grounded theory is that our budding conceptualizations can lead us in the most useful – perhaps

a new or unanticipated – theoretical direction to understand our data.

Both the positivist heritage in psychology and growing interest in constructivism make grounded theory

particularly appealing. Researchers with either objectivist or constructivist proclivities can adopt grounded

theory strategies. Objectivists assume that they make discoveries in a real world separate from themselves

and develop theories whose generalizations transcend particularities. Constructivists view their data and

ideas about it as constructions reflecting specific standpoints, situations, and conditions. In practice, the lines

blur, yet grounded theory is fundamentally an interactive and interpretive method (Charmaz, 2006a). Not only

do we interact with our research participants but also we interact with and interpret the resulting data about

them through successive levels of analysis. We select and use grounded theory strategies according to our

interpretations of the data and assessments of our emerging analyses of them. The entire process relies on

creating these interpretations. We construct theory through engaging in progressively more abstract levels of

comparative analysis. By using grounded theory methods, we learn how to raise the level of abstraction at

each stage of the analytic process.

Grounded theory strategies provide ways of working with data – of seeking, interrogating, managing, and

conceptualizing data – but how we use these methods depends on our repeated scrutiny of our data

and nascent analyses. Thus, grounded theory is an emergent method rather than a method of formulaic

application.

This method holds significant potential for increased adoption by psychologists for five major reasons: (1)

grounded theory offers a rigorous approach to qualitative analysis; (2) it can be used in conjunction with

numerous qualitative approaches such as ethnographic, biographical, or discursive analyses; (3) it fosters

viewing individual behaviour as embedded in situations and social contexts; (4) it fits either constructionist

(interpretive) or post-positivist (quantitative) epistemologies; and (5) it can bridge qualitative and quantitative

traditions in psychology. Psychologists have been moving away from atomized analyses of individuals and

moving toward understanding the varied contexts in which they live. Adopting the logic of either objectivist

or constructivist grounded theory furthers this move. Researchers with both epistemological leanings will find

that grounded theory strategies increase their efficiency and effectiveness in gathering useful data and in

constructing focused analyses. These strengths combined with the logic and rigour of grounded theory make

the method a good choice for mixed method studies.

Using grounded theory guidelines

Grounded theory studies begin with open-ended research questions to explore but follow the ideas that

researchers generate once in the field (Locke, 2001; Pidgeon and Henwood, 2004). Grounded theory

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

guidelines invoke at least a two-phased type of qualitative coding that fosters analytic

BOX 14.1 Basic Grounded Theory Methods*

General Strategies

Engage in Simultaneous Data Collection and Analysis – early data analysis informs

subsequent data collection, which then allows the researcher to define and follow leads in

the data and to refine tentative categories.

Invoke Constant Comparative Methods – involves making comparisons at each level

of analysis, including data with data, data with codes, codes with codes, codes with

categories, category with category, category with concept.

Develop Emergent Concepts – analyses the data by constructing successively more

abstract concepts arising from the researcher's interactions with these data and his or her

interpretations of them.

Adopt an Inductive-Abductive Logic – starts by analysing inductive cases but checks this

emerging analysis by entertaining all possible theoretical explanations and confirming or

disaffirming them until the most plausible theoretical interpretation of the observed data is

constructed.

Specific Guidelines

Initial Coding – begins data analysis early while collecting data by asking ‘What is

happening in the data?’ The researcher examines the data for its potential theoretical

importance, uses gerunds to code for processes, and remains open to the emergence

of all theoretical possibilities. Codes are short, analytic, and active. Line-by-line coding

fosters close scrutiny of the data and minimizes forcing them into preconceived categories

and extant theories. Interrogating each bit of data for its theoretical implications begins the

move from description toward conceptual analysis.

Focused Coding – takes the most frequent and/or significant initial codes to study, sort,

compare, and synthesize large amounts of data. Focused codes become tentative

categories to explore and analyse.

Memo-writing – occurs throughout the research process to raise the analytic level of the

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

emerging theory, identify tentative categories and their properties, define gaps in data

collection, and delineate relationships between categories. Memos become increasingly

theoretical as analysis proceeds.

Theoretical Sampling – entails seeking specific data to develop the properties of

categories or theory, not to achieve representative population distributions.

Saturating Theoretical Concepts – means that gathering more data reveals no new

properties of a theoretical category nor yields further insights about the emerging

grounded theory.

Theoretical Sorting and Integrating – involves weighting, ordering, and connecting

theoretical memos (1) to show how the theory fits together, (2) to make relationships

explicit between theoretical categories or between the properties of one theoretical

category, (3) to specify the conditions under which these categories or this category arises

and (4) to state the consequences of the theorized relationships.

*See Charmaz (2003a, 2003b, 2006a) discussion.

treatment of processes from the start. (See Box 14.1 for an outline of grounded theory

guidelines.)

Coding defines and designates what the data are about and indicate. Traditional grounded

theory coding has favoured examining actions and events rather than the entirety or

unity of research participants narratives. Initial coding opens the data to in-depth views.

Depending on our research proclivities and/or type of data, we study our data closely in

one of the following ways: word-by-word, line-by-line, segment-by-segment, or incident-

by-incident. Line-by-line coding works well with certain types of interview and textual data.

It forces us to look at bits of data anew, dissect them, and label them. Segment-by-

segment coding is useful for ethnographic, narrative, or behaviouristic data. Incident-by-

incident coding provides a strong basis for making comparisons between data, particularly

with intensive interview and ethnographic data.

Grounded theory codes are short, active, and specific. These codes address three

fundamental questions: (1) What is happening? (2) Of what process are these actions a

part? and (3) What theoretical category does a specific datum indicate? (Glaser, 1978).

At this point, grounded theorists remain open to as many theoretical directions as

conceivable. After engaging in initial coding, we adopt the most frequent and/or significant

initial codes as focused codes to examine large amounts of data. From the beginning, we

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

compare datum with datum, datum with code, and code with code in written memos, or

extended notes.

Memo-writing is the pivotal analytic step between coding and writing drafts of papers.

Because memo-writing encourages us to stop and think about our data, codes, and/or

emerging theory, it helps to write them at every stage in the analytic process. Grounded

theorists write memos that range from notes to themselves or a co-author (see Strauss,

1987) to analytic statements that take a code apart and explore its potential for

development as a theoretical category (see Charmaz, 2006a). Memo-writing prompts us

to develop our ideas about our codes and to treat significant ones as tentative categories

to explore and to check through data-gathering. As a result, later memos are more analytic

and may serve as sections of the first draft of the researcher's report.

After establishing some tentative categories, we engage in theoretical sampling to collect

more data to fill out the properties of a theoretical category, find variation in it, or delineate

relationships between categories. Theoretical sampling is a strategy to advance theory

construction, not to achieve any approximation of population representativeness. This

sampling keeps the analysis grounded and makes it fit the studied phenomenon. As

grounded theorists, we presumably sample until we achieve theoretical saturation, which

means that we see no new properties of the theoretical category or connections between

categories. Criteria for saturation rest on a researcher's claims but not all claims to

saturation are merited. An analysis with several major categories that rests on skimpy data

can hardly be saturated.

After researchers have created a set of memos, we sort them to fit our theoretical

categories and to integrate the theoretical framework of the analysis and then write the

first draft of the report. Standard grounded theory practices include creating the theoretical

explication before revising the piece for a particular audience and positioning it in the

literature. These practices encourage us to develop our ideas first and then compare them

with earlier theories and studies.

In essence, grounded theory is a method of data analysis with the intent of constructing

theory. Until recently (Charmaz, 2001, 2002a, 2006a; Clarke, 2003, 2005; Scheibelhofer,

2006), grounded theorists gave scant attention to data collection and some have reduced

concerns about it to slogans such as Glaser's (2001: 145) ‘All is data. These grounded

theorists argue that the quality and quantity of data are not problematic as long as the

analyst achieves ‘saturation’ of categories. Yet they do not delineate useful criteria for

what should constitute either viable categories or saturation. Consequently, a number of

grounded theory studies skimp on data collection and tout description as theory.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Emergence and evolution of the method

In their revolutionary book The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss,

1967), sociologists Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss created an explicit method

of constructing middle-range sociological theory from data. They led the development

of qualitative inquiry by offering the first systematic set of guidelines for managing and

analysing qualitative data. Prior to that time, students learned to conduct qualitative

research from mentors and immersion in the field (Rock, 1979).

Consistent with its logic, the grounded theory method has an empirical foundation. This

method emerged as Glaser and Strauss (1967) explicated how they studied the social

organization of dying in hospitals (Glaser and Strauss, 1965). Glaser and Strauss departed

from mid-century conventions about conducting research because they advocated: (1)

integrating data collection and data analysis, (2) developing middle-range theories from

research grounded in data rather than deducing testable hypotheses from existing

theories, (3) treating qualitative research as rigorous and legitimate in its own right, and (4)

viewing qualitative inquiry as a means of constructing theory. All these ideas challenged

conventional positivist notions of qualitative research as impressionistic, unsystematic,

atheoretical, anecdotal, and biased.

A long tradition of qualitative research in sociology had arisen during the early decades of

the twentieth century at the University of Chicago. By mid-century, however, sophisticated

quantitative methods had gained hegemony in the United States; the gap between theory

and research widened, and qualitative methods waned. Glaser and Strauss countered

this trend with grounded theory and, simultaneously, codified a systematic method for

analysing qualitative data.

The objectivist and constructivist threads in grounded theory have their antecedents

in Glaser and Strauss's contrasting intellectual heritages. Glaser drew on his rigorous

training in quantitative methods at Columbia University to frame central ideas about

grounded theory and to form its language. He sought to bring an analogous rigour to

qualitative analysis that his mentor, Paul Lazarsfeld (Lazarsfeld and Rosenberg, 1955),

had brought to quantitative methods. Glaser imported positivist assumptions of objectivity,

parsimony, and generality to grounded theory. To some extent, Strauss shared his notions

of objectivity because qualitative researchers of the day juxtaposed their work against

positivist notions and, thus were concerned with robust data, accuracy, and neutral

observations of a real world. Yet Strauss also brought pragmatist emphases on agency,

action, language and meaning, and emergence to grounded theory that supported its

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

constructivist leanings. Both Glaser and Strauss emphasized process and saw grounded

theory as a method that facilitated studying processes. Glaser (1978) particularly viewed

grounded theory as a method for studying a basic social or social psychological process.

The founders have each taken grounded theory in different directions since their original

statement. Glaser (1998, 2001) still adheres to positivist principles of discovery, generality,

parsimony, and objectivity and emphasizes neutrality of data, variable analysis, and an

objective, authoritative researcher. He has, however, disavowed the quest for a basic

social or social psychological process as forcing the data into a preconceived framework,

rejected line-by-line coding in favour of incident-by-incident coding, and reversed his

earlier insistence that participants will tell the researcher what the major issue is. Glaser

(2003) now advocates using grounded theory methods to discover how research

participants resolve a main concern, which they may not directly state. Glaser's

commitment to comparative methods has become more explicit over the years; his

defence of small samples has grown more strident, and his dismissal of typical

methodological concerns such as attention to accuracy, standpoints, and reflexivity has

become more transparent.

Strauss (1987) moved the method toward verification and with his co-author, Juliet

Corbin (1990, 1998), added technical procedures that spawned Glaser's (1992) charges

that their method was not grounded theory. Strauss and Corbin's techniques made the

method more formulaic because researchers could apply these techniques to their data,

rather than developing ideas – and analytic strategies – that emerge from their

interpretations of data. They introduced axial coding as means of reintegrating the

fractured data into a coherent whole after taking it apart during initial coding. In this coding,

the researcher treats a category as an axis to delineate its relationships and to specify

its dimensions. In keeping with their focus on conditions, causes, and consequences,

Strauss and Corbin also introduced the conditional/consequential matrix, which is a coding

technique for charting intersections of micro and macro conditions/consequences and

clarifying the connections between them.

Consistent with Strauss's pragmatist assumptions, Strauss and Corbin's 1990 book made

action the centre of the matrix but their 1998 book placed the individual at the centre. If

grounded theory methods remain an approach amenable to studying processes, then we

must preserve a central focus on action. Whether or not axial coding and the conditional

matrix advance grounded theory, make it cumbersome, or abandon its comparative

principles remains unsettled (see Glaser, 1992; Stern, 1994; Robrecht, 1995; Charmaz,

2000, 2006a). Glaser (1992) argues that axial coding forces the data into preconceived

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

categories and contends that his theoretical codes eliminate the need for axial coding. At

the least, technical procedures add to the specialized language of grounded theory and

make it more scientistic.

Glaser's version of grounded theory remains positivist and Strauss and Corbin's retains

elements of positivism such as investigator neutrality and reliance on method but also

promotes postpositivist inquiry in their recognition of narratives, description, and social

structure. Charmaz's (2000, 2002a, 2006a) distinction between objectivist and

constructivist grounded theory offers an epistemological handle for moving grounded

theory out of its positivist roots and further into interpretive social science. She sets forth

a constructivist agenda that adopts grounded theory strategies for coding, memo-writing,

and theoretical sampling but shows how the resulting theory is constructed rather than

discovered. A constructivist grounded theory is located in time, space, and circumstance,

rather than general and separate from its origins, and aimed toward abstract

understanding rather than explanation and prediction. Constructivists assume that (1) the

researcher is a part of what he or she sees, not apart from it; (2) facts and values are

connected, not separate; and (3) views are multiple and interpretative, not singular and

self-evident. These assumptions lead to attending to the processes of producing data –

and theories – and of representing research participants.

Clarke (2003, 2005, 2006) extends grounded

theory by integrating postmodern premises in her explication of situational analysis. She

rejects twentieth-century grounded assumptions of generality, truth, discovery, and

objectivity in favour of a situated grounded theory analysis that takes into account

positionality, relativity, and reflexivity. Like numerous other scholars (e.g.

Charmaz, 1990, 2000, 2006a; Bryant, 2002, 2003; Henwood and Pidgeon, 2003, 2006),

Clarke sees grounded theories as constructed, not discovered. She states that

researchers already have theoretical knowledge and likely considerable knowledge about

the substantive area and specific situation of study before entering the field. Consistent

with Strauss's intellectual heritage, Clarke (2006) not only constructs situational analysis

from symbolic interactionist sociology and pragmatist philosophy, but argues that symbolic

interactionism and grounded theory form a theory-method package in which ontology

and epistemology are co-constitutive and non-fungible. Her position (1) builds on the

pragmatist agenda of empirical study of experiences and practices in obdurate, but

multiple realities; (2) assumes that perspectives on these realities, including researchers,

are partial, situated, and constructed; and (3) takes the situation of inquiry as the unit of

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

analysis. Clarke constructs this situation of inquiry through augmenting grounded theory

analytic strategies with maps depicting complex situations, social worlds/arenas, and

positions taken and not taken.

Grounded theory methods offer a path toward constructing theory, but not a direct route. If

grounded theory methods point the way to theorizing, why do numerous grounded theory

studies remain descriptive? Three fundamental problems impede theoretical development.

First, many grounded theorists do not attain the level of intimate familiarity (Blumer, 1969;

Lofland and Lofland, 1995) with their studied phenomenon that permits looking at it from

multiple perspectives. Instead, their view may remain partial and superficial. If so, they

reproduce commonsense understandings of the phenomenon (see also Silverman, 2000)

rather than regard such understandings as problematic objects of inquiry to take apart

and begin to conceptualize. Subsequently, the finished categories remain mundane and

descriptive; they lack theoretical incisiveness. A lack of intimate familiarity also reduces

the researcher's awareness of the range of variation of the phenomenon, its reach, and

connections with other phenomena and levels of analysis. Some grounded theorists (e.g.

Glaser, 2001, 2003; Holton, 2007) express less concern about the limits of limited data

collection. They argue that the inherent modifiability of a grounded theory allows extending

or refining a theory later. Perhaps. But does it occur? Usually not. Thus, researchers need

to aim for thoroughness and theoretical understanding of variation.

Second, the analytic process starts with coding in grounded theory but most coding

remains topical, descriptive, and general. This coding leads to synthesizing, sorting, and

summarizing data. All are useful but do not fracture the data analytically. A grounded

theorist must take data and codes apart and define what constitutes them. While coding,

we define points and moments in the data that suggest analytic leads or illuminate telling

issues. What we do during initial analytic stages informs what we can develop during

successive phases of the analytic process.

Third, many researchers who claim grounded theory allegiance do not move back and

forth between data collection and refinement of abstract categories. The logic of grounded

theory calls for successively raising the level of abstraction of the analysis through

interrogating it with emergent questions, filling and checking categories through theoretical

sampling, and asking which theories best account for this analysis. If a researcher's

main category is descriptive, theoretical sampling remains at a low level of abstraction

and, moreover, many researchers who claim to adopt grounded theory strategies do not

conduct theoretical sampling at all. Recognition of these problems can prompt researchers

to gain the theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1978) that leads to posing theoretical questions

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

and pursuing theoretical connections.

THE TAKE-UP OF GROUNDED THEORY IN PSYCHOLOGY AND

EMERGENCE OF QUALITATIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Why and how has grounded theory become accepted as belonging not only to sociology

but within psychology? What role has it played in the emergence of qualitative

psychology? In this section we trace grounded theory's insertion into, and influence

upon, psychology's methodological repertoire as it has expanded to include qualitative

approaches and methods. It took 20 years for grounded theory to come to the attention

of psychologists; however, having done so, it rapidly came to occupy a position in the

vanguard of the qualitative approaches and methods used by psychologists.

The earliest grounded theory impetus: Clinical/practitioner psychology

The first psychologists who took up grounded theory principles and practices did so

in the late 1980s (Rennie, Phillips and Quartaro, 1988). These psychologists worked

primarily in the clinical psychology (mental health) research arena, and articulated two

key areas of methodological concern (1) the need to seek out and utilize holistic methods

for understanding and representing clients and research participants lived experiences

and actions, in situ, and in their full complexity and (2) the importance of fostering

forms of theorizing within psychology which can satisfy the demands of those seeking to

combine their clinical/practical interests and academic research. Qualitative methods, and

in particular grounded theory, were deemed to be important in both regards.

Researchers such as Rennie et al. found themselves outside the mainstream of an

academic clinical psychology preoccupied with conducting controlled experimental studies

– as was the discipline of psychology as a whole – and with emulating the standards

and practices of a laboratory-based, natural science. To a large extent, this situation

persists today, as the research concerns and priorities of academic clinical psychologists

resist change for institutional reasons. Most recently, though, new demands significantly

undercut, at least interrupt, traditional priorities. Clinical psychology research must now

show itself to be more directly relevant to patients expressed concerns, as well as applying

itself to the development and evaluation of treatment regimes and psychological/mental

health services.

This latter situation has considerably strengthened the hand of those advocating the need

for clinical (and its later derivative, health psychology) to adopt more flexible, qualitative,

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

and contextualized methods. They aim to afford a better fit between clinical psychologists

theories and practices and the meanings their clients assign to their experiences and

problems, in the contexts of their lives and worlds. Hence, qualitative research

methodologies and methods have gained acceptability, noticeably as part of clinical and

health psychology's development in the UK. Grounded theory is one of the most popular

and widely well regarded of such methods (e.g. Chamberlain, Stephens and Lyons, 1997;

Marks and Yardley, 2004;

Slade and Priebe, 2006).

Questioning scientific orthodoxy, expanding psychological methods:

Critical groundwork for grounded theory in the UK

Interest intensified in grounded theory from the early 1990s in the UK, as part of more

general arguments for challenging scientific/methodological orthodoxy and creating a

space for qualitative research within an experimentally, quantitatively and statistically

defined discipline (Banister, Burman, Parker, Taylor and Tindall, 1994; Henwood and

Nicolson, 1995). A major concern was with the unnecessary narrowness of psychology's

preoccupation with the control, prediction, and measurement of human behaviour and

individual cognition (Hayes, 1997). Social psychologists who critiqued ideas typically

taken for granted within psychology about the practices and procedures of knowing and

science (Harré and Secord, 1972; Gergen, 1973, 1982; Parker, 1989) – and who are now

often known as social constructionists (Burr, 1995) and critical psychologists (Stainton

Rogers, 2003) – did the early groundwork. Proposals for an early progenitor of qualitative

psychology, in the form of an approach called ‘ethogenic ‘ psychology (Harré, Clarke

and De Carlo, 1985), were also put in place. Research following this approach would

analyse meaningful activity in situ, along with participants ‘ everyday understandings

or subjective accounts. Intelligibility and orderliness of conduct would be established

in relation to normative expectations, and its predictability by positing ‘real generative

psychological mechanisms and structures as opposed to abstract cause-effect (or in

behavioural terms, stimulus-response) sequences. Although ethogenic psychology never

really took hold, other than as an interesting but marginal set of theoretical ideas with a few

published studies using the methods (e.g. Marsh, Rosser and Harré, 1978), it did flag the

possibility of psychologists refusing to privilege modernist/dualistic practices such as the

measurement of behaviour over the study of meaningful conduct and people's subjective

accounts, and the use of non-objectivist inquiry methods. In this way it established the

context of critical debate about psychological science, and prepared the ground for the

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 12 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

entry of grounded theory into UK (and later US) psychology.

Grounded theory and qualitative psychology

In their contribution, which made grounded theory visible in the UK (and later in US

psychology), Henwood and Pidgeon (1992, 1995, 2003) argued directly for the uptake

of grounded theory in psychology, as part of their wider observation that psychology

had too long neglected the potential benefits of qualitative research approaches and

methods. In making this claim, Henwood and Pidgeon echoed one of the main arguments

of critical, social constructionist and ethogenic psychologists – that psychology's (dualistic)

way of defining itself as an objective science opened up serious gaps in the logic and

practice of psychological science. Additionally, they pointed out how grounded theory

was a tried and tested qualitative social research method, developed within a cognate

discipline (sociology), epitomizing many of the real potentials qualitative research offered

to psychology. The reprinting of their 1992 article ‘Qualitative research and psychological

theorising in the edited volume Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice

(Hammersley, 1993) signalled a belated but welcome entry of psychological discussions

of quality-quantity issues into the social science methodology literature. Shortly thereafter,

Smith, Harré and Van Langenhove (1995) forecast the possibility of fundamentally

changing the discipline of psychology through qualitative research methods. By including

Charmaz's (1995b) chapter on grounded theory in their edited volume, they brought the

method into the classroom and increased its visibility among disciplinary colleagues.

Grounded theory offered psychologists a set of clearly articulated principles and practices

for working outside the confines of their discipline's highly prescriptive stance on the need

to conduct experiments, utilize psychometric measures, and test hypotheses derived from

universalizing prior theories. This method provided an entrée into the rigorous work of

empirically gathering and analysing initially ill structured, qualitative data, and of making

sense of them in theoretical terms. It opened up a no less trustworthy or valid, but far more

creative and exploratory logic of inquiry than hypothetico-deductive theory and practice:

‘a kind of research in which order is not very immediately attained, a messy intriguing

kind of research in which the conclusions are not known before the investigations are

carried out’ (Gherardi and Turner, 1987: 12). It provided individual researchers with a

set of working principles and practices aimed at both ‘disciplining’ and ‘stimulating’ the

theoretical imagination.

Psychologists using grounded theory could inquire into research problems with

substantive relevance to specific problem domains (sometimes called ‘real world’ inquiry).

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 13 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Although universalizing theories have their role in scientific research, they can engender

researchers’ excessive investment in winning arguments over highly generalized truth

claims, making these theories of questionable value to researchers seeking to create

useful knowledge. In this regard, and as specified by grounded theory, one's primary

concern must be developing a close and meaningful understanding of a particular,

substantive problem or social arena (e.g. the involvement of patients in decisions about

their care; the introduction of new technology into a clinical setting; the management of

risks in hazardous industries). Out of such understanding comes the possibility of research

knowledge of close relevance to the lives of people inhabiting such domains, and also to

the work and decisions of practitioners and policy makers dealing with problems people

encounter in their everyday worlds.

Grounded theory's specific intellectual antecedents in American pragmatist philosophy

and the perspective of symbolic inter-actionism (Denzin, 1996) provided a further reason

for its relevance to psychology, and role in stimulating the development of qualitative

psychology. This linkage should not be surprising since both look back to the late

nineteenth century psychological writings of Dilthey, who insisted that it would be mistaken

to pursue causal explanation at the expense of understanding or verstehen, and that

psychological and social investigations, alike, should ask questions about the creation

of meaning. Pragmatist philosophy instantiates the idea that the value of any theoretical

proposition or explanatory claim depends less on testing it against some absolute,

transcendent reality, and more on considering the kinds of actions and consequences it

allows for as people encounter and negotiate their empirical world (what, as a meaningful

construction, it is ‘good for’; Camic, Yardley and Rhodes, 2003). Symbolic interactionism

articulates a coherent justification for studying not the factors leading to behaviour but how

and why people come to attach meaning to their own and others ‘ conduct, other objects of

experience, and their efforts at understanding and representation (Blumer, 1969; see also

Nicolson, 1999). Symbolic interactionism also addresses action as a central concern and,

in this regard, the combination of symbolic interactionism and grounded theory creates the

potential for forging stronger links between psychology and sociology.

Grounded theory, then, provided a serious option to those psychologists who found

themselves too constrained by psychology's traditional experimental and psychometric

outlook. It posed a different mode of inquiry, creditably located in more expansive and

constructive discussions of how to pursue human inquiry and social science methods.

It allowed psychologists to contemplate – many for the first time – how they might

undertake exploratory research utilizing qualitative, real world data, and with the goal of

understanding and theorizing about people's lived experiences and meaningful worlds, so

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 14 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

that their research might – in the manner highlighted by Dey (2004) and Punch (2005)

– make some contribution to the ways in which people live with their daily problems.

Although ethogenic psychology tried to achieve some of these goals earlier, especially

centring the study of the meaningfulness to people of their conduct and experiences in

their everyday worlds, its designation as a separate type of psychology had, perhaps, not

helped to sustain it within psychology's institutional structures.

Of course, the prospects of any newly introduced perspective on method having longevity

and impact are uncertain. Grounded theory's social science credentials could have made

it seem too cumbersome for a discipline wedded to emulating a natural science model,

while critical psychologists might have alighted upon more worthy voices and trajectories

of science criticism and psychological practice (but see

Charmaz (2005) for developing a critical grounded theory). What seems to have happened

in the case of grounded theory is that initial interest in, and discussion of, grounded

theory's potentials has translated into considerable demand to know ‘how to do

psychological research using the method. The demand has come from clinical and health

psychology research, as already noted, but also from social, critical, and applied

psychology. The plethora of edited, introductory compilations of qualitative psychological

methods texts appearing rapidly since the earliest days have almost invariably dedicate

a chapter to grounded theory (e.g. Smith et al., 1995; Richardson, 1996; Hayes, 1997;

Willig, 2001b), as have texts developed to support training in inter- and multidisciplinary

human and social research including psychology (e.g. Rice and Ezzy, 1999; Ezzy, 2002).

Increasingly, such chapters also draw upon a body of original research studies, a selection

of which feature and are used to exemplify specific methodological points throughout the

remainder of this chapter.

DIFFERING APPROACHES TO GROUNDED THEORY IMPLEMENTATION IN

ORIGINAL RESEARCH STUDIES

One important message in introductory chapters on grounded theory as a methodology

within qualitative psychology concerns the do-ability of research using grounded strategies

and methods within this new field. Another concern we wish to highlight, is how

researchers conduct original grounded theory over time, across a range of different sub-

areas of psychological research, and in the form of smaller and larger scale studies by

single researchers (e.g. Bolger, 1999; Hirst, 1999; Nicolson, 1999); students and their

supervisors (e.g. Sque and Payne,

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 15 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

1996; Tweed and Salter, 2000; Hussein and Cochrane, 2002; 2003); collaborative

research partnerships – often between clinicians and academics (e.g. Borrill and Iljon-

Foreman, 1996); and as part of funded psychological and multidisciplinary projects often

having a medical focus (e.g. Michie, McDonald and Marteau, 1996; Yardley, Sharples,

Beech and Lewith, 2001), although not always (Pidgeon, Blockley and Turner, 1986;

Henwood and Pidgeon, 2001; Cox et al., 2003).

Looking across this range of studies, grounded theory ideas and practices have now

been implemented and used in psychology, and in multidisciplinary studies involving

psychology, in at least three different ways: (1) as a methodological approach supporting

research that distinctively differs from traditional quantitative, hypothesis testing,

experimental, psychological studies; (2) as a set of research principles and practical

methods for describing, understanding and explicating substantive problems in less

distinctive ways in its methodological approach to the quantitative, psychological

mainstream; and (3) as a means of beginning an in-depth, qualitative investigation so that

inquiries produce outcomes well grounded in data, while other complementary approaches

and methods are used to complete theoretical explication and interpretation. This diverse

set of interests is one reason behind the continuing, robust commitment shown in the

perspective and methods of grounded theory within psychology, while consideration of

these interests can illuminate debate about certain quite common practices.

Grounded theory as a ‘big Q’ qualitative methodology

Willig (2001a) and Stainton Rogers (2003), following Kidder and Fine's (1987) suggestion,

introduce the terms ‘big Q and ‘little q to highlight the major differences brought to the

tasks of designing, executing and reporting psychological studies when working outside

the canon of hypothetico-deductive method. Willig describes the meaning of the two terms

as follows: ‘ “big Q” refers to open-ended, inductive research methodologies that are

concerned with theory generation and the exploration of meanings, whereas “little q” refers

to the incorporation of non-numerical data techniques into hypothetico-deductive designs

(Willig, 2001a: 11). The place of grounded

theory studies within this schema is clear: they cannot be ‘little q since ‘ “little q” methods

of data collection and analysis do not engage with the data to gain new insights into the

ways in which participants construct meaning and/or experience their world; instead they

start with a hypothesis and researcher defined categories against which the qualitative

data are then checked (Willig, 2001a: 11). Accordingly, Willig depicts grounded theory as

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 16 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

the first of her ‘big Q methodologies enabling psychologists to explore ‘lived experiences

and participants’ meanings’ (Willig, 2001a: 11).

In discussing the position of grounded theory within Willig's schema, characterizing

grounded theory as more ‘inductive in nature does not mean reverting to a naively dualistic

way of thinking about qualitative inquiry. Grounded theory procedures and practices are

inductive in the sense of not seeking to confirm extant theory. But, as previously noted

in this chapter and in earlier writings (Charmaz, 1990, 1995, 2003), they are also much

more because they involve pushing forward understanding and theorizing through the

researcher engaging intensively with the data, investigating its potentially varied and

multiple contextual meanings. Within psychology, Henwood and Pidgeon have referred to

this mode of inquiry as more ‘exploratory and ‘generative, and (following Bulmer, 1979)

as involving a ‘flip-flop’ between data and its conceptualization. Willig (2001a) describes

the qualitative inquiry process as epitomized by grounded theory as more ‘investigative in

nature, always seeking to find out answers to questions, and never merely seeking to find

out whether a single hypothesis is false or true when tested against a particular sample or

quota of data.

One arena illustrating how psychologists have harnessed the exploratory/generative and

questioning/investigative potential of grounded theory as ‘big Q’ psychology is critical,

qualitative social psychological (specifically feminist) studies into women ‘s life

experiences and mental health. Hirst (1999) chose to conduct a qualitative, grounded

theory study of seven women who had experienced depression because extant research

on the causes of depression had used androcentric models that took men's experiences

as the normative standard, and ‘divorced (theorizing) from the perceptions of those

who have actively experienced depression (Hirst, 1999: 180). In such circumstances,

grounded theory constituted the perfect antidote given its methodological objective to

‘create theory that is intimately linked to the reality of the individuals being studied ‘

(Hirst, 1999: 180). Grounded theory studies showing a partial commitment to questioning

the presumed value of prior, externally derived, universally applicable (i.e. etic) theories

might be censored for lacking critical reflexivity. Nonetheless, Hirst ‘s study illustrates this

practice when she writes reflexively about her expectation that a particular theoretical

category in the prior literature – the constraints operating on women's self-perceptions

through cultural constructions of the ‘good woman ‘ – would feature centrally within

the psychosocial transactions leading women to understand their positions in ways that

rendered them ‘feeling depressed. Following from her methodological stance of gleaning

theoretical explication only through creatively and rigorously interacting with her (in this

case interview) data, her emergent theory turned out to be surprising and quite different.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 17 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Specifically, through charting her participants experiences of a legacy of betrayal in

relationships with significant others, and how this led to a process of ‘becoming

demoralized (e.g. through feeling unloved, unworthy, and unable to change their lives for

the better), she was far better able to account for the aetiology of the unhappiness and,

ultimately, depression, of the women involved in her study.

The big Q/little q distinction encapsulates grounded theory's potential in supporting the

practice of more ‘critical ‘ forms of applied, social and health/clinical psychology. Grounded

theorists and critical psychologists concerns overlap as both seek to introduce a freshness

and newness into arenas of investigation that are not well served by working within the

parameters of normal, theory-testing, quantitative experimental science. Both specifically

question reliance upon forms of prior theorizing – and also reality defining forms of public

discourse (e.g. Hallowell and Lawton, 2002) – that embody dominant frames and values.

Grounded theory also offers a specific set of principles and practices that can strengthen

critical psychologists goal of understanding and explicating people's own life experiences,

everyday problems, and the complexity of psychological and social processes within

particular, substantive inquiry domains.

Grounded theory forms outside ‘big Q’ psychology within psychology and

related disciplines

In order to include recognizable forms of grounded theory studies lying outside the

concerns and achievements of critical psychology, we now consider at greater length

how medical sociologists and practitioner-researchers have used grounded theory

methodology and method. Medical sociology has had a long and vibrant history of major

grounded theory studies in the social psychology of health and illness (e.g. Strauss and

Glaser, 1975; Corbin and Strauss, 1988; Charmaz, 1991; Karp, 1996, 2003; Baszanger,

1998). This area shares overlapping interests with psychologists as evidenced in

Charmaz's and Karp's work, which we discuss here. Charmaz (1987, 1991,

1995a, 2002b, 2006b) emphasizes individual experience and meaning construction in

her studies of people with chronic illnesses. She uses grounded theory strategies to

plumb ordinary meanings and makes them interesting objects of study, such as ‘being

supernormal’ (1987: 296) ‘having a “good” day ‘ (1991: 50), ‘making trade-offs ‘ (1991:

143) and ‘setting priorities (2006b: 30). This strategy simultaneously fosters remaining

open and curious about studied life, learning the logic of research participants worlds,

and minimizes importing disciplinary concepts that contain imputed judgments, whether of

participants motivations or their worlds.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 18 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Charmaz (1991) begins with sensitizing concepts including self, identity, meaning, and

duration, and explores possible connections with time. She ends with major ideas about

the self situated in time and links the self with specific categories such as ‘unchanging

time, ‘drifting time, ‘good days, ‘identifying moments, while challenging professional

concepts such as ‘denial of illness along the way. Grounded theory provides a lens for

seeing beyond established professional concepts rather than only seeing through them.

David Karp (1996) begins with self, identity, and illness career as sensitizing concepts

and traces how people with depression progressively reinterpret the locus of trouble from

relationships and situations to having an impaired self. He contends that they assume

careers as mental patients with distinctive identity transformations by coming to view their

depression as a sickness of the self. The following phases result in identity turning points:

(1) a period of inchoate feelings when the person lacks words to express what he or

she feels, (2) a phase of concluding that something is wrong with me, (3) a crisis that

pinpoints illness and initiates formal help-seeking, and (4) reformulation of identity based

upon illness. Karp supplies direct cues to his use of a realist grounded theory throughout

the book. For example, when arguing against anti-psychiatry advocates who deny the

existence of mental illness, Karp says that he ‘would rather stick with verifiable lines of

analysis that arise out of my interview materials (Karp,

1996: 55).

In his later study of caregivers of mentally ill persons, Karp (Karp, 2003; Karp and

Tanarugsachock, 2000) found that they experience a parallel career of predictable

moments of redefining their obligations to their family member who has mental illness. His

treatment of an in vivo category, ‘drawing the line’, reflects a sophisticated grounded theory

processual analysis. Like most researchers, Karp does not detail his analytic methods

in his book; however, he does specify them in his co-authored article. In the book, Karp

writes about his data-collection methods of participation in a support group and six early

interviews as preliminary to conducting 54 in-depth interviews (although he continued to

attend support group meetings throughout the project). Karp does tell us that drawing

the line emerged as a category over and over in caregivers stories. Identifying this major

process gave him the grist for analysing fundamental meanings of obligation and family.

Practitioner-researchers have also adopted grounded theory methodology and method

within psychological and related subjects allied to medicine (especially nursing studies).

These scholars show fidelity to the grounded theory methodological package, and

commonly seek a strict application of the approach as one among a number of more varied

and specific forms of research practice. To be at their best such studies must avoid merely

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 19 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

setting out to emulate grounded theory by imposing standardized procedures, thereby

falling foul of robust criticism in medical sociology for reducing methodological practice

to technical essentialism (Barbour, 2003) and in psychology to ‘methodogma (Reicher,

2000). As far as we know, discussions and reflections on this situation are few: whereas

the risks posed by poor methodological practice are a subject of discussion (both in

medical sociology and nursing studies), addressing questions of appropriate variation in

practice is rarer. Yet, paying attention to both is likely to prove enlightening, as exemplified

by Henwood and Pidgeon's (1995) and Pidgeon and Henwood's (2004) discussion of how

organizational schema, taxonomies and typologies may represent alternative, perhaps

more achievable, goals for smaller scale grounded theory studies than the development

of an explanatory theory. Accordingly, in our following remarks, we begin to identify such

variations across a range of useful examples of practitioner-researcher studies that we

have found, and treat the question of their methodological fidelity/flexibility as a foothold

for appraising them.

Cohen's (1995) study of how families with a child suffering from chronic, life threatening

illness manage the stress of uncertainty about the child's prognosis exemplifies a

grounded theory study in nursing studies. It provides a clear and specific description

of how the key, defining features of grounded theory design and practice contributed

to the process and products of the reported study (see, for example, discussion of its

implementation of the principles and practices of emergent design, theoretical sampling,

progressive identification of categories of analysis from consideration of the data,

presentation of a theoretical model). Nonetheless, an essential openness characterizes

how even this study, with its apparent ‘textbook-style ‘ fidelity to the grounded theory

method, ‘adopts ‘ some of grounded theory's defining features. Cohen speaks of

employing Strauss and Corbin ‘s (1990) refinements to Glaser and Strauss's original

grounded theory thesis, refinements many read as recommending building a theory

around a core, emergent, theoretical category model in order to explain it (e.g. Tweed and

Salter, 2000). Yet Cohen's primary object of explication is not, in fact, its core emergent

category of uncertainty per se, but the stepwise process as families moved from one

discernable stage to another (from a ‘lay explanatory ‘, to a ‘legitimation, to a ‘medical

diagnostic stage) and an effort to account for ‘significant variation in the parents behaviour

that might have heuristic value (Cohen, 1995: 42). Accordingly, the study illustrates well

how multiple options for finding analytical and interpretive pathways are held within the

framework of grounded theory methodology and methods. Grounded theory was, to all

intents and purposes, adopted as a complete and coherent set of strategies and methods,

but still choices had to be made on how to use it to meet the emergent demands of the

project.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 20 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

In health and clinical psychology, grounded theory is the methodology of choice typically

because of the close attention it enables investigators to pay to articulating the categories

of experience and meaning that make up people's subjective/phenomenal worlds. This is

considered as both a major objective itself, and an inextricable part of investigations into

the social and psychological problems, questions and issues under investigation – often

concerning dynamic social psychological processes. Nochi (1998: 874), for example, uses

the grounded theory method to ‘clarify the categories around the experiences of self that

people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are likely to have, and ‘to discover main themes

and categories in the experiences of loss of self (Nochi, 1998: 870). Bolger (1999: 343)

aims to ‘describe the phenomenon of emotionally painful experiences that occur as a result

of life events and as a consequence of exploring those events within a therapeutic context

and then ‘identify the processes involved in working through emotional pain, highlighting

both the transformative qualities in the painful experience and the components responsible

for the continued avoidance of pain. Wright and Kirby (1999) sought to clarify and explicate

the in vivo/in situ categories of experience and meaning of ‘adjustment to chronic illness

relevant in the lives and worlds of people suffering end stage renal failure (ESRF), as a

strategy to overcome poor conceptualization of the term in a research literature dominated

by notions of adjustment as ‘a return to normal social roles (e.g. work), an absence of

psychiatric caseness (e.g. on depression) or compliance/adherence with treatment (Wright

and Kirby, 1999: 259).

Clearly, for certain research purposes, and following some of the general principles of

qualitative inquiry (e.g. Lincoln and Guba, 1985), charting or mapping out such categories

of experience and meaning in more depth and detail than is possible in other forms

of research aiming to count occurrences of events and establish general patterns, can

be a valid research goal in and of itself. To an extent, this can also be the case, in

grounded theory studies, when reporting early ‘descriptive’ stages of a project. In addition,

conducting and reporting a detailed, rich or ‘thick’ (Geertz, 1973) description can be a

primary means for researchers to demonstrate that they have, indeed, ‘grounded any

theoretical abstractions they make in familiarity, immersion and process of working with the

data. Nonetheless, grounded theory studies that report primarily descriptive findings have

elicited criticisms from numerous different perspectives. In the case of psychology, three

main criticisms have arisen: (1) merely presenting the details and structure of experience

does not amount to articulating a theory (a criticism that possibly insists on only using a

complete version or a single ‘true’ definition of grounded theory); (2) arriving at categories

of meaning and experience does not articulate or interpret their psychological meaning

from the perspective of individual actors; and (3) simply reporting categories of experience

and meaning does not provide for an analysis of social dynamics or process, nor does

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 21 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

it answer specific questions about or explore the theoretical and practical implications of

the data (e.g. Willig, 2001b). From a sociological point of view, the weakness of such

descriptive grounded theory studies lies in their reliance on a loose presentation of themes

derived from the data in the manner of abstract empiricism, as if the data merely speak

for themselves, and where the researcher fails to provide any analytical framing or reading

of the data (Silverman, 2000). Note that, while these criticisms can point to areas of

weakness in grounded theory studies, they do not argue against researchers showing

variation in the way they balance the demands for detailed description and analytical/

theoretical explication of participants experiences and meanings.

A further, notably different manifestation of grounded theory practice occurs when the

method is no longer treated as a distinctively descriptive and analytical, open-ended/

exploratory and investigative, creative/generative and exhaustive/rigorous mode of

inquiry, but rather as a stage in an overall research process adopting a verificationist

approach to method. For example, Michie et al. (1996: 455–6), in their study of family

members attending a clinic for those at high risk of inheriting bowel cancer, used grounded

theory data analysis methods with interview data as a ‘pilot study to generate hypotheses

about how people respond to predictive genetic testing ‘to be tested in a prospective,

wider scale, quantitative study. Borrill and Iljon-Foreman (1996), having established a

plausible model of therapeutic change following a short course of cognitive behavioural

therapy, turned to discuss the need to ‘validate the grounded theory in order to determine

which components of the model were necessary and sufficient to produce change. Yardley,

Sharples, Beech and Lewith (2001) used grounded theory, in an interview study of people

receiving chiropractic treatment for back pain, as a starting point for a more complex,

evolving, multi-phased design, shifting from an exploratory/generative to a verificationist

study in order to ascertain whether it was (dynamic) symptom perceptions, other factors

(such as abstract illness representations and/or communication by and confidence in

the therapist) or a combination of factors that influenced treatment perceptions and

acceptability. Each of these studies points to the continuing pull of discrete variable

analysis and generalist hypothesis testing within clinical research, while also highlighting

the valued (if, in its own terms, limited) role played by grounded theory within it.

Grounded theory used in combination with other approaches to achieve

theoretical explication and interpretation

A further variation in the implementation of grounded theory within psychology is its use

in combination with other approaches. Studies in this mould clearly depart from the idea

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 22 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

of grounded theory being a standardized package, conceiving of it instead as part of a

flexible toolkit of methods. In recent years, a good deal of interest has emerged in social

science internationally in developing principled and practical forms of ‘methodological

combining – interest that will further encourage researchers not to think of methods as

hermetically sealed (e.g. Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2000; Todd, Nerlich, McKeown and

Clarke, 2004; Henwood and Lang, 2005; Moran-Ellis, 2006). Within qualitative psychology,

in fact, investigators have always made decisions and choices about methodology and

method in the light of a broadening comparative, possibly critical, awareness and

understanding of a range of qualitative perspectives and methods with first ‘homes’ within

and beyond psychology (e.g. discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenological theory

and method, voice relational psychology).

Grounded theory and discourse analysis have been used as co-contributors as

psychologists have worked across methodological boundaries. In their investigation into

how men's sense of masculinity is implicated in their involvement in crime, Willott and

Griffin (1999:449) used grounded theory tactics to identify a stratum of in vivo codes

(e.g. earning, money, and the family) in the form of ‘words and phrases used repeatedly

by discussants. These codes were then used ‘to divide the huge quantity of data into

manageable pieces, before moving onto the more theoretical phase of the analysis

(Willott and Griffin, 1999: 449). At this phase, the researchers began to attach greater

significance to ideas and practices from discourse theory: focusing in particular on how

men positioned themselves in their accounts and arguments, and cultural discourses of

gender, masculinity and criminality. In their study of Northern Irish women's experiences

of abortion, Boyle and McEvoy (1998: 291), again, used grounded theory procedures at

earlier stages of analysis for: ‘coding descriptions of the women's experiences in terms of

a chronological sequence’, ‘identifying reference to context at each stage in the abortion

process, and using the resulting ‘themes to guide further reading … to try to ensure as full

as possible use of the women's accounts. In the theoretical explication and interpretation

that followed these authors devised an analytical account relating to the ‘contradictions,

apparent uncertainties, and silences in the women's accounts and the ‘chronological

stages of the abortion process, in order to encapsulate key concerns emanating from

the discourse analysis and grounded theory readings conducted throughout the study,

respectively.

Typically, techniques for achieving theoretical abstraction, integration and explication in

grounded theory studies are through the constant comparative method, Strauss and

Corbin's three C's coding framework, Glaser's integrating families of theoretical codes,

and Charmaz's theoretically sensitive interaction with and interpretations of data – which

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 23 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

is perhaps the culmination of grounded theorists aim to pay constant attention, from

the outset, to theoretical possibilities in the data. In the two cited exemplar studies,

such tactics are not discussed, and do not seem to have been used, although some

comparisons may be made with Charmaz's approach. Rather, a final framework for

reporting the results was arrived at as the authors drew upon a range of ideas drawn

explicitly from theory and the extant literature, to assist them in interpreting, integrating and

explicating the varied, inconsistent and ambivalent meanings in their data. This practice

points to the range of ways in which it is possible to bring analytical closure to studies

using grounded theory in combination with other qualitative perspectives and methods.

Conclusion

In summary, grounded theory studies in psychology attest to the strength of the method for

producing fresh ideas and challenging past truths. The rapid acceptance and ascendance

of the method in the discipline confirm its usefulness in developing qualitative psychology.

Like other scholars, perhaps psychologists first adopted grounded theory as a method

of managing data and engaging in substantive coding (see also Urquhart, 2003). Yet

grounded theory offers much more than coding strategies and data management. Raising

the analytic level of initial coding practices is a start. Psychologists can enjoy a privileged

place of access to people's concerns and experience and a sensitivity to felt meanings.

Grounded theory gives these psychologists tools to treat them analytically in ways that

ultimately afford individuals new ways of understanding their experience.

For academic as well as clinical psychologists, creating increasingly more theoretical

memos advances the analytic process and can spark reflexivity about it. Engaging in

theoretical sampling to sharpen abstract categories and to dig deeper into the phenomena

can also give clarity and precision. The potential of grounded theory's constant

comparative method has yet to be mined as fully as it might be for constructing persuasive

critical analyses to effect change. In short, taken to its logical extension, grounded theory

holds much promise for new theorizing in psychology, for critical inquiry within the

discipline, and for innovative links between academic ideas and clinical practice.

References

Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. and Tindall, C.(1994) Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A

Research Guide.Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

BarbourR. The newfound credibility of qualitative research? Tales of technical essentialism and co-option.

Qualitative Health Research13(7)(2003)1019–1027

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 24 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Baszanger, I.(1998) Inventing Pain Medicine: From the Laboratory to the Clinic.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Blumer, H.(1969)The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. In Edited by: H. Blumer (ed.),

Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (pp. 1–60). University of Berkeley, CA: Prentice Hall.

BolgerE. Grounded theory analysis of emotional pain. Psychotherapy Research9(3)(1999)342–362

BorrillJ.Iljon-ForemanE. Understanding cognitive change: A qualitative study of the impact of cognitive-

behavioural therapy on fear of flying. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy3(1)(1996)62–74

BoyleM.McEvoyJ. Putting abortion in its social context: Northern Irish women's experiences of abortion in

England. Health2(3)(1998)283–304

BryantA. Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and

Application4(1)(2002)25–42

BryantA. A constructive/ist response to Glaser. FQS: Forum for Qualitative Social

Research4(1)(2003)(http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/).

Bulmer, M.(1979)Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. In Edited by: M. Bulmer (ed.), Sociological

Research Methods (pp. 241–262). London: Macmillan.

Burr, V.(1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism.London: Routledge.

Edited by: Camic, P., Yardley, L. and Rhodes, J. (eds) (2003) Qualitative Research in Psychology:

Expanding Perspectives and Methods.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

ChamberlainK.StephensC.LyonsA. Encompassing experience: meanings and methods in health

psychology. Psychology and Health12(1997)691–709

Charmaz, K.(1987)Struggling for a self: Identity levels of the chronically ill. In Edited by: J. A. Roth and P.

Conrad (eds), Research in the Sociology Of Health Care: Vol. 6. The Experience and Management of Chronic

Illness (pp. 283–321). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

CharmazK. Discovering chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and

Medicine30(1990)1161–1172

Charmaz, K.(1991) Good Days, Bad Days: The Self in Chronic Illness and Time.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

CharmazK. Body, identity, and self: Adapting to impairment. The Sociological Quarterly36(1995a)657–680

Charmaz, K.(1995b)Grounded theory. In Edited by: J. A. Smith, R. Harré, and L. Van Langenhove (eds),

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 25 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/

Rethinking Methods in Psychology (pp. 27–49). London: Sage.

Charmaz, K.(2000)Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. In Edited by: N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln

(eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 509–535), 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K.(2002a)Grounded theory analysis. In Edited by: J. F. Gubrium and J. A. Holstein (eds),

Handbook of Interview Research (pp. 675–694). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CharmazK. The self as habit: The reconstruction of self in chronic illness. Occupational Therapy Journal of

Research22(Suppl 1)(2002b)31s-42s

Charmaz, K.(2003)Grounded theory. In Edited by: J. A. Smith (ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical

Guide to Research Methods (pp. 81–110). London: Sage.

Charmaz, K.(2005)Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qualitative method for advancing social justice

research. In Edited by: N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 507–535),

3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K.(2006a) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis.London:

Sage.

CharmazK. Measuring pursuits, marking self: Meaning construction in chronic illness. Qualitative Health and

Well-Being1(2006b)27–37

Charmaz, K. and Mitchell, R. G.(2001)An invitation to grounded theory in ethnography. In Edited by: P.

Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamonte, J. Lofland and L. H. Lofland (eds), Handbook of Ethnography (pp.

160–174). London: Sage.

ClarkeA. E. Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symbolic

Interaction26(2003)553–576

Clarke, A. E.(2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn.Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Clarke, A. E.(2006). Feminism, grounded theory, and situational analysis. In Edited by: S. Hess-Biber and

D. Leckenby (eds), Handbook of Feminist Research Methods (pp. 345–370). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

CohenM. The stages of the pre-diagnostic period in chronic, life-threatening illness: A process analysis.

Research in Nursing and Health18(1995)39–88

Corbin, J. M. and Strauss, A.(1988) Unending Work and Care: Managing Chronic Illness at Home.San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

CoxP.NiewöhnerJ.PidgeonN.GerrardS.FischhoffB.RileyD. The use in mental models in chemical risk

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 26 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

protection: Developing a generic workplace methodology. Risk Analysis23(2003)311–324

Deely, J. N.(1990) Basics of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Denzin, N.(1996)Symbolic interactionism. In Edited by: J. Smith, R. Harré and L. Van Langenhove (eds),

Rethinking Psychology.London: Sage.

Dey, I.(2004)Grounded theory. In Edited by: C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium and D. Silverman (eds),

Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 80–93). London: Sage.

Ezzy, D.(2002) Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation.London: Routledge.

Geertz, C.(1973) The Interpretation of Cultures.New York: Basic Books.

GergenK. Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology26(1973)309–320

Gergen, K.(1982) Towards Transformation is Social Knowledge.New York: Springer Verlag.

Gherardi, S. and Turner, B. A.(1987) Real men don't collect soft data. Quaderno 13,Dipartimento di Politica

Social, University of Trento, Italy.

Glaser, B. G.(1978) Theoretical Sensitivity.Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

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

Glaser, B. G.(1998) Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions.Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

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

Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G.(2003) The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description Remodeling of Grounded Theory.Mill

Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L.(1965) Awareness of Dying.Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L.(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory.Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Edited by: Hammersley, M. (ed.) (1993) Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practice.London: Sage.

HallowellN.LawtonJ. Negotiating present and future selves: managing the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer

by prophylactic surgery. Health6(4)(2002)423–443

Harré, R. and Secord, P.(1972) The Explanation of Social BehaviourOxford: Blackwell.

Harré, R., Clarke, D. and De Carlo, N.(1985) Motives and Mechanisms: An Introduction to the Psychology

of Action.London: Methuen.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 27 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Edited by: Hayes, N. (ed.) (1997) Doing Qualitative Analysis in Psychology.Hove: Psychology Press.

Henwood, K. and Lang, I.(2005) Qualitative social science in the UK: A reflexive commentary on the ‘state

of the art’ [56 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [on-line

journal], 6(3), Art. 48. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3–05/05–3–48-e.htm.

HenwoodK. L.NicolsonP. Qualitative approaches in psychology. Special issue of the

Psychologist8(3)(1995)109–129

HenwoodK. L.PidgeonN. F. Qualitative research and psychological theorising. British Journal of

Psychology83(1992)97–111

HenwoodK. L.PidgeonN. F. Grounded theory and psychological research. Psychologist8(3)(1995)115–118

HenwoodK. L.PidgeonN. F. Talk about woods and trees: Threat of urbanisation, stability and biodiversity.

Journal of Environmental Psychology21(2001)125–147

Henwood, K. L. and Pidgeon, N. F.(2003)Grounded theory in psychological research. In Edited by: P.

Camic, J. Rhodes and L. Yardley (eds), Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in

Methodology and Design (pp. 131–155). Washington, DC: APA Publications.

Henwood, K. L. and Pidgeon, N. F(2006)Grounded theory. In Edited by: G. Breakwell, S. Hammond, C.

Fife-Shaw and J. Smith (eds), Research Methods in Psychology,3rd edition (pp. 342–365). London: Sage.

HirstS. Legacy of betrayal: A grounded theory of becoming demoralised from the perspectives of women who

have been depressed. Canadian Psychology40(2)(1999)179–191

Holton, J.(2007)The coding process and its challenges. In Edited by: A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds), The

Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 265–290). London: Sage.

HusseinF.CochraneR. Depression in South Asian women: Asian women's beliefs on causes and cures.

Mental Health, Religion, and Culture5(2002)285–311

HusseinF.CochraneR. ‘Living with depression: coping strategies used by South Asian women, living in the

UK, suffering from depression. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture6(2003)1–44

Karp, D.(1996) Speaking of Sadness: Depression, Disconnection, and the Meaning of Illness.New York:

Oxford University Press.

Karp, D.(2003) The Burden of Sympathy: How Families Cope with Mental Illness.New York: Oxford University

Press.

KarpD. A.TanarugsachockV. Mental illness, care giving and emotional management. Qualitative Health

Research10(1)(2000)6–25

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 28 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3%E2%80%9305/05%E2%80%933%E2%80%9348-e.htm

Kidder, L. H. and Fine, M.(1987)Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In Edited by:

M. M. Mark and L. Shotland (eds), New Directions in Programme Evaluation.San Franciso, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Edited by: Lazarsfeld, P. and Rosenberg, M. (eds) (1955) The Language of Social Research; a Reader in

the Methodology of Social Research.Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. G.(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry.Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Locke, K.(2001) Grounded Theory in Management Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. H.(1995). Analyzing Social Settings,3rd edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Edited by: Marks, D. L. and Yardley, L. (eds) (2004) Research Methods for Clinical and Health

Psychology.London: Sage.

Marsh, P., Rosser, E. and Harré, R.(1978) The Rules of Disorder.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

MichieS.McDonaldV.MarteauT. Understanding responses to predictive genetic testing: A grounded theory

approach. Psychology and Health11(1996)455–470

Moran-Ellis, J.(2006) Investigating practice and process in integrating methodologies: A demonstrator.

ESRC End of Award Report, March 2006: Reference H333250054. Link to http://www.esrc.ac.uk/

ESRCInfoCentre/lndex.aspx.

NlcolsonP. Loss, happiness and postpartum depression: The ultimate paradox. Canadian

Psychology40(2)(1999)162–191

NochiM. ‘Loss of self’ in the narratives of people with traumatic brain injuries: A qualitative analysis. Social

Science and Medicine46(7)(1998)869–878

Parker, I.(1989) The Crisis in Modern Social Psychology and How to End It.London: Routledge.

Peirce, C. S.(1938/1958) Collected Papers.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Pidgeon, N. F. and Henwood, K. L.(2004)Grounded theory. In Edited by: M. Hardy and A. Bryman (eds),

Handbook of Data Analysis (pp. 625–648). London: Sage.

PidgeonN. F.BlockleyD.TurnerB. Design practice and snow loading: Lessons from a roof collapse.

Structural Engineer64A(3)(1986)67–71

Punch, K. F.(2005)The analysis of qualitative data. In Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and

Qualitative Approaches (pp. 193–233). London: Sage.

ReicherS. Against methodolotry: Some comments on Elliott, Fisher and Rennie. British Journal of Clinical

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 29 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/lndex.aspx

Psychology39(2000)1–6

RennieD.PhillipsJ. R.QuartaroG. K. Grounded theory: A promising approach to conceptualisation in

psychology. Canadian Psychology29(2)(1988)139–150

Rice, P. and Ezzy, D.(1999) Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus.Melbourne: Oxford University

Press.

Edited by: Richardson, J. T. E. (ed) (1996) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychologists

and the Social Sciences.Leicester: B.P.S. Books.

RobrechtL. C. Grounded theory: Evolving methods. Qualitative Health Research5(1995)169–177

Rock, P.(1979) The Making of Symbolic Interactionism.London: Macmillan.

Rosenthal, G.(2004)Biographical research. In Edited by: C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium and D.

Silverman (eds), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 48–64). London: Sage.

Scheibelhofer, E.(2006) The problem-centred interview: Combining different interpretive interview methods

and its consequences. Unpublished manuscript, University of Vienna.

Silverman, D.(2000)) Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook.London: Sage.

Edited by: Slade M. and Priebe, S. (eds) (2006) Choosing Methods in Mental Health Research in the 21st

Century.London: Brunner Routledge.

Edited by: Smith, J., Harré, R. and Van Langenhove, L. (eds) (1995) Rethinking Methods in Psychology

(pp. 1–9). London: Sage.

SqueM.PayneS. Dissonant loss: the experiences of donor relatives. Social Science and

Medicine43(9)(1996)1359–1370

Stainton Rogers, W.(2003) Social Psychology: Experimental and Critical Approaches.Maidenhead: Open

University Press.

Stern, P. N.(1994). Eroding grounded theory. In Edited by: J. Morse (ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative

Research Methods (pp. 212–223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A.(1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A.(1993) Continual Permutations of Action.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.(1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and

Techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 30 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J.(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and

Techniques,2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. L. and Glaser, B. G.(1975) Chronic Illness and the Quality of Life.St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

Edited by: Tashakkori and Teddlie, C. (eds) (2000) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioural

Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S. and Clarke, D. D.(2004) Mixing Methods in Psychology: The Integration

of Qualitative Methods in Theory and Practice.Hove and New York: Psychology Press.

TweedA.SalterD. A conflict of responsibilities: A grounded theory study of clinical psychologists' experiences

of client non-attendance within the British National Health Service. British Journal of Medical

Psychology73(2000)465–481

UrquhartC. Re-grounding grounded theory-or reinforcing old prejudices? A brief response to Bryant. Journal

of Information Technology Theory and Application4(2003)43–54

Willig, C.(2001a)From recipes to adventures. In Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology:

Adventuresin Theory and Method (pp. 1–11). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Willig, C.(2001b)Grounded theory. In Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory

and Method (pp. 32–48). Buckingham: Open University Press.

WillottS.GriffinC. Building your own lifeboat: Working class offenders talk about economic crime. British

Journal of Social Psychology38(4)(1999)445–460

WrightS.KirbyA. Deconstructing conceptualisation of ‘adjustment’ to chronic illness: A proposed integrative

framework. Journal of Health Psychology4(2)(1999)259–272

YardleyL.SharplesK.BeechS.LewithG. Developing a dynamic model of treatment perceptions. Journal of

Health Psychology6(3)(2001)269–282

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927.n14

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 31 of 31 The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927.n14

Grounded Theory

In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology