I'm Working On This Question And I Need A Sample Draft To Help Me Study

groundedtheory.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >I'm Working On This Question And I Need A Sample Draft To Help Me Study

Grounded Theory

In: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Methodology

By: Kerry E. Howell

Pub. Date: 2015

Access Date: June 17, 2022

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications Ltd

City: London

Print ISBN: 9781446202999

Online ISBN: 9781473957633

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473957633

Print pages: 131-153

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.<wbr>doi.<wbr>org/10.4135/9781473957633

Grounded Theory

Introduction

This chapter outlines grounded theory and explains how this methodological approach constructs theory

and provides in-depth insight and understanding of the area or situation under investigation. Grounded

theory builds theory through data collection and analysis in relation to pre-existing theory and practice.

Grounded theory suggests that there is an over-emphasis on quantitative research and wishes to demote

the idea that the discovery of relevant concepts and hypotheses are a priori to research. For further see

(Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a, 2007b; Charmaz, 1983, 2000, 2006; Clarke, 2002; Corbin and Strauss, 1990;

Cresswell, 2007; Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Goulding, 2002; Hood, 2007; Strauss, 1987;

Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1994). Grounded theory posits that theory is derived from data and cannot be

divorced from the process by which it is developed. Subsequently, questions, hypotheses and concepts are

generated through the data and worked out during the course of the research (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Strauss and Corbin (1998) argued that grounded theory provided methodological lenses for seeing and

comprehending the world and involved the following characteristics: first, on the one hand, the means for

critical analysis of events and situations from an objective stand point, while on the other hand the capability

for recognising subjective tendencies. Second, abstract thinking and openness to useful criticism as well as

empathy and sensitivity when dealing with the actions and discourse of those involved with the investigation.

Finally, there should be immersion and absorption within the research, analysis and data collection process.

Fundamentally, grounded theory allows the direction of the research and analysis of the data to be guided

by an empowered researcher. Indeed, because of the flexibility of the approach, grounded theory is used

by researchers from a range of different subject areas and disciplines and deployed in eclectic and distinct

ways. It is used in areas as diverse as business, nursing, political studies, psychology, sociology and many

areas of social science in general. Furthermore, when using grounded theory a number of philosophical

issues in terms of ontological and epistemological positions may be ascertained. This chapter accepts that

this methodological approach is primarily concerned with data collection, analysis and theory construction but

because of the philosophical underpinning as well as eclectic areas that utilise grounded theory, it is worth

identifying its roots and evolution as a useful tool or mechanism for undertaking qualitative research.

Philosophical Underpinnings of Grounded Theory

Even though there is a phenomenological underpinning to interpretations of grounded theory Glaser and

Strauss (1967) primarily drew on the US pragmatist tradition of Dewey (1950) and symbolic interaction

approach of Mead (1962) and Blumer (1969). Dewey (1950) argued that ‘flowers can be enjoyed without

knowing about the interactions of soil, air, moisture and seeds of which they are the result. But they cannot

be understood without taking just these interactions into account and theory is a matter of understanding’

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 22 Grounded Theory

(1950: 12). Theory cannot answer questions ‘unless we are willing to find the germs and roots in matters of

experience’ (Dewey, 1950: 12).

Definition Box: Pragmatism

Pragmatism defines truth as those tenets that prove useful to the believer or user. The

verifiability of truth exists to the extent that actuality or things correspond with statements

and thoughts. Objective truth cannot exist because it needs to relate to practice; both

subjective and objective dimensions are necessary.

In the acquisition of knowledge, an essential element ‘is the perception of relations, especially the relations

between our actions and their empirical consequences’ (Scheffler, 1974: 197). In such a way, the world

around us and individuals take on deeper meaning; in this context, humans need experience and the means

of storing that experience. However, as with phenomenology experience is more than ‘a passive registering or

beholding of phenomena; it involves deliberate interaction with environmental conditions, the consequences

of which are critically noted and fed back into the control of future conduct’ (Scheffler, 1974: 197). Pragmatists

considered that from ‘the child's exploration of its environment to the scientist's theorising about nature the

pattern of intelligent thought is the same: a problem provides the initial occasion of inquiry … Experiment …

is, experience rendered educative’ (Scheffler, 1974: 196).

Through these pragmatist foundations grounded theory can be understood in terms of symbolic interaction,

where the ‘individual enters as such into his own experience only as an object not as a subject; and he

can enter as an object only on the basis of social relations and interactions’ (Mead, 1962: 225). Through

the language and structure of roles we become a generalised other; we attain a consciousness of self as a

generalised other. This may allow the individual to take an impartial and general standpoint in observing and

evaluating one's own conduct when one becomes a generalised other or the object of one's own reflection. At

this point one has become self, which reflects the phenomenological underpinnings of Hegelian recognition

and being in the world.

Blumer (1962, 1969) also built on the work of the pragmatist tradition and considered that, ‘ordinarily human

beings respond to one another, as in carrying on a conversation, by interpreting one another's actions or

remarks and then reacting on the basis of interpretation’ (Blumer, 1969: 71). Grounded theory builds on this

understanding and considers that research should be grounded out of reality and that the researcher should

enter into the field and discover/comprehend what is going on. People have an active role in shaping the

world and through interrelationships in terms of meaning, action and conditions the nature of experience

continually evolves, which creates continual re-interpretation of phenomenon (Corbin and Strauss, 1990).

Indeed, grounded theory is primarily inductive and pursues the interpretations of those involved in the

situation that is being researched and the interpretations of the researcher in relation to the data. Through this

process, grounded theory is enacted and substantive theory constructed. Symbolic interaction is distinct to

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 22 Grounded Theory

human beings, it is part of what makes us human because we ‘interpret or define each other's actions’ rather

than simply react to them (Blumer, 1962: 179). Furthermore, humans have and are able to act towards self.

Mead considered that the ability to react to self was the central mechanism of existence.

This mechanism enables human beings to indicate to themselves things in their surroundings and thus guide

action through what is noted. ‘Anything of which a human being is conscious … he is indicating to himself

… The conscious life of the human being … is a continual flow of self indications’ (Blumer, 1962: 180). Such

is similar to phenomenology in terms of being in the world and intentionality. Fundamentally, ‘the formation

of action by the individual through … self-indication always takes place in a social context’ (Blumer, 1962:

183); as does the background or environment (fore-structure) which indicates possible ways of questioning

(Heidegger, 1962/1984). Additionally, Stern considered that grounded theory was an interpretative method

and was underpinned by ‘phenomenology that is methods that are used to describe the world of the person

or persons under study’ (1994: 213).

Furthermore, with distinct linkage to Heidegger and later Merleau-Ponty, interpretation ‘is grounded in

something we have in advance … understanding operates in … an involvement whole that is already

understood’. Effectively the environment or background determines possible ways of questioning. However,

interpretation is also ‘grounded in something we see in advance – in foresight’ (Heidegger, 2004: 191).

Additionally, interpretation is made on the basis of those interacting with the researcher; in this context, the

individual is both subjective and objective. The researcher is interpreted by self in relation to society and

interpreted by society in relation to self through self-indication. ‘Self-indication is a moving communicative

process in which the individual notes things, assesses them, gives them a meaning, and decides to act on

the basis of meaning’ (Blumer, 1962: 183). However, to accomplish this some foresight is necessary, even if

this is only a comprehension of language or culture. This foresight takes into consideration the theories that

already exist or more formal theories. Additionally, the researcher brings to the analysis expertise, knowledge

and theoretical sensitivity. Effectively, objectivity is continually pursued through the recognition of subjective

influences throughout the research process. As with phenomenology there are relationships between reality

and the human mind. Indeed, the ‘research findings constitute a theoretical formulation of the reality under

investigation rather than consisting of a set of numbers or a group of loosely related themes’ (Corbin and

Strauss, 1990: 24).

‘One now regularly takes an impartial and general standpoint in observing and evaluating one's own conduct

… (however) … The organised community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self may

be called the generalised other which is the attitude of the whole community’ (Blau, 1952: 162–3, original

parentheses). Interpretations of situations change as individuals change (this includes the researcher and the

researched). Indeed, with the knowledge that pure objectivity cannot be attained the research can become

more objective, for example, through accepting subjectivity one can become more objective. Grounded theory

attempts to understand social patterns and construct social theory. ‘Grounded theory involves soliciting …

emic viewpoints to assist in determining the meaning and purposes that people ascribe to their actions’ (Guba

and Lincoln, 1994: 110). ‘Grounded theory methodology incorporates … assumption(s) … concerning the

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 22 Grounded Theory

human status of actors whom we study. They have perspectives on and interpretations of their own and other

actors’ actions. As researchers we are required to learn what we can of their interpretations and perspectives’

(Strauss and Corbin, 1994: 280, authors’ brackets).

Reflection Box: Pragmatism, Phenomenology and Symbolic Interaction

Demonstrate where similarities exist between pragmatism, phenomenology and symbolic

interaction.

Indeed, such identifies aspects of being in the world and intentionality outlined by Heidegger and Husserl.

The rest of this chapter will outline what grounded theory entails and explain how it may be applied. It then

discusses the different perceptions of grounded theory displayed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss as

well as the subsequent variants that evolved from these distinctions.

Using Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a way of collecting data and through comparative analysis and coding a means of

generating or building substantive theory. Grounded theory is about building theory through the collection

and analysis of rich data; that is data that exists below the surface of the social entity being investigated.

To achieve rich data some persistence and creativity in the inquiry process is required. Initial questions the

researcher may first attempt to develop include:

• What research problem should be studied?

• How may the project be undertaken?

• Which methods should be used in the collection of rich data?

The research problem should emanate through work or ideas generated through previous studies; issues that

have become apparent following the writing of a report, essay, dissertation or academic paper. Furthermore,

when identifying the research problem, issues regarding access and participant numbers requires some

consideration. If the right participants are located and access to these allowed, then the first hurdles for

accumulating rich data have been overcome. Such data will illuminate further detail regarding the research

question or issue and enable new insight into what may initially have seemed mundane concepts. Grounded

theory is social science based and involves research about and with people. Rich data enables insight into the

veiled and sometimes opaque feelings, ideas and beliefs of the individuals involved in the investigation as well

as those investigators will undoubtedly carry themselves. Grounded theories are developed or built through

the comparative analysis of rich diffuse data (data collected from different places and through separate

methods). Through writing thick description based on field-notes, observations, personal diaries and accounts

of events as well as interviews and secondary data, detailed narratives may be formed.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 22 Grounded Theory

Fundamentally, grounded theory attempts to improve theory as one can only replace existing theoretical

frameworks with improved or enhanced theories (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). ‘Grounded theory is based

on the systematic generation of theory from data, and itself is systematically obtained from social research

(and) offers a rigorous orderly guide to theory development that at each stage is closely integrated with a

methodology of social research’ (Glaser, 1978: 2). Through comparative analysis, grounded theory creates

theories made up of general categories. It is not necessary to know the empirical or specific situation better

than those involved; the researcher simply wishes to develop theory that applies to relevant behaviour.

Theory is never complete but always under development. Theory generated from data means that ideas or

hypotheses are not only derived from this but worked out in relation to the data as the research progresses.

While positivism seeks to verify deduced hypotheses, grounded theory implies steps prior to discovering

what concepts and hypotheses are relevant to the area of research should be made explicit. Ultimately, the

relationship between categories and sub-categories which are discovered during the research should be as a

result of information contained within the data or from deductive reasoning which has been verified within the

data, but not from previous assumptions which have not been supported (Howell, 2000).

Grounded theory offers a rigorous approach to research in terms of:

• interactive iterative nature of data collection and analysis;

• comparative methods;

• conceptual analyses through memo writing;

• refinement of emerging ideas through sampling;

• theoretical framework derived from and integrated with both data and theory.

Glaser (1978, 1992) identifies the following criteria:

• Fit

• Work

• Relevance

• Modifiability.

Theoretical categories must emerge and be developed from data analysis; they must fit. Grounded theory

should order the data so as to explain the phenomena; it should work. It should have relevance in terms of

dealing with actual problems and processes located in the research setting. In addition, through accounting

for variation grounded theory is durable and flexible.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) challenged the division between theory and data as well as the perceived lower

importance of qualitative techniques in relation to quantitative. Furthermore, they also synthesised data

collection and analysis and critiqued ideas that qualitative research was unsystematic and relied heavily on

impressions. Overall, they argued that qualitative research could go beyond descriptive case studies and

engender theory development. Glaser used his training in positivism to develop a rigorous form of qualitative

analysis. Strauss brought a pragmatic perspective that built on ideas relating to symbolic interaction. Glaser

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 22 Grounded Theory

(1992) clearly states that he used the statistical analytical method as a model for the qualitative method in

grounded theory. Consequently, a model for quantitative analysis provided the basis for a unique qualitative

approach.

The other side of the equation that is symbolic interaction involved a number of underpinnings for grounded

theory. These include:

• pragmatism (close relationship between theory and practice);

• idiographic as opposed to nomothetic research;

• qualitative research as primary rather than secondary;

• exploration as a central function;

• creation of worldviews through sensitising concepts (empathy and judgment are central);

• social action rather than structuration as the main focus;

• symbols are relayed between actors through agency;

• intersubjectivity is central;

• interaction between self and other is central for humanity;

• self is a world of meaning not an external structure (primarily cognitive).

Open and axial coding examines phenomena through comparing and categorising data. This text will break

down coding procedures and explain the processes and activities involved in each of the procedures. The

initial objective for grounded theory is to identify categories and properties which are relevant to the theory

and allow a level of integration. ‘The goal of the analyst is to generate an emergent set of categories and

their properties which fit, work and are relevant for integrating theory. To achieve this goal the analyst begins

with open coding’ (Glaser, 1978: 56). Attention should be fixed on a category and the properties that emerge

continually coded and analysed as the initial basic steps. Fundamentally, the researcher constantly compares

and continually categorises data and concepts.

Theoretical Sampling

Theoretical sampling is undertaken on the basis that ‘concepts have proven theoretical relevance to the

evolving theory’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 176). Theoretical sampling involves three processes: open

sampling, which relates to open coding; relational and variational sampling, which is associated with axial

coding; and discriminate sampling, which is linked to selective coding (coding processes are discussed

below). Proven theoretical relevance identifies concepts that are significant enough to be considered

categories:

they are deemed significant because (1) they are repeatedly present or notably absent when

comparing incident after incident (2) through coding procedures they earn the status of categories

… The aim of theoretical sampling is to sample events, incidents, and so forth, that are indicative of

categories, their properties and dimensions, so that you can develop and conceptually relate them.

(Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 177)

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 22 Grounded Theory

The sampling is undertaken purposefully which encompasses choosing individuals and documentation that

demonstrated variations in the categories and what happened when change occurred. As with the coding

(see below) the distinction between relational and variational sampling and discriminate sampling became

unclear. Discriminate sampling is direct and deliberate. ‘In discriminate sampling, a researcher chooses the

sites, persons and documents that will maximise opportunities for verifying the story line and relationships

between categories’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 187). Sampling in grounded theory studies is concerned with

the ‘representativeness of concepts in their varying forms. In each instance of data collection, we look for

evidence of its significant presence or absence, and ask why?’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 190) (see Table

9.1). Grounded theory studies look ‘for incidents and events that are indicative of phenomena’ (Strauss and

Corbin, 1990: 187). They pursue density and:

the more interviews, observations and documents obtained, then the more evidence will accumulate,

the more variations will be found, and the greater the density will be achieved. Thus there will be

wider applicability of the theory, because more and different sets of conditions affecting phenomena

are uncovered. (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 190–1)

Open, Axial and Selective Coding

Grounded theorist code data as it is collected. Coding defines and categorises data. Codes are created as

the data is studied. Data should be continually interacted with and questions continually posed as the analysis

develops. It should not fit into pre-conceived codes but codes that have emerged through the researcher's

interpretation of the data. Coding is iterative and interactive and line by line coding can ensure that the

researcher's beliefs are not imposed on the data and interpretation.

Glaser (1978, 1992) stressed continual comparative methods, that is, comparing:

• views, action environments, narratives, discourse, beliefs and stories;

• data from the same individuals at different points in time;

• situation with situation;

• incident with incident;

• data with categories;

• categories with categories. (Charmaz, 1983; Glaser, 1978, 1992)

Strauss and Corbin (1990) are more structured and developed new procedures:

• dimensionalisation;

• axial coding;

• conditional matrix.

These are supposed to make emerging theory thicker or denser, complex and rigorous.

Through memo writing, coding provides the very bedrock of grounded theory; the essential relationship

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 22 Grounded Theory

between data and theory is a code, which conceptualises the underlying patterns of the data. Consequently

through ‘generating a theory by developing the hypothetical relationships between conceptual codes

(categories and their properties), which have been generated from the data as indicators, we discover a

grounded theory’ (Glaser, 1978: 55).

Charmaz (1983) considered that coding incorporates ‘the initial phase of the analytical method (and) is simply

the process of categorising and sorting data. Codes then serve as shorthand devices to label, separate,

compile and organise data. Codes range from simple concrete, and topical categories to more general,

abstract conceptual categories for an emerging theory’ (Charmaz, 1983: 111). Indeed, in ‘grounded theory

research there are three basic types of coding; open, axial and selective’ (Corbin and Strauss, 1990: 9).

Through memo-writing, coding requires researchers to re-assess what may seem like an obvious perspective

of the phenomenon under investigation; the data should undergo analysis from different standpoints and

it should be continually critiqued and questioned. Comparison is a central technique and the researcher

should continually compare memos with codes and data with data and codes. Through coding interviews,

documentation, observations, focus groups and secondary data, categories emerge through data

segmentation on which labels may be placed. Coding involves interpreting the data and moving from

concrete to more abstract conceptualisations; through coding one takes the first tentative steps towards

theory generation. Coding involves the very framework of the analytical process and identifies the bridge

between the data and emergent substantive theory. Coding involves microanalysis (detailed close line-by-

line attention) and involves a dynamic fluids process; categories and properties are created and relationships

assessed through open and axial coding.

Definition Box: Microanlysis

Microanalysis can involve word by word coding of the data which forces the researcher

to concentrate on specific meanings incorporated in the text; this means the way the

sentences are structured and flow as well as distinct contexts. Line-by-line coding which

comprises of labelling each line read (not sentences but each line); this throws up

unexpected themes and ideas that one may not detect when coding sentence by

sentence. When dealing with empirical difficulties accounted through observations, focus

groups, interviews or documentation, line-by-line coding is particularly useful as it details

and reveals opaque issues, problems and situations. This coding procedure investigates

underlying meanings and actions as well as clarifies the significance of ideas through

identifying and comparing deficiencies in the data.

Indeed, open and axial coding are undertaken together in the formation of categories and properties, however

for the purpose of explanation we will now separate these activities and explain the processes individually.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 22 Grounded Theory

Memo Writing and Open Coding: A Practical Example

Initially, grounded theory is inductively derived from the study of the phenomena it represents. Data collection,

analysis and theory are reciprocal; one does not start with a theory, which is then tested but with an area

of study from which what is relevant to the area is derived through data collection. Induction is grounded

in social phenomena or observations and experience; hence the strong link between inductive procedures

and grounded theory. Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Charmaz (1983) proposed that data collection and

analysis were undertaken simultaneously and interpretations formed through data discovery. This process

which simultaneously led back to the data (the researcher resides in the field of discovery) allows for emerging

ideas because it provides for further data collection. A main strength of the grounded theory approach is

that data and ideas are derived through the research rather than through a priori deduction. Verification is

secondary to understanding, not simply understanding the phenomenon, but an understanding of social life

as process.

As such, theoretical analyses may be transcended by further work either by the original or later

theorists. In keeping with their foundations in pragmatism, then, grounded theorists aim to develop

fresh theoretical interpretations of the data rather than explicitly aim for any final or complete

interpretation of it … Although every researcher brings to his or her research general preconceptions

founded in expertise, theory, method, and experience, using the grounded theory method

necessitates that the researcher look at the data from as many vantage points as possible.

(Charmaz, 1983: 111–14)

Data is analysed as it emerges or collected and through coding, ‘order created’ (Charmaz, 1983: 114). It is

given that researchers have pre-understandings through their expertise, experience, theoretical frameworks,

and for grounded theory these are important elements of analysis and important perspectives to be taken

into consideration when dealing with the data; it is important that data be considered from many different

perspectives or positions

With grounded theory, data collection procedures and strategies are continually refined; flexible guidelines

are outlined rather than dogmatic prescriptions. Methods that deal with research questions should be targeted

and followed in an investigative manner; methods of data collection affect the extent phenomenon will

become important and how when and where this will be observed. Indeed, methods of data collection

determine how we make sense of the phenomenon investigated. Coding for grounded theory involves posing

analytical questions. Memos provide a record of the research process and include modes of ‘analysis,

thoughts, interpretations, questions, and directions for further data collection’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998:

110).

Strauss and Corbin (1998) give an example of an interview they undertook with a drug user which homed in

on the term ‘use’ as it is specifically used by people when speaking of drugs. Usually when the term used is

employed it means that something is employed in a specific way ‘that an object or person is used for some

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 22 Grounded Theory

purpose’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 110). When one uses something one considers that the user is in control

and when one reassesses the term drug user in this context, even though it specifically means to consume,

remnants of these ideas may also be included in the term; ‘for example, being used for some reason, having

control over what one does’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 111). Rather than simply taking drugs the term drug

user takes on a number of connotations in terms of ‘self-control over usage … purposeful … directed act that

serves as an end and has a desired effect’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 111) Consequently, even though such

issues may not be explicit in the data during the initial stages, this code or idea is something that may be

kept in mind and used as the analysis and further data collection progresses (ibid). So the memo ‘user’ arises

and directs the researcher to think in more detail about this term, for instance, one does not usually employ

the term an ‘alcohol user’ and if one did what would this actually mean? Think of the reasons you may use

alcohol; do you use it to cook, get to sleep, get drunk, take to dinner parties or provide for individuals invited

to your home, do you use alcohol in bars, the park, at home, what type of alcohol do you use spirits or wine,

do you drink alone or only with company, does it relax you and assist sleep, for how long does someone

and how often do they use alcohol? Each of these questions raise certain properties regarding alcohol use

‘such as frequency, duration, type, purpose, way of using and place of use’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 111)

Consequently, in subsequent interviews issues regarding these properties may be further explored in terms

of, reasons for usage, place, type, environment, levels of usage. Indeed, the category use or user is beginning

to emerge and the properties relating to this may be placed on a ‘dimension’ with say ‘usage’ at one point and

‘reason’ at the other with the other terms placed on this dimension in relation to these two extremities. User

emerges into a category with properties representing property locations along the continuum. For example,

alcohol usage in terms of alcoholism and social drinker may be identified in terms of frequency and type (the

number of times one gets drunk and strength of alcohol) will distinguish between these properties within this

category. However, we may wish to clarify what we mean by social drinker and identify distinctions regarding

drinking alone or not and the type of alcohol consumed. Further delineations may emerge in terms of binge

drinking and how this may differ from alcoholism or social drinking; through such a process, property patterns

begin to emerge and congregate on the dimension. Dimensions involve the ‘range along which general

properties of a category vary, giving specification to a category and variation to the theory’ (Strauss and

Corbin, 1998: 101). Obviously, through further data collection and analysis this dimensionalisation may be

further developed and/or transformed.

Axial and Selective Coding

Axial coding involves the re-structuring of the whole process by finding connections between the data. Axial

coding pulls the analysis together and provides a means of unifying the data into a coherent whole. It indicates

how the categories created by open coding fit together and how they congregate around a core category. This

type of coding provides a means of organising large amounts of data as the analysis details and understands

the development of a major or core category. Fundamentally axial coding links categories and sub-categories

through diagrams as it pursues the development of substantive theory. It uses a set of terms to denote the

process which include: causal conditions and phenomenon, which involve the environment of the researched

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 22 Grounded Theory

in terms of circumstance or specific situation and the entity under analysis as well as the context or the

more general historical and social/cultural situation within which the research or investigation is undertaken.

The intervening conditions which pull together answers relating to questions regarding why where, what,

when, how? This portrays the need for action/interaction between entities in terms of the reason certain

ideas and events occurred, for example, whether these be strategic or routine responses made to certain

conditions, phenomenon or questions; action and interaction correspond with questions relating to whom and

how. Finally, the consequences are the outcome of the process especially the success or failure of the action/

interaction between entities. Consequences are denoted through questions relating to the outcome of actions

and interactions, for example what would happen if x or y occurred? In ‘axial coding we continue to look for

additional properties for each category and to note the dimensional location of each incident, happening or

event’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 114–15).

Definition Box: Axial Coding

Axial coding is illustrated through:

• causal conditions;

• phenomenon;

• context;

• intervening conditions;

• action/interaction;

• consequences. (Corbin and Strauss, 1990: 96–7)

Axial coding can be used as a framework to encourage the emergence of categories which provide insight

into the core category and the substantive theory. Glaser considered that axial coding ‘undermines and

confuses the very method that he (Strauss) is trying to build’ (1992: 61). This process forces the data

and negates theoretical coding. The grounded theorist should code categories and properties and allow

theoretical codes to emerge where they will. Strauss and Corbin (1990) argued that axial coding allows

a more focused means of discovering and relating categories. Strauss and Corbin develop categories

(phenomenon) in relation to the underlying conditions that enable its development, and through identification

of properties the location of this phenomenon on a dimension (dimentionalisation), the context and the action/

interaction strategies used to ‘handle, manage, and respond to this phenomenon’ (1990: 61).

Selective coding illustrates how the phenomenon fits around a core category and involves the process by

which emerging categories are organised and unified around a core category (Corbin and Strauss, 1990).

Core categories incorporate central phenomenon of research projects as they are identified through questions

such as: ‘What is the main analytical idea presented in this research? What does all the action/interaction

seem to be about? The selection of data and the creation of other categories are processed with the core

category in mind which are identified and unified through axial coding.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 12 of 22 Grounded Theory

Between these three coding procedures exists ‘process’ through which changes to the data are monitored

and made explicit. Process is also built into the theory. Process analysis involves ‘breaking phenomenon

down into stages, phases, or steps. Process may also denote purposeful action/interaction that is not

necessarily progressive, but changes in response to prevailing conditions’ (Corbin and Strauss, 1990: 10).

Even though initially inductive, grounded theory also involves a deductive component, which is primarily used

during the identification and pursuit of process. ‘As you have probably noticed while coding we are constantly

moving between inductive and deductive thinking’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 111). When process is difficult

to identify, the researcher may turn to deductive analysis so as to identify, possible situations of change, ‘then

go back to the data or field situation and look for evidence to support refute or modify that hypothesis’ (Strauss

and Corbin, 1990: 148).

Theoretical Sensitivity

Grounded theory research should be approached with an objective demeanour, pursed with an open mind

and primarily through inductive processes. That said, one must acknowledge that objectivity, an open mind as

well as a completely inductive position are difficult to attain. Everyone is instilled with subjective tendencies

and pre-conceptions, that said recognising these tendencies is part way to dealing with them. To overcome

these tendencies one may use one's theoretical sensitivity, which allows the researcher to remain sensitive

and ‘record events and detect happenings without first having them filtered through and squared with pre-

existing hypotheses and biases’ (Glaser, 1978: 3). As identified in the phenomenology of Heidegger and

Merleau-Ponty individuals have pre-determined ideas and different levels of sensitivity, which depend on

‘previous reading and experience with or relevant to the area … Theoretical sensitivity refers to the attribute

of having insight, the ability to give meaning to data, the capacity to understand, and the capability to separate

the pertinent from that which isn't … It is theoretical sensitivity that allows one to develop a theory that is

grounded conceptually dense’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 40–1). Glaser expanded on his earlier definition of

theoretical sensitivity and argued that it ‘refers to the researcher's knowledge, understanding, and skill which

foster his generation of categories and properties’ (1992: 27).

Question: Theoretical Sensitivity

What is theoretical sensitivity? How does this relate to ideas outlined by certain

phenomenological positions?

Surveys in Grounded Theory

Within the grounded theory methodology the role surveys and quantitative data play is ambiguous. ‘The

sociologist whose purpose is to generate theory may of course collect his own survey data, but, for several

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 13 of 22 Grounded Theory

reasons, he is more likely to analyse previously collected data called secondary (data)’ (Glaser and Strauss,

1967: 187). However, the researcher should give him/herself the ‘freedom in the flexible use of quantitative

data or he or she will not be able to generate theory that is adequate … (and) in taking this freedom … be

clear about the rules he is relaxing (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 186). Such flexibility will allow the richness of

qualitative data to become apparent:

and lead to new styles and strategies of quantitative analysis, with their own rules yet to be

discovered … For example, in verification studies cross-tabulations of quantitative variables

continually and inadvertently lead to discoveries of new social patterns and new hypotheses that are

often ignored as not being the purpose of the research. (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 186)

Grounded theory relaxes rules of verification and accuracy of evidence to enable further theory generation

‘the way they are relaxed for purposes of generating theory could apply to many styles of analysis’ (Glaser

and Strauss, 1967: 187). ‘One might use qualitative data to illustrate or clarify quantitatively derived findings;

or, one could quantify demographic findings. Or, one could use some form of quantitative data to partially

validate one's qualitative analysis’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 18–19). This outcome may be realised through

triangulation. Consequently, although surveys are not grounded theory techniques in the purest sense, used

in certain ways they may benefit theory generation. In this context, they may be utilised in a grounded theory

study and eventually they may be considered as part of the technique. This, one may speculate, is the

direction in which Glaser and Strauss (1967) pointed toward and Glaser (1992) makes clear. ‘To repeat,

qualitative analysis may be done with data arrived at quantitatively or qualitatively or in some combination’

(Glaser, 1992: 11) All methods are acceptable and how they may be used ‘together effectively … depends on

the research’ (Glaser, 1992: 12).

Example: Using a Survey

To supplement categorisation and provide further coding a survey can be conducted

to investigate further perceptions. The survey questions can be formulated in relation

to …categories dimensions and properties (developed through previous coding) and

emphasised basic questions such as When? Where? What? and How Much? (Howell,

2000).

Substantive and Formal Theory

Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that grounded theory was concerned with two types of theory: substantive

and formal. They emphasised that theory generation was accomplished through the collection, coding and

analysis of data and that these three operations, as far as was possible, were undertaken together. Collection,

coding and analysis should interact throughout the investigation as their separation hinders theory generation

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 14 of 22 Grounded Theory

and set ideas stifle it.

Definition Box: Substantive Theory

Substantive theory necessitates four central criteria. Fit, comprehension, generality and

control: first, theory should be induced from diverse data and be faithful to reality (it should

fit). Second, the fit should be comprehensible; third, the data should be comprehensive

and interpretations conceptually wide (there should be generality). Finally, in relation

to generality, it should be made clear when conditions apply to specific situations and

phenomenon (there should be control) (Corbin and Strauss, 1990).

Grounded theory generates substantive theory through comparative analysis and coding. It does not attempt

to undermine theory but improve it ‘a theory's only replacement is a better theory’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967:

28).

Grounded theory is based on the systematic generation of theory from data, and itself is

systematically obtained from social research. Thus, the grounded theory method offers a rigorous

orderly guide to theory development that at each stage is closely integrated with a methodology of

social research. (Glaser, 1978: 2)

Through the general method of comparative analysis, grounded theory wishes to create a theory made up of

general categories.

A formal theory is composed of a model plus an indefinite number of interpretations, and there

is a sharp distinction between model and interpretation. A model is not affected by any of its

interpretations, but can be understood and studied in abstraction from all of them … A substantive

theory … is … about something in the real world. (Diesing, 1972: 31)

Consequently, substantive theory needs to be verified and if changes to the theory are to be made there must

be references to empiricism. The formal theory ‘can be understood and studied in abstraction … one can …

make deductions, search for inconsistencies, study the effects of changes in those postulated, and add new

terms without referring to anything empirical’ (ibid). Formal theories are more abstract and may be broken

down into meso (middle range), grand or meta theories (philosophies); as discussed in more detail above.

Substantive theory relates to a practical situation and through accumulation of substantive theory can develop

and become meso, grand and eventually meta theory.

This chapter acknowledges that it is easy to find a problem with a theoretical concept by identifying that

certain data is missing. This could be the charge against most analyses. However, as Glaser and Strauss put

it: ‘If each debunker thought about the potential value of comparative analysis … he would realise that he has

merely posed another comparative datum for generating another theoretical property or category’ (1967: 22).

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 15 of 22 Grounded Theory

Despite what those concerned with evidence may say, nothing has been disproved, only another comparison

created (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Theory is never a finished product, but always under development.

Generating theory from data means that most of the ideas or hypotheses are not only derived from the data

but are worked out in relation to the data as the research progresses.

Question: Grounded Theory

Identify why and then how you might undertake a grounded theory approach for an

upcoming research project. What would you consider the major strengths and weaknesses

of this approach?

Theory building is an important element within the phenomenological tradition or approach. Made explicit in

grounded theory qualitative research allows substantive frameworks to emerge through the categorisation

of data. Substantive theory is concerned with a specific domain or area of inquiry and closely related to

practical situations. Substantive theories are developed to illuminate nuances of human interaction; they are

embedded in the relationship between theories and practice (praxis).

Categories are continually synthesised to form a theoretical framework through the continual attention to

the relationship between memos and existing theoretical ideas. Memos and ideas are continually coded

and through weaving these together substantive theory gradually emerges. Coding data and memo-writing

are central to the grounded theory technique of constructing substantive theory; memos may be written

representations, diagrams, tables, matrices or vignettes. Through such a process substantive theory will

gradually emerge. Furthermore, a core category may be identified around which peripheral categories

revolve. Core categories require the following dimensions: they need to relate to other categories in some

form or another in qualitative (depth of relations) and quantitative (number of relations) contexts, be recurrent

in the data, maximise variations and build theory with implications for pre-existing formal theory. In relation

to these approaches substantive theory may also involve a model or a diagram of the framework identified

through the core category and related peripheral categories. The substantive theory should identify how

the separate categories are integrated within the theory; it needs to be conceptually dense and integrated.

However, density and integration require intimacy with the data and close proximity to those being researched

and analysed which may fall into the trap of simply stating the obvious. Consequently, the substantive

or emergent theory needs to relate to formal or pre-existing theoretical frameworks. ‘A substantive theory

generated from the data must be formulated, in order to see which of diverse formal theories are, perhaps,

applicable for furthering additional substantive formulations’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 34).

Substantive theory is developed in relation to an empirical situation whereas formal theories either pre-exist or

are built with regard for a formal or conceptual area. Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that both substantive

and formal theories exist between models and grand theory but in the main they take the form of meso

theories and allow a bridge between lower range theories and philosophical perspectives. Formal theory may

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 16 of 22 Grounded Theory

be generated directly from the data but it is more conducive to develop substantive theory and from this move

onto more formal applications.

Disputation in Grounded Theory: Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss

For many years there existed a dispute between Glaser and Strauss, which revolved around differences

regarding the emergence and forcing of data. Glaser considered that Strauss and Corbin's ‘pet theoretical

code violates relevance and forces data’ (Glaser, 1992: 28). He contended that such a structured outlook

undermines the emergent, empirical and endless ways of relating substantive codes. ‘The researcher must

be aware of the vast array of theoretical codes to increase his sensitivity to their emergence in the data’

(Glaser, 1992: 28). However, in their work Strauss and Corbin address their book to those ‘who are about

to embark on their first qualitative analysis research project and who want to build theory at the substantive

level’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 8). In other words, it is a simplification, which may lead the researcher into

the more difficult nuances of grounded theory.

Verification also seems to be a sticking point between the scholars. However, on closer examination neither

is pursuing pure verification; each wishes for it to add to theory generation not to negate or disprove ‘but add

variation and depth of understanding’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 109). Glaser argued that the ‘two types of

methodologies should be seen in sequential relation. First we discover the relevance and write hypotheses

about them, then the most relevant may be tested for whatever use may require it’ (1992: 30). Whereas,

Strauss and Corbin saw it as an aspect of the grounded theory method; they considered that statements

should be verified against data, not to ‘necessarily negate our questions or statements, or disprove them,

rather … add variation and depth of understanding’ (Corbin and Strauss, 1990: 108–9). It is just as important

to ‘find differences and variation as it is to find evidence that supports our original questions and statements.

The negative or alternative cases tell us that something about them is different so we must move in and take a

closer look’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 109). However, each considers that it is possible to utilise verification

as part of theory generation, the latter as part of grounded theory and the former as a methodology in its own

right (see Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 107–9, Strauss, 1987: 11–15 and Glaser, 1992: 27–30).

Strauss (1987) makes his position clear where he contends that induction, deduction and verification are

the very basis of grounded theory. ‘Because of our earlier writing in Discovery (1967) where we attacked

speculative theory – quite ungrounded in bodies of data – many people mistakenly refer to grounded theory

as “inductive theory” (however), as we have indicated all three aspects of inquiry … are absolutely essential’

(Strauss, 1987: 12 author's brackets). ‘Grounded theory is of course inductive; a theory is induced or

emerged after data collection starts. Deductive work in grounded theory is used to derive from induced codes

conceptual guides as to where to go next for which comparative group or sub-group, in order to sample for

more data to generate the theory’ (Glaser, 1978: 37–8).

Glaser and Strauss’ disagreements are based around their emphasis on deductive and inductive processes;

Strauss considers that induction, deduction and verification are essential elements of grounded theory.

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 17 of 22 Grounded Theory

Induction is primarily based on experience with the same kind of phenomena at some point in the past. It may

be apparent because of personal experiences, exploratory research into phenomenon, previous research or

because of theoretical sensitivity (knowledge of technical literature). ‘As for deduction: Success at it rests

not merely on the ability to think logically but with the experience in thinking about the particular kind of

data under scrutiny’ (Strauss, 1987: 12). This means drawing on experience as well as thinking about the

phenomenon and may include comparative analysis to further the deductive powers (Strauss, 1987: 12). He

also indicated that experience and learned skills are very important for verification. ‘If … experience and

associated learned skills at verification, deduction and induction are central to successful enquiry, do not

talent-gifts-genius contribute to that success?’ (Strauss, 1987: 13).

Strauss and Corbin (1990) proposed that in grounded theory there is a continual movement between inductive

and deductive thinking and that their statements are deductively proposed and verified. There is a continual

comparison of incidents ‘there is a constant interplay between proposing and checking. This back and forth

movement is what makes our theory grounded’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 111). Glaser posits that it is

at this point that Strauss and Corbin indulge in ‘full conceptual description by forcing the data and leaving

the emergence of grounded theory out completely’ (Glaser, 1992: 71). The sticking point is the confusion

between induction and deduction. Glaser charged that he (Strauss) ‘confuses induction with testing deductive

hypotheses which are forced on the data (and) that it is not inductive to say the data disproves a hypothesis, it

is simply a verification’ (1992: 71). However, Strauss and Corbin contended that it is necessary to continually

verify ‘concepts and relationships arrived at through deductive thinking must be verified over and over again

against actual data … we are building grounded theory and it is the grounding or verification process that

makes this mode of theory building different’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990: 111–12). In response to this Glaser

argued that Strauss and Corbin are developing a verification method. ‘It simply tests forced conceptual

hypotheses’ (Glaser, 1992: 92). It is not a method that generates theory but one that verifies; it is a theory that

forces the data rather than allowing it to emerge. For Glaser it was crystal clear that Strauss and Corbin had

created a verification method.

Glaser argued that ‘grounded theory is multivariate. It happens sequentially, simultaneously, serendipitously

and scheduled’ (1998: 1). Grounded theory is suitable for dealing with many research problems and requires

that the researcher let go (pursue induction) and not attempt to force models onto the data. ‘Grounded theory

requires a tolerance for feeling out of control while generating the beginning of a relevant main concern, a

core category and sub-categories’ (Glaser, 1998: 11). It is a revolving step-method that starts the researcher

from being ‘know nothing to becoming an expert who will later become a theorist with a publication and with

a theory that accounts for most action in a substantive area’ (ibid, p 13).

Glaser (2001) further argued that as the most widely used methodology in the social sciences grounded

theory provides a set of steps that are closely linked or underpinned by the rigours of good science. Grounded

theory was identified by Glaser (2001) as an approach to both qualitative and quantitative data collection

and analysis in response to positivistic attempts to force theory on data which created misfit and irrelevance.

Glaser (2005) reassesses grounded theory analysis and identifies the differences between data gathered in

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 18 of 22 Grounded Theory

everyday life and that collected for scientific study. Glaser and Holton (2007) are predominantly concerned

with what they label ‘exampling’ (that is providing case studies or examples of research where grounded

theory was used) and how this offers a learning experience no matter how experienced in grounded theory

the researcher may be. Exampling identified ‘the power and scope of classical grounded theory … the global

reach of the methodology and the varying levels of methodological maturity of the authors … exampling …

provides a rich range of theories that have emerged largely from novice efforts at applying the methodology.

They are theories from which all may learn about the application of grounded theory’ (Glaser and Holton,

2007: 1).

Question: Glaser and Strauss

Discuss the main differences between Glaser and Strauss. Which approach to grounded

theory would best suit your research project?

Charmaz (2000) considered that even though Glaser and Strauss were not quantitative, each of their

perspective involved a post-positivist ontological position. Even though both Glaser and Strauss were deeply

divided regarding a number of issues relating to grounded theory, both identified an external objective reality

and neutral observer. Each argued for unbiased data collection, differing levels of technical procedures and

means of representing respondents as accurately as possible. That said, both Glaser and Strauss have

similarities with critical theory and constructivism when they wish to give voice to their respondents and

acknowledge how their views differ from those of the researcher. They also consider that art as well as

science should be utilised as an analytical tool.

Constructivist grounded theory assumes a relativism of multiple realities and the co-creation of knowledge.

It emphasises natural settings and develops a non-post-positivistic stance. To enable this grounded theory,

research should not be rigid or prescriptive, should focus on meaning to intensify interpretive understanding

and desist from using a purely post-positivist approach. Charmaz (2000) juxtaposes constructivist and post-

positivist perspectives to grounded theory but qualifies this when she acknowledges that this methodological

approach may be used with elements of both paradigms of inquiry and that distinctions between the two exist

on a continuum.

Identifying the Nature of Grounded Theory: Further Distinctions

Charmaz (2006) invites the reader to accompany her as she ascends the levels of analysis and theoretical

conceptualisation while ensuring one is firmly adhered to the data on the ground or in the field. She identifies

the main distinction between Glaser and Strauss in terms of positivism and pragmatism; Glaser more aligned

with the former and Strauss closer to the latter. Glaser incorporated empiricism and rigorous coding and

emphasised emergent properties and discoveries, whereas, Strauss emphasised human agency, subjectivity

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 19 of 22 Grounded Theory

and emergent processes. That said, both believed in the emergence of theory and relationships between

objectivity and subjectivity; Glaser was more inductive and less rigid or more phenomenological and Strauss

and Corbin more prescriptive and positivistic in process. However, Strauss based his perspective on symbolic

interaction (see above) which as discussed incorporates elements of pragmatism and phenomenology. Most

grounded theories are substantive because they deal with specific issues in delimited areas. However, these

can become formal theories ‘through generating abstract concepts and specifying relationships between them

to understand problems in multiple substantive areas’ (Charmaz, 2006: 8).

Following the conflict between Glaser and Strauss and Corbin regarding the nature of grounded theory, others

involved themselves in the debate and devised their own understanding of grounded theory. For example,

Denzin and Lincoln (1994) considered that grounded theory can be post-positivist and/or constructivist.

Annells contended that our understanding of grounded theory is based on an ‘awareness of the method's

ontological, epistemological and methodological perspectives’ (1996: 379) and that these may be broken

down into four paradigms of enquiry; positivism, post-positivism, critical theory and constructivism. Indeed,

that understanding of methodology and consequently grounded theory are determined by one's metaphysical

assumptions. Through their own epistemological positions scholars formulated their own understandings of

grounded theory with most agreeing that it was not a unified framework. Indeed grounded theory should be

seen as a family of methodologies that are distinct from other qualitative methodologies and share common

characteristics (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a, 2007b; Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2007; Goulding, 2002; Hood,

2007). These differences between grounded theory involve what has been identified as the holy trinity;

that any grounded theory study requires theoretical sampling, emerging categories through the constant

comparison of data and the development of substantive theory through the theoretical saturation of categories

(Hood, 2007)

Definition Box: Grounded Theory

A grounded theory methodological approach requires:

• theoretical sampling;

• emergence of categories through comparative analysis;

• substantive theory development.

A number of perspectives exist but the three main influences in the new streams of

grounded theory emanate from the social constructivist position (Charmaz, 2000, 2006),

postmodernist situational analysis (Clarke, 2002) and anti-post-positivist position (Bryant,

2002; Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a, 2007b). Each transcends the post-positivist

dimensions of both Glaser and Strauss; each places a premium on the relationship

between the researcher and researched and the multiplicity of those involved in the

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 20 of 22 Grounded Theory

construction of reality or theory (Charmaz, 2000, 2006). Furthermore situational analysis

focuses on social situations, the co-construction of knowledge and interaction between

researchers and researched (Clarke, 2002).

Conclusion

This chapter has dealt with grounded theory and identified that it involves developing theory through data

collection and analysis; it mainly uses qualitative data and recognises the close connection between theory

and practice. It has also outlined that some disputation exists regarding the nature of grounded theory

and identified that Glaser and Strauss considered that ‘grounded theory be flexibly interpreted and that

researchers should use it in their own way that is, as it fits their investigation’ (1967: 9). Charmaz viewed

grounded ‘as a set of principles and practices … (which) can complement other approaches to qualitative

data analysis, rather than stand in opposition to them … grounded theory serves as a way to learn about

the worlds we study and as a method for developing theories to understand’ these worlds and phenomenon

(2006: 9). Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that theory is discovered as it emerges through the data. For

Charmaz (2006) neither ‘theories nor data are discovered they are part of the same world as ourselves and

we construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people,

perspectives and research practices’ (2006: 10). Theoretical perspectives offer an interpretive portrayal of

the world under study and analysis not an extant picture (2006: 10). Substantive theories are ontological

constructions and grounded theory involves phenomenological, interpretivist positions with pragmatist

underpinning. Charmaz (2000; 2006) deals with re-assessing meanings or interpretations of theory in relation

to methodology: positivist and constructivist types of grounded theory are juxtaposed to illustrate how different

modes of analysis stem from contrasting starting points. Finally, reflection is dealt with in terms of grounded

theory processes.

Furthermore, grounded theory raises difficulties regarding precise definitions of induction and deduction and

the point where the former begins and the latter ends (and vice versa) and the grey area between the two.

Alfred Marshall argued that ‘(y)ou make all your contrasts rather too sharply for me. You talk of the inductive

& deductive methods: whereas I contend that each involves the other & that historians are always deducing,

& that even the most deductive writers are always implicitly at least basing themselves on observed facts’

(Marshall, cited in Coase, 1995: 169). Ultimately, Marshall wished to emphasise the mutual dependency of

induction and deduction. Strauss and Glaser aimed to do the same but each with different weightings. As with

the problems of delineation between induction and deduction the same may be said in respect of emergence

and forcing. Ultimately, one may consider that grounded theory should be interpreted as it was by Glaser. ‘By

its very nature grounded theory produces ever opening and evolving theory on a subject as more data and

new ideas discovered. This nature also applies to the method itself and its methodology’ (Glaser, 1978: ix).

Grounded theory is a flexible methodological approach and should be applied to specific research projects.

Ideas will emerge from data through interpretation but theoretical sensitivity and pre-conceptions will also

SAGE

SAGE Research Methods

Page 21 of 22 Grounded Theory

ensure a level of forcing; as with inductive and deductive approaches, pure emergent or forced studies are

impossible. Because of the nature of human existence and ontological and epistemological relationships with

phenomenon, a certain level of forcing as well as subjectivity in relation to interpretation and emerging ideas

necessarily must exist. That said, grounded theory takes into consideration these difficulties and provides a

methodological approach that may be used in a post-positivist, critical theory or constructivist/participatory

fashion.