Grounded theory is one of the world’s most popular research designs. There are thousands of publications that provide reports on studies that use grounded theory and collections of seminal texts that enable readers to guide their study and ensure rigor in their work. Using the correct research method for inquiry is important for any research to be successful (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Just like quantitative content analysis, grounded theory entails indentifying themes as well as patterns and trends. Grounded theory research employs the generation of innovative theory from data that has been collected from “real-life” situations that are relevant to the research questions (Myers, 2009; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). Grounded theory was developed by Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser, sociologists who were not happy with the existing theories that dominated sociological research. They argued for the need to move from data-based approaches to theory-based approaches so that they would enable new theories to emerge. This strategy was important because the theories developed would be context-specific (Glaser, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). These theories would be “grounded” in data rather than relying on analytical constructs to interpret the data. Grounded theory, aptly named, emerged to create space for new contextualized theories to emerge. Grounded theory employs empirical data to generate emergent theory. The data collection methods that are used include interviews, experimentation, participant observation, and indirect data collection such as service log reports and help desk emails (Myers, 2009).
The uniqueness of grounded theory is based on two elements. First, the theory is based on patterns that exist in empirical data and not from inferences, the association of ideas or prejudices. The second element is the existence of a constant comparison between new data and emergent theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Constant comparison proves that theoretical constructs exist between and across data samples, fostering further collection of data until the researcher fells that they have attained “theoretical saturation (point at which diminishing returns for any new analysis are reached).
Literature Review
Strauss & Corbin (1998) highlight one of the major weaknesses of grounded theory as rooted in inductive theory generation and emergence. Grounded theory is not “scientific” or deductive in the way it analyzes data. However, it is based on inductive conclusions arrived at from the superficial analysis of the collected data. Research in psychology holds that all human reasoning is founded on inductive and deductive reasoning (Jones & Alony, 2011; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). Inductive inference informs human decision-making and knowledge. For example, if one puts their hand on a hot stove, they get burned. The deduction from this empirical evidence informs human to identify and avoid touching hot stoves. Learning is reliant on inductive-deductive cycles of thinking (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Inductive research techniques are not hard to defend. They form the foundation of most qualitative coding methods. Researchers, however, are wary of inductive analysis because it introduces subjectivity into findings. Subjectivity exposes them to the likelihood of being challenged from a positivist standpoint, as not measured from, but associated subjectively with the observed situation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). Using constant comparison between new data and emerging theoretical constructs can be employed to move from inductive to deductive reasoning. This shift will “validate” the constructs. However, there are two steps in constant comparison. The first step involves comparing incident to incident constantly and incident to theoretical-concept (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 2000). The second step involves asking the “neutral” coding question” what category or aspect of a category does the incident suggest?” Some researchers question the validity of the assumption that the internal experiences of the subjects can be accessed by qualitative researchers and used to derive a coding scheme from the terms and interpretations of the subjects (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). There is need to use existing theory in an inductive way especially at the beginning of the analysis (Glaser, 1978). This approach guides the researcher in understanding the situation and knowing what data to collect (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011). As such, the emergence of theory comes from the interplay between the data and the developing conceptualizations of the researcher.
Myers (2009) indicates that the second failing of the Grounded theory is in judging theoretical saturation. One of the consequences of using a highly iterative approach to data synthesis and analysis is the inability to know when to stop. In grounded theory generation, data analysis is not always an end in itself (as is the case in other research strategies), but calls on the need to conduct further investigation (Myers, 2009; Jone & Alony, 2011). As a result, new research directions and questions are instigated (Myers, 2009). It is very easy for the researcher using grounded theory approaches to fall into confusion or terminate data compilation and analysis before any rigorous underpinnings for the theoretical insights have been achieved. In this case, the approach ends up providing inductive insights instead of grounded theory.
On the other hand, grounded theory as a method of inquiry has several advantages. First, it has intuitive appeal (Myers, 2009). It is important to understand that grounded theory is not limited to any specific discipline, field or type of data. It informs many areas and demonstrates a wide range of usability. Grounded appeal has an intuitive appeal for new investigators. It enables them to become “immersed” deeply into the data (Kriflik, Jones, & Zanko, 2005; Jones & Alony, 2011; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). The immersion is evident in the constant comparison, memo-writing and coding strategies to data analysis it provides novice researchers with the “heuristic devices” and principles to begin, stay involved and finish their projects (Glaser, 1978). In addition, while other qualitative research approaches allow investigators to treat data with not regard to directions on how to proceed; grounded theory gives explicit guidelines on how one should proceed with their research. Grounded theory is useful in answering questions, enlightening thinking as well as providing reassurance where there are hesitations in the research process.
Grounded theory also fosters creativity. It does not begin with testing existing hypothesis, but relies on empirical data to develop concepts and theories (Kriflik, Jones, & Zanko, 2005). It encourages researchers to avoid “preconceptions on theoretical data” (Myers, 2009). Grounded theory also encourages the researcher to enhance their creativity by moving through a process of discovery where themes and interpretations arise from the data naturally (Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). It allows the research to derive its meaning from the analysis of data through creative inductive processes. Original findings then emerge from the data (Kriflik, Jones, & Zanko, 2005).
Grounded theory further enables the systematic approach to data analysis. According to Glaser (1978), grounded theory involves systematic generation of theory from data that has been also systematically obtained from social research. Other approaches to qualitative research employ broad principles instead of having a systematic approach. This broad approach contributes to difficulty in application as well as interpretation (Myers, 2009). A systematic approach to data analysis is important for judging, generalizing, as well as comparing results of grounded theory research (Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011). Systematic approaches, such as those employed inn grounded theory, provide rigor as well as trustworthiness in emergent theory (Kriflik, Jones, & Zanko, 2005). Systematic approaches, as opposed to accidental discovery (serendipity) are sustainable because they are “broad-ranging, systematic, purposive, and involved prearranged undertakings (Jones & Alony, 2011). Researchers purposefully and actively place their work in a position to seek “discoveries” and do not wait passively for serendipity or “aha” moments to strike,
Another advantage of the grounded theory is its potential to concept. Stebbins (2012) holds that the most important science component is the “concept.” The approach that the researcher takes to study the data eventually influences the emergence of the concepts. If concepts are defined wrongly, they contribute to problems in research (Glaser, 1978). Conceptualization separates relevant material from the irrelevant. The first step in research should be description (Kriflik, Jones, & Zanko, 2005; Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011). Proper description enables the research data to be rendered appropriately. Grounded theory supports the generation of concepts because of the constant comparison and memo writing. The constant interaction between data collection and analysis helps derive concepts (Kriflik, Jones, & Zanko, 2005).
Debates surrounding Grounded theory
The grounded theory is also controversial because of the debate between Strauss (1987) and Glaser (1992) on whether the theory emerges from flexible and inductively-guided data analysis or whether it is a result of applying analytical methods that are structured. According to Glaser (1992), the grounded theory is generated from categories and patterns from informants and through socially-constructed realities (Glaser, 1978; Myers, 2009; Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011). According to Glaser, Strauss’ technique of applying a given coding method (categorizing causal conditions, interactional strategies, context, and consequences) involves “forcing” theoretical challenges and constructs (Jones & Alony, 2011). The resulting theories end up being more descriptive than structural or procedural. Strauss emphasizes that data analysis and coding should adopt good science canons. The codes used should emerge from the data. Strauss advises researchers to change the scheme as required. On the other hand, Glaser (1992) insists that in a bid to make grounded theory rigorous enough, the researcher should filter out the elements in the data that may contribute to a theory that changes the view on the world (Myers, 2009; Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). Both authors agree that theory should emerge from data because this emergence is critical to the application of a grounded theory approach. The two authors are not totally opposed. The only debate arises on the question of how rigor is ensured in the process of data selection and analysis (Myers, 2009). According to Glaser, one should focus on the emergent and inductive nature the generation of the grounded theory (Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). He proposes that one should constantly compare the data and self-reflection to ensure quality. On the other hand, Strauss focuses on the need to employ rigorous and repeatable methods of data selection and analysis. He recommends that to ensure quality and consistency, the method should be structured around the formal coding schemes. Overall, the debate emerges from whether the researcher thinks that their work should apply a positivist or interpretive standpoint in its defense.
The second notable debate surrounding the grounded theory is known as the objectivist-subjectivist debate. In this regard, there is a debate between positivist and interpretive research approaches. The main difference in these two approaches lies in their definitions of reality. According to the positivist position, reality is located out there, and it is waiting to be discovered (Myers, 2009). This reality is evident in universal laws that can be discovered through the employment of objective, scientific and replicable research approaches (Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011). According to the interpretive position, the world is subjective and that reality has been constructed socially (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Lincoln & Guba (2000) write that the phenomena that one observes in the world are only meaningful in terms of their own individual experience and interpretation. “Truth” is subjective and constructed within a community of practice interests and research, across which “knowledge” is valued and defined (Jones & Alony, 2011; Myers, 2009). When deriving the grounded theory, the difference between the positivist and the interpretive world views comes to the fore. Strauss & Corbin (1998) realized that they should define research variables from the perspective of their subjects. This understanding underlines an interpretive research position, that a research variable or phenomenon cannot be defined in an objective manner, according to a set of criteria, but must be defined from a predetermined perspective.
The role played by Grounded Theory in social research communities today
In social research communities, grounded theory is a significant approach. It continues to play a role in social research communities today. Despite the criticisms that have threatened to curtail its prevalence, a sizable number of sociologists still regard it as a detailed, systematic, rigorous and flexible method (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). It offers many research benefits because is suitable for investigating complex multifaceted phenomena. It is also suitable to investigate socially-related phenomena (Jones & Alony, 2011). It is capable of widening the perceptions of people in the research community. One of the social research community areas that grounded theory can be employed is an area requiring knowledge sharing (Myers, 2009). Knowledge sharing improves the performance of the organization as well as its competitive advantage. It also enhances organizational learning and supports organizational sustainability and survival. Not all organizations can enable knowledge sharing (Jones & Alony, 2011). In particular, project-based organizations find this undertaking challenging due to the customized, transient and temporary nature of projects. They rely on ad-hoc and temporary structures to complete tasks. Each project is usually different from the next in various aspects (Glaser, 1978). As a result, it is usually difficult to transfer lessons learned across different projects. Despite these obvious limitations, project-based organizations are important for tasks requiring creativity as well as diverse perspectives (Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011; Bryant & Charmaz 2007). An example of a project-based environment where grounded theory can be used to understand what supports and facilitates knowledge sharing within project teams is the film industry (Glaser, 1978). An example of this application is evident in Jones & Alony (2011), where the two researchers used grounded theory to explore the Australian film industry in terms of how knowledge sharing and collaboration as complex, multi-faceted phenomena.
Grounded theory is relevant today in its remodeled format. Earlier claims of its lack of rigor have been quashed in the work of Charmaz (2003) who suggests grounded theory approaches that rely on quantitative and qualitative data. Grounded theory is not to be used in all forms of research. One must acknowledge how it works for it to be applied in a proper way. It is not about accuracy in the descriptive units (Jones & Alony, 2011). It rises above descriptive methods as well as their related problems of accuracy, constructionism, and interpretation (Myers, 2009). As such, it offers researchers a rigorous and systematic method to develop theory (Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011). However, it requires transcendence of the canons of qualitative paradigm so that one can enjoy its full potential on social processes (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Conceptualization is not about interpretation, but abstraction. This abstraction is to a conceptual level which explains rather than describes the behavior that happens conceptually in many diverse groups with the same concern. This form of abstraction frees the researcher concerns of qualitative research on accuracy and interpretation of various perspectives by placing emphasis on the concepts (Jones & Alony, 2011). To achieve hypothesis construction, “only concepts can be related to concepts” Descriptions cannot be related to descriptions in any precise or clear way at all. Hypotheses, when achieved, do not have any generalizability.
Contemporary studies that employ grounded theory
Various studies today have employed a grounded theory approach with relative success (Jones & Alony, 2011). For example, Pitney & Elhers (2004) sought to gain insight on the mentoring processes and mentoring model development that students in athletic training were exposed to. The researchers conducted a study with students and mentors. There were 13 student participants and 3 mentors. A total of 16 interviews were conducted and analyzed using axial-, open-, as well as selective-coding approaches. Per debriefings, triangulations and member checks were used to check for trustworthiness. The results showed that open-coding approaches produced three categories with overall high reliability.
Similarly, Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, (2011) documented a study that employed grounded theory. The study investigated the social processes existing in dental practices in Australia. This study explored whether dentists in the healthcare setting could increase the use of preventive techniques. Coding and constant comparison as well as memo-writing approaches was used (Sbaraini, Carter, Evans & Blinkhorn, 2011). This paper showed that a study could use grounded theory effectively especially in the qualitative health and medical research field. Overall, Bryant & Charmaz (2007) indicate that the use of grounded theory develops as one builds their experience in using it. The approach is based on guidelines and heuristics and not prescriptions and rules.
References
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory - Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249-291). London: Sage.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Jones, M. L., Kriflik, G. & Zanko, M. (2005).Grounded Theory: A theoretical and practical application in the Australian Film Industry. In A. Hafidz Bin Hj (Eds.), Proceedings of International Qualitative Research Convention 2005 (QRC05). Malaysia: Qualitative Research Association of Malaysia.
Jones, M. & Alony, I. (2011). Guiding the use of Grounded Theory in Doctoral studies – an example from the Australian film industry. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6 (N/A), 95-114.
Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Guba, Egon G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (second edition) (pp.163-188). London: Sage.
Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & management. London: Sage Publications.
Pitney, W. A., & Ehlers, G. G. (2004). A Grounded Theory Study of the Mentoring Process Involved With Undergraduate Athletic Training Students. Journal of Athletic Training, 39(4), 344–351.
Sbaraini, A., Carter, S., Evans, R., & Blinkhorn, A. (2011). How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices. BMC Med Res Methodology, 11(1), 128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-128
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
