PreprintPDF Available

Grounded Theory as a Qualitative Research Method

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

This study explores the grounded theory as a qualitative method along with its definition, essential characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Based on the reviews on some available representative literature, this study, using discourse analysis, explores constructivist grounded theory in particular along with its predecessors, the classic and interpretive grounded theories. The findings reveal that grounded theory is an emerging method of qualitative research with its essentials, pros and cons.
Grounded Theory as a Qualitative Research Method
- Parshu Ram Shrestha
parshushrestha31@gmail.com
Abstract
This study explores the grounded theory as a qualitative method along with its definition,
essential characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Based on the reviews on some
available representative literature, this study, using discourse analysis, explores constructivist
grounded theory in particular along with its predecessors, the classic and interpretive
grounded theories. The findings reveal that grounded theory is an emerging method of
qualitative research with its essentials, pros and cons.
Key words: grounded theory, constructivist grounded theory, qualitative research
Introduction
Grounded Theory has been one of the prominent qualitative research methods with
growing popularity in today’s world. It uses the approach of “abstract understanding”
(Charmaz & Thornberg, 2020) of a phenomenon so that a theory can be constructed with it. It
is a theory-building approach that aims to understand the social world from the perspective of
those who live in it, by systematically collecting and analyzing data.
The grounded theory was initiated by two American sociologists Barney Glaser and
Anselm Strauss in 1967 (Khan, 2014) with the publication of their book The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Their emphasis was on the collection
of the data and their analysis because they thought that the theory would derive from
systematically collected and analyzed data. The grounded theory propounded by Glaser and
Strauss is now regarded classical. Glaser and Strauss had proposed this qualitative method in
opposition to the then domineering quantitative researches, and had rejected the frame laden
by the quantitative methodologists (Charmaz, 2008a, p. 464). However, it could not move
away from positivism, then widely used research paradigm in scientific researches, due to
Glaser’s attachment with the ideas like rigor, agency, meaning and action (Charmaz, 2008a,
p. 465).
Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin’s version of Grounded Theory, developed during
the 1990’s, became more popular despite wide criticism. Its position moved to post-
positivism because they created a place for the voice of their research participants (Khan,
2014). Although they applied a full scientific process for data collection and verification with
all technical procedures, they valued the participants’ subjective observation along with their
objective realities and the application of accuracy in the data collection process. However,
Glaser criticized this new version as ‘usurping’ and ‘imposing unnecessary complexity on the
analytic process’ (Charmaz, 2008a, p. 466).
Later on, more researchers worked on the grounded theory to further expand it.
According to Sebastian (2019), the grounded theory presently has the following three
separate applications in the research: 1. Classical Grounded Theory (developed by Glaser and
Strauss), 2. Interpretive Grounded Theory (by Strauss and Corbin), and 3. Constructivist
Grounded Theory (by Kathy Charmaz).
The Grounded Theory developed by Kathy Charmaz (2006) that uses constructivist
approach regards “interactive relationship” (Mills et al., 2006, p. 9) between a researcher and
his participants with its relativist ontology and subjective epistemology. The researcher uses
the technique to “carefully navigate and control” (Sebastian, 2019, p. 5) his perception while
trying to interpret the participants’ experiences. In fact, according to Khan (2014), a grounded
theory researcher must have abilities to get the concept from the data while not being
confused and regressed. It means the data collected from the participants are often confusing
and regressive so that a grounded theory researcher may easily be fed up without being able
to properly conceptualize them.
Essential Characteristics of Grounded Theory
Like other qualitative methods, the grounded theory has also its essential
characteristics that makes it special. The following are some essential characteristics of
grounded theory:
Inductive approach
Grounded Theory is based on an inductive approach, which means that theories are
developed from the bottom-up, starting with data collection and analysis, rather than top-
down, starting with pre-existing theories or hypotheses. Grounded Theory Institute (2014)
run by Barney Glaser has defined the grounded theory as a general method with an inductive
approach which can be used both with quantitative and qualitative data. Charmaz (2006, p.
3), however, defined the grounded theory as a qualitative method, and expanded the role of
the researcher (Shindo, 2017, p. 225). Charmaz (2014) further defined the grounded theory as
a rigorous method for researchers to use “inductive theoretical analyses” (p. 344) through
which they derive “conceptual frameworks and theories.”
Emergence of concepts
The theory emerges from the data and the concepts that are identified during the
research process. These concepts are refined and developed through an iterative process of
data collection and analysis.
Since the grounded theory can generate abstract concepts, it is substantive which can
help us to refine the formal theory (Charmaz, 2006, p. 8). The concepts emerge from codes
and develop into categories.
According to Charmaz (2008b, p. 157), the emergence of concepts is a basic property
of grounded theory. It is the main objective of the theory.
Iterative and recursive process
Grounded Theory is an iterative and recursive process, meaning that the researcher
goes back and forth between data collection and analysis, constantly refining and revising the
emerging theory. This process starts with inductive inquiry, but does not end with it since it is
a “comparative, iterative, and interactive” (Charmaz, 2012) method. The early data analysis
and the data collection follow and iterative approach with an objective to develop middle-
range theories.
Constant comparative method
The constant comparative method is another a key feature of Grounded Theory. This
involves comparing data within and across cases to identify similarities and differences, and
to develop categories and concepts. According to Charmaz (2008a), the grounded theory
guidelines include the following comparative research practices:
- Comparing data with data
- Labeling data with active, specific codes
- Selecting focused codes
- Comparing and sorting data with focused codes
- Raising telling focused codes to tentative analytic categories
- Comparing data and codes with analytic categories
- Constructing theoretical concepts from abstract categories
- Comparing category with concept
- Comparing concept and concept (p. 472)
Open coding
Open coding is the initial stage of analysis in Grounded Theory. It involves breaking
down the data into smaller parts and assigning codes to them based on their meaning. Coding
data is one of the prominent analytic strategies of the grounded theory (Charmaz, 2012). The
codes are compared with each other, with the data, and with the categories using the
comparative methods.
According to Charmaz (2012), coding in grounded theory is “inductive, comparative,
interactive, and iterative.” Grounded theory coding is done in two aspects: one, a close
coding of statements, actions, events, and documents breaking the data into components or
properties and defining the actions related to these data; two, coding with analytic questions
analysing the data and crystallizing significant points.
Theoretical sampling
Theoretical sampling is the process of selecting new participants for data collection
based on the emerging theory, rather than a preconceived sampling plan. The theoretical
sampling guides a researcher to collect his or her future data in order to analyse and develop
categories (Charmaz, 2006, pp. 96-108). Theoretical sampling is a kind of purposive
sampling, but it is based on theoretical concerns of the researcher’s analysis. Charmaz (2006)
says that theoretical sampling is the specialty and the major strength of the grounded theory
(p. 101).
Most researchers get confused about theoretical sampling as gathering data until the
same pattern reoccurs (Charmaz, 2006, p. 102). However, the patterns reflect only the
empirical themes, not the theoretical categories.
In theoretical sampling, a researcher starts with the data, develops ideas about the
data, and examines the ideas in the real worlds of the participants. It is “strategic, specific,
and systematic” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 103). Memo-writing leads to theoretical sampling which
helps the researcher predict about the place and time for future data collection. More and
more writing of abstract and conceptual memos helps in this process. A theoretical sampling
generally has the following objectives (Charmaz, 2006, p. 104):
- To delineate the properties of a category
- To check hunches about categories
- To saturate the properties of a category
- To distinguish between categories
- To clarify relationships between emerging categories
- To identify variation in a process
Theoretical saturation
Theoretical saturation is the stage when a researcher stops collecting data considering
that s/he has collected enough data for the research. It occurs when the collected data can be
used to develop a comprehensive theory that explains the phenomenon under investigation.
According to Charmaz (2006), the categories are ‘saturated’ when “gathering fresh data no
longer sparks new theoretical insights, nor reveals new properties of your core theoretical
categories” (p. 113).
Theoretical saturation is the aim of all researchers using grounded theory; however,
most of the researchers often show their hastiness in claiming saturation rather than proving
it. The research questions play vital role in this situation as the ordinary questions bring out
common and unimportant categories which seem saturated so soon. There are some critics
who criticize the idea of theoretical saturation. Dey (1999), for example, prefers using the
term “theoretical sufficiency” (p. 257) rather than saying theoretical saturation. He thinks that
the data do not ‘saturate’, but ‘suggest’ the categories through ‘partial,’ not ‘exhaustive’
coding. He also implies that the saturation of the categories will not be as per the expectation
of the grounded theorist.
Advantages of Grounded Theory
Grounded theory has many advantages for its users to research an issue. Its benefits
for a researcher out-weighs its challenges or problems. Therefore, its popularity has been
growing as a prominent qualitative method since its initiation and initial controversies. At
present, it has been accepted as an effective method of qualitative research. Some of its
advantages are:
Discovery of new concepts
Conceptualization is one of the main problems in most researches. The problem of a
research often lies in the lack of proper conceptualization. Conceptualization helps to
simplify an idea, and separate the relevant from the irrelevant.
According to Glaser (1978), the uniqueness of grounded theory lies in its ability to
generate concepts by utilizing the techniques of constant comparison and memo writing. This
“legitimation of concept generation” (Glaser, 1978, p. 133) is the most exciting use of
grounded theory. Because of this, the researcher reaches to the new level of concepts and
ideas that was never assumed before.
Flexibility
According to Charmaz (2006, p. 178), flexibility is the strength of the grounded
theory. The grounded theory methods are not meant to be tied to any single method of data
collection. There is no single epistemology. Actually, the grounded theories are produced
through interactions.
Charmaz (2014, p. 13) noted that Grounded Theory is a flexible methodology that can
be adapted to a variety of research questions and contexts.
Rigor
Though Grounded Theory is a qualitative research method, ‘rigor’ is its prominent
characteristic since its initiation. Charmaz (2006) found it ironic that the grounded theory has
been known for its ‘rigor,’ maintained strictly in quantitative method, despite the fact that
Glaser and Strauss developed it in 1960s to end the dominance of positivistic quantitative
research (p. 9). Even quantitative researchers use grounded theory for its ‘rigor’ in their
projects that use mixed methods. Grounded theory maintains its ‘rigor’ by “going back to
data and forward into analysis” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 23) frequently. This practice helps a
researcher to return to the field for further data collection and the refinement of the emerging
theoretical framework.
Rich data
An important aspect of grounded theory is the ‘rich data’ it emphasizes upon to
collect. The rich data collected via various sources such as fieldnotes, interviews, information
in records and reports help the researchers generate strong grounded theories (Charmaz,
2006, p. 14).
The researcher can elicit rich data in an interview from the interviewee by asking
primarily the open questions, such as ‘Tell me about,’ ‘how,’ and ‘when’ questions
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 33). The researcher must notice every ‘ums’ and ‘you knows.’ Even the
interviewee’s pauses and the duration taken to answer a question yields meanings in the form
of rich data.
According to Hussein et al. (2014), the rich data provides the researcher with
sufficient contextual information about the participants, processes, and setting. Since rich
data are the treasure trove of important information that is usually hidden and unrevealed
openly, they help the researcher to come to the new idea with the help of data comparison.
Therefore, the rich data are an important benefit of the grounded theory.
Contextualization
It is another important benefit of the grounded theory. Charmaz (2014, p. 23)
highlights the importance of understanding the social and cultural context in which the
phenomenon under investigation occurs. This helps to sensitize the concepts like power,
global reach, and difference through the use of inductive analyses in grounded theory to
connect between local worlds and larger social structures (Charmaz, 2006, p. 133).
Grounded theory even considers an interview to be contextual and negotiated
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 28). An interview cannot be neutral just by asking neutral questions. The
impressions of the interviewer and the interviewee on a particular situation construct the
reality. Not only the power and professional status but also gender, race, and age may affect
the direction and content of the interviews.
Thus, the use of contextualized information increases the rigor of the grounded theory
with the increase in its dependability and truthfulness as a research work.
Application to practice
Despite being a qualitative method, the grounded theory is well-known for its
practicability for its emphasis on practices and actions. The reality is not explained but
constructed with the social interactions depicted by the actions and words of the participants
and the researcher’s interpretation of them. So, the realities are multiple and are situated in
particular positions, perspectives, and experiences.
Disadvantages of Grounded Theory
Grounded theory has some lapses, too, though they are outnumbered to the
advantages. However, they cannot be undermined. They can be presented in the following
points:
Lack of generalizability
Grounded Theory emphasizes on the importance of context and the unique nature of
each research setting, which can make it difficult to generalize the findings to other contexts.
For Bryant (2017), the grounded theories have the limitation in their range and
generalizability because of which the theories cannot be taken in terms of ‘truthfulness’ (p.
349).
For Hood (2007), a researcher’s focus in grounded theory is to generalize the formal
theory rather than generalizing specific substantive findings so that the theory can be used in
various settings (p. 162). S/he extends theoretical sampling and uses the constant
comparisons for the inducting a theory.
Time-consuming
Grounded Theory can be a time-consuming methodology, particularly in the early
stages of data analysis, which can be a challenge for researchers who are working within time
constraints (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 23). Therefore, a novice researcher may find the
method unmanageable and hectic especially while coding since the practice of coding is not
only a time-consuming but also a tiring and laborious process (Hussein et al., 2014). It is not
easy to abstract and encompass the concepts, so the researcher may not discover the ideas and
themes that emerge from the data due to the overwhelming activity of coding.
Requires expertise
Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that involves the systematic
collection and analysis of data to generate a theory. It is an inductive approach that focuses
on discovering and developing concepts and theories from the data rather than testing pre-
existing hypotheses.
Grounded Theory requires a significant level of expertise, as it involves a rigorous
and iterative process of data collection and analysis. Researchers using this methodology
must have a thorough understanding of the principles and techniques of qualitative research,
as well as the specific steps involved in Grounded Theory. They must also have the ability to
manage and analyze large amounts of data, identify patterns and themes, and develop a
theory that accurately represents the data.
In addition to technical expertise, researchers using Grounded Theory must also have
good communication and writing skills, as they will need to clearly explain and present their
findings and theories to others. They should also have a strong understanding of the context
in which the research is being conducted, as this can influence the interpretation of the data.
Potential for researcher bias
Grounded Theory relies heavily on the researcher's interpretations of the data, which
can be influenced by their own biases and assumptions (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 30).
Therefore, keeping the data analysis bias-free from the researcher is a big challenge.
Lack of structure
Since Grounded Theory is a relatively unstructured methodology, it can be a
challenge for the researcher. In contrast to other research methods that use a predefined
framework or theory to guide data collection and analysis, Grounded Theory allows
researchers to develop a theory from scratch based on their observations of the data (Shindo,
2017, pp. 224-225).
This lack of structure can be both a strength and a weakness of the methodology. On
one hand, it allows researchers to explore the data without preconceived notions or biases,
and to develop a theory that is grounded in the data rather than in pre-existing ideas or
theories (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2018). This can lead to rich and nuanced findings that might
not have been discovered using other methods.
On the other hand, the lack of structure can also make the process of data collection
and analysis more challenging. Without a predefined framework or theory, researchers must
rely on their own judgment to determine which data is relevant and how to categorize and
analyze it. This can lead to ambiguity and subjectivity in the analysis, and can make it more
difficult for other researchers to replicate the study or evaluate the findings (k, 2013).
To address this challenge, researchers using Grounded Theory often use coding and
memoing techniques to organize and analyze the data in a more systematic and rigorous way.
These techniques can help to ensure that the analysis is grounded in the data, even in the
absence of a predefined framework or theory.
Conclusion
With its growing popularity, the grounded theory has now been a prominent
qualitative method of research. Begun by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 in protest to the then
dominant quantitative method, the grounded theory has shifted its paradigm from positivism
to post-positivism and to constructivism in the modern days. Strauss and Corbin’s version of
Grounded Theory not only stressed on the accuracy of the collected data through scientific
process but also valued the participants’ subjective observation along with their objective
realities. Charmaz (2006) gave it a constructive shape with “interactive relationship” (Mills et
al., 2006, p. 9) between a researcher and his participants.
Grounded theory is separate from other qualitative methods with its special
characteristics, such as inductive approach, emergence of concepts, iterative and recursive
process, constant comparative method, open coding, theoretical sampling, and theoretical
saturation. This method is beneficial to a researcher with its tendency to discover new
concepts, flexibility, rigor, rich data, contextualization, and application to practice. However,
its lack of generalizability, time consuming nature, needing a lot of expertise, potentiality for
the researcher bias, and lack of proper structure are its main disadvantages which may create
a big problem to the researcher.
References
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing, Pragmatism in Research
Practice. Oxford University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory, A Practical Guide through Qualitative
Analysis. SAGE Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2008a). Reconstructing grounded theory. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, &
J. Brannen (Eds.), Social Research Methods, 461-478. Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2008b). Grounded theory as an emergent method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P.
Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods,155-172. The Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2012). The power and potential of grounded theory. A Journal of the BSA
MedSoc Group, 6(3). www.medicalsociologyonline.org.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2018). Thinking about data with grounded theory.
Qualitative Inquiry. DOI: 10.1177/1077800418809455
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory.
Qualitative Research in Psychology. https://tinyurl.com/2zx4ebbb
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory. Academic Press.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in methodology of grounded theory.
University of California Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.
Grounded Theory Institute. (July 20, 2014). What is grounded theory?
http://www.groundedtheory.com/what-is-gt.aspx
Hood, J. C. (2007). Orthodoxy vs. power: The defining traits of grounded theory. In
Bryant, A., & K. Charmaz (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, 152-
164. Sage Publications.
Hussein, M. E., Hirst, S., Salyer, V., & Osuji, J. (2014). Using grounded theory as a method
of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1-15.
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/el-hussein13.pdf
Khan, S. (2014). Qualitative research method: Grounded theory. International Journal of
Business and Management, 9(11), 224-233. DOI: 10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p224
Levers, M. D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on
emergence. SAGE Journals. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013517243
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). Adopting a constructive approach to grounded
theory: Implication for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12,
8-13. doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2006.00543.x
Sebastian, K. (2019). Distinguishing between the types of grounded theory: Classical,
interpretive and constructivist. Journal for Social Though, 3 (1), 1-2.
https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/jst/index
Shindo, T. (2017). Unpacking grounded theory: Treading the murky waters. Kumamoto
University Repository System. http://hdl.handle.net/2298/36751
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Sage.
Writer’s Short Bio
Parshu Ram Shrestha is an Executive-Member of NELTA Sunsari committee and a life member
of NELTA (Nepal English Language Teachers’ Association). He has Master’s Degree in
English Literature and has been teaching English both at Secondary and Tertiary levels since
2008. Currently, he is an Assistant Lecturer at Janta Multiple Campus (T.U.), Itahari, and Post
Graduate Teacher I at SOS Hermann Gmeiner Secondary School Itahari. He is an M. Phil.
Scholar at Kathmandu University in English Language Education. He has keen interest in both
academic and creative writing.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
This article introduces grounded theory and places this method in its historical context when 1960s quantitative researchers wielded harsh criticisms of qualitative research. The originators of grounded theory, sociologists Glaser and Strauss, sought to defend the quality of qualitative research and argued that grounded theory increased its quality by providing a method of theory construction. Our major foci include: (1) introducing the logic of grounded theory, with emphasis on how researchers can use it to construct theory, (2) detailing criteria for quality in the major forms of grounded theory advocated by Glaser and Strauss and augmented by Glaser, Strauss and Corbin and refined by Corbin, and Charmaz and (3) providing an analysis of how constructivist grounded theorists Thornberg, Halldin, Bolmsjö and Petersson attended to the interviewing process, coding, and developing their theoretical concept of double victimizing. Students and researchers new to the method can use our concluding guidelines as a checklist to assess the quality of their constructivist grounded theory research.
Article
Full-text available
In this literature review paper, the researcher has done some efforts to identify and further to elaborate the basic components of a research methods chapter that are integral part of any research paper while conducting grounded theory approach. Grounded theory is one of the data collection approach in qualitative research methods which is totally based on data rather than try to emerge theory from data. There are bulk of books and research papers written by world renowned researchers and authors but the aim of this paper is to help the early stage researchers in conducting their projects in grounded theory approach. In this paper, the researcher has shed light on history of grounded theory, how this theory rather approach works, target population, sampling technique, data collection methods and the role of a researcher in this whole research process, and another essential part of a qualitative research, ethics which play a crucial role while conducting and gathering a qualitative data, have also been discussed in this paper.
Article
Full-text available
There are many challenges and criticisms attached to the conduct of research, none the least of which is a notion that much of the research undertaken in professional disciplines such as nursing may not have clinical and/or practical relevance. While there are a plethora of qualitative research methods that individuals must consider when designing research studies, one method stands out - Grounded Theory (GT). Grounded theory was developed in the early 1960’s by Glaser and Strauss. With its theoretical orientation based in sociology, GT strives to understand and explain human behavior through inductive reasoning processes (Elliott & Lazenbatt, 2005). Because of its emphasis on the utilization of a variety of data sources that are grounded in particular contexts, GT provides a natural theoretical fit when designing nursing research studies. In this article, the authors provide an overview of GT and then describe the appropriateness, advantages, and disadvantages of applying it as part of the research design process. Additionally, the authors highlight the importance of taking a reflexive position to stay engaged while interacting with the data, and explore how to apply GT theory to particular research questions and studies. Finally, the strengths and limitations of this method of inquiry as applied to nursing research using a brief case study approach is presented.
Book
Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and how theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss address the equally Important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data-systematically obtained and analyzed in social research-can be furthered. The discovery of theory from data-grounded theory-is a major task confronting sociology, for such a theory fits empirical situations, and is understandable to sociologists and laymen alike. Most important, it provides relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications. In Part I of the book, "Generation Theory by Comparative Analysis," the authors present a strategy whereby sociologists can facilitate the discovery of grounded theory, both substantive and formal. This strategy involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups. In Part II, The Flexible Use of Data," the generation of theory from qualitative, especially documentary, and quantitative data Is considered. In Part III, "Implications of Grounded Theory," Glaser and Strauss examine the credibility of grounded theory. The Discovery of Grounded Theory is directed toward improving social scientists' capacity for generating theory that will be relevant to their research. While aimed primarily at sociologists, it will be useful to anyone Interested In studying social phenomena-political, educational, economic, industrial- especially If their studies are based on qualitative data. © 1999 by Barney G. Glaser and Frances Strauss. All rights reserved.
Book
The book is addressed to investigators with some knowledge of and familiarity with research methodswho are keen to learn more about the grounded theory method [GTM]. The method is located against general research issues, such as the nature of doctoral and other research, discussions on epistemology and ontology, and the initial motivations for undertaking a specific research project. The key features of GTM are discussed and exemplified using numerous examples taken from several of the author’s many successful PhD students. The focus is on distinguishing the core and essential features of the method, from those that can be regarded as “accidental.” The author’s concept of Methodological Sensitivity is introduced to explain how insightful research is often dependent on researchers’ adapting one or more methods to their specific project and context. The grounded theory method is illustrated through several examples taken from PhD theses supervised by the author; also the derivation of a grounded theory is drawn from more than 100 published GTM papers. The book includes chapters devoted to discussions of the concept of abduction and abductive logic, now seen as central to GTM, set against an overview of different forms of reasoning—i.e. induction and deduction. Other chapters include personal accounts of GTM-in-use by four successful PhD candidates and a guide that summarizes ways in which issues around GTM can be taken into account and addressed both by researchers (not only PhD students) and by assessors and evaluators (PhD examiners, journal editors, reviewers, and those refereeing research proposals).
Article
This article examines qualitative data in an era of neoliberalism and focuses on the place of data in grounded theory studies. Neoliberal values of individual responsibility, self-sufficiency, competition, efficiency, and profit have entered the conduct of research. Neoliberalism fosters (a) reifying quantitative logical-deductive research, (b) imposing surveillance of types and sources of data, (c) marginalizing inductive qualitative research, and (d) limiting access to data in grounded theory studies. Grounded theory relies on data and resists current efforts to abandon data. The method resides in the space between reifying and rejecting data. Data allow us to learn from the stories of those left out and permits research participants to break silences. Data can help us look underneath and beyond our privileges, and alter our views. Grounded theory is predicated on data, but how researchers regard and render data depends on which version of the method they adopt. We propose developing a strong methodological self-consciousness to learn how we affect the research process and to counter the subtle effects of neoliberalism.