Characteristics of Grounded Theory

A topic in research methodology

Grounded theory (GT) can be seen as a bridge between confirmatory and discovery research: Historically GT can be considered as a response to positivist approaches in sociology, and seen as an attempt to make ‘qualitative’ approaches to data analysis as rigorous as ‘scientific’ approaches.

“All that GT is, is the generation of emergent conceptualizations into integrated patterns, which are denoted by categories and their properties.
This is accomplished by the many rigorous steps of GT woven together by the constant comparison process, which is designed to generate concepts from all data. Most frequently, qualitative data incidents are used.”

Glaser, 2002a, p.2

“Stated simply, grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible guideline for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories "grounded" in the data themselves…Thus data forms the foundation of our theory and our analysis of these data generates the concepts we construct.”

Charmaz, 2006, Ch.1, p.4

As the name suggests, GT is seen to be about building theory (theory than can be considered to be grounded in the data).

Grounded theory (somewhat like action research in this regard) is cyclic in nature: “By its nature, then, grounded theory requires cycles of research activity.” (Taber, 2000: 471)

It is also an open-ended process which should be carefully paced and not rushed or forced. It has been described as a ‘delayed action’ process!

“Generating GT takes time. It is above all a delayed action phenomenon. Little increments of coding, analyzing and collecting data cook and mature and then blossom later into theoretical memos. Significant theoretical realizations come with growth and maturity in the data, and much of this is outside the analyst’s awareness until preconscious processing becomes conscious. Thus the analyst must pace himself, exercise patience and accept nothing until something happens, as it surely does.”

Glaser & Holton, 2004, ¶60

“GT studies are characterised by a number of features, which include:
•   a delayed literature review
•   an emergent design
•   flexible and responsive (‘theoretical’) sampling
•   an iterative approach to analysis (‘constant comparison’)
•   an open timeline for the research (‘theoretical saturation’)”

(Taber, 2009:220)

That open timeline may not be appreciated by funding agenciesy and research supervisors. GT is therefore an open-ended commitment:

“This requires that the analyst takes whatever amount of quality time that is required to do the discovery process and that he/she learns to take this time in a manner consistent with his/her own temporal nature as an analyst—personal pacing. Rushing or forcing the process will shut down the analyst’s creativity and conceptual abilities, exhausting the energy and leaving the researcher empty and the theory thin and incomplete.”

Glaser & Holton, 2004

It has also been suggested that, in a sense, GT studies should never be considered finalised.

“A theory must be readily modifiable, based on ever-emerging notion from more data.”

Glaser, 1978, p.4

So, in a sense a grounded theory, is never complete:

“Needless to say, the transcending nature of grounded theory makes the analyst quite sensitive to his [sic] data, where to take it conceptually and where to collect more data. It makes him humble to the fact that no matter how far he goes in generating theory, it appears as merely ‘openers’ to what he sees that could lay beyond.”

Glaser, 1978, p.6

There are a number of key concepts used by grounded theory researchers. In other words, it has some specialist nomenclature (jargon).

Sources cited:

• Charmaz, Kathy C. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.
• Glaser, Barney G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory, California: The Sociology Press, 1978.
• Glaser, Barney G. (2002a) Conceptualization: On Theory and Theorizing Using Grounded Theory, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2) Spring 2002.
• Glaser, Barney G. & Holton, Judith (2004) Remodeling Grounded Theory, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Article 4
• Taber, K. S. (2000). Case studies and generalisability – grounded theory and research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 469-487.
• Taber, K. S. (2009). Building theory from data: grounded theory. In E. Wilson (Ed.), School-based Research: A Guide for Education Students (pp. 216-229). London Sage.