what is the main purpose of a literature review in grounded theory research

• Cancer Nursing Practice
• Emergency Nurse
• Evidence-Based Nursing
• Learning Disability Practice
• Mental Health Practice
• Nurse Researcher
• Nursing Children and Young People
• Nursing Management
• Nursing Older People
• Nursing Standard
• Primary Health Care
• RCN Nursing Awards
• Nursing Live
• Nursing Careers and Job Fairs
• CPD webinars on-demand
• --> Advanced -->

• Clinical articles
• Expert advice
• Career advice
• Revalidation
• CPD Quizzes

Evidence and practice    

Approaches to reviewing the literature in grounded theory: a framework, kris deering senior lecturer in mental health nursing, university of west england, bristol, england, jo williams senior lecturer in mental health nursing, university of west england, bristol, england.

• To build an understanding of research methods associated with grounded theory

• To develop critical awareness of how different approaches in grounded theory might tackle literature reviews

• To learn how to review the literature, depending on the stage of your grounded theory study

Background There is considerable debate about how to review the literature in grounded theory research. Notably, grounded theory typically discourages reviewing the literature before data are collected and analysed, so that researchers do not form preconceptions about the theory. However, it is likely researchers will need to review the literature to show they intend to address a gap in knowledge with their research. This might confuse novice researchers, especially given that different approaches to grounded theory can have contrasting positions concerning how and when literature should be reviewed.

Aim To provide an overview of grounded theory and how different approaches might tackle literature reviews.

Discussion A framework is presented to illustrate some of the commonalities between grounded theory approaches, to guide novice researchers in reviewing the literature. The framework acknowledges some of the tensions concerning researchers’ objectivity and sketches three phases for researchers to consider when reviewing the literature.

Conclusion Reviewing the literature has different meanings and implications when using grounded theory compared with other research methodologies.

Implications for practice Novice researchers must be attuned to the different ways of reviewing the literature when using grounded theory.

Nurse Researcher . doi: 10.7748/nr.2020.e1752

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

[email protected]

None declared

Deering K, Williams J (2020) Approaches to reviewing the literature in grounded theory: a framework. Nurse Researcher. doi: 10.7748/nr.2020.e1752

Published online: 09 July 2020

grounded theory - literature review - methodology - qualitative research - research - research methods

User not found

Want to read more?

Already have access log in, 3-month trial offer for £5.25/month.

• Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
• RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
• NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
• Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
• A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you. Find out more

12 June 2024 / Vol 32 issue 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DIGITAL EDITION

• LATEST ISSUE
• SIGN UP FOR E-ALERT
• WRITE FOR US
• PERMISSIONS

Share article: Approaches to reviewing the literature in grounded theory: a framework

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience.

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

Literature Grounded Theory (LGT)

• First Online: 31 August 2021

Cite this chapter

• Ana Paula Cardoso Ermel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3874-9792 5 ,
• D. P. Lacerda   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8011-3376 6 ,
• Maria Isabel W. M. Morandi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1337-1487 7 &
• Leandro Gauss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5708-5912 8  

1087 Accesses

1 Citations

• The original version of this chapter was revised: Table 6.28 and Figures 6.2 and 6.5 are updated. The correction to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75722-9_10

This chapter introduces the Literature Grounded Theory (LGT), a research method for reviewing, analyzing, and synthesizing literature. The conceptual framework and organization structure of LGT are presented first. Then, by breaking down the structure into steps, the techniques and tools for its implementation are described. Finally, the major guidelines for conducting research with LGT are given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

06 february 2022.

In addition to the changes described above, we note that

Abbas, A., Zhang, L., Khan, S.U.: A literature review on the state-of-the-art in patent analysis. World Patent Inf. 1–11 (2014)

Google Scholar  

Adler, M.J., van Doren, C.: How to Read a Book. A Touchstone Book Published by Simon & Schuster, New York (1972)

Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C.: bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Inf. 11 (4), 959–975 (2017). 1751-1577

Bacharach, S.B.: Organizational theories: some criteria for evaluation. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14 (4), 496–515. 1989.03637425

Bardin, L.: L’analyse de contenu [Content Analysis], 223 p. Presses Universitaires de France Le Psychologue, Paris (1993)

Barnett-Page, E., Thomas, J.: Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9 (1), 1–11 (2009). 1471-2288

Bensman, S.J.: Garfield and the impact factor. Ann. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 41 (1), 93–155 (2007). 1573872768

Bergstrom, C., West, J.: Eigenfactor ® (2017)

Bhattacherjee, A.: Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices, 3rd ed [S.l.]. Textbooks Collection (2012). 9781475146127

Booth, A. et al.: Structured methodology review identified seven (RETREAT) criteria for selecting qualitative evidence synthesis approaches. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 99 , 41–52 (2018)

Borenstein, M.: Impact of Tamiflu on flu symptoms [S.l: s.n.] (2021). Disponível em: www.Meta-Analysis.com . Acesso em: 3 fev. 2021

Borenstein, M., et al.: Introduction to Meta-Analysis, 421 p. Wiley, Padstow (2009). 978-0-470-05724-7

Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., Thomas, J.: Finding relevant studies. In: An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, pp. 107–134. Sage Publications Ltd., London (2012)

CGCOM: Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (2016)

Chaabna, K., et al.: Gray literature in systematic reviews on population health in the Middle East and North Africa: protocol of an overview of systematic reviews and evidence mapping. Syst. Rev. 7 (94), 1–6 (2018)

Cleff, T.: Applied Statistics and Multivariate Data Analysis for Business and Economics [S.l.], 487 pp. Springer (2019). 9783030177669.

Cobo, M.J., et al.: Science mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 62 (7), 1382–1402 (2011)

Colicchia, C., Strozzi, F.: Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review. Supply Chain Manage. 17 (4), 403–418 (2012). 1359-8546

Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., Valentine, J.C.: Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd edn., 610 pp. Russel Sage Foundation, New York (2009). 9780871541635

Counsell, C.: Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann. Int. Med. 127 (5), 380–387 (1997)

Cox, J.F., Schleier, J.G.: Theory of Constraints Handbook, 1175 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York (2010). 9780071665551

Deb, D., Dey, R., Balas, V.E.: Bibliometrics and research quality. In: Engineering Research Methodology. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol. 153. 1st edn., pp. 95–105. Springer Nature, Singapore (2019). 978-981-13-2947-0

Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., Van Aken, J.E.: Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organizat. Stud. 29 (3), 393–413 (2008). 0170-8406

Dresch, A., Lacerda, D.P., Antunes, Jr., J.A.V.: Design Science Research: A Method for Scientific and Technology Advancement, 1st edn, 161 pp. Springer (2015). 978-3-319-07373-6

Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf. Soft. Technol. 50 (9–10), 833–859 (2008)

Fleiss, J.L.: Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol. Bull. 76 (5), 378–382 (1971)

Garousi, V., Felderer, M., Mäntylä, M.V.: Guidelines for including grey literature and conducting multivocal literature reviews in software engineering. Inf. Soft. Technol. 1–22 (2018). 9781450336918

Gauss, L., Lacerda, D.P., Cauchick Miguel, P.A.: Module-based product family design: systematic literature review and meta-synthesis. J. Intell. Manufact. 32 (1), 265–312 (2021)

Gkoulalas-Divanis, A., Verykios, C.S.: Association Rule Hiding for Data Mining [S.l.], 150 pp. Springer (2010). 978-1-4419-6569-1

Gough, D., Oliver, S., Thomas, J.: An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, 1st edn., 288 pp. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2012). 9781849201803

Green, B.N., Johnson, C.D., Adams, A.: Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J. Chiripratic Med. 5 (3), 101–117 (2006). 0024-3892

Grimshaw, J.M., et al.: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol. Assess. 8 (6), 349 (2004)

Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., et al.: Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Appl. Intell. 48 (5), 1275–1287 (2017)

Haddow, G.: Bibliometric research. In: Research Methods: Information, Systems, and Contexts, 2nd edn., pp. 241–266. Chandos Publishing, Cambridge (2018). 978-0-08-102220-7

Hammerstrøm, K., et al.: Searching for studies: information retrieval methods group policy brief, November (2009)

Harden, A., Gough, D.: Quality and relevance appraisal. In: An introduction to systematic reviews, 1st edn., pp. 153–178. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles (2012)

Hart, C.: Doing a Literature Review: Realising the Social Science Research Imagination, 1st edn., 230 pp. SAGE Publications, London (1998)

Higgins, J., Green, S.: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2011)

Higgins, J., Li, T., Deeks, J.J.: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 [S.l: s.n.] (2020a). Disponível em: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10

Higgins, J., Li, T., Deeks, J.J.: Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.1 [S.l.]. Cochrane (2020b). Disponível em: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

Hood, W.W., Wilson, C.S.: The literature of bibliometrics, scientometrics, and informetrics. Scientometrics 52 (2), 291–314 (2001)

Hsieh, H.F., Shannon, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitat. Health Res. 15 (9), 1277–1288 (2005). 1049-7323

Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Engineering 45 (4ve), 1051 (2007). 1595933751

Krippendorff, K.: Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 4th edn., 356 pp. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (2019)

Lacerda, D.P., Rodrigues, L.H., Da Silva, A.C.: Evaluating the synergy of business process engineering and theory of constraints thinking process. Production 21 (2), 284–300 (2011)

Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1), 159 (1977)

Littell, J.H., Corcoran, J., Pillai, V.: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [S.l: s.n.], 1–211 pp. (2008). 978-0-19-532654-3

Macedo, M.F.G., Muller, A.C.A., Moreira, A.C.: Patenteamento em biotecnologia: um guia prático para os elaboradores de pedidos de patente [S.l.], 200 pp. Editora Embrapa (2001)

Mering, M.: Bibliometrics: Understanding author, article and journal-level metrics. J. Ser. Rev. 43 (1), 41–45 (2017)

Moher, D., et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 (7) (2009). 0031-9023

Monforte-Royo, C., et al.: What lies behind the wish to hasten death? A systematic review and meta-ethnography from the perspective of patients. PLoS ONE 7 (5) (2012). 1932-6203

Morandi, M.I.W.M., Camargo, L.F.R.: Systematic Literature Review. Design In: Science Research [S.l.], p. 161. Springer (2015)

Noblit, G.W., Hare, R.D.: Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies, 1st edn. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park (1988). 9780803930230

OECD: OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms. OECD Publishing, Paris (2008)

Oliveira, O.J. De., et al.: Bibliometric method for mapping the state-of-the-art and identifying research gaps and trends in literature: an essential instrument to support the development of scientific projects. IntechOpen 20 (2019)

Osareh, F.: Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: a review of literature I. Libri 46 (1), 149–158 (1996)

Pate, D.J., Patterson, M.D., German, B.J.: Optimizing families of reconfigurable aircraft for multiple missions. J. Aircraft title (Snowball Cit. 2nd iteration) 49 (6), 1988–2000 (2012)

Petticrew, M., Roberts, H.: Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide, 1st edn., 336 pp. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA (2006). 1473314060098

Popper, K.: Objective knowledge, 1st edn., 394 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972)

Quivy, R.: Manuel de Recherche en Sciences Sociales [Manual of Scientific Research in Social Science]. Dunod, Paris (1995). Disponível em: https://tecnologiamidiaeinteracao.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/quivy-manual-investigacao-novo.pdf . 9789726622758

Renz, S.M., Carrington, J.M., Badger, T.A.: Two strategies for qualitative content analysis: an intramethod approach to triangulation. Qualitat. Health Res. 28 (5), 1–8 (2018)

Saini, M., Shlonsky, A.: Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research, 1st edn., 223 pp. Oxford University Press, New York (2012). 9780195387216

Sandelowski, M. et al.: Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. J. Mixed Methods Res. 6 (4), 317–331 (2011)

Scopus: Scopus database (2020)

Smith, V., et al.: Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 11 (15), 1–6 (2011)

Snyder, H.: Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104 (March), 333–339 (2019). Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, 2nd edn., 272 pp. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park (1990). 978-1412906449

Tan, P.-N., et al.: Introduction to Data Mining, 2nd edn., 864 pp. [S.l.]. Pearson (2019)

Thelwall, M.: Bibliometrics to webometrics. J. Inf. Sci. 34 (4), 605–621 (2008)

Thomas, J., Harden, A., Newman, M.: Synthesis: combining results systematically and appropriately. In: An Introduction to Systematic Reviews, 1st edn., p. 288. Sage Publications, Los Angeles (2012)

Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Scavarda, A.J.: Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Product. Plann. Control 27 (5), 408–420 (2016)

Universidade de São Paulo: Portal da escrita científica (2019)

Veit, D.R., et al.: Towards mode 2 knowledge production. Bus. Process Manage. J. 23 , 293–328 (2017)

Walsh, D., Downe, S.: Meta-synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 50 (2), 204–211 (2005). 1365-2648

Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quart. 26 (2), 133–151 (2002). 0959-5309

Whiting, P., et al.: ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 69 , 225–234 (2016)

Whittemore, R., Knafl, K.: The integrative review: updated methodology. Methodol. Issues Nurs. Res. 52 (5), 546–553 (2005)

Wohlin, C.: Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. ACM Int. Conf. Proc. Ser. (2014). 9781450324762

Yearworth, M., White, L.: The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology: developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 231 (1), 151–161 (2013). Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.05.002

Zapf, A. et al.: Measuring inter-rater reliability for nominal data—which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate? BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 16 (1), 1–10 (2016).

Zhang, C., Zhang, S.: Association Rule Mining: Models and Algorithms [S.l.], 238 pp. Springer (2002). 3-540-43533-6

Zupic, I., Čater, T.: Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizat. Res. Methods 18 (3), 429–472 (2015)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Production and Systems Engineering, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Ana Paula Cardoso Ermel

D. P. Lacerda

Maria Isabel W. M. Morandi

Leandro Gauss

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Paula Cardoso Ermel .

6.1 Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PPTX 12866 kb)

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cardoso Ermel, A.P., Lacerda, D.P., Morandi, M.I.W.M., Gauss, L. (2021). Literature Grounded Theory (LGT). In: Literature Reviews. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75722-9_6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75722-9_6

Published : 31 August 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-75721-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-75722-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity

Affiliation.

• 1 School of Health Studies, Bell College, Hamilton, UK. [email protected]
• PMID: 17908129
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x

Aim: This paper is a report of a discussion of the arguments surrounding the role of the initial literature review in grounded theory.

Background: Researchers new to grounded theory may find themselves confused about the literature review, something we ourselves experienced, pointing to the need for clarity about use of the literature in grounded theory to help guide others about to embark on similar research journeys.

Discussion: The arguments for and against the use of a substantial topic-related initial literature review in a grounded theory study are discussed, giving examples from our own studies. The use of theoretically sampled literature and the necessity for reflexivity are also discussed. Reflexivity is viewed as the explicit quest to limit researcher effects on the data by awareness of self, something seen as integral both to the process of data collection and the constant comparison method essential to grounded theory.

Conclusion: A researcher who is close to the field may already be theoretically sensitized and familiar with the literature on the study topic. Use of literature or any other preknowledge should not prevent a grounded theory arising from the inductive-deductive interplay which is at the heart of this method. Reflexivity is needed to prevent prior knowledge distorting the researcher's perceptions of the data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Using a synthesised technique for grounded theory in nursing research. Chen HY, Boore JR. Chen HY, et al. J Clin Nurs. 2009 Aug;18(16):2251-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02684.x. Epub 2009 Apr 3. J Clin Nurs. 2009. PMID: 19374696 Review.
• Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: implications for research design. Mills J, Bonner A, Francis K. Mills J, et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006 Feb;12(1):8-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2006.00543.x. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006. PMID: 16403191 Review.
• The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Jeon YH. Jeon YH. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004 Sep;18(3):249-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00287.x. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004. PMID: 15355518 Review.
• [Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice researcher]. Backman K, Kyngäs H. Backman K, et al. Hoitotiede. 1998;10(5):263-70. Hoitotiede. 1998. PMID: 10437449 Review. Finnish.
• [The research process in grounded theory: some examples of nursing education and nursing practice research]. Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, Janhonen S. Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, et al. Hoitotiede. 1992;4(2):50-9. Hoitotiede. 1992. PMID: 1616732 Finnish.
• A qualitative exploration of the experiences of pregnant women living with obesity and accessing antenatal care. Charnley M, Newson L, Weeks A, Abayomi J. Charnley M, et al. PLoS One. 2024 May 3;19(5):e0302599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302599. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38701095 Free PMC article.
• Cascading disasters: The impact of hurricane Maria and Covid-19 on post-disaster Puerto Rican migrants' adaptation and integration in Florida. Aranda E, Blackwell R, Escue M, Rosa A. Aranda E, et al. Lat Stud. 2022 Dec 15:1-24. doi: 10.1057/s41276-022-00390-3. Online ahead of print. Lat Stud. 2022. PMID: 36536946 Free PMC article.
• What are the impacts of setting up new medical schools? A narrative review. Hashem F, Marchand C, Peckham S, Peckham A. Hashem F, et al. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Nov 7;22(1):759. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03835-4. BMC Med Educ. 2022. PMID: 36345021 Free PMC article. Review.
• The three-step persuasion model on YouTube: A grounded theory study on persuasion in the protein supplements industry. Tripathi J, de Vries RAJ, Lemke M. Tripathi J, et al. Front Artif Intell. 2022 Oct 12;5:838377. doi: 10.3389/frai.2022.838377. eCollection 2022. Front Artif Intell. 2022. PMID: 36311552 Free PMC article.
• Developing a logic model of change for the determinants of parental nurturance in the first 1000 days: A mixed-method study protocol. Goldschmidt T, Adebiyi BO, Roman NV. Goldschmidt T, et al. PLoS One. 2021 Oct 25;16(10):e0258764. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258764. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34695150 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

Related information

• Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Patient Perspectives
• Methods Corner
• Science for Patients
• Invited Commentaries
• ESC Content Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Instructions for reviewers
• Submission Site
• Why publish with EJCN?
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Read & Publish
• About European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
• About ACNAP
• About European Society of Cardiology
• ESC Publications
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• War in Ukraine
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, distinguishing features of grounded theory, the role and timing of the literature review.

• < Previous

Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Carley Turner, Felicity Astin, Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?, European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2021, Pages 285–289, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaa034

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Grounded theory (GT) is both a research method and a research methodology. There are several different ways of doing GT which reflect the different viewpoints of the originators. For those who are new to this approach to conducting qualitative research, this can be confusing. In this article, we outline the key characteristics of GT and describe the role of the literature review in three common GT approaches, illustrated using exemplar studies.

Describing the key characteristics of a Grounded theory (GT) study.

Considering the role and timing of the literature review in different GT approaches.

Qualitative research is a cornerstone in cardiovascular research. It gives insights in why particular phenomena occur or what underlying mechanisms are. 1 Over the past 2 years, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing published 20 qualitative studies. 2–21 These studies used methods such as content analysis, ethnography, or phenomenology. Grounded theory (GT) has been used to a lesser extent.

Grounded theory is both a methodology and a method used in qualitative research ( Table 1 ). It is a research approach used to gain an emic insight into a phenomenon. In simple terms, this means understanding the perspective, or point of view, of an ‘insider’, those who have experience of the phenomenon. 22 Grounded theory is a research approach that originated from the social sciences but has been used in education and health research. The focus of GT is to generate theory that is grounded in data and shaped by the views of participants, thereby moving beyond description and towards theoretical explanation of a process or phenomenon. 23

Grounded theory as a method and methodology

One of the key issues with using GT, particularly for novices, is understanding the different approaches that have evolved as each specific GT approach is slightly different.

The tradition of GT began with the seminal text about classic GT written by Glaser and Strauss, 24 but since then GT has evolved into several different types. The approach to GT chosen by the researcher depends upon an understanding of the epistemological underpinnings of the different approaches, the match with the topic under investigation and the researcher’s own stance. Whilst GT is frequently used in applied health research, very few studies detail which GT approach has been used, how and why. Sometimes published studies claim to use GT methodology but the approaches that form the foundation of GT are not reported. This may be due to the word limit in academic journals or because legitimate GT approaches have not been followed. Either way, there is a lack of clarity about the practical application of GT. The purpose of this article is to outline the distinguishing characteristics of GT and outline practical considerations for the novice researcher regarding the place of the literature review in GT.

There are several distinguishing features of GT, as outlined by Sbaraini et al. 25 The first is that GT research is conducted through an inductive process. This means that the researcher is developing theory rather than testing it and must therefore remain ‘open’ throughout the study. In essence, this means that the researcher has no preconceived ideas about the findings. Taking an inductive approach means that the focus of the research may evolve over time as the researchers understand what is important to their participants through the data collection and analysis process.

With regards to data analysis, the use of coding is initially used to break down data into smaller components and labelling them to capture the essence of the data. The codes are compared to one another to understand and explain any variation in the data before they are combined to form more abstract categories. Memos are used to record and develop the researcher’s analysis of the data, including the detail behind the comparisons made between categories. Memos can stimulate the researcher’s thinking, as well as capturing the researcher’s ideas during data collection and analysis.

A further feature for data analysis in a GT study is the simultaneous data analysis and sampling to facilitate theoretical sampling. This means that as data analysis progresses participants are purposefully selected who may have characteristics or experiences that have arisen as being of interest from data collection and analysis so far. Questions in the topic guide may also be modified to follow a specific line of inquiry, test ideas and interpretations, or fill gaps in the analysis to build an emerging substantive theory. This evolving and non-linear methodology is to allow the evolution of the study as indicated by data, rather than analysing at the end of data collection. This approach to data analysis supports the researcher to take an inductive approach as discussed above.

Theoretical sampling facilitates the construction of theory until theoretical saturation is reached. Theoretical saturation is when all the concepts that form the theory being developed are well understood and grounded in data. Finally, the results are expressed as a theory where a set of concepts are related to one another and provide a framework for making predictions. 26 These key features of GT are summarized in Table 2 .

Distinguishing features of a GT study (adapted from Sbaraini et al. 25 )

The identification of a gap in the published literature is typically a requirement of successful doctoral studies and grant applications. However, in GT research there are different views about the role and timing of the literature review.

For researchers using classic Glaserian GT, the recommended approach is that the published literature should not be reviewed until data collection, analysis and theory development has been completed. 24 The rationale for the delay of the literature review is to enable the researcher to remain ‘open’ to discover theory emerging from data and free from contamination by avoiding forcing data into pre-conceived concepts derived from other studies. Furthermore, because the researcher is ‘open’ to whichever direction the data takes they cannot know in advance which aspects of the literature will be relevant to their study. 27

In Glaserian GT, the emerging concepts and theory from data analysis inform the scope of the literature review which is conducted after theory development. 24 This approach to the literature review aligns with the rather positivist stance of Glaser in which the researcher aims to remain free of assumptions so that the theory that emerges from the data is not influenced by the researcher. Reviewing the literature prior to data analysis would risk theory being imposed on the data. Perhaps counterintuitively, Glaser does recommend reading literature in unrelated fields to understand as many theoretical codes as possible. 28 However, it is unclear how this is different to reading literature directly related to the topic and could potentially still lead to the contamination of the theory arising from data that delaying the literature review is intended to avoid. It is also problematic regarding the governance processes around research, whereby funders and ethics committees would expect at least an overview of the existing literature as part of the justification for the study.

A study by Bergman et al. 29 used a classic Glaserian GT approach to examine and identify the motive of power in myocardial infarction patients’ rehabilitation process. Whilst the key characteristics of GT were evident in the way the study was conducted, there was no discussion about how the literature review contributed to the final theory. This may have been due to the word limit but illustrates the challenges that novice researchers may have in understanding where the literature review fits in studies using GT approaches.

In Straussian GT, a more pragmatic approach to the literature view is adopted. Strauss and Corbin 30 recognized that the researcher has prior knowledge, including that of the literature, before starting their research. They did not recommend dissociation from the literature, but rather that the literature be used across the various stages of the research. Published literature could identify important areas that could contribute to theory development, support useful comparisons in the data and stimulate further questions during the analytical process. According to Strauss and Corbin, researchers should be mindful about how published work could influence theory development. Whilst visiting the literature prior to data collection was believed to enhance data analysis, it was not thought necessary to review all the literature beforehand, but rather revisit the literature at later stages in the research process. 30

A study published by Salminen-Tuomaala et al. 31 used a Straussian GT approach to explore factors that influenced the way patients coped with hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. The authors described a reflexive process in which the researcher noted down their preconceived ideas about the topic as part of the data analysis process. The literature review was conducted after data analysis.

The most recent step in the evolution of GT is the move towards a constructivist epistemological stance advocated by Charmaz. 32 In simple terms, this means that the underlying approach reflects the belief that theories cannot be discovered but are instead constructed by the researcher and their interactions with the participants and data. As the researcher plays a central role in the construction of the GT, their background, personal views, and culture will influence this process and the way data are analysed. For this reason, it is important to be explicit about these preconceptions and aim to maintain an open mind through reflexivity. 32 Therefore, engaging in a preliminary literature review and using this information to compare and contrast with findings from the research undertaken is desirable, alongside completing a comprehensive literature review after data analysis with a specific aim to present the GT.

A study published by Odell et al. 33 used the modified GT approach recommended by Charmaz 32 to study patients’ experiences of restenosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The authors described the different GT approaches and key features of GT methodology which clearly informed the conduct of the study. However, there was no detail about how the literature review was used to shape the data analysis process and findings.

A solution: be clear on the approach taken to the literature review and why

Despite the clear differences in the approach to the literature review in GT, there appears to be a lack of precise guidance for novice researchers regarding how in depth or exhaustive a preliminary literature review should be. This lack of guidance can lead to a variety of different approaches as evidenced in the GT studies we have cited as examples, which is a challenge for the novice researcher. This uncertainty is further compounded by the concurrent approach to data collection and analysis which allows for the research focus to evolve as the study progresses. The complexity of the research process and the role and timing of the literature review is summarized in Figure 1 .

Literature review in Grounded Theory.

Taking a pragmatic approach, researchers will need to familiarize themselves with the literature to receive funding and approval for their study. This preliminary literature review can be followed up after data analysis by a more comprehensive review of the literature to help support the theory that was developed from the data. The key is to ensure transparency in reporting how the literature review has been used to develop the theory. The preliminary literature review can be used to set the scene for the research as part of the introduction, and the more extensive literature review can then be used during the discussion section to compare the theory developed from the data with existing literature, as per Probyn et al. 34

Whilst this pragmatic approach aligns with Straussian GT and Charmaz’s constructivist GT, it is at odds with Glaserian GT. Therefore, if Glaserian GT is chosen, the researcher should be explicit about deviation and provide a rationale.

Word count for journal articles is often a limiting factor in how much detail is included in why certain methodologies are used. Submitting detail about the methodology and rationale behind it can be presented as online supplementary material, thereby allowing interested readers to access further information about how and why the research was executed.

The use of GT as a methodology and method can shed light on areas where little knowledge is already known, generating theory directly from data. The traditional format of a published article does not always reflect the iterative approach to the literature review and data collection and analysis in GT. This can generate tension between how the research is presented in relation to how it was conducted. However, one simple way to ensure clarity in reporting is to be transparent in how the literature review is used.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest : The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Greenhalgh T , Taylor R. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) . Br Med J 1997 ; 315 : 740 – 743 .

Google Scholar

Wilson RE , Rush KL , Reid RC , et al.  The symptom experience of early and late treatment seekers before an atrial fibrillation diagnosis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :231--242.

Lauck SB , Achtem L , Borregaard B , et al.  Can you see frailty? An exploratory study of the use of a patient photograph in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :252--260.

Sundelin R , Bergsten C , Tornvall P , Lyngå, P. et al.  Self-rated stress and experience in patients with Takotsubo syndrome: a mixed methods study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120919387.

Janssen DJ , Ament SM , Boyne J , et al.  Characteristics for a tool for timely identification of palliative needs in heart failure: the views of Dutch patients, their families and healthcare professionals . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120918962.

Steffen EM , Timotijevic L , Coyle A. A qualitative analysis of psychosocial needs and support impacts in families affected by young sudden cardiac death: the role of community and peer support . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120922347.

Molzahn AE , Sheilds L , Bruce A , Schick-Makaroff K , Antonio M , Clark AM. Life and priorities before death: a narrative inquiry of uncertainty and end of life in people with heart failure and their family members . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 629 – 637 .

Wistrand C , Nilsson U , Sundqvist A-S. Patient experience of preheated and room temperature skin disinfection prior to cardiac device implantation: a randomised controlled trial . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 529 – 536 .

Widell C , Andréen S , Albertsson P , Axelsson ÅB. Octogenarian preferences and expectations for acute coronary syndrome treatment . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 521 – 528 .

Ferguson C , George A , Villarosa AR , Kong AC , Bhole S , Ajwani S. Exploring nursing and allied health perspectives of quality oral care after stroke: a qualitative study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 505 – 512 .

Sutantri S , Cuthill F , Holloway A. ‘ A bridge to normal’: a qualitative study of Indonesian women’s attendance in a phase two cardiac rehabilitation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 , doi: 10.1177/1474515119864208.

Liu X-L , Willis K , Fulbrook P , Wu C-J(J) , Shi Y , Johnson M. Factors influencing self-management priority setting and decision-making among Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 700 – 710 .

Wingham J , Frost J , Britten N , Greaves C , Abraham C , Warren FC , Jolly K , Miles J , Paul K , Doherty PJ , Singh S , Davies R , Noonan M , Dalal H , Taylor RS. Caregiver outcomes of the REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 611 – 620 .

Olsson K , Näslund U , Nilsson J , Hörnsten Å. Hope and despair: patients’ experiences of being ineligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 593 – 600 .

Heery S , Gibson I , Dunne D , Flaherty G. The role of public health nurses in risk factor modification within a high-risk cardiovascular disease population in Ireland – a qualitative analysis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 584 – 592 .

Brännström M , Fischer Grönlund C , Zingmark K , Söderberg A. Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 577 – 583 .

Haydon G , van der Riet P , Inder K. Long-term survivors of cardiac arrest: a narrative inquiry . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 458 – 464 .

Freysdóttir GR , Björnsdóttir K , Svavarsdóttir MH. Nurses’ Use of Monitors in Patient Surveillance: An Ethnographic Study on a Coronary Care Unit . London, England : SAGE Publications ; 2019 . p 272 – 279 .

Google Preview

Pokorney SD , Bloom D , Granger CB , Thomas KL , Al-Khatib SM , Roettig ML , Anderson J , Heflin MT , Granger BB. Exploring patient–provider decision-making for use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the INFORM-AF study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 280 – 288 .

Instenes I , Fridlund B , Amofah HA , Ranhoff AH , Eide LS , Norekvål TM. ‘ I hope you get normal again’: an explorative study on how delirious octogenarian patients experience their interactions with healthcare professionals and relatives after aortic valve therapy . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 224 – 233 .

Palmar-Santos AM , Pedraz-Marcos A , Zarco-Colón J , Ramasco-Gutiérrez M , García-Perea E , Pulido-Fuentes M. The life and death construct in heart transplant patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 48 – 56 .

De Chesnay M , Banner D. Nursing Research Using Grounded Theory: Qualitative Designs and Methods . New York, NY : Springer Publishing Company ; 2015 .

Corbin J , Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 3rd ed. California : SAGE ; 2007 .

Glaser BG , Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . New York : Aldine ; 1967 .

Sbaraini A , Carter SM , Evans RW , Blinkhorn A. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices . BMC Med Res Methodol 2011 ; 11 : 128 – 128 .

Charmaz K. ‘ Discovering’ chronic illness: using grounded theory . Soc Sci Med 1990 ; 30 : 1161 – 1172 .

Thornberg R , Dunne C. Literature review in grounded theory. In Bryant A , Charmaz K , eds. The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory . London : SAGE Publications ; 2019 .

Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions . California : Sociology Press ; 1998 .

Bergman E , Berterö C. ‘ Grasp Life Again’. A qualitative study of the motive power in myocardial infarction patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2003 ; 2 : 303 – 310 .

Strauss A , Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques . 2nd ed. California : Sage ; 1998 .

Salminen-Tuomaala M , Åstedt-Kurki P , Rekiaro M , Paavilainen E. Coping—seeking lost control . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012 ; 11 : 289 – 296 .

Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory . 2nd ed. Los Angeles : SAGE ; 2014 .

Odell A , Grip L , Hallberg LRM. Restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): experiences from the patients' perspective . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006 ; 5 : 150 – 157 .

Probyn J , Greenhalgh J , Holt J , Conway D , Astin F. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients’ and cardiologists’ experiences of the informed consent process in Northern England: a qualitative study . BMJ Open 2017 ; 7 : e015127 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1873-1953
• Print ISSN 1474-5151
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Directories

Grounded theory literature reviews

Another type of literature review is one done for a grounded theory research project. According to one approach, in grounded theory projects, the researcher tends to conduct empirical research before writing a literature review. However, this approach can be problematic if you are a postgraduate research student who is doing deadline-dependent research into a topic that is relatively new or unfamiliar to you. Most academics who do grounded theory research already have a well-developed understanding of the field and theory, which is why they may be more comfortable with leaving a literature review late into the process.

For research students doing grounded theory projects, many argue that it is both practical and important to research the theory early on in the project, to make sure that your project is not duplicating extant work, or go on an irrelevant tangent (Dunne, 2011, p. 116; McGhee, Marland & Atkinson, 2007, p. 340). Also, researching into academic literature takes a long time, so doing it from the start of your project will save you stress later on. So, for a grounded theory project it's useful to start writing your literature review early on.

When writing a grounded theory literature review, it's important to take note of how the literature influences your ideas, and to keep track of your original ideas. To maintain your grounded theory perspective, McGhee, Marland and Atkinson (2007, p. 340) argue that "Reflexivity is needed to prevent prior knowledge distorting the researcher's perceptions of the data." Unlike the traditional approach, where the literature review leads on to the research question, in a grounded theory approach the empirical research is used to reflect on the academic literature's values and limitations.

In this sense, then, the placement of the literature review may be different between traditional and grounded theory projects. Some grounded theory projects don't have a dedicated literature review chapter and instead reflect on the literature throughout the chapters. Others incorporate and reflect on literature throughout the chapters as well as in a substantial section or chapter towards the end of the document. Many follow more of a traditional approach with a literature review early on and reflection on the literature throughout the writing.

Whichever option you choose, discuss it early on with your supervisor. Although there are a variety of ways to structure a grounded theory project, it is frequently recommended that you place a literature review early on in the thesis, possibly in the introduction or first chapter. Having a literature review upfront helps your readers to understand how your research fits into the field. It also helps your readers to identify how your research questions relate to the academic literature.

References and resources about grounded theory research

• Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2010). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
• Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 14 (2), 111-124. doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930
• Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers . Sage Publications Ltd. Retrieved from ProQuest ebrary.
• McGhee, G., Marland G.R., & Atkinson J. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60 (3), 334-342. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x
• Williams, M., & Vogt, P. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of innovation in social research methods . Los Angeles, California; London: Sage.
• Wisker, G. (2008). The postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD  (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Literature reviews

Purpose of traditional literature reviews

Placement of traditional literature reviews

Structuring a literature review

Language of the literature review

Systematic literature reviews

• ANU Library Academic Skills
• +61 2 6125 2972

• DOI: 10.7748/nr.2020.e1752
• Corpus ID: 220434848

Approaches to reviewing the literature in grounded theory: a framework.

• Kris Deering , Joanne. Williams
• Published in Nurse Researcher 9 July 2020

3 Citations

Revisiting social workers in schools (swis) – making the case for safeguarding in context and the potential for reach, investigate innovation intermediary in civilian space industry innovation network: a grounded theory study, chatbot as an emergency exist: mediated empathy for resilience via human-ai interaction during the covid-19 pandemic, 53 references, grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity., the place of the literature review in grounded theory research, grounded theory and the conundrum of literature review: framework for novice researchers, rigour and grounded theory., grounded theory research: a design framework for novice researchers, discriminating among grounded theory approaches, the timing of the literature review in grounded theory research: an open mind versus an empty head, the constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory, grounded theory and feminist inquiry: revitalizing links to the past, grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being
• v.5(3); 2010

Some thoughts about the literature review in grounded theory studies

In a conventional quantitative study, the aim of the literature review mainly is to refine the research question, determine gaps in earlier research and identify a suitable design, and data collection method for a planned study. In qualitative research the literature search—when and how—is of a more ambiguous character. Grounded theory (GT), one qualitative method among many others, is described as a “general inductive method possessed by no discipline or theoretical perspective or data type” (Glaser, 2005 , p. 141). In a GT-study, concepts are generated from empirical data rather than from existing literature. Like a detective who strives to explain what is actually happening, the GT-researcher strives to explain the main concern of participants in a specific situation/area and to find out how they resolve or process this main concern. The emerging result is presented either as a hypothesis, a model or as an abstract conceptual theory. The theory is built up around a core category and related categories. In Glaser's words, the aim of GT is to “generate a theory that accounts for a pattern of behavior which is relevant and significant for those involved” (Glaser, 1978 , p. 93). Conceptualisation is a core process in GT, which thereby is a theory-generating rather than a descriptive method. Generating theory demands creative and conceptual thinking.

Barney Glaser, the originator of the classical GT methodology, has stressed the importance of that a GT-researcher avoids preconceptions and remains open-minded to what actually appears in the research field. He encourages GT-researchers to “just get on and do it.” However, when a hypothesis, model or theory can be discerned in the data, a relevant literature search should be conducted and interwoven into the emerging theory. Glaser argues that an early reading of the literature (i.e., before conducting the study) is problematic. This includes that the researcher is encouraged to ignore the existing literature before entering the research field. This approach rests on the opinion that what is important in the research area will show itself repeatedly, or in other words, what is important will emerge without the “neutral” researcher is doing nothing but listen and look with an open mind. In order to understand the participants’ viewpoint, the researcher must put aside his/her personal perspective and, of course, have knowledge and competence in how to conceptualise data. Unfortunately, many researchers lack competence in conceptualisation.

Any researcher has acquired considerable knowledge in the professional and disciplinary literature. To think conceptually requires that the researcher continually follows the cross-disciplinary literature, i.e., they are reading a lot. It is not easy for the researcher to put this knowledge aside when starting a new study but the point is, as I see it, not to be consciously directed by earlier theories and concepts in interpretations and conclusions of the data. One way to stay open and do good GT-studies is to maintain theoretical sensitivity through constant comparisons (e.g., constantly comparing incidents to incidents, incidents to concepts, and concept to concept) and continuous memo writing. There is a fine line between avoiding the use of literature before a study begins and being informed so that a study is focused enough. In my opinion, it is necessary to conduct an early literature review to find out if the planned study, or something similar as the planned study, has been published before. This literature review may also give a background to and motivate the interest for the particular research area. Such a literature review will also be requested by authorities when researchers apply for research grants and/or ethical permission to conduct a study or when a presumptive doctoral student applies for acceptance as a PhD candidate. At least a presumptive researcher has to demonstrate that a problem worthy of research really exists and that he/she has the necessary skill to conduct such a study. This is in line with the view of Glaser ( 1998 ) when advocating GT-researchers to do some preliminary reading before the study begins in order to put the study into a context.

• Glaser B.G. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B.G. Doing grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B.G. The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

Grounded Theory: Description, Divergences and Application

• Citation (BibTeX)

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

View more stats

In this paper, we describe grounded theory methodology, its purpose and its application in addressing research problems. We highlight the divergences and debates on how to apply the methodology. We examine the application of the methodology in prior accounting research. We conclude the paper by identifying quality criteria for the conduct of grounded-theory research. Our paper contributes to prior research by assembling a wide body of prior literature on grounded-theory methods and by summarising that literature in a clear and accessible manner for future researchers. In addition, the research design presented reflects current thinking in the literature on improving the application of grounded theory methodology in future research.

1. Introduction

Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology used to develop theory. We describe the core tenets of grounded theory, revealing how to collect and analyse data applying its fundamental tenets as introduced by its original proponents, Glaser & Strauss (1967) , but reflecting the subsequent analytical approach of Corbin & Strauss (2015) . We explore divergences and debates on how to apply grounded theory in practice.

Grounded theory is a suitable research methodology to develop theory for three reasons. First, grounded theory has an established reputation for the study of human behaviour and for making knowledge claims about how individuals interpret reality (Suddaby , 2006) . Second, grounded theory’s central aim is theory building, rather than theory testing. It is a suitable design when a theory does not fully explain a process (Creswell , 2007; Goulding , 2005; Thornberg & Dunne , 2019) . Grounded theory facilitates recording and interpreting individuals’ subjective experiences. Through the methodological process of theoretical sampling and constant comparison, it enables abstraction of individuals’ subjective experience into theoretical statements (Fendt & Sachs , 2008) . Third, grounded-theory methodology has established guidelines for conducting research and interpreting data, particularly Corbin and Strauss’s (2015) systematic approach.

Our paper contributes to the prior literature in the following three ways. First, since Elharidy et al. (2008) , Gurd (2008) , von Alberti-Alhtaybat & Al-Htaybat (2010) and Sutton et al. (2011) , a gap has emerged in the up-to-date literature examining grounded theory in accounting research. Second, we consider the essential features of grounded theory in depth, as a valuable resource, especially for novice interpretive researchers considering adopting this method. Third, we summarise prior accounting studies using grounded theory. We hope this sensitises accounting researchers to the potential of using grounded theory as a method in accounting research.

Section 2 describes grounded theory. In Section 3, we discuss the approaches to grounded theory by the main proponents of this methodology, identifying their primary differences. In Section 4, we review grounded theory in prior research, including accounting studies using grounded theory. Section 5 discusses quality characteristics in the context of interpretative research. We conclude the paper in Section 6.

2. Description of Grounded Theory

This section reviews the origins of grounded theory, its core tenets and the divergent approaches in the prior literature.

2.1 Origins of Grounded Theory

Glaser & Strauss (1967) originally devised grounded-theory methodology. Their approach was largely a protest against (a) a methodological climate in which qualitative research was considered preliminary to the ‘real’ methodologies of quantitative research (Goulding , 2006) and (b) the positivism permeating most social research (Suddaby , 2006) . Glaser & Strauss (1967) were also motivated by a desire to dismiss the myth that all good theories had been discovered and that research should focus on testing theories through quantitative empirical approaches. Glaser came from a tradition of rigorous, positivistic quantitative research learned at Columbia University. He sought to apply this training to qualitative research (Charmaz , 2000) . Strauss studied at the University of Chicago with its tradition of symbolic interactionism and qualitative approaches of inquiry, such as observation and intensive interviewing: “Hence, Strauss brought the pragmatist philosophical study of process, action, and meaning into empirical enquiry through grounded theory” (Charmaz , 2000 , p. 512) . The two researchers devised the methodology while researching the experiences of chronically ill patients. The crux of Glaser & Strauss’ (1967) grounded theory is that the adequacy of the theory developed depends on the research process used to derive it. The theory derives concepts from the data and develops them by collecting, coding and analysing data concurrently. This approach ensures that the theory produced fits the phenomenon under investigation (Glaser & Strauss , 1967) . The approach contrasts with the more traditional logical-deductive approaches, which use existing theories to generate hypotheses, and then test them empirically.

The original proponents, Glaser & Strauss (1967) define grounded theory as the discovery of theory from data. Corbin & Strauss (2008) describe grounded theory as denoting theoretical constructs derived from qualitative analysis. Both definitions reflect the same fundamental methodological principle: theoretical interpretation of a phenomenon generated from data using core methodological guidelines. Grounded-theory researchers do not commence with a theory. Theory evolves during the research process and is produced from the continuous interplay between data analysis, data collection and resulting theory (Corbin & Strauss , 2015; Glaser , 1978; Glaser & Strauss , 1967) . The emerging theory leads to further data collection and analysis, further developing the theoretical constructs. Grounded-theory research seeks to make sense of the data collected to determine its meaning and significance (Parker & Roffey , 1997) .

2.2 Core Tenets of Grounded-theory Methodology

The original proponents of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss, diverged on the application of the methodology. Several variants have emerged. Notwithstanding this divergence, the approach uses fundamental elements regardless of the variant of grounded theory adopted: (i) coding, (ii) development of concepts/categories, (iii) constant comparison of data, (iv) theoretical sampling, (v) theoretical saturation, (vi) theoretical integration and (vii) use of memos to reflect researchers’ analytical thought processes. Sutton et al. (2011 , p. 62) include a useful glossary of grounded theory terminology. Figure 1 reflects the application of grounded theory, including its core tenets. We describe the grounded-theory approach in seven stages.

Source: Adapted from Goulding , 2006 , p. 115

Stage 1: Research Problem

Stage 1 in Figure 1 involves identifying the research problem. Glaser & Strauss (1967) advocate starting with a broad substantive area. Others advocate identifying a specific research problem and research question (Corbin & Strauss , 2015; Suddaby , 2006) . This might involve a preliminary review of the literature and/or drawing on professional experience. Once researchers identify the research problem, they select a research methodology.

Stage 2: Field Research 1

Stage 2 in Figure 1 involves entering the field and the simultaneous collection and analysis of data, such as interview or other types of data. This stage should begin with a general target population. With interview data, researchers conduct and transcribe the first interview and then analyse the transcript line-by-line (Charmaz , 2006; Corbin & Strauss , 2015) . The analytical process in grounded theory involves the use of coding strategies (known as open coding). Researchers analyse data for meaning and disaggregate them into units of meaning, labelled (coded) to generate concepts (Goulding , 2006) . Concepts are the foundation for Corbin & Strauss’s (2008 , p. 51) analytic method: “the categories for which data are sought and in which data are grouped; they usually become the chief means for establishing relations between data; and they are the anchor points in interpretation of finding … The use of concepts provides a way of grouping/organizing the data that a researcher is working with”. Codes denote participants’ words or incidents as concepts derived from observation. Researchers use memos throughout the analytical process (Corbin & Strauss , 2015; Glaser & Strauss , 1967) . Memos comprise written records of analysis that depict relationships between analytical concepts. As such, when researchers identify codes in the data, they record their thought processes around identification in memo format. Memo writing begins with the first analysis of data and continues throughout the analytical process. Memos might include short quotes of data as a reminder of what generated a concept or idea. When it comes to writing up, researchers use much of this memo writing to illustrate the concepts. Researchers regularly update memos on individual concepts as the analysis progresses, thereby evolving into memos of greater depth and complexity (Corbin & Strauss , 2015) .

Concepts identified and coded, say in the first interview, require further investigation. Researchers conduct a second interview to develop the concepts identified in the first interview. This second interview might provide additional insights into these concepts but may also yield new concepts that researchers code and explore in subsequent interviews. The principle of gathering data based on evolving concepts by alternating data collection with analysis is known as theoretical sampling (Corbin & Strauss , 2015) . The objective is to develop the varying properties and dimensions of a concept (Stage 3 in Figure 1 ). Unlike conventional methods of sampling, researchers sample concepts in the data, not people. Researchers identify concepts and further questions for exploration through the analysis. These concepts drive the sampling process, i.e., the next round of data collection. Interviewees provide the data that elaborate on these concepts. Developing the concepts in terms of their properties and dimensions involves the constant comparison of data. As researchers collect data, they constantly compare new data to prior data for similarities and differences. This increases concept generality and explanatory power (Glaser & Strauss , 1967 , p. 24) .

Stage 3: Conceptual Development

In Stage 3 of Figure 1 , researchers systematically develop concepts in terms of their properties and dimensions. Properties are characteristics that define and describe concepts. At the same time, researchers validate interpretations by comparing them against incoming data (Corbin & Strauss , 2015; Glaser & Strauss , 1967) . Validation does not imply testing hypotheses but refers to researchers assessing interpretations both with participants and against emerging data as the research progresses. This circular process of data collection and constant comparison continues until the research reaches the point of theoretical saturation; that is, the point in the research when all the concepts are well defined and explained (Corbin & Strauss , 2015) .

Corbin & Strauss (2008) offer techniques for analysing data for concepts. Table 1 summarises the analytical tools in the coding/analysis process, describing each tool and its benefits. The first technique involves the use of questioning. When analysing the data line-by-line, researchers ask questions of the data: Who, what, when, where, how and with what consequences. As concepts become more developed, researchers might question whether there is a relationship between one category and another. The second technique involves making comparisons. The process of constant comparison involves comparing each incident in the data with other incidents for similarities and differences. Incidents are then placed under the same or different codes. In subsequent interviews, incidents labelled under the same code are compared for similarities and differences (within-code comparison) to uncover the different properties and dimensions of the concept. The third technique involves drawing on personal experience. This is used when the researcher has life experiences similar to those of the participants and can use this experience as a comparative case to stimulate thinking about various properties and dimensions of concepts. The fourth technique is the flip-flop technique, which involves looking at the opposite or extreme range of a concept to bring out its significant properties and dimensions. The fifth technique looks at the language used by interview participants. On occasion, the language used can be so expressive it can translate as a code. This is called an in-vivo code, indicating the term comes from the data. Finally, researchers can look for words that indicate time (e.g., when, after, since, before, in case, if). Such words can denote a change or a shift in perception, thoughts, events or interpretations of events.

1 Sensitising questions tune researchers into what the data might be indicating 2 Theoretical questions help researchers to see the process, variation, and so on, and to make connections between concepts 3 Practical questions provide direction for theoretical sampling and then help develop the structure of the theory 4 Guiding questions are the questions that guide interviews and analysis of these Source: Adapted from Corbin & Strauss (2008)

Delineating the context under which something happens is as important as identifying the right concept (Corbin & Strauss , 2008) . The approach to analysing data for context is similar to the approach to analysing for concepts, in that researchers continue to question and make comparisons. Where researchers identify a concept about context, they can employ additional strategies to expand upon these contextual concepts. Corbin & Strauss (2008) provide two tools for analysing context: the paradigm and the conditional/consequential matrix. Corbin & Strauss’s (2015) conditional/consequential matrix helps researchers make connections between macro and micro conditions that influence the phenomenon under investigation. Researchers seldom use this matrix in grounded-theory work (Creswell , 2007) . Table 2 summarises the paradigm approach, describing the approach and its benefits. The paradigm comprises questions applied to data to draw out contextual factors and to identify relationships between context (i.e., structural conditions) and process (response to events) (Corbin & Strauss , 2008) . It suggests looking for keywords that signal a line of action or an explanation for something, then following that thought through in the data. The basic components of the paradigm are: (a) conditions (participants reveal the circumstances or conditions that lead them to take a particular course of action), (b) interactions and emotions (responses made by individuals or groups to situations and events) and (c) consequences (consequences answer questions about what happened as a result of those actions/interactions or emotional responses). Researchers use the paradigm approach to understand the circumstances that surround events, thereby enriching the data (Corbin & Strauss , 2015) .

Source: Adapted from Corbin & Strauss (2008)

Analysing data for process is a critical step in theory building. The contents of the dataset, and researchers’ interpretation of these, determine how process is conceptualised or described. In analysing data for process, researchers try to capture how participants react to certain events or situations and how these reactions vary over time or under different structural conditions. Corbin & Strauss (2008) provide questions for analysing data for process, included in Table 3 , along with their benefits.

Stage 4: Category Development

Concepts vary in levels of abstraction. There are basic-level concepts and higher-level concepts that Corbin & Strauss (2015) call categories. Categories have wider explanatory power than concepts. Researchers initially cluster concepts into descriptive categories. As the research progresses, researchers re-evaluate the concepts for their interrelationships (Stage 4 in Figure 1 ). Corbin & Strauss (2015) call the process of cross-cutting or relating concepts to each other axial coding. Through a series of analytical steps, researchers gradually aggregate the concepts into higher-order categories, including one underlying central or core category. These higher-order categories and the core category suggest an emergent theory. At this point, researchers may conduct a second round of field research to further validate or elaborate on the categories developed (Goulding , 2006) .

Stage 5: Theoretical Integration

With grounded theory, it is vital to lift the analysis to a more abstract level, beyond description, to theory development (Corbin & Strauss , 2015) . Theoretical integration involves linking categories around a central or core category and refining the resulting theoretical formulation. Categories pull together all the identified concepts into a theoretical framework. Researchers may decide to present a preliminary theoretical framework to a group of interview participants (Stage 5 in Figure 1 ) and/or colleagues for feedback. At this stage, researchers reflect on the framework, identify any gaps in the theory and refine as required.

Stage 4 describes the development of theoretical categories. We describe the methodological process of integrating these categories (as presented in Table 4 ) in this section. “Integrating means choosing a core category, then retelling the story around that core category using the other categories and concepts derived during the research” (Corbin & Strauss , 2015 , p. 107) . Researchers require analytical tools to lift the analysis beyond description towards theory development. Corbin & Strauss (2015) present several techniques designed to help researchers achieve theoretical integration. Researchers use these techniques in Stage 5 of Figure 1 . Table 4 summarises these techniques. The first technique involves writing the storyline. Corbin & Strauss (2015) suggest researchers begin writing, in a few descriptive sentences, about what seems to be emerging from the data. In doing so, a story or description begins to emerge. The second technique involves moving from the descriptive story (or sentences) to the theoretical explanation. Once researchers identify a core category, they tell the story around this core category using the other categories (and related concepts) derived from the research. The third technique Corbin & Strauss (2008 , 2015) advocate is integrative diagrams. Researchers extensively use integrative diagrams throughout the research process, especially during the theoretical integration process. Constructing diagrams enables researchers to distance themselves from the data, forcing researchers to work with concepts at the category level rather than at the level of detail contained in the numerous memos. It also forces researchers to think carefully about the logic of relationships. Diagrams focus on those categories that have reached the status of major categories. The fourth technique involves returning to the academic literature to reflect on new theory by reference to prior theory in the literature. The fifth technique involves reviewing and sorting through memos, the running logs of analytic thinking (Corbin & Strauss , 2015) . Reviewing the memos reminds researchers of the thought process involved in identifying concepts and categories.

Stage 6: Contextualise in Literature

Stage 6 in Figure 1 involves contextualising the theoretical framework within the existing literature. Doing so assists in identifying the similarities and differences between the constructed theoretical framework and prior theoretical frameworks. It also serves to highlight the contribution (theoretical significance) of the study.

Stage 7: Present Core Category and Theory

The final stage involves presenting the core category and the theoretical framework in its final form.

Grounded-theory research assumes that attitudes, beliefs, norms and processes within the social world under investigation are capable of being observed and that “it is possible to generate knowledge about and evidence for them” (Mason , 2002 , p. 17) . Researchers can construct concepts and theories out of stories framed by research participants. Research participants try to explain and make sense of their experiences/lives, both to researchers and themselves. Out of these multiple constructions, researchers and participants together create knowledge or understanding.

Grounded theory building favours data collection methods that gather rich data directly from individuals experiencing the phenomenon (Shah & Corley , 2006) . Critically, the purpose of grounded theory is not to make truth statements about reality but to make statements about how social actors/interview participants interpret reality. The purpose of grounded theory is to elicit fresh understandings about patterned relationships between social actors and how these relationships and interactions actively construct reality (Glaser & Strauss , 1967; Suddaby , 2006) . Researchers place themselves in the context where the phenomenon is occurring and develop interpretations of the phenomenon based on personal experiences, as well as the experiences of those living it.

2.3 Illustrating the Application of Grounded Theory

Constructivist grounded theory captures the interplay between the form and content of data (Charmaz , 2017) . Corbin & Strauss (2015) present analytical techniques (the mental strategies researchers use when coding) to use to make sense of qualitative data. They acknowledge that interpretation cannot be formulised and argue that their approach aims to teach researchers how to think more self-consciously and systematically about data. Critically, the Corbin-and-Strauss (2015) approach provides a sense of structure, process and analysis to the research, while allowing researchers to be flexible in the application of their analytical techniques. Research design should not apply grounded-theory methodology in an orthodox or fundamentalist form (Corbin & Strauss , 2015; Fendt & Sachs , 2008; Locke , 2001; Suddaby , 2006) . In Figure 2 , we illustrate the application of grounded theory in Stages 2 and 3 of the research from Cullen & Brennan’s (2017) approach.

3. Divergent Approaches to Grounded Theory

How the two original proponents of grounded theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, conceptualise and operationalise the methodology has diverged. Table 5 summarises the aspects of grounded theory on which this divergence centres (also compared by Sutton et al. , 2011 ). Strauss & Corbin (1990) provoked accusations from Glaser (1992a , 1992b) of distortion and infidelity to the central objectives of parsimony and theoretical emergence (Goulding , 2006) . Glaser (1992a) documents his main objections to Strauss and Corbin’s work by reproducing much of their text with changes to reflect his perspective (see Melia , 1996 for a detailed discussion of Glaser’s rebuttal). This dispute led to the emergence of two dominant approaches, Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory. Critically, both approaches continue to adopt the core tenets of grounded theory, suggesting more similarities than differences.

Denzin & Lincoln (2000) identify four interpretive paradigms structuring qualitative research: (i) positivist and postpositivist; (ii) constructivist-interpretive; (iii) critical and (iv) feminist-post-structural. Corbin and Strauss’s version of grounded-theory research reflects an interpretive, and specifically constructivist, paradigm on building knowledge. “The constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjective epistemology (knower and respondent cocreate understandings), and a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodological procedures. Findings are usually presented in terms of the criteria of grounded theory or pattern theories.” Denzin & Lincoln (2000 , p. 21) . The constructivist grounded theory is a contemporary version of Glaser & Strauss’s (1967) original statement (Charmaz , 2017) . Within a constructivist-interpretive paradigm, individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. The goal of research is to rely as much as possible on participants’ views and redirect qualitative research beyond positivism (Charmaz , 2000 , 2017) . Rather than starting with a theory, constructivist researchers generate a theory or pattern of meaning (Creswell , 2007) . Constructivist researchers often address the “processes” of interaction among individuals. They focus on the specific contexts in which people live and work to understand the historical and cultural settings of the participants: “a constructivist grounded theory fosters the development of qualitative traditions through the study of experience from the standpoint of those who live it” (Charmaz , 2000 , p. 522) . Constructivist grounded theory has retained its pragmatist foundation through Anslem Strauss and is a direct methodological descendent of the pragmatist tradition (Charmaz , 2017) .

Researchers use prior literature (theoretical and empirical) (i) to generate the study’s research problem, (ii) to make comparisons, (iii) to enhance sensitivity to subtle nuances in data, (iv) to provide questions for initial interviews, (v) to stimulate the analytical process and (vi) to confirm findings. Where concepts emerge from the data with properties similar to concepts identified in the literature, researchers examine both concepts for similarities and differences (Corbin & Strauss , 2015) . Grounded-theory researchers diverge on how and when to engage with the extant literature. As noted in Table 5 , Glaser (2013) remains committed to delaying the literature review until the end of the analysis. Thornberg & Dunne (2019) acknowledge the importance of the literature debate and Glaser’s role in it, arguing that the debate has highlighted potential risks associated with researchers’ unquestioning acquiescence to dominant theoretical frameworks. They argue that early engagement with the existing literature offers benefits which far outweigh the drawbacks. While Corbin & Strauss (2015) do not advocate entering the field with an entire list of concepts, they acknowledge that certain concepts identified in the literature may emerge from the data, thus demonstrating their significance. If this happens, they suggest that researchers ask themselves whether the concepts were truly derived from the data or imposed by researchers on the data due to their familiarity. Where there is a glaring discrepancy between the research findings and the findings in the prior literature, the research findings require further investigation through theoretical sampling. In this way, researchers use the prior literature to stimulate questions during the analysis process.

4. Prior Literature on the Application of Grounded Theory

To avoid the risk of (a) becoming overly consumed by the methodological debates on grounded theory and (b) ignoring the pitfalls in its application, we explore literature and opinion on the application of grounded-theory methodology in prior management research (Fendt & Sachs , 2008; Goulding , 2005 , 2006; Locke , 2001; Shah & Corley , 2006; Suddaby , 2006) . Suddaby (2006) warns against methodological slurring. In research using a grounded-theory approach, there should be consistency between the research problem, the research questions and the methods used to answer these questions (Suddaby , 2006) . Several academics have reflected on the importance of methodological disclosure and demonstrating the process surrounding the use of grounded-theory methodology (Fendt & Sachs , 2008; Seale , 1999; Shah & Corley , 2006; Suddaby , 2006) . For example, Suddaby (2006) points to the poor presentation of research methodology in papers purporting to adopt a grounded-theory approach. He argues that grounded-theory methodology should be transparent enough to demonstrate that researchers followed the core analytic tenets (i.e., theoretical sampling, constant comparison, theoretical saturation) in generating the research. Readers can then assess how researchers used the data to generate key conceptual categories. He suggests that researchers make apparent to readers the process of data analysis, including coding techniques and category creation, in the methodology section. Also, the research should provide illustrative examples of coding techniques and the evolution of conceptual categories in a table or appendix. Suddaby (2006) further refers to papers that begin with an interesting question, are written well and follow a well-constructed methodology but present incomplete data and/or obvious findings. He suggests that this is the result of one, or a combination, of three errors in the application of grounded theory: (i) confusion between grounded theory and phenomenology; (ii) a failure to ‘lift’ data to a conceptual level due to incomplete analysis of the data; (iii) or the absence of sufficient data.

4.1 Grounded Theory in Prior Accounting Research

Elharidy et al. (2008) and Gurd (2008) review grounded theory applied in an accounting context. von Alberti-Alhtaybat & Al-Htaybat (2010) describe their experiences applying grounded theory in practice. Covaleski & Dirsmith (1983) justify adopting grounded theory as their object is generating theory. Gibbins et al. (1990) highlight the benefit of grounded theory in its ability to describe the experiences of decision makers. Elharidy et al. (2008) highlight the benefit of developing theory grounded in everyday practices. In Table 6 , we summarise a selection of papers using grounded theory in prior accounting research. While grounded theory features in prior accounting research, it is not common but is increasing. A challenge to publishing this kind of research is the positivist hegemony in accounting’s “mainstream” journals. The method continues to encounter scepticism due to its perceived lack of rigour and credible findings. Gibbins et al. (1990) is a ground-breaking grounded-theory study, in that the paper is published in the highly positivist Journal of Accounting Research . Many would find Gibbins et al.'s (1990) application of grounded theory quite positivist in style. Table 6 shows that researchers have applied grounded theory to a wide range of topics in accounting. Such studies appear in a wide range of journals and are especially favoured in Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal . Grounded-theory studies rely primarily but not solely on in-depth interview methods. Researchers adopt a range of forms of grounded theory, from Glaser & Strauss’s (1967) pure form to later more structured and prescriptive forms. Most studies provide the theory generated in the form of diagrammatic theoretical frameworks.

5. Research Quality: Criteria for Evaluation

Researchers can experience difficulty in publishing qualitative research. This is because inexperienced researchers do not understand the unique quality characteristics applying in qualitative research compared with quantitative research. With grounded theory, terms such as credibility, applicability, transferability, dependability, and confirmability replace the usual positivist criteria of internal and external validity, reliability, generalisability and objectivity. When considering research quality, the main proponents of grounded theory do not favour terms such as “validity” and “reliability” (Corbin & Strauss , 2015; Glaser & Strauss , 1967) , preferring instead to use the term “credibility” (Corbin & Strauss , 2015; Glaser & Strauss , 1967) . They argue that researchers cannot apply the same criteria across qualitative methodologies. For Corbin & Strauss (2015) , quality of findings and validity of findings are not synonymous. They too are uncomfortable using the terms “validity” and “reliability” when discussing qualitative research. They prefer the term “credibility” over the term “truth”. For Corbin & Strauss (2008 , p. 302) , “‘credibility’ indicates that findings are trustworthy and believable in that they reflect participants’, researchers’, and readers’ experiences with a phenomenon but at the same time the explanation is only one of many possible ‘plausible’ interpretations possible from the data”. Corbin & Strauss (2008 , p. 302) describe quality qualitative research as that which “resonates with readers’ and participants’ life experiences…..that blends conceptualisation with sufficient descriptive detail to allow the reader to reach his or her own conclusions about the data and to judge the credibility of researchers’ data and analysis…that stimulates discussion and further research on a topic”. Drawing on research methodology literature, Corbin & Strauss (2015) list general criteria for evaluating the quality of research findings.

6. Conclusion

We outline the approach to methodological analysis and disclosure for the ‘non-sequential’ (Suddaby , 2006) steps followed using a grounded-theory methodology. Our outline reflects the core tenets of the original grounded-theory methodology (Glaser & Strauss , 1967) , the systematic analytical approach of Corbin & Strauss (2015) and the recommendations of experienced researchers around the application of the methodology in research. The grounded-theory perspective, as conceived by Glaser & Strauss (1967) , is the most widely used qualitative approach in the social sciences (Denzin & Lincoln , 2000) . Grounded theory is an established methodology. The research design we describe in this paper reflects not only the core tenets of the original grounded theory, but also current thinking on the application of the methodology in management research. As such, it represents an improved understanding of grounded theory in management research.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Grounded Theory – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Grounded Theory

Definition:

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to generate theories based on data that are grounded in the empirical reality of the research context. The method involves a systematic process of data collection, coding, categorization, and analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data.

The ultimate goal is to develop a theory that explains the phenomenon being studied, which is based on the data collected and analyzed rather than on preconceived notions or hypotheses. The resulting theory should be able to explain the phenomenon in a way that is consistent with the data and also accounts for variations and discrepancies in the data. Grounded Theory is widely used in sociology, psychology, management, and other social sciences to study a wide range of phenomena, such as organizational behavior, social interaction, and health care.

History of Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory was first introduced by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s as a response to the limitations of traditional positivist approaches to social research. The approach was initially developed to study dying patients and their families in hospitals, but it was soon applied to other areas of sociology and beyond.

Glaser and Strauss published their seminal book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” in 1967, in which they presented their approach to developing theory from empirical data. They argued that existing social theories often did not account for the complexity and diversity of social phenomena, and that the development of theory should be grounded in empirical data.

Since then, Grounded Theory has become a widely used methodology in the social sciences, and has been applied to a wide range of topics, including healthcare, education, business, and psychology. The approach has also evolved over time, with variations such as constructivist grounded theory and feminist grounded theory being developed to address specific criticisms and limitations of the original approach.

Types of Grounded Theory

There are two main types of Grounded Theory: Classic Grounded Theory and Constructivist Grounded Theory.

Classic Grounded Theory

This approach is based on the work of Glaser and Strauss, and emphasizes the discovery of a theory that is grounded in data. The focus is on generating a theory that explains the phenomenon being studied, without being influenced by preconceived notions or existing theories. The process involves a continuous cycle of data collection, coding, and analysis, with the aim of developing categories and subcategories that are grounded in the data. The categories and subcategories are then compared and synthesized to generate a theory that explains the phenomenon.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

This approach is based on the work of Charmaz, and emphasizes the role of the researcher in the process of theory development. The focus is on understanding how individuals construct meaning and interpret their experiences, rather than on discovering an objective truth. The process involves a reflexive and iterative approach to data collection, coding, and analysis, with the aim of developing categories that are grounded in the data and the researcher’s interpretations of the data. The categories are then compared and synthesized to generate a theory that accounts for the multiple perspectives and interpretations of the phenomenon being studied.

Grounded Theory Conducting Guide

Here are some general guidelines for conducting a Grounded Theory study:

• Choose a research question: Start by selecting a research question that is open-ended and focuses on a specific social phenomenon or problem.
• Select participants and collect data: Identify a diverse group of participants who have experienced the phenomenon being studied. Use a variety of data collection methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis to collect rich and diverse data.
• Analyze the data: Begin the process of analyzing the data using constant comparison. This involves comparing the data to each other and to existing categories and codes, in order to identify patterns and relationships. Use open coding to identify concepts and categories, and then use axial coding to organize them into a theoretical framework.
• Generate categories and codes: Generate categories and codes that describe the phenomenon being studied. Make sure that they are grounded in the data and that they accurately reflect the experiences of the participants.
• Refine and develop the theory: Use theoretical sampling to identify new data sources that are relevant to the developing theory. Use memoing to reflect on insights and ideas that emerge during the analysis process. Continue to refine and develop the theory until it provides a comprehensive explanation of the phenomenon.
• Validate the theory: Finally, seek to validate the theory by testing it against new data and seeking feedback from peers and other researchers. This process helps to refine and improve the theory, and to ensure that it is grounded in the data.
• Write up and disseminate the findings: Once the theory is fully developed and validated, write up the findings and disseminate them through academic publications and presentations. Make sure to acknowledge the contributions of the participants and to provide a detailed account of the research methods used.

Data Collection Methods

Grounded Theory Data Collection Methods are as follows:

• Interviews : One of the most common data collection methods in Grounded Theory is the use of in-depth interviews. Interviews allow researchers to gather rich and detailed data about the experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of participants. Interviews can be conducted one-on-one or in a group setting.
• Observation : Observation is another data collection method used in Grounded Theory. Researchers may observe participants in their natural settings, such as in a workplace or community setting. This method can provide insights into the social interactions and behaviors of participants.
• Document analysis: Grounded Theory researchers also use document analysis as a data collection method. This involves analyzing existing documents such as reports, policies, or historical records that are relevant to the phenomenon being studied.
• Focus groups : Focus groups involve bringing together a group of participants to discuss a specific topic or issue. This method can provide insights into group dynamics and social interactions.
• Fieldwork : Fieldwork involves immersing oneself in the research setting and participating in the activities of the participants. This method can provide an in-depth understanding of the culture and social dynamics of the research setting.
• Multimedia data: Grounded Theory researchers may also use multimedia data such as photographs, videos, or audio recordings to capture the experiences and perspectives of participants.

Data Analysis Methods

Grounded Theory Data Analysis Methods are as follows:

• Open coding: Open coding is the process of identifying concepts and categories in the data. Researchers use open coding to assign codes to different pieces of data, and to identify similarities and differences between them.
• Axial coding: Axial coding is the process of organizing the codes into broader categories and subcategories. Researchers use axial coding to develop a theoretical framework that explains the phenomenon being studied.
• Constant comparison: Grounded Theory involves a process of constant comparison, in which data is compared to each other and to existing categories and codes in order to identify patterns and relationships.
• Theoretical sampling: Theoretical sampling involves selecting new data sources based on the emerging theory. Researchers use theoretical sampling to collect data that will help refine and validate the theory.
• Memoing : Memoing involves writing down reflections, insights, and ideas as the analysis progresses. This helps researchers to organize their thoughts and develop a deeper understanding of the data.
• Peer debriefing: Peer debriefing involves seeking feedback from peers and other researchers on the developing theory. This process helps to validate the theory and ensure that it is grounded in the data.
• Member checking: Member checking involves sharing the emerging theory with the participants in the study and seeking their feedback. This process helps to ensure that the theory accurately reflects the experiences and perspectives of the participants.
• Triangulation: Triangulation involves using multiple sources of data to validate the emerging theory. Researchers may use different data collection methods, different data sources, or different analysts to ensure that the theory is grounded in the data.

Applications of Grounded Theory

Here are some of the key applications of Grounded Theory:

• Social sciences : Grounded Theory is widely used in social science research, particularly in fields such as sociology, psychology, and anthropology. It can be used to explore a wide range of social phenomena, such as social interactions, power dynamics, and cultural practices.
• Healthcare : Grounded Theory can be used in healthcare research to explore patient experiences, healthcare practices, and healthcare systems. It can provide insights into the factors that influence healthcare outcomes, and can inform the development of interventions and policies.
• Education : Grounded Theory can be used in education research to explore teaching and learning processes, student experiences, and educational policies. It can provide insights into the factors that influence educational outcomes, and can inform the development of educational interventions and policies.
• Business : Grounded Theory can be used in business research to explore organizational processes, management practices, and consumer behavior. It can provide insights into the factors that influence business outcomes, and can inform the development of business strategies and policies.
• Technology : Grounded Theory can be used in technology research to explore user experiences, technology adoption, and technology design. It can provide insights into the factors that influence technology outcomes, and can inform the development of technology interventions and policies.

Examples of Grounded Theory

Examples of Grounded Theory in different case studies are as follows:

• Glaser and Strauss (1965): This study, which is considered one of the foundational works of Grounded Theory, explored the experiences of dying patients in a hospital. The researchers used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the social processes of dying, and that was grounded in the data.
• Charmaz (1983): This study explored the experiences of chronic illness among young adults. The researcher used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained how individuals with chronic illness managed their illness, and how their illness impacted their sense of self.
• Strauss and Corbin (1990): This study explored the experiences of individuals with chronic pain. The researchers used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the different strategies that individuals used to manage their pain, and that was grounded in the data.
• Glaser and Strauss (1967): This study explored the experiences of individuals who were undergoing a process of becoming disabled. The researchers used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the social processes of becoming disabled, and that was grounded in the data.
• Clarke (2005): This study explored the experiences of patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy. The researcher used Grounded Theory to develop a theoretical framework that explained the factors that influenced patient adherence to chemotherapy, and that was grounded in the data.

Grounded Theory Research Example

A Grounded Theory Research Example Would be:

Research question : What is the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process?

Data collection : The researcher conducted interviews with first-generation college students who had recently gone through the college admission process. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis: The researcher used a constant comparative method to analyze the data. This involved coding the data, comparing codes, and constantly revising the codes to identify common themes and patterns. The researcher also used memoing, which involved writing notes and reflections on the data and analysis.

Findings : Through the analysis of the data, the researcher identified several themes related to the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process, such as feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of the process, lacking knowledge about the process, and facing financial barriers.

Theory development: Based on the findings, the researcher developed a theory about the experience of first-generation college students in navigating the college admission process. The theory suggested that first-generation college students faced unique challenges in the college admission process due to their lack of knowledge and resources, and that these challenges could be addressed through targeted support programs and resources.

In summary, grounded theory research involves collecting data, analyzing it through constant comparison and memoing, and developing a theory grounded in the data. The resulting theory can help to explain the phenomenon being studied and guide future research and interventions.

Purpose of Grounded Theory

The purpose of Grounded Theory is to develop a theoretical framework that explains a social phenomenon, process, or interaction. This theoretical framework is developed through a rigorous process of data collection, coding, and analysis, and is grounded in the data.

Grounded Theory aims to uncover the social processes and patterns that underlie social phenomena, and to develop a theoretical framework that explains these processes and patterns. It is a flexible method that can be used to explore a wide range of research questions and settings, and is particularly well-suited to exploring complex social phenomena that have not been well-studied.

The ultimate goal of Grounded Theory is to generate a theoretical framework that is grounded in the data, and that can be used to explain and predict social phenomena. This theoretical framework can then be used to inform policy and practice, and to guide future research in the field.

When to use Grounded Theory

Following are some situations in which Grounded Theory may be particularly useful:

• Exploring new areas of research: Grounded Theory is particularly useful when exploring new areas of research that have not been well-studied. By collecting and analyzing data, researchers can develop a theoretical framework that explains the social processes and patterns underlying the phenomenon of interest.
• Studying complex social phenomena: Grounded Theory is well-suited to exploring complex social phenomena that involve multiple social processes and interactions. By using an iterative process of data collection and analysis, researchers can develop a theoretical framework that explains the complexity of the social phenomenon.
• Generating hypotheses: Grounded Theory can be used to generate hypotheses about social processes and interactions that can be tested in future research. By developing a theoretical framework that explains a social phenomenon, researchers can identify areas for further research and hypothesis testing.
• Informing policy and practice : Grounded Theory can provide insights into the factors that influence social phenomena, and can inform policy and practice in a variety of fields. By developing a theoretical framework that explains a social phenomenon, researchers can identify areas for intervention and policy development.

Characteristics of Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory is a qualitative research method that is characterized by several key features, including:

• Emergence : Grounded Theory emphasizes the emergence of theoretical categories and concepts from the data, rather than preconceived theoretical ideas. This means that the researcher does not start with a preconceived theory or hypothesis, but instead allows the theory to emerge from the data.
• Iteration : Grounded Theory is an iterative process that involves constant comparison of data and analysis, with each round of data collection and analysis refining the theoretical framework.
• Inductive : Grounded Theory is an inductive method of analysis, which means that it derives meaning from the data. The researcher starts with the raw data and systematically codes and categorizes it to identify patterns and themes, and to develop a theoretical framework that explains these patterns.
• Reflexive : Grounded Theory requires the researcher to be reflexive and self-aware throughout the research process. The researcher’s personal biases and assumptions must be acknowledged and addressed in the analysis process.
• Holistic : Grounded Theory takes a holistic approach to data analysis, looking at the entire data set rather than focusing on individual data points. This allows the researcher to identify patterns and themes that may not be apparent when looking at individual data points.
• Contextual : Grounded Theory emphasizes the importance of understanding the context in which social phenomena occur. This means that the researcher must consider the social, cultural, and historical factors that may influence the phenomenon of interest.

Advantages of Grounded Theory

Advantages of Grounded Theory are as follows:

• Flexibility : Grounded Theory is a flexible method that can be used to explore a wide range of research questions and settings. It is particularly well-suited to exploring complex social phenomena that have not been well-studied.
• Validity : Grounded Theory aims to develop a theoretical framework that is grounded in the data, which enhances the validity and reliability of the research findings. The iterative process of data collection and analysis also helps to ensure that the research findings are reliable and robust.
• Originality : Grounded Theory can generate new and original insights into social phenomena, as it is not constrained by preconceived theoretical ideas or hypotheses. This allows researchers to explore new areas of research and generate new theoretical frameworks.
• Real-world relevance: Grounded Theory can inform policy and practice, as it provides insights into the factors that influence social phenomena. The theoretical frameworks developed through Grounded Theory can be used to inform policy development and intervention strategies.
• Ethical : Grounded Theory is an ethical research method, as it allows participants to have a voice in the research process. Participants’ perspectives are central to the data collection and analysis process, which ensures that their views are taken into account.
• Replication : Grounded Theory is a replicable method of research, as the theoretical frameworks developed through Grounded Theory can be tested and validated in future research.

Limitations of Grounded Theory

Limitations of Grounded Theory are as follows:

• Time-consuming: Grounded Theory can be a time-consuming method, as the iterative process of data collection and analysis requires significant time and effort. This can make it difficult to conduct research in a timely and cost-effective manner.
• Subjectivity : Grounded Theory is a subjective method, as the researcher’s personal biases and assumptions can influence the data analysis process. This can lead to potential issues with reliability and validity of the research findings.
• Generalizability : Grounded Theory is a context-specific method, which means that the theoretical frameworks developed through Grounded Theory may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. This can limit the applicability of the research findings.
• Lack of structure : Grounded Theory is an exploratory method, which means that it lacks the structure of other research methods, such as surveys or experiments. This can make it difficult to compare findings across different studies.
• Data overload: Grounded Theory can generate a large amount of data, which can be overwhelming for researchers. This can make it difficult to manage and analyze the data effectively.
• Difficulty in publication: Grounded Theory can be challenging to publish in some academic journals, as some reviewers and editors may view it as less rigorous than other research methods.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Content Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

Factor Analysis – Steps, Methods and Examples

Data Analysis – Process, Methods and Types

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...