Grounded theory: method or analysis?

Today we find a variety of national and international scientific resources that describe different versions of Grounded theory (GT). It is referred to GT authors (Glaser, Strauss & Corbin, Charmaz) and other researchers who apply different versions of GT and write about its fundamental strengths: systematic procedures, emancipatory decisions, self-empowerment of researcher to immerse into the data, and emerging theory being substantiated by empirical data and its interpretation. Reading the resources leads GT researchers to the understanding of this methodology as a set of systematic procedures which are applied in an integrated way by striving to the fundamental outcome – created original and based on empirical data GT. Researchers constantly applying GT alone may learn its principles, progress of adopting the necessary intellectual skills though at some point experience “being trapped”. Why? Because GT application does not stimulate their creativity and this methodology becomes “well-known” routine or “typical” process by recognizing what is “right” and “wrong”. Such attitude regarding the qualitative research methodology is risky due to emerging normative approach to the range of qualitative data collection, analysis and interpretation. Initially, the researchers’ self- empowerment to manage the different GT versions helps to avoid the routine. However, in this case there comes a time when each version is assigned by researcher with “labels”. For example, Glaserian version is named classic, emerging and theory-driven; version of Strauss and Corbin is seen as hypothesis testing, though in fact it is treated as a resource of hypotheses; in Glaserian version GT emerges, and in Strauss and Corbin version GT is forced. Constructivist GT version states that various social realities are relevant, and the common establishment of knowledge is recognized as outcome of cooperation between researcher and research participants. However, is it possible to find the emerging and forced moments in all GT versions? This question is not easy to answer accurately. There are similarities between the mentioned GT versions, though their differences are more conceptual than procedural. When researcher exploits his/her potential of creativity by applying a range of GT versions, then the time may come to make a decision to integrate GT and other methodologies. Thus, researcher’s attempts to combine GT with other methodologies being close to the emerging nature and plural data resources methodology of GT are creditable and deserve encouragement. The article presents the example of such decision when combination or integration of GT and Action Research (AR) is considered. Research question: Do similar features of GT and AR allow combining these methodologies aiming at validity of results within the research process? Research aim is to argue the possibilities to integrate GT and AR. Methods. The information in the article is presented consequently: each methodology is presented individually and then possibilities for integration or combination are discussed. The overview for analysis of possibilities to integrate GT and AR was used in the study by providing arguments and generalization of considerations. Conclusions. Integration of GT and AR illustrates the responsibility of researcher in shaping the design of a specific research and solving specific research issue. Decision to integrate GT and AR allows researcher to be the expert in both methodologies and strictly respect the principles, procedures, and methods. Researcher may not fully apply two methodologies, starting a study with one while concluding it with another. Such a decision is risky, causing uncertainty and leading to unreliable findings. However, the integration of these methodologies cannot and should not be a mechanical action. Researcher must clearly determine the object of the research – is it process or change? This will result in a clear and basic methodology of choice, respectively GT or AR. Then, the study will be based on the fundamental principles and steps of the chosen methodology. And the relevant components will be chosen by researcher in data collection and/or analysis of process (-es). GT and AR integration is possible, therefore GT and AR complement each other and their combinations depend of researcher.

Grounded Theory (GT) is a latent pattern recognition research method discovered by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Due to GTs power and transcendence many research papers across several academic disciplines including Information Systems claimed to have used GT when in fact they have used pseudo GT methods. It is argued in this paper that any other research method which adopts the GT label without following orthodoxy of the authentic GT research method should not be called GT. All of the pseudo GT methods make the false assumption that GT is a sub set of Qualitative Data Analysis. This is a false assumption because authentic GT can use either quantitative or qualitative data and it is a general research methodology and produces empirically grounded but modifiable propositions. Within the Information Systems (IS) research community it is therefore not surprising that many, who claim to use GT, have used different types of pseudo GT. They have adopted vocabulary of the GT without following its original tenets. This paper explains how authentic GT can be carried out in an information systems context by trusting in emergence rather than forcing the data.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present grounded theory as an alternative approach for conceptualizing and modelling the consumer experience. The basic theoretical tenets of the grounded theory approach are contrasted with more traditional assumptions and methods used in consumer research.Design/methodology/approachThe approach is based on qualitative methods and a series of systematic ethnographic procedures, which along with the simultaneous processes of data collection and analysis, lead to the development of an inductive derived grounded theory of the visitor experience. In order to develop a model of the interactive experience of visitors to heritage sites, case studies are conducted at three World Heritage Sites in Thailand.FindingsThe findings indicate that the grounded theory approach has the potential to reveal a rich and deep understanding of visitor experiences, including the ways that visitors interact with the site, their interpretation of the site, and the meaning of the site for them.Practical implicationsIt is suggested that the grounded theory approach can be a valuable tool in exploring the insights and meanings of visitors' experience and could be applied to future research in consumer behaviour. There are practical implications of this kind of research for the management of heritage sites in terms of visitor expectations, interactions and interpretations.Originality/valueThis study has developed a model of the experience and interaction of visitors to Thai World Heritage Sites which could be applied to other heritage sites. It illustrates the theoretical and practical issues of grounded theory approach to exploration and inductive development “interactive experience” of visitors at heritage sites. This is a qualitative research approach that could be adopted for a range of experience based industries such tourism, leisure and hospitality.

Background and aim: Grounded theory has taken some different theoretical perspectives since its creation in 1967 by Barney Glaser. Considering that applying grounded theory partly depends on an awareness of its philosophical perspectives, gaining knowledge about these various perspectives is required for health care professionals who are interested in studying the social processes. This review was conducted to provide an understanding of the evolution of philosophical backgrounds of grounded theory. Methods: Relevant literature focused on constructivist or objectivist grounded theory were retrieved from MEDLINE, ISI and Scopus databases, bibliographies of obtained articles as well as related books. The identified data were critically reviewed from the viewpoint of the different types of philosophical backgrounds of grounded theory approach. Results:Grounded theory has two different perspectives. Objectivist grounded theory is rooted in post-positivist epistemology, whereas constructivist grounded theory has its roots in an interpretive tradition and relativism. The Glaserian approach is an objectivist grounded theory and based on etic position, where the researcher is separate from and looks at the social realities. However, the Straussian approach is a constructivist grounded theory and based on emic position, where the researchers co-construct the data through adopting a position of mutuality and partnership between participant and researcher and create the theory of a social process using their own perspectives, values, privileges, interactions and understanding of the social realities. Conclusions: Adopting an appropriate grounded theory approach by health care professionals depends on understanding of the philosophical foundations of the social processes and structures

Grounded Theory (GT) is a latent pattern recognition research method that was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967). GT, which can use either quantitative or qualitative data, is a general research methodology and it produces empirically grounded but modifiable theory. Since the development of GT in 1967, some researchers have attempted to modify the original GT method, and remodelled GT approaches have been widely used in Information Systems (IS) research, often with unfortunate results due to disregard of the basic rules of the original GT. The continued use of remodelled GT methods has caused confusion and has prevented those in the IS research community from stimulating the development of new theory, which is the main benefit of using GT as it was originally outlined. Following publication of the original grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss (1967), Glaser (1978) went on to explain in detail how to operationalize the GT method. Despite this, some researchers mistakenly continued to classify GT as a subset of the qualitative data analysis research methodology. In doing so, they reveal that they have misunderstood both the purpose of GT and how to use it correctly. In this paper the author will concentrate on the authentic approach to GT, which is termed “Classic Ground Theory” (CGT), so as to differentiate it from any misconceived remodelled version of the theory. This paper explains how CGT can be carried out in an IS context by trusting in the emergence from the data of the required information, rather than forcing it.

BackgroundWomen in low-resource regions face a higher risk of breast cancer. Implementing a breast health initiative that promotes breast self-examination practice could aid in the early detection and prevention of breast cancer complications.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore and comprehend the experiences of high-risk women, focusing on their breast self-examination practice and the factors that influence their effectiveness in managing breast health.MethodsThis research used a qualitative approach to perform semistructured interviews with 11 high-risk women who had a family history of breast cancer recruited from the oncology department of a hospital using purposive and theoretical sampling during the period from August 2024 to April 2025. The analysis of the data was conducted using the grounded theory approach by Strauss and Corbin to formulate a theoretical model for breast self-examination practices.ResultsThis study highlighted breast health education as a motivator of and the core category for breast self-examination practice. This study found perceptual, attitudinal, and familial support drivers of breast self-examination practice for early diagnosis of breast cancer and better living.ConclusionsThis study enhances the body of knowledge regarding the experiences of high-risk women. Health care providers play a significant role in using this framework to steer innovative educational interventions that promote breast health in culture-bound communities.

In today's rapidly evolving business landscape, organizational change is imperative for survival. However, change initiatives are often complex, simultaneous, and demanding, presenting significant challenges for leaders. Despite the development of comprehensive change models, empirical evidence suggests that a substantial portion—30 percent—of change initiatives fail to deliver the intended results. Prior research in change management lacks the comprehensiveness needed to fully understand the factors contributing to these failures, and existing theories often lack empirical support. This study aims to address this gap by identifying the factors contributing to change successes through data collected from change practitioners, leaders, academicians, and others. Grounded theory approach is employed to develop a comprehensive theoretical model capable of capturing the multifaceted nature of change management. Data from nine highly rated change management podcasts, comprising 60 episodes, are analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding techniques to identify 10 main categories of factors contributing to change initiative successes. The identified categories include leadership and management, communication and transparency, employee involvement and participation, training and development, culture and values, adaptability and resilience, strategic planning and decision making, psychological safety and trust, storytelling and vision, and tools and techniques. Deep analysis of each category and subcategory offers nuanced insights into the factors influencing change initiative successes, providing valuable guidance for practitioners seeking to enhance their change initiatives.

Misused and missed use — Grounded Theory and Objective Hermeneutics as methods for research in industrial marketing

Making tourism experiences more meaningful at the local level remains a challenge. Research using grounded theory (GT) was conducted in the context of Eskisehir Osmangazi Universitesi (ESOGU) Tourism Camp, and is significant in terms of boosting local tourism. This study aimed to generate a GT that could reveal the main concern emerging from the interactive processes at ESOGU Tourism Camp and explain how it was resolved. Classic GT allowed the researchers to examine a little-explored phenomenon from an internal perspective, without formulating a hypothesis or any pre-insights, by conceptualizing the participants’ authentic experiences. Following Glaser’s (2001) statement that “all is data,” the researchers chose ESOGU Tourism Camp, focusing on experiences during the process of producing photos. Based on the rules of classic GT, the researchers carried out the study as a cyclical process, whereby both data collection and analysis were implemented simultaneously (i.e., memos were written, the data was conceptualized and returned to collection again until theoretical saturation was achieved and a GT was formed). A new GT could promote local tourism and sustainable development.

Who is sensitising whom? A participatory interview guide development as an awareness tool within a health care research project

Case study research though increasingly popular in social sciences for positivist and intrepretivist research, a kind of confusion is prevalent when it is used ignoring its philosophical position. Arguably, the case study research is considered more appropriate for qualitative research because of its foremost strength ˗ the in-depth study of complex issues. This paper, drawing from the literature, discusses the philosophical position of case study research and argues that qualitative case study research is appropriate for theory building. For theory building, this paper follows the inductive approach guided by qualitative research paradigm and argues that it is not appropriate to assess theory building from the perspective of quantitative research. Very similar to other research methods, it is natural that the case study research has certain challenges; however, most of the challenges and misunderstandings overlap causing difficulty to understand the role of case study research. Hence, this paper aims to contribute to the understandings of the challenges and misunderstandings associated with the theory building from case study research. This paper argues that most of the challenges associated with theory building from case study can be addressed employing appropriate research strategies particularly clear understanding of philosophical stance and selection of appropriate case. The misunderstandings, on the other hand, are arisen due to the differences in the researcher’s perspectives particularly positivistic thinking of them rather than the shortcomings inherent in the qualitative case study research design.

Objective: to understand the meaning of access to health services with a view to care continuity in the care network for users and professionals. Method: qualitative research, which used the methodological steps of Grounded Theory, carried out from November 2015 to April 2017. The theoretical sampling was obtained with 33 participants from a hospital institution and a Family Health Strategy unit. The participants were organized into three sample groups according to circular and continuous orientation of data collection and Grounded Theory analysis. The analysis was conducted according to the guidelines of the methodological framework which was composed of the open, axial and integrative coding phases. Results: four central concepts emerged from the data that demonstrate how participants experience access with a view to care continuity. These range from the first contact with the health network, through limitations and alternatives found to achieve perspectives to the care continuity in health actions and services. Conclusion: possibilities and contradictions were identified in the experience of care, with regard to access to health services and actions for the continuity of care, understanding them as feasible in health services, but divergent from the ideal advocated by the literature on the theme, as well as by the norms and prerogatives in force in the Unified Health System.

Grounded Theory (GT) has become a fundamental Qualitative research methodology for developing theories from empirical data. However, its application varies across disciplines, leading to methodological inconsistencies and debates regarding rigor, coding techniques, and researcher subjectivity. This systematic review examines methodological approaches in GT research, analyzing their implementation, strengths, challenges, and emerging trends. Following PRISMA guidelines, relevant studies were selected from academic databases, and a thematic synthesis was conducted to identify methodological patterns. The review highlights the prevalence of Classical, Straussian, and Constructivist GT approaches, each differing in coding strategies, theoretical sampling, and researcher involvement. Findings indicate that GT is widely used in sociology, psychology, healthcare, and software engineering, demonstrating its adaptability across diverse fields. Key strengths of GT include its iterative data collection process and deep contextual grounding, while challenges involve coding complexity, inter-rater reliability, and researcher bias. Emerging trends suggest increasing integration of GT with technological tools, such as Qualitative data analysis software and AI-assisted coding. Additionally, mixed-methods GT approaches are gaining traction to enhance theoretical robustness. This review underscores the need for standardized methodological guidelines to ensure consistency and rigor in GT studies. Future research should explore the intersection of GT with digital advancements and interdisciplinary applications to strengthen its methodological integrity. By synthesizing best practices and identifying methodological gaps, this study provides valuable insights for researchers seeking to apply GT effectively in Qualitative inquiry.

IntroductionHearing loss is a chronic condition affecting 12 million individuals in the UK. People with hearing loss regularly experience difficulties interacting in everyday conversations. These difficulties in communication can result...

Problem statement: Grounded theory is one of the research approaches in qualitative research that enables the researcher to use his/her intellectuality to make sense of and construct a theory based on finding collected throughout the fieldwork. Grounded Theory as suggested in the conventional studies is designated in a very comprehensive manner and involves three level of coding. These coding systems are parallel to Bloom’s Taxonomy where an individual has to first understand the basic knowledge before he/she is able to proceed further. Approach: In the first stage of Grounded Theory, that is, ‘open coding’; data are grouped according to themes or categories. That is where the researcher has to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon being studied. In the second level, that is, ‘axial coding’; the researcher has to connect the themes and make sense of it. At this point, the researcher applies his knowledge and analyses the data. The data is then synthesized and evaluated through ‘selective coding’. Results: These will develop into the draft of the theory that will be tested against other existing theories to form ‘Grounded Theory’. Conclusion: This study shows that the ability to develop a good ‘Grounded theory’ will represent the researchers’ intellectuality.