GROUNDED

THEORY
By Oyawoye Ajibola Abubakar
WHAT IS GROUNDED
THEORY?
 WHAT IS GROUNDED
THEORY?
Theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based
on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

A can be used to guide a research

A theory can be used to define that is been conducted.
variables in a research

A theory can be the end result of

a research
 WHAT IS GROUNDED
THEORY?
Grounded theory is a research
tool which enables you to seek
out and conceptualize the latent
social patterns and structures of
your area of interest through the
process of constant comparison. 
WHEN IS GROUNDED THEORY
MOSTLY USED
When the is no pre-exiting theory When you want to carry out a
about a particular idea or concept. research on something without
the influence of exiting theory.

When you want to carry out a

research on something using only
data from that source.

Its called grounded theory because the theory

itself is grounded in the data.
 HISTORY OF GROUNDED THEORY

1965 (Glaser & Strauss)

Awareness of dying

1965 (Glaser & Strauss) Discovering of grounded theory

2000 (Charmaz) Grounded

1987 (Strauss) Qualitative 1978 (Glaser) Theoretical
theory: objective and
analysis for social scientists sensitivity
constructivist method

1999/1998/2007 (Strauss & 1992 (Glaser) Basics of 2006/2014 (Charmaz)

Corbin) basics of qualitative grounded theory analysis: Constructing ground theory: a
research emergency vs forcing practical guide through
qualitative analysis

1998 (Glaser) Doing grounded

theory: issues & discussion

Grounded theory method according to Glaser emphasizes induction or emergence, and the
individual researcher's creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Strauss is more interested in
validation criteria and a systematic approach.
STAGES OF ANALYSIS
Stage Purpose
Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data to be
Codes
gathered
Collections of codes of similar content that allows the data to be
Concepts
grouped
Broad groups of similar concepts that are used to generate a
Categories
theory
Theory A collection of categories that detail the subject of the research
RISON OF THE THREE TYPES OF GROUNDED THE
Classic Straussian Constructivist
Identifying the problem area ■ Emergent. Experience, pragmatism ■ Sensitising concepts.
■ No initial literature and literature. ■ Discipline-specific.
review.
Conduct of research and Laissez-faire theory Paradigm model theory Co-construction and
developing theory generation. verification. reconstruction of data into
theory.
Relationship to participants Independent. Active Co-construction.
Evaluating theory Fit, work, relevance Validity, reliability, ■ Situating theory in time
and modifiability. efficiency and sensitivity. place, culture and context.
■ Reflexive rendering of the
researcher’s position.
Coding ■ Open coding. ■ Open coding. Line-by-line conceptual
■ Selective coding. ■ Axial coding. coding and focused coding to
■ Theoretical coding. ■ Selective coding. synthesise large amounts of
data.

Laissez-faire, (French: “allow to do”) policy of minimum governmental interference in

the economic affairs of individuals and society.
WHAT KIND OF DATA CAN BE
USED IN GROUNDED THEORY

Survey observation

Interview Tapes
ALL IS
Focus
DATA!!!
Statistical analyses
Group
STRAUSSIAN GROUNDED THEORY METHODOLOGY
STRAUSSIAN GROUNDED THEORY METHODOLOGY

The coding process provided by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) allows researchers to generate
categories and identify links between them. It directs researchers to move from open to axial and on to
selective coding.
Concepts, categories and sub-categories are continually subjected to questions and comparisons, with
the aim of identifying the core category and its links with the others
CLASSIC GROUNDED THEORY
METHODOLOGY Theoretical
Saturation

Category 1 Category 2

Data

Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4

Properties

Glaser originated the basic process of Grounded theory

method described as the constant comparative method
where the analyst begins analysis with the first data
collected and constantly compares indicators, concepts
and categories as the theory emerges.
CONSTRUCTIVIST By Charmaz

METHODOLOGY
Initial Focalized
Coding Theoretical Coding
Coding Coding

May pass then

through
Initial
Coding

Constructivist GT version is rooted in pragmatism and relativist epistemology, it

assumes that neither data nor theories are discovered, but are constructed by the
researcher as a result of their interactions with the field and its participants.

Data are co-constructed by researcher and participants, and coloured by the researcher's
perspectives, values, privileges, positions, interactions, and geographical locations.
AN INTERESTING TOPIC THAT USE GT
Conservation narratives in Peru: envisioning biodiversity in sustainable development
by Yves M. Zinngrebe

Overview of methodological process. Biodiversity experts were selected using

theoretical sampling. The semi-structured interviews were then analyzed in a three-
step coding process. Analytical cycles were repeated until further interviews only
confirmed established categorization of narrative groups. The established categories
were then used to reflect theoretical paradigms from the literature.
AN INTERESTING TOPIC THAT USE GT

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144627305013515798
ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND LIMITATIONS
OF GT AS A METHOD OF INQUIRY
Advantage Disadvantages/ Limitatons
Provides for Intuitive Appeal Exhaustive Process
Fosters Creativity (Journey of discovery) Potential for Methodological Errors
Potential to Conceptualize Reviewing the Literature without Developing
Assumptions
Systematic Approach to Data Analysis Multiple Approaches to GT
Provides for Data Depth & Richness Limited Generalizability

Limited
Data
MultipleDepth
Fostering
Intuitive
Reviewing
Exhaustive
High Generalizability
toof
Potential
Systematic
Potential &Creativity
Approaches
Appeal
the Richness
Literature
Process to GT
for Methodological
Approach
Conceptualize without
Data Developing
Analysis Error Assumptions
Rich
GT
At the
Charmaz
Stebbinsdata
does will
not
outset
(1989)
(2001) make
start
of with
this theby “world
testing
argument
contended
stressed thatit appear
an existing
is“main anew”
imperative
novice (Charmaz,
hypothesis,
ofto
researchers note but 2006,
that
using uses
GT
GT may p.
isthe 14)
not isbecause
empirical
limited
tend to blur data
to thetorichness
generate
amethodological
specific of the
field,
Glaser
According
Annells
Late was
(1978)
Glaser influenced
to
(1996) Glaser
forewarned
defined
(1998) GTthat
(1998),
reiterated the the
quantitative
researchers
asresearchers
“systematic
a similar goal
who positivist
are
position are
generating exploratory
advised paradigm,
to
of limit
planning
reflected research
tohis
theory
in use whereas
their
fromGTprior
that
data
statement, the production
Strauss
reading
this
that
“By embraced
before
approach
itself
far of
the the
is “not
is most
the
discipline
data
lines will
conceptsby (p.
inductively orderived
provide
and any
selecting type
the
theories of data instead
researcher
(Glaser,
purposeful
generalizations (Glaser
with
1978). 1992).
concrete GT
Intheoretical
of
about other
the andhas
words, informed
dense fabric
it does
sampling. different
not
She tobias
construct
further areas
emergence andthe
suggested has
a thorough analysis
theory
that with
itstudy”
istheory
qualitative
exploration
simple”
systematically
exciting use interpretive
of
177)
of the GT;
and
obtained
GT must
over paradigm
researchers
from
the not
last“be
social (Annells,
ten planning
hurried”
research”.
years is togroup,
1997).
(p.
its use
177), GT process,
as
legitimationare
it may of activity,
advised
take
conceptto
monthsor
omit situation
the
to fine
generation” under
literature
tune review
the
ademonstrated
of the data
priori
acceptable assumptions
to a wide
in start
addition range
(Glaser,
with of1978).
topurposeful
aiding applicability
thesampling,
researcher (Morse,
to go 2009).
however, beneath
the the surface
researcher mustof the
revertparticipants’
tototheoretical
(Glaser
around
Research
A &
the
conceptual
Strauss and Strauss,
core
questions 1967).
category.
difference
Corbin that
(1990) Annells
are explored
between
mirrored further
through
Glaser
this advised
and GT
Strauss
definition that
in isa
methods mentor
their
their allow should
for
understanding
statement a be
unique
that available
GT of opportunity
the
is “a helpdata
generated
qualitative to
Charmaz
Strauss
social
sampling and
and (2006)
Corbin
subjective
where added
the lifethat
(1994)
“process while
identified
(Charmaz,
of other
data thatqualitative
2006). “the major
collection is traditions
difference
controlled permit
by between
the investigators
emerging to
this methodology
theory” treat
(Glaser,[GT] as
novice
theory.
research
they grounded
According
extrapolate
please findings
method
without theorists
to Glaser,
that
thatclear
uses in their
theory
further journey
a systematized
directions is
explain a
on how of
momentary
these
setto inquiry. product
experiences.
ofproceed,
procedures GT to that
This is still
unique
develop
provides developing,
opportunity
and
“explicitinductively and
is
guidelines” is
due
derivesubject
to the
thatGT
and
1978,other
Charmaz p. approaches
36).
(2006) Failure totodo
contended qualitative
so will
that the research
result in
research a was
lack its
of
adventure emphasis
conceptual
starts ondepth
with theory development”.
(Benoliel,
“finding data” 1996).
(p. 14). Data
to further
nature
about
direct testing
ofphenomenon”
GT
aresearchers and
exploration
aboutverification
and to
how by gathering
itscarry
abilityouttotheir
reveal new high
research.data. Strauss,
level
(best concepts on the
for pragmatic andother
theories hand,that
researchers) argues
are not that
will
theoryunearth
specific
  to abethe
can context
used
particular and structure
in practice
participant without of
thethe
or setting participants’
need for further
(Glaser, 2002) lives in addition
verification, as to divulging istheir
verification done in
feelings, views,the
the data during intentions
processand actions (Charmaz,
of generation (Hallberg, 2006).
2006)
 PREVIOUS WORK
 In psychology, grounded theory is used to understand the role of therapeutic
distance for adult clients with attachment anxiety.
 In sociology, grounded theory is used to discover the meaning of spirituality in
cancer patients, and how their beliefs influence their attitude towards cancer
treatments.
 Public health researchers have used grounded theory to examine nursing
home preparedness needs through the experiences of Hurricane Katrina
refugees sheltered in nursing homes.
 In business, grounded theory is used by managers to explain the ways in which
organizational characteristics explain co-worker support.
 In software engineering, grounded theory has been used to study daily stand-up
meetings.
 Grounded theory has also helped research in the field of information
technology to study the use of computer technology in older adults.
 In nursing, grounded theory has been used to examine how bedside shift report
can be used to keep patients safe.
CRITICISM
 It will not be appropriate to ignore the existing theories by paying less
attention to the review of literature. The researcher invariably comes to the
research topic by finding more about his or her own discipline.
 Grounded theory offers a complex methodology and confusing
terminology to navigate, rather than a practical orientation to research
and data analysis. Some processes, such as the 3-stage process with
associated data fragmentation, may lead the researcher to lose the track of
the overall picture which is emerging.
 Poorly put forth theoretical explanations tends to be the outcome where
data are linked conceptually and early to existing frameworks.
Concept generation rather than the formal theory may be the best outcome.
(Grbich, 2007)
BEFORE YOUR COMMENTS
ON LAST THING
1. Which grounded theory is
your favourite?
2. Do you think grounded
theory could be used for
animal study?
REFERENCES
 The Qualitative Report 2014 Volume 19, How To Article 13, 1-15
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/el-hussein13.pdf
 Hunter A, Murphy K, Grealish A, Casey D, Keady J (2011) Navigating the grounded
theory terrain. Part 1. Nurse Researcher. 18, 4, 6-10.
 Glaser, B. and A. Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. 1967,Chicago, IL: Aldine.
 Charmaz, K., Constructing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. 2014, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
 Bryant, A. and K. Charmaz, Grounded theory in historical perspective: An
epistemological account, in The Sage Handbook for Grounded Theory, A. Bryant and
K. Charmaz, Editors. 2007, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 31-58.
 Creswell, J.W., Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. 3rd ed. 2013, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Groen, C. and L.D. McNair. Developing a grounded theory of undergraduate civil
engineering professional identity formation. in Frontiers in Education Conference
(FIE). 2016. IEEE.
 Groen, C., Advancing from outsider to insider: A grounded theory of professional
identity negotiation. forthcoming, Virginia Tech: Blacksburg, VA. p. 225
THANK YOU