Grounded theory is one of the best-known qualitative methodologies, and one of the most misunderstood. Many theses claim to use grounded theory when they actually use a general form of qualitative coding. Examiners with grounded theory experience notice this quickly. On the other hand, when grounded theory is used properly, it can produce original, well-supported theoretical explanations that make a strong contribution to knowledge.
This post explains what grounded theory is, where it comes from, its main versions, the core techniques, when it is a good fit, when it is not, and how to decide whether it is right for your research.
What is grounded theory?
Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology aimed at developing theory from data, rather than testing an existing theory. The theory is “grounded” because it emerges from systematic analysis of data collected from people who experience the phenomenon being studied.
The end product of a grounded theory study is not just a list of themes. It is a theoretical explanation, often of a process or social action, showing how concepts relate to each other. For example, a grounded theory study might explain how new nurses manage the transition from student to professional, identifying stages, strategies, conditions and consequences.
Where grounded theory comes from
Grounded theory was developed by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss and presented in their 1967 book The Discovery of Grounded Theory. At the time, much sociological research focused on testing grand theories. Glaser and Strauss argued that researchers should also generate new theories from careful study of social life.
Their original work emerged from studies of dying in hospitals, where they explored how awareness of dying shaped interactions between patients, families and staff.
The main versions of grounded theory
Over time, the founders and later scholars developed different versions. Knowing which one you follow is important, because they differ in philosophy and procedures.
1. Classic (Glaserian) grounded theory
Glaser emphasised that theory should emerge from data with minimal preconceptions. He discouraged extensive literature review before analysis, to avoid forcing data into existing concepts. Key ideas include theoretical sensitivity, constant comparison and the identification of a core category that explains the main concern of participants.
2. Straussian grounded theory
Strauss, working with Juliet Corbin, developed a more structured set of procedures, including open coding, axial coding and selective coding, and tools such as the coding paradigm (conditions, actions/interactions, consequences). Critics, including Glaser, argued that this approach risked forcing data into predetermined structures. Supporters found it helpful, especially for new researchers.
3. Constructivist grounded theory
Kathy Charmaz developed a constructivist version, which views theory as constructed through the interaction between researcher and participants rather than discovered as an objective truth. It emphasises reflexivity, participants' meanings, and the researcher's role in interpretation. Coding stages are often described as initial coding and focused coding. This version is widely used today in health, education and social sciences.
Other variants exist, such as situational analysis developed by Adele Clarke. When writing your methodology, name the version you follow, cite its key texts, and apply its procedures consistently.
Core features of grounded theory
Although versions differ, several features are central to most grounded theory studies:
1. Simultaneous data collection and analysis
You do not collect all data first and analyse later. Instead, you analyse early data immediately, and this analysis guides what data you collect next.
2. Constant comparison
You continually compare data with data, data with codes, codes with codes, and codes with emerging categories. This helps you refine concepts and identify their properties and variations.
3. Coding in stages
Coding typically moves from detailed, line-by-line or incident-by-incident coding towards more abstract, conceptual categories. For example, in constructivist grounded theory:
- Initial coding: close, open coding of small segments, often using gerunds (action words) to capture processes, such as “protecting self” or “testing boundaries”.
- Focused coding: selecting the most significant or frequent initial codes and using them to sort and synthesise larger amounts of data.
- Theoretical coding: specifying relationships between categories to form a coherent theory.
4. Memo writing
Memos are informal analytic notes where you write about codes, categories, comparisons and emerging ideas. Memo writing is central in grounded theory; it is where much of the theory develops.
5. Theoretical sampling
After initial sampling, you choose further participants, sites or data based on what your emerging theory needs. For example, if a category about “seeking mentorship” appears important, you might interview people who did not have mentors to explore variation.
6. Theoretical saturation
You continue theoretical sampling until categories are well developed and new data no longer add to their properties or relationships.
7. A core category
Many grounded theories are organised around a core category that integrates other categories and explains the central process or concern.
When is grounded theory a good fit?
Grounded theory may be right for your research if:
- Your aim is to develop a theory or explanatory model, not simply describe experiences.
- Little theory exists on your topic, or existing theories do not fit your context well.
- Your research question focuses on a process, such as how people move through a change, manage a challenge or make decisions over time.
- You can collect data flexibly and iteratively, adjusting sampling as analysis proceeds.
- You have time for intensive, cyclical analysis and memo writing.
Examples of suitable questions:
- “How do first-generation doctoral students navigate academic culture?”
- “How do small business owners decide whether to adopt digital payment systems?”
- “What processes do families use to manage caregiving for a relative with dementia?”
When grounded theory may not be the right choice
- You want to test a theory or hypothesis. Grounded theory generates theory; testing usually needs other designs.
- You mainly want to describe experiences or identify themes. Thematic analysis or descriptive qualitative approaches may be more appropriate.
- You want to understand the essence of a lived experience. Phenomenology may fit better.
- Your data collection is fixed in advance, for example, a single round of interviews with no possibility of further sampling. This limits theoretical sampling.
- Your timeline is very tight. Grounded theory's iterative process can be time-consuming.
Grounded theory compared with other qualitative approaches
Students often ask how grounded theory differs from other common approaches. A brief comparison:
- Grounded theory vs. thematic analysis: Thematic analysis identifies patterns of meaning across a dataset and can be used with many theoretical frameworks. It does not require theoretical sampling or the development of an integrated theory. Grounded theory aims to explain a process through a set of related concepts, usually organised around a core category.
- Grounded theory vs. phenomenology: Phenomenology seeks to describe the essence or meaning of a lived experience, such as what it is like to live with chronic pain. Grounded theory focuses more on processes and actions, such as how people manage chronic pain over time.
- Grounded theory vs. ethnography: Ethnography aims to describe and interpret the culture of a group, usually through extended fieldwork and observation. Grounded theory can use ethnographic data but focuses on developing theory about a specific process.
- Grounded theory vs. case study: A case study examines a bounded case in depth using multiple sources. Grounded theory techniques can be used within a case study, but the aims and logic of sampling differ.
Choosing between these approaches is not about which is “best”. It depends on your research question, your philosophical assumptions and the type of contribution you want to make. If you can explain why your chosen approach fits better than these alternatives, you will be well prepared for questions in your viva.
The literature review question
A common concern is when to review literature. Classic grounded theory recommends delaying a detailed literature review on the specific topic to avoid preconceptions. However, PhD programmes and ethics committees usually require a literature review in the proposal. Constructivist and Straussian approaches generally accept earlier engagement with literature, provided it is used to sensitise rather than to dictate analysis.
A practical approach many students use is to conduct an initial review to justify the study and identify gaps, then return to the literature in depth after the theory has developed, positioning the new theory in relation to existing work. Explain your approach clearly in your methodology.
Common mistakes in grounded theory studies
- Claiming grounded theory but only doing thematic coding. If there is no theoretical sampling, constant comparison or theory development, the study may not be grounded theory.
- Mixing versions without explanation, such as using Glaser's philosophy with Strauss and Corbin's coding procedures.
- Collecting all data before analysis.
- Producing descriptive categories rather than an integrated theory.
- Little or no memo writing.
- Unsupported saturation claims.
How to present a grounded theory in your thesis
- State the version of grounded theory and its philosophical assumptions.
- Describe initial sampling and theoretical sampling decisions.
- Show the coding process with examples, from initial codes to categories.
- Include memo excerpts to show analytic development.
- Present the final theory, often with a diagram showing categories and their relationships.
- Compare the theory with existing literature in the discussion.
- Evaluate the theory using criteria appropriate to your version, such as credibility, originality, resonance and usefulness (proposed by Charmaz), or fit, workability, relevance and modifiability (proposed by Glaser).
Is grounded theory right for you? A quick self-check
- Do I want to build a theory, not just describe themes?
- Is my question about a process or social action?
- Is existing theory weak or missing for my context?
- Can I collect and analyse data in cycles?
- Can I use theoretical sampling?
- Have I chosen a specific version and read its key texts?
- Do I have the time for intensive analysis and memo writing?
If you answer “yes” to most of these, grounded theory could be an excellent fit. If not, consider thematic analysis, phenomenology, case study or another approach that matches your aims.
Final thoughts
Grounded theory is a demanding but rewarding methodology for researchers who want to explain processes and build new theory from data. Choose a version deliberately, follow its core procedures of constant comparison, memo writing and theoretical sampling, and aim for an integrated theory rather than a list of themes. With careful planning and transparent reporting, grounded theory can offer a genuine and original contribution to your field.
Are you considering grounded theory for your study? Share your research question in the comments.