10

What is a grounded theory study?

The key concept of grounded theory is building theory.

Grounded theory studies, developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, aim to build theory ‘from the ground up’ – meaning ‘from the data’.^1,2 For many people, the idea of developing a theory can be intimidating.³ However, the theories generated from grounded theory studies are rarely grand theories at the level developed by, for example, philosophers Foucault or Hegel. Rather, the focus is on discovering concepts that explain social processes, actions and interactions from the collected data.^1,2 In health and social care research, this can typically take the form of a framework or typology.

Since Glaser and Strauss initiated the grounded theory approach in the 1960s, multiple competing methods have arisen from different ontological and philosophical foundations, which are outlined in Table 10.1.

[table id=20 /]

To ensure that the theory is derived from the data, researchers undertaking Classical or Straussian Grounded Theory should have no preconceived theories before starting the research – which means they should not be seeking to test a theory – they should not be constrained by the literature when coding data and they should not impose prior concepts on the data.³ Grounded theory is therefore inductive – it generates theory – as opposed to deductive – which tests theory.⁴ Theories about social processes and actions should be generated systematically through research, and ‘discovered’ from the data rather than hypothesised and tested against data.^6,2 Hence, grounded theory studies suit research topics in which little is known about the ‘how and why’ of social processes.⁵

Multiple forms of data collection can be employed in ground theory studies, with data collection and data analysis occurring concurrently to inform theory development.¹ For example, the researcher may conduct 20 interviews, undertake the analysis and begin to form a theory, and then, based on this theory, develop an interview guide that will elicit further theoretical development as more data is collected. This process happens across multiple cycles of data collection; analysis and data collection usually stops when theoretical saturation is reached.⁷ Hence, the research is iterative and evolves through the collection and analysis of data. Theoretical saturation is when all the domains or aspects of the theory have been thoroughly examined.¹ Grounded theory studies can draw on other qualitative designs – for example, a researcher can conduct a grounded theory phenomenology study or a grounded theory case study. The approach to analysis is typically the constant comparative approach.^1,2

Advantages and disadvantages of grounded theory

The advantages of grounded theory studies include that the researcher is able to be immersed in the data at a detailed level, and this immersion occurs early in the research process, to enable the constant interplay between data collection and analysis. The concept of theoretical saturation ensures that the data accounts for all elements of the theory that is generated. However, the process of theoretical sampling and the iterative nature of going back and forth between data collection and data analysis can take a long time. In creating the theory, the context of the social processes may be lost and the overall theory may lack nuance. Consequently, it can be difficult to scale up the theory to different contexts.^4,8-10 Examples of studies employing grounded theory are shown in Table 10.2.

[table id=21 /]

Summary

Grounded theory is an appropriate research design to explain a process through a theory. The design incorporates multiple forms of data collection and is iterative in approach, with cycles between data collection and analysis.

References

1. Chun Tie Y, Birks M, Francis K. Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE Open Med. 2019;7. doi:10.1177/2050312118822927
2. Lingard L, Albert M, Levinson W. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ. 2008;337:a567. doi:10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
3. McCallin AM. Designing a grounded theory study: some practicalities. Nurs Crit Care. 2003;8(5):203-208. doi:10.1046/j.1362-1017.2003.00033.x
4. Rieger KL. Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nurs Inq. 2019;26(1):e12261. doi:10.1111/nin.12261
5. Hunter A, Murphy K, Grealish A, Casey D, Keady J. Navigating the grounded theory terrain. Part 2. Nurse Res. 2011;19(1):6-11. doi:10.7748/nr2011.10.19.1.6.c8765
6. Liamputtong P. Qualitative Research Methods. 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2020.
7. Belgrave LL, Seide K. Grounded theory methodology: principles and practices. In: Liamputtong P, ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Health and Social Sciences. Springer; 2019.
8. Markey K, Tilki M, Taylor G. Reflecting on the challenges of choosing and using a grounded theory approach. Nurse Res. 2014;22(2):16-22. doi:10.7748/nr.22.2.16.e1272
9. Creswell J, Hanson W, Clark Plano V, Morales A. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Couns Psychol. 2007;35(2):236-264. doi:10.1177/0011000006287390
10. Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus. Oxford University Press; 1999.
11. Breckenridge JP, Gray N, Toma M, et al. Motivating Change: a grounded theory of how to achieve large-scale, sustained change, co-created with improvement organisations across the UK. BMJ Open Qual. 2019;8(2):e000553. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000553
12. Jacobson N. A taxonomy of dignity: a grounded theory study. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009;9:3. doi:10.1186/1472-698X-9-3