Grounded Theory in Research: Types, Steps, Examples

Key Takeaways

• Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology designed to develop theories directly from systematically collected and analyzed data rather than test existing theories.
• Data collection and analysis occur simultaneously, allowing emerging findings to shape subsequent interviews, observations, or document analysis.
• Coding, constant comparison, memo writing, and theoretical sampling are the core techniques that distinguish grounded theory from many other qualitative approaches.
• The end goal is a substantive or formal theory that explains a social process, behavior, or phenomenon grounded in empirical evidence.

 

Glossary of Key Terms

Term	Definition
Grounded Theory	A qualitative methodology that develops theory from data through systematic analysis.
Initial Coding	The first stage of coding where researchers label segments of data.
Focused Coding	Selecting the most meaningful or frequent codes to organize larger amounts of data.
Axial Coding	Connecting categories and identifying relationships between them.
Theoretical Coding	Integrating categories into an explanatory theoretical framework.
Constant Comparative Method	Continuously comparing new data with existing codes and categories.
Memo Writing	Recording analytical thoughts and theoretical insights during research.
Theoretical Sampling	Collecting additional data specifically to refine or expand emerging categories.
Saturation	The point where additional data no longer produces substantially new insights.
Category	A conceptual grouping of related codes.
Core Category	The central concept around which the emerging theory is organized.
Emergent Theory	The explanatory model developed from the collected data.
Constructivist Grounded Theory	A version emphasizing co-construction of meaning between researcher and participants.

 

What Is Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research methodology used to generate theories from empirical data rather than beginning with predetermined hypotheses.

Unlike many research methods that start with a theoretical framework, grounded theory allows concepts and explanations to emerge inductively through repeated interaction with data.

Researchers commonly use grounded theory to investigate:

• Human behavior
• Social interactions
• Organizational processes
• Healthcare experiences
• Educational practices
• Psychological adaptation
• Professional decision-making
• Technology adoption

 

Why Use Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory is particularly valuable when:

• Existing theories inadequately explain a phenomenon.
• Researchers seek to understand complex social processes.
• Little prior research exists.
• New conceptual frameworks need to be developed.
• The research aims to explain “how” or “why” people behave in certain ways.

Historical Development

Origins

Grounded theory emerged as a response to highly deductive social science traditions.

The creators argued that:

• Theory should emerge from data.
• Researchers should remain open to unexpected findings.
• Data analysis should occur throughout the research process.

Evolution of Grounded Theory

School	Key Researchers	Characteristics
Classic Grounded Theory	Barney Glaser	Emphasizes emergence and minimal preconceptions.
Straussian Grounded Theory	Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin	Uses structured coding procedures and analytical frameworks.
Constructivist Grounded Theory	Kathy Charmaz	Recognizes the researcher’s role in co-constructing meaning.

Schools of Grounded Theory

Since its introduction in 1967, grounded theory has evolved into several distinct approaches. While all variants aim to generate theory from data, they differ in their philosophical assumptions, the role of the researcher, and the procedures used for data analysis.

The three most widely recognized approaches are Classic (Glaserian) Grounded Theory, Straussian Grounded Theory, and Constructivist Grounded Theory.

Type	Key Proponents	Primary Focus	View of the Researcher
Classic (Glaserian) Grounded Theory	Barney Glaser	Allow theory to emerge naturally from data	Researcher strives to remain as neutral as possible
Straussian Grounded Theory	Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin	Systematic coding and structured analysis	Researcher actively organizes and interprets data
Constructivist Grounded Theory	Kathy Charmaz	Co-construction of meaning between researcher and participants	Researcher’s perspectives and interactions shape the analysis

 

Classic (Glaserian) Grounded Theory

Developed by Barney Glaser, this approach emphasizes allowing theory to emerge organically from the data with minimal influence from existing theories or rigid analytical procedures.

Researchers using this method avoid forcing data into predefined categories and instead rely heavily on:

• Constant comparison
• Theoretical sampling
• Memo writing
• Emergent coding

A key principle is that researchers should remain open to unexpected findings and avoid imposing conceptual frameworks too early in the analysis.

Example:

A researcher studying how emergency physicians cope with uncertainty does not begin with a predefined model of stress management. Instead, patterns such as “consulting colleagues,” “drawing on past experiences,” and “developing intuitive judgment” emerge directly from interview data and gradually form the basis of a new theoretical explanation.

Strengths

• Encourages discovery of novel concepts.
• Minimizes the influence of preconceived ideas.
• Offers considerable analytical flexibility.

Limitations

• Provides relatively little procedural guidance.
• Can be challenging for novice researchers.
• Decisions about coding and category development may appear subjective.

Straussian Grounded Theory

Developed by Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, this approach introduces a more structured and systematic framework for analyzing qualitative data.

In addition to initial coding, researchers often perform:

• Open coding
• Axial coding
• Selective coding

Axial coding is particularly important because it explicitly examines relationships among categories, such as causes, conditions, actions, interactions, and consequences.

Example:

In a study of hospital discharge planning, researchers may identify categories including:

• Patient preparedness
• Family involvement
• Communication with healthcare providers

Axial coding might reveal that effective communication improves patient preparedness, which subsequently reduces hospital readmissions.

This structured approach is especially useful for researchers who prefer clear analytical procedures.

Strengths

• Provides explicit guidance for coding and theory development.
• Facilitates transparent documentation of analytical decisions.
• Well suited to multidisciplinary research teams.

Limitations

• The structured coding process may lead researchers to force data into predefined relationships.
• Critics argue that excessive procedural emphasis can reduce openness to unexpected findings.

 

Constructivist Grounded Theory

Introduced by Kathy Charmaz, constructivist grounded theory acknowledges that researchers do not simply discover objective truths but co-construct meaning with participants through their interactions and interpretations.

Rather than striving for complete neutrality, this approach recognizes that:

• Researchers bring prior knowledge and experiences to the study.
• Participants and researchers jointly shape the research process.
• Multiple valid interpretations of the same phenomenon may exist.

A central component of this approach is reflexivity: the practice of critically examining one’s own assumptions and influence on the research.

Example:

A researcher investigating how cancer survivors adapt after treatment may recognize that interview dynamics, question phrasing, and personal interpretation all influence how participants narrate their experiences. The resulting theory reflects this collaborative process rather than claiming to represent a single objective reality.

Strengths

• Recognizes the complexity of social interactions.
• Encourages transparency about researcher influence.
• Particularly well suited for studies exploring identity, meaning, and lived experiences.

Limitations

• Findings may be viewed as more interpretive than objective.
• Requires careful reflexive practice to ensure methodological rigor.

 

Which Type Should You Choose?

The choice depends on your research objectives and philosophical orientation:

• Choose Classic (Glaserian) Grounded Theory if your goal is to let concepts emerge with minimal preconceptions and you are comfortable with a less prescriptive methodology.
• Choose Straussian Grounded Theory if you prefer a clearly defined coding process and a systematic framework for linking categories into a theory.
• Choose Constructivist Grounded Theory if your research focuses on subjective experiences and you wish to explicitly acknowledge the role of researcher interpretation in generating knowledge.

Regardless of the approach selected, the core principles of grounded theory remain the same: iterative data collection, constant comparison, memo writing, theoretical sampling, and the development of theory that is firmly grounded in empirical evidence.

 

Key Principles of Grounded Theory

1. Simultaneous Data Collection and Analysis

Researchers do not wait until all data are collected.

Instead they

1. Collect initial data.
2. Analyze immediately.
3. Identify emerging concepts.
4. Collect additional targeted data.
5. Refine categories continuously.

 

2. Constant Comparative Method

Every new piece of information is compared against:

• Previous interviews
• Existing codes
• Emerging categories
• Developing theoretical explanations

This iterative comparison strengthens conceptual understanding.

 

3. Theoretical Sampling

Participants are selected based on the evolving theory rather than predetermined demographic quotas.

For example:

Initial Finding	Subsequent Sampling Decision
Junior nurses rely heavily on peers.	Recruit senior nurses for comparison.
Patients mention family influence.	Interview caregivers and spouses.
Remote workers discuss isolation.	Recruit fully remote and hybrid employees.

 

4. Emergent Theory

Rather than confirming an existing model, researchers allow explanations to arise naturally from observed patterns.

The final theory should explain:

• Relationships
• Processes
• Conditions
• Consequences
• Contexts

 

5. Memo Writing

Throughout analysis, researchers document:

• Coding decisions
• Emerging hypotheses
• Questions
• Relationships between concepts
• Theoretical reflections

Memo writing creates an audit trail and supports theory development.

 

The Grounded Theory Research Process

Step 1: Define the Research Problem

Researchers identify:

• A broad area of interest
• An underexplored phenomenon
• An open-ended research question

Avoid highly restrictive hypotheses.

 

Step 2: Collect Initial Data

Possible methods include:

• Semi-structured interviews
• Focus groups
• Participant observation
• Field notes
• Diaries
• Documents
• Online discussions

 

Step 3: Conduct Initial Coding

Initial coding is the first stage of data analysis, where the researcher examines the data line by line and assigns short labels, i.e., codes, to meaningful segments of text. The objective is to remain as close as possible to the participants’ own words and avoid imposing preconceived interpretations.

Researchers often ask questions such as:

• What is happening here?
• What action or process is being described?
• What concern is the participant expressing?
• How are they responding to the situation?

For example, consider the interview excerpt:

“Whenever I encounter a difficult patient, I ask a senior nurse to review my treatment plan before proceeding.”

Possible initial codes might include:

• Seeking expert guidance
• Managing uncertainty
• Building clinical confidence
• Relying on mentorship

At this stage, researchers typically generate dozens or even hundreds of codes across multiple interviews. These codes provide the foundation for identifying broader patterns later in the analysis.

Step 4: Conduct Focused Coding

Once a substantial number of initial codes have been created, the researcher begins focused coding: selecting the most significant or frequently occurring codes and using them to organize larger sections of data. Rather than analyzing every line independently, the goal is to synthesize and refine concepts.

For example, the following initial codes:

• Asking senior colleagues for advice
• Consulting experienced coworkers
• Seeking supervisor approval
• Requesting second opinions

may all be grouped under the broader category Professional Support-Seeking.

Similarly:

• Feeling nervous before procedures
• Worrying about making mistakes
• Fear of harming patients

might become the category Managing Professional Anxiety.

Focused coding helps reduce analytical complexity while preserving the richness of the data. It also begins to reveal recurring social processes that may ultimately contribute to the emerging theory.

 

Step 5: Explore Relationships Through Axial Coding

In many grounded theory traditions, particularly the Straussian approach, the next stage involves axial coding, where researchers examine how categories relate to one another. Instead of viewing categories as isolated concepts, they investigate possible causal links, conditions, strategies, and consequences.

For example, a study on novice nurses may identify these categories:

• Professional support-seeking
• Clinical confidence
• Independent decision-making

During axial coding, the researcher may observe that seeking professional support helps build confidence, which in turn enables more independent decision-making. These relationships can be represented in diagrams or conceptual maps to clarify the developing theory.

Researchers also explore contextual factors by asking:

• Under what conditions does this occur?
• What triggers this behavior?
• What are the outcomes?
• What influences variation across participants?

By connecting categories into a coherent structure, axial coding moves the analysis beyond description toward explanation.

 

Step 6: Use Theoretical Sampling to Refine Emerging Ideas

Unlike purposive sampling, which is planned before data collection begins, theoretical sampling is driven by the emerging analysis. Researchers deliberately seek participants, settings, or documents that can elaborate, challenge, or refine developing categories.

Suppose a study initially interviews junior software engineers and discovers that mentorship strongly influences career development. The researcher may then intentionally recruit senior engineers, engineering managers, or formal mentors to better understand how mentorship evolves across career stages.

Theoretical sampling may also involve investigating contradictory cases. If most participants describe remote work as improving productivity but a few report the opposite, additional participants with different working arrangements may be recruited to explain the variation.

The process continues until categories are sufficiently developed and additional data no longer provide substantial new insights.

 

Step 7: Determine Whether Theoretical Saturation Has Been Reached

Theoretical saturation occurs when additional data fail to produce meaningful new concepts or significantly modify existing categories. Importantly, saturation is not based on reaching a predetermined sample size but on the depth and completeness of the analysis.

Researchers should evaluate questions such as:

• Are new interviews generating genuinely new codes?
• Are the properties of each category fully understood?
• Have relationships between categories been adequately explained?
• Are exceptions and variations already accounted for?

For example, after interviewing 30 doctoral students about research supervision, the researcher may find that recent interviews simply reinforce previously identified themes—such as feedback quality, mentor availability, and peer collaboration—without introducing new conceptual dimensions.

Although no universal number of participants guarantees saturation, documenting how and why saturation was judged strengthens the transparency and credibility of the study.

 

Step 8: Develop and Refine the Final Theory

The final stage involves integrating all categories into a coherent explanatory framework that accounts for the phenomenon under investigation. Rather than presenting disconnected themes, the researcher constructs a theory that explains how a particular process unfolds and why it occurs.

For example, a grounded theory study on entrepreneurial recovery after business failure might conclude that recovery progresses through four interconnected stages:

1. Emotional processing
2. Seeking social support
3. Reframing failure as learning
4. Strategic re-engagement with new ventures

These stages would be supported by interview data, linked through analytical memos, and connected through theoretical coding. The resulting theory should explain relationships among concepts while remaining firmly grounded in empirical evidence.

A well-developed grounded theory is not intended to be universally applicable but should provide a robust conceptual model that can inform future research, policy, or professional practice in similar contexts.

 

Coding in Grounded Theory

Types of Coding

Coding Stage	Purpose
Initial Coding	Break data into small conceptual units.
Focused Coding	Identify significant recurring patterns.
Axial Coding	Connect categories and subcategories.
Theoretical Coding	Integrate concepts into a complete theory.

 

Example Coding Progression

Raw Data	Initial Code	Category	Theory Component
“I ask coworkers before making decisions.”	Seeking peer advice	Professional support	Collaborative adaptation
“Experience reduces panic.”	Growing confidence	Skill development	Confidence-building process
“Mistakes teach valuable lessons.”	Learning from failure	Experiential learning	Adaptive expertise

 

What is the Constant Comparative Method?

The Constant Comparative Method is the core analytical strategy used in grounded theory research. The method works through continuous, iterative comparison at multiple levels of analysis. As researchers collect data, they simultaneously analyze it, comparing each new piece of data against data already collected. This happens in several stages:

• Open coding: Data is broken into discrete incidents, events, or ideas, which are compared against each other to identify similarities and differences, generating initial categories.
• Category comparison: New incidents are compared to existing categories to refine their properties, boundaries, and dimensions, while also looking for variations within categories.
• Theoretical sampling: Based on emerging categories, researchers deliberately seek out new data sources that can challenge, extend, or saturate the developing categories, rather than sampling randomly or for representativeness.
• Integration: Categories are compared with one another to identify relationships, eventually integrating into a coherent theoretical framework.

This process continues until you reach “theoretical saturation”: the point where new data no longer reveals new properties or relationships within the categories.

The method’s power lies in its recursive nature: comparison never stops at a single pass. Data, codes, categories, and emerging theory are constantly cross-checked against one another, ensuring the resulting theory remains tightly grounded in the empirical data rather than imposed by the researcher’s preconceptions.

In short, researchers compare:

• Participant with participant
• Interview with interview
• Incident with incident
• Code with code
• Category with category

This ongoing comparison helps refine concepts and eliminate inconsistencies.

 

Memo Writing Best Practices

Memo writing is central to grounded theory, serving as the bridge between raw data and emerging theory. Best practices include:

• Write memos continuously, from the start. Begin memoing during initial coding, not after data collection ends—memos should grow alongside the analysis, not follow it.
• Prioritize ideas over data accuracy. Memos are a space for free theoretical thinking; capture insights, hunches, and connections as they occur, even if rough or tentative.
• Date and label every memo. Track when it was written and which codes or categories it relates to, so the analytical trail remains visible and revisitable.
• Use memos to define and refine categories. Explore a category’s properties, dimensions, and boundaries, and note when and how it varies across the data.
• Compare incidents and categories within memos. Memos are where constant comparison becomes explicit—write out how new data confirms, contradicts, or extends prior thinking.
• Avoid premature closure. Treat early memos as provisional; revise them as understanding deepens rather than treating first impressions as final.
• Separate memos from raw data and literature notes. Keep them distinct so theoretical reasoning isn’t conflated with description or external citations.
• Sort and integrate memos later. As categories mature, sorting memos by theme helps reveal relationships and structure for the final theoretical write-up.
• Write freely, without worrying about style. Memos are working documents, not polished prose—clarity of thought matters more than grammar.
• Use memos to guide theoretical sampling. Let gaps or questions identified in memos inform where to collect data next.

 

 

Effective memos may include:

• Emerging explanations
• Surprising findings
• Questions needing exploration
• Relationships among categories
• Possible theoretical models

Example memo:

Participants consistently describe peer consultation before independent decision-making. This may represent a transitional stage in professional identity formation.

 

Data Collection Methods

Grounded theory can incorporate multiple qualitative sources.

Method	Advantages
Interviews	Rich personal experiences
Focus groups	Group interaction insights
Observation	Behavioral evidence
Documents	Historical context
Diaries	Longitudinal perspectives
Digital communications	Real-time interactions

 

Strengths of Grounded Theory

• Generates new theories. Rather than testing existing hypotheses, grounded theory builds theory directly from data, making it ideal for exploring phenomena where established frameworks are inadequate or absent.
• Highly flexible methodology. The approach can be adapted across disciplines (e.g., sociology, nursing, education) and accommodates diverse data sources, including interviews, observations, and documents.
• Well suited for emerging research areas. When little prior research exists on a topic, grounded theory allows researchers to explore it without being constrained by preconceived categories or theoretical assumptions.
• Captures complex social processes. The method is particularly effective at illuminating how people experience, interpret, and navigate social interactions, transitions, and processes over time.
• Encourages close engagement with participants. Through iterative data collection, researchers develop a deep, nuanced understanding of participants’ perspectives, often surfacing insights that surveys or fixed instruments would miss.
• Integrates data collection with analysis. The simultaneous, iterative nature of collection and analysis allows researchers to follow emerging leads and refine focus as understanding develops, rather than waiting until all data is gathered.
• Produces practically relevant explanations. Because theory emerges from real-world data rather than abstract assumptions, the resulting frameworks tend to be directly applicable to practice, policy, and intervention design.
• Provides a systematic yet adaptable structure. Unlike purely inductive approaches, grounded theory offers concrete analytical tools (coding, memoing, theoretical sampling) that give researchers methodological rigor while still allowing flexibility in how these tools are applied.

Limitations of Grounded Theory

Challenge	Explanation
Time-intensive	Coding and iterative sampling require substantial effort.
Large data volume	Managing extensive qualitative data can be difficult.
Researcher subjectivity	Interpretation influences category development.
Achieving saturation	Determining saturation is not always straightforward.
Methodological complexity	Novice researchers may struggle with coding procedures.

 

Grounded Theory vs Other Qualitative Methods

Feature	Grounded Theory	Phenomenology	Ethnography	Case Study
Primary Goal	Generate theory	Understand lived experience	Study culture	Explore a bounded case
Main Outcome	Explanatory model	Essence of experience	Cultural description	In-depth case understanding
Sampling	Theoretical	Purposeful	Purposeful	Case selection
Analysis	Iterative coding	Thematic interpretation	Cultural interpretation	Multiple evidence synthesis
Theory Development	Central objective	Secondary	Optional	Optional

 

How to Get Started with Grounded Theory Research

Grounded theory may seem intimidating because of its iterative design and emphasis on theory generation, but it is entirely feasible for undergraduate and first-year graduate students when applied to a well-defined, manageable research question. Starting with a small-scale project allows students to learn the methodology without being overwhelmed by large datasets or complex analyses.

 

Start with a Broad, Exploratory Question

Unlike experimental studies, grounded theory does not begin with a hypothesis to test. Instead, formulate a question that seeks to understand a process, experience, or pattern of behavior.

Good examples include:

• How do first-year university students adjust to living away from home?
• How do undergraduate researchers learn to use laboratory equipment?
• How do students prepare for oral presentations?
• How do part-time student employees balance work and academic responsibilities?

Avoid questions that assume a cause-and-effect relationship, such as:

• ❌ Does social media increase anxiety among college students?
• ❌ Does mentoring improve academic performance?

These questions are better suited to quantitative research designs.

 

Choose a Topic That Is Easy to Access

One of the biggest challenges for beginners is participant recruitment. Selecting a population you can realistically reach makes the project more practical.

Possible participant groups include:

• Classmates
• Student club members
• Teaching assistants
• Recent graduates
• Interns
• Campus volunteers

For example, a psychology student could interview peers about how they cope with examination stress, while a business student might study how student entrepreneurs make decisions about launching small ventures.

 

Keep the Scope Narrow

Grounded theory aims for depth rather than breadth. A narrowly focused question often produces a stronger study than one attempting to explain a broad social phenomenon.

Too Broad	More Manageable
How do college students succeed academically?	How do first-year engineering students prepare for laboratory exams?
How do healthcare workers manage stress?	How do newly hired nurses adapt to overnight shifts during their first six months?
How do entrepreneurs become successful?	How do university students decide whether to continue a failed startup project?

A focused scope makes coding and theory development much more manageable.

 

Begin with a Small Number of Interviews

For classroom projects or theses, it is often practical to begin with 5–10 semi-structured interviews. After conducting and analyzing these interviews, students can decide whether additional participants are needed to refine emerging categories.

For example:

1. Interview six first-year international students.
2. Analyze the transcripts and identify recurring concepts.
3. Notice that peer mentoring frequently appears.
4. Recruit several student mentors for follow-up interviews.
5. Compare the perspectives of both groups.

This iterative approach demonstrates theoretical sampling in practice.

 

Develop Open-Ended Interview Questions

Grounded theory interviews should encourage participants to describe experiences in their own words rather than answer yes-or-no questions.

Examples include:

• Can you describe your first few weeks in the program?
• What challenges did you encounter?
• How did you respond when those challenges arose?
• Who or what helped you adapt?
• Looking back, what changed over time?

Follow-up questions should be flexible and guided by participants’ responses rather than a rigid interview script.

 

Learn Basic Coding Before Using Software

Many beginners assume that qualitative software performs the analysis automatically. In reality, software only helps organize data; the researcher is responsible for interpreting it.

A useful way to practice is by coding interview excerpts manually.

Example:

Participant Statement	Possible Initial Code
“I usually asked senior students for advice.”	Seeking peer guidance
“I was afraid of making mistakes.”	Experiencing uncertainty
“After a few months, I became more confident.”	Building self-confidence

Once comfortable with manual coding, students can transition to qualitative analysis software if needed.

 

Write Memos Throughout the Project

Memo writing is often overlooked by beginners but is one of the most valuable habits in grounded theory research.

Useful memo topics include:

• Emerging categories
• Questions about unexpected findings
• Connections between interviews
• Possible explanations for recurring behaviors
• Ideas for future interviews

Sample memo

Several participants describe joining study groups before feeling academically confident. This suggests that collaborative learning may play an important role in developing self-efficacy.

These notes become the building blocks of the final theory.

 

Compare Data Constantly

Rather than coding each interview in isolation, compare new data with what has already been analyzed.

Ask questions such as:

• Does this participant describe the same process differently?
• Does this example fit an existing category or require a new one?
• Are there important exceptions to the emerging pattern?

For instance, if most students say family support helped them adapt to university life but one participant reports becoming more independent after moving away from home, that contrasting case can deepen the developing theory rather than weaken it.

 

Be Comfortable Revising Your Ideas

Grounded theory is an iterative methodology. Categories and explanations often evolve as more data are collected.

For example:

• After Interview 3: The researcher believes academic success depends mainly on time management.
• After Interview 8: Peer support emerges as equally important.
• After Interview 12: The researcher realizes that students use peer groups to develop effective time-management strategies.

The theory becomes progressively more sophisticated through repeated analysis and comparison.

 

Seek Feedback from Supervisors and Peers

Regular discussions with advisors or classmates can improve coding consistency and reveal alternative interpretations.

Consider asking others to:

• Review sample coded transcripts.
• Comment on category definitions.
• Identify overlooked themes.
• Challenge assumptions about emerging theories.

Collaborative reflection can strengthen the credibility and transparency of the analysis.

 

A Simple Workflow for Beginners

Stage	Practical Action
1. Define a research question	Focus on understanding a process rather than testing a hypothesis.
2. Recruit participants	Start with a small, accessible group.
3. Conduct interviews	Use flexible, open-ended questions.
4. Perform initial coding	Label meaningful actions and ideas line by line.
5. Write memos	Record analytical insights and emerging concepts.
6. Compare interviews	Look for similarities, differences, and recurring patterns.
7. Refine categories	Group related codes into broader concepts.
8. Collect additional data if needed	Use theoretical sampling to clarify developing ideas.
9. Build the theory	Integrate categories into an explanation of the phenomenon.

 

 

Applications Across Disciplines: Example Grounded Theory Research Questions

One hallmark of grounded theory is that it seeks to explain processes, actions, interactions, or social phenomena. As a result, grounded theory research questions often begin with phrases such as “How do…”, “What processes…”, or “How is… developed?”

Healthcare

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
Chronic disease management	How do adults newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes develop long-term self-management routines?
Nursing	How do intensive care nurses make rapid clinical decisions during periods of staff shortages?
Mental health	How do adolescents with anxiety disorders navigate the transition from pediatric to adult mental health services?
Oncology	How do patients with metastatic breast cancer adapt to changes in treatment goals over time?
Telemedicine	How do primary care physicians integrate telehealth consultations into routine clinical practice?

 

Education

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
First-year experience	How do first-generation university students develop a sense of belonging during their first academic year?
Online learning	How do undergraduate students maintain motivation in fully asynchronous online courses?
Teacher development	How do novice teachers build classroom management strategies during their first year of teaching?
Doctoral education	How do PhD students develop research independence throughout their doctoral training?
Academic integrity	How do students make decisions when facing opportunities for academic misconduct?

 

Psychology

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
Identity formation	How do young adults reconstruct their identities after experiencing long-term unemployment?
Coping	How do parents adapt psychologically following a child’s diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder?
Trauma recovery	How do survivors of natural disasters rebuild perceptions of personal safety over time?
Aging	How do older adults adjust to retirement and redefine their daily routines?
Social relationships	How do individuals form and maintain friendships after relocating to a new country?

 

Business and Management

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
Leadership	How do middle managers develop leadership identities after promotion?
Entrepreneurship	How do founders recover and make strategic decisions following startup failure?
Organizational change	How do employees adapt to enterprise-wide digital transformation initiatives?
Remote work	How do distributed teams establish trust in fully remote work environments?
Innovation	How do R&D teams generate and refine ideas during cross-functional collaboration?

 

Sociology

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
Migration	How do recent immigrants establish social support networks in urban communities?
Family studies	How do grandparents assume caregiving roles following parental migration for employment?
Social media	How do online communities develop informal norms for moderating member behavior?
Community resilience	How do neighborhoods organize collective responses after major flooding events?
Volunteerism	How do individuals become long-term volunteers in community-based organizations?

 

Public Health

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
Vaccine uptake	How do parents arrive at decisions regarding routine childhood vaccinations?
Smoking cessation	How do adults sustain smoking cessation following repeated failed attempts?
Obesity prevention	How do families incorporate healthy eating habits into everyday life despite financial constraints?
Pandemic response	How do healthcare workers adapt infection-control practices during emerging infectious disease outbreaks?
Health communication	How do communities evaluate and respond to conflicting public health messages on social media?

 

Engineering and Technology

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
Artificial intelligence	How do software engineers incorporate generative AI tools into everyday programming workflows?
Cybersecurity	How do employees develop secure digital practices in organizations after experiencing phishing attacks?
Human-computer interaction	How do older adults learn to use wearable health-monitoring devices?
Software development	How do agile development teams negotiate changing client requirements during product development?
Smart cities	How do citizens adapt to the introduction of AI-enabled public transportation systems?

 

Environmental and Sustainability Studies

Research Area	Example Grounded Theory Research Question
Climate adaptation	How do coastal communities adapt their livelihoods in response to increasing sea-level rise?
Sustainable agriculture	How do smallholder farmers adopt climate-smart farming practices?
Waste management	How do households develop long-term recycling habits?
Renewable energy	How do rural communities make decisions about adopting rooftop solar energy systems?
Conservation	How do local stakeholders negotiate competing priorities in protected forest management?

 

These examples illustrate that grounded theory is particularly well suited to research questions focused on dynamic processes, decision-making, adaptation, interaction, and the development of behaviors or social systems, rather than questions that aim to test predefined hypotheses.

 

Best Practices for Conducting Grounded Theory Research

Before Data Collection

• Define a broad research area.
• Review literature without imposing rigid expectations.
• Prepare flexible interview guides.

During Data Collection

• Analyze data immediately.
• Write memos consistently.
• Use theoretical sampling.
• Compare incidents continuously.

During Analysis

• Revise codes frequently.
• Seek negative or contradictory cases.
• Refine categories iteratively.
• Integrate findings into a coherent explanation.

 

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Starting with a Fixed Hypothesis

Grounded theory is intended to generate theory from data, not to confirm an existing hypothesis. Entering the study with a rigid expectation about the findings can bias data collection and analysis.

Example:

A researcher assumes that workplace burnout is caused primarily by long working hours and interprets every interview through that lens, overlooking participants who attribute burnout to poor managerial support or lack of autonomy.

How to avoid it:

• Begin with broad, open-ended research questions.
• Stay receptive to unexpected findings.
• Allow categories and concepts to emerge inductively from the data.

 

Delaying Data Analysis Until Collection Is Complete

Unlike many other research methods, grounded theory requires simultaneous data collection and analysis. Waiting until all interviews or observations are completed can prevent the researcher from refining questions or pursuing promising new directions.

Example:

After analyzing the first five interviews, a researcher notices that mentorship repeatedly emerges as an important concept. If analysis is postponed until the end, opportunities to explore mentorship in later interviews may be missed.

How to avoid it:

• Analyze data immediately after collection.
• Revise interview guides based on emerging insights.
• Use early findings to inform subsequent sampling and questioning.

 

Neglecting Memo Writing

Memo writing is a cornerstone of grounded theory because it captures the researcher’s evolving interpretations and theoretical ideas. Without memos, valuable insights may be forgotten or remain underdeveloped.

Example:

A researcher notices a possible relationship between peer support and confidence among novice teachers but fails to record the observation. Weeks later, the connection is difficult to reconstruct.

How to avoid it:

• Write memos regularly throughout the project.
• Record questions, hypotheses, and conceptual links as they arise.
• Revisit and revise memos during later stages of analysis.

 

Treating Coding as Simple Labeling

Coding in grounded theory is more than assigning descriptive tags to text. The goal is to identify underlying concepts, relationships, and processes that contribute to theory development.

Example:

Weak Code	More Conceptual Code
“Talking to coworkers”	Seeking professional reassurance
“Feeling nervous”	Managing uncertainty
“Reading policies”	Building procedural confidence

How to avoid it:

• Focus on the meaning behind participants’ words.
• Compare incidents across interviews to refine concepts.
• Progress from descriptive codes to higher-level categories.

 

Stopping Data Collection Too Early

Ending recruitment before achieving theoretical saturation can leave important categories incomplete or poorly understood.

Example:

After interviewing ten participants, the researcher concludes the study, only to discover later that newly recruited participants from a different setting would likely have introduced entirely new perspectives.

How to avoid it:

• Continue collecting data until categories are well developed.
• Look for diminishing returns in new interviews.
• Confirm that additional data no longer contribute meaningful conceptual insights.

 

Failing to Use Theoretical Sampling

Many beginners continue recruiting participants according to their original sampling plan instead of allowing emerging findings to guide subsequent data collection.

Example:

Early interviews suggest that family support strongly influences treatment adherence, but the researcher continues interviewing only patients instead of also recruiting caregivers or family members.

How to avoid it:

• Let emerging categories determine who should be sampled next.
• Seek participants who can clarify, challenge, or expand developing concepts.
• Be prepared to modify recruitment strategies throughout the study.

 

Ignoring Contradictory or Negative Cases

Researchers may focus only on data that reinforce their emerging theory while overlooking participants whose experiences do not fit the pattern. This can weaken the credibility and explanatory power of the final theory.

Example:

Most participants report that peer mentoring improves workplace adjustment, but a few describe mentoring relationships as unhelpful or even discouraging. Ignoring these exceptions may produce an incomplete theory.

How to avoid it:

• Actively search for cases that challenge preliminary conclusions.
• Examine why certain participants differ from the majority.
• Revise categories and theoretical explanations to account for variation where appropriate.

 

Forcing Data to Fit Existing Theories

Researchers who are overly influenced by prior literature may unconsciously shape their analysis to align with established frameworks rather than allowing new explanations to emerge.

Example:

While studying entrepreneurial resilience, a researcher insists on interpreting all findings through an existing motivation theory even though the data suggest that community support plays a more central role.

How to avoid it:

• Use the literature to inform rather than dictate analysis.
• Remain open to concepts that diverge from established theories.
• Allow the final explanatory model to be grounded primarily in the empirical data collected during the study.

 

Reporting Grounded Theory Studies

A strong research report typically includes:

• Introduction
• Research question
• Methodology
• Participant recruitment
• Data collection procedures
• Coding process
• Memo development
• Theoretical sampling decisions
• Emerging categories
• Final theoretical model
• Discussion and implications
• Study limitations

Reporting grounded theory research presents unique challenges because the methodology is iterative, emergent, and recursive—yet research reports are typically linear documents. Below is a comprehensive guide covering both dissertation-length and journal article reporting formats.

General Principles for Reporting Grounded Theory Research

• Make the iterative process transparent. Even though writing is linear, the report should clearly convey how data collection, coding, and theory development occurred simultaneously and influenced one another.
• Justify methodological choices. Specify which grounded theory variant was used—classic/Glaserian, Straussian, or constructivist (Charmaz)—since each has different epistemological assumptions and procedural expectations.
• Demonstrate rigor, not just findings. Reviewers and committees expect evidence of systematic analysis, not just a polished theory; this means showing your analytical trail.
• Present theory, not just themes. A common reviewer critique is that grounded theory studies present descriptive findings without achieving theoretical integration. Ensure the final product explains relationships between categories, not just lists them.

Dissertation Reporting Structure

Dissertations allow more space, so grounded theory studies are typically reported across five or six chapters with greater methodological detail than journal articles permit.

• Chapter 1: Introduction
  • State the research problem and explain why grounded theory is appropriate (e.g., absence of existing theory, need to understand process).
  • Present research questions framed openly (avoiding hypothesis-testing language).
• Chapter 2: Literature Review
  • Address the grounded theory-specific tension around literature review timing. Classic grounded theory delays extensive review to avoid forcing preconceived categories onto data, while Straussian and constructivist approaches allow earlier engagement.
  • Explicitly state your position on this and justify it.
  • Frame the review as establishing the gap, not as a theoretical scaffold for analysis.
• Chapter 3: Methodology
  • Identify the specific grounded theory variant and its theoretical/philosophical grounding (positivist, post-positivist, or constructivist).
  • Describe sampling strategy, especially theoretical sampling. Explain how early findings shaped subsequent data collection decisions.
  • Detail data collection methods (interviews, observations, documents) and number of participants/sources, noting that sample size is determined by saturation, not predetermined numbers.
  • Explain the coding process in stages: open/initial coding, axial/focused coding, selective/theoretical coding.
  • Describe memo-writing practices and their role in the analysis.
  • Discuss strategies for establishing trustworthiness: credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability (or, in constructivist grounded theory, terms like credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness per Charmaz).
  • Address reflexivity. This is especially important in constructivist grounded theory, where the researcher’s role in co-constructing meaning must be acknowledged.
• Chapter 4: Findings/Results
  • Present the emergent categories and their properties, supported by rich participant quotations.
  • Include diagrams or models illustrating relationships between categories (e.g., a core category with subcategories, or a process model).
  • Move logically from descriptive categories toward the integrated theory.
  • Use participant voice extensively to ground abstract categories in lived experience.
• Chapter 5: Discussion
  • Articulate the substantive or formal theory generated.
  • Compare/contrast the theory with existing literature (this is where the delayed literature review is often integrated more fully).
  • Discuss theoretical and practical implications.
  • Address limitations, including sample characteristics and researcher positionality.
• Appendices
  • Include interview protocols, sample coding schemes, audit trail excerpts, and example memos to demonstrate analytical transparency.

Journal Article Reporting Structure

Journal articles demand much greater concision, often 6,000–8,000 words total, so the grounded theory process must be condensed without sacrificing methodological credibility.

• Title and Abstract
  • Title should signal both topic and theoretical contribution (e.g., “Negotiating Identity: A Grounded Theory of…” or “Pediatric Nurses’ Clinical Reasoning Process: A Grounded Theory Study”).
  • The Abstract should briefly state the problem, method (naming grounded theory variant), core theoretical contribution, and key implications.
• Introduction
  • Concisely establish the problem and gap.
  • State why grounded theory is the appropriate methodology in 2–3 sentences.
• Methods Section
  • This section must be tightly written but still cover:
    • Grounded theory variant and rationale.
    • Participants/data sources and sampling approach (emphasizing theoretical sampling).
    • Data collection procedures.
    • Coding procedures (often summarized in a table showing examples of raw data → codes → categories).
    • Quality/rigor measures (e.g., member checking, peer debriefing, audit trails).
  • Many journals now expect a coding example table to visually demonstrate the analytic process, since this cannot be narrated in full prose given space constraints.
• Findings/Results
  • Organize around the core category and its relationship to subcategories.
  • Use a conceptual model or diagram (often a single figure summarizing the entire theory) since space doesn’t allow extensive narrative description.
  • Support each category with 1–2 concise, powerful participant quotes rather than extensive excerpts.
• Discussion
  • Present the theoretical contribution clearly and explicitly.
  • Situate the theory within existing literature, noting confirmation, extension, or contradiction of prior work.
  • Discuss practical/policy implications briefly.
  • Acknowledge limitations (e.g., context-specificity, sample boundaries).
• Conclusion
  • Briefly restate the contribution and suggest directions for future research, including potential theoretical refinement or testing in other contexts.

Key Differences Between Dissertation and Journal Reporting

• Length and detail: Dissertations can document the full analytical journey including false starts and category revisions; journal articles must present a streamlined, polished narrative.
• Literature review placement: Dissertations may formally separate literature review (Chapter 2) from theoretical discussion (Chapter 5); journal articles often integrate the literature review into the introduction and discussion only.
• Audit trail visibility: Dissertations typically include appendices with raw coding examples and memos; journal articles condense this into one or two illustrative tables/figures.
• Theoretical model presentation: Journal articles almost always require a single, clear visual diagram of the theory, given spatial constraints, whereas dissertations may include multiple diagrams showing the evolution of the model over time.

Final Considerations

• Tailor reporting to the target audience. Methodologically-focused journals may expect more procedural detail, while practice-oriented journals prioritize implications.
• Always include a visual model. Regardless of format, a diagram representing the theory significantly strengthens reader comprehension and reviewer confidence in the work’s theoretical contribution.
• Be explicit about saturation. Both formats should clearly state how and when theoretical saturation was determined, as this is a frequent point of methodological scrutiny.

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the main purpose of grounded theory?

Grounded theory aims to develop a new theory or explanatory framework directly from systematically collected and analyzed qualitative data, rather than testing an existing theory.

How is grounded theory different from thematic analysis?

Thematic analysis identifies and describes patterns or themes in data, while grounded theory goes further by using iterative coding, constant comparison, and theoretical sampling to build an explanatory theory about a social process or phenomenon.

Can grounded theory use quantitative data?

Grounded theory is primarily a qualitative methodology, but some researchers incorporate quantitative data to complement emerging concepts or support theory development in mixed-methods studies.

What is theoretical saturation?

Theoretical saturation is reached when additional data collection no longer yields meaningful new codes, categories, or relationships and the emerging theory is sufficiently developed.

Is a literature review allowed in grounded theory research?

Yes. However, many grounded theory traditions recommend approaching the literature in a way that informs the research without allowing existing theories to dictate coding or interpretation prematurely.

What software can be used for grounded theory analysis?

Researchers often use qualitative data analysis software such as NVivo, ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA, or Dedoose to organize data and support coding, although grounded theory can also be conducted effectively using manual coding techniques and spreadsheets.