Grounded Theory Analysis

Grounded theory analysis is a systematic process consisting of several flexible strategies for constructing theory about social behaviour through analysing qualitative data systematically collected (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1). So, the theory is grounded in the actual data. Therefore, it is an inductive analysis developed in social sciences, which emphasises the importance of developing an understanding of human behaviour through a process of discovery (Mohajan & Mohajan, 2022, p. 17). It is typically used when there is no available theory to explain a process that occurs over time, but instead of making assumptions, it ensures a more natural view of human actions within a social framework (Creswell, 2007). Scientific theories need to be conceived, elaborated and checked, which means that induction (the discovery of hypotheses), deduction (drawing implications from hypotheses) and verification (checking if they are a total, or a partial qualification or negation) take place throughout the research project.

Charmaz (2016) defined the grounded theory as follows: ‘GT begins with inductive theory, relies on comparative analysis, involves simultaneous data collection and analysis, and includes strategies for refining your emerging analytic categories’.

Grounded theory analysis is guided by 7 basic principles:

• research should start with a broad research focus, which means that there should not be some predetermined research questions (Charmaz, 2006).
• literature review should be delayed until later stages of the research, so that the researcher remains as neutral as possible towards the existing theories (Glaser, 1978). The existing literature is not used as a theoretical background in GT, but rather as the data to be used by the analytic strategies of the research (Creswell, 2014). The in-depth literature review takes place after the theory is discovered (Glaser, 1998).
• data collection and analysis should be conducted simultaneously. The data takes the form of verbatim interviews, and the researcher must ensure that the interview is transcribed exactly as recorded, because the theory evolves from the ongoing data collection and analysis, and not from concepts and ideas held by the researcher. The analysis should begin as soon as data is collected (Oliver, 2012).
• the constant comparison method should be used so that researchers constantly compare the emerging codes within the same data item, and across the same data set (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).
• memos should be kept, helping researchers to clarify what they meant or why they created certain codes in their analysis (Bryman, 2012).
• theoretical sensitivity – being open to what emerges from the data, and identifying possible connections between the emerging findings and literature (Glaser, 1978).
• theoretical sampling – sourcing new data with which the emerging concepts can be further explored, i.e. the theory decides where and what the sample is (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

It is this cyclical motion of data collection, immediate analysis, and further collection to produce concepts from which a theory evolves that makes the grounded theory unique (Pulla, 2016, p. 79).

Grounded theory analysis is time-consuming, and difficult to conduct. It requires in-depth interviews from many individuals, who are familiar with the phenomenon being studied, and therefore there are large amounts of data to manage (Creswell, 2007).

Grounded theory researchers develop tentative interpretations about the data through constructing codes for data fragments, and categories for clusters of codes, and then they check and refine the major categories by using them to re-examine the data collected before defining the category, by returning to the field site and gathering more data, and by building focused questions for later data collection (Charmaz, 2017, p. 2).

Grounded theorists go back and forth between collecting and analysing data, because grounded theory is an iterative process, where data collection sparks analysis, and analysis directs subsequent data collection with an aim of refining and checking the analysis (Charmaz, 2017, p. 2). They focus on what is happening, rather than on preconceived general topics, making comparisons throughout the research process, thus discovering new properties, dimensions, visible and hidden processes. They check the developed theoretical ideas with subsequently collected data, and finally state the implications for professional practice and public policy (Charmaz, 2017, p. 3).

Coding is an essential procedure in a qualitative analysis, which highly influences the excellence of qualitative research (Strauss, 2003, p. 27). Strauss (2003) provides a thorough explanation of three different types of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.

Open coding is the initial, unrestricted coding performed by the close examination of data ‘line by line, or even word by word’ (Strauss, 2003, p. 28) in order to open up the inquiry and produce concepts that seem to fit the data. At this point, the concepts are provisional, and every interpretation is tentative - it may or may not work, or may be modified, and the coding is grounded not only in the data but also on the experiential data and knowledge of literature which the researcher brings into the inquiry. However, open coding forces the researcher to break the data apart analytically. It is important for the researcher to ask a set of questions continually aimed at the generation of a core category that will be at the centre of the theory, such as:

• What study are these data pertinent to? – to remind the researcher that an original idea may not turn out to be that all.
• What category does this incident indicate? – to keep the researcher from getting lost in the rich data by forcing the generation of codes that relate to other codes.
• What is actually happening in the data? – to help the researcher define the main problem.

The data should be analysed thoroughly, and carefully coded to ensure conceptual density, and minimize the overlooking of important categories, and when a code seems relatively saturated and nothing new is happening, the researcher will find himself/herself moving quickly through the data, scanning pages until something new catches the eye. If some portions of the total analysis are not satisfying, another open coding, and even new data collection may become necessary.

At the point of open coding, coding should be frequently interrupted in order to write a theoretical memo, and the accumulated memos will move the analyst further from the data and into a more analytic realm. The analytic relevance of common variables should not be assumed – they should force their way into the grounded theory.

It is important for the analyst not to be too committed to the first codes, and to ensure that individual codes are verified and saturated. Open coding proliferates codes quickly, but the continual verifying that each code really fits slows down the process (Strauss, 2003: 32).

Axial coding – the analysis revolves around the axis of one category at a time, i.e. the intense anlysis of one category at a time is performed resulting in cumulative knowledge about the relationships between that category and other categories and subcategories. According to Strauss (2003), axial coding is an essential aspect of the open coding, which alternates with looser kinds of open coding, especially when the analyst examines new aspects of the phenomena under study.

Selective coding – coding systematically for the core category, i.e. the analyst delimits coding to only those codes that relate to the core codes , and the core code serves as a guide to further theoretical sampling and data collection. The analytic memos become more focused and help to achieve the integration of the theory (Strauss, 2003: 33).

The findings of a grounded theory analysis are supposed to be unique, tightly anchored in the data collected for the particular research purposes, i.e. in the words and experiences of the research participants. It introduces a new phenomenon and emphasises its discovery, whereas the description and verification are not its primary concern. So, the success of the analysis to a great extent depends on the researcher’s sensitivity and analytical skills, and it is important that the researcher constantly be aware of his/her own position in relation to understanding and conveying the messages of the participants.

What is the correct order of the coding steps given below?

1. Select the core category that captures the essence of the research.
2. Find connections and relationships between codes.
3. Code discrete pieces of data with descriptive labels.
4. Aggregate and condense codes into broader categories.
5. Identify the connections between the core category and the rest of the codes and data.
6. Remove the codes and categories which are not supportive enough.
7. Turn the data into small, discrete components.
8. Read the transcript again and code according to the overarching category.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Charmaz, K. (2016). Constructivist Grounded Theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 299–300.

Charmaz, K. (2017). The Power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1),  34–45.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. (1978). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA Sociology Press.

Mohajan, D. & Mohajan, H., (2022). Straussian Grounded Theory: An Evolved Variant in Qualitative Research, MPRA Paper 116194, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Oliver, C. (2012). Critical realist grounded theory: A new approach for social work research. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 371–387.

Pulla, V. R. (2014). Grounded Theory Approach in Social Research. Space and Culture India, 2(3), 14–23.