Introduction

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).