Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives Print ISSN 2984-8288 eISSN 2984-8385 Vol 2(3), 2024

Selecting the Methodological Path:

A Beginner’s Guide to Grounded Theory Approaches
Michael G. Garlan
Iloilo Science and Technology University, Iloilo City, Philippines
Author email: [email protected]

Dated Submitted: February 2, 2024 Originality: 80%

Date Revised: February 9, 2024 Grammarly Score: 99%
Date Published: February 14, 2024 Similarity: 20%

Recommendation citation:
Garlan, M. (2024). Selecting the Methodological Path: A Beginner's Guide to Grounded Theory Approaches. Journal of Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, 2(3), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10650820

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ABSTRACT

A grounded theory methodology is a qualitative approach to exploring and describing social processes based on the people's
perspective and the researcher's philosophical position. Since the methodological approach is a consequence of the
philosophical orientation of the researcher, it is imperative to consider the role of the researcher in the interpretation of the
data, the place of the literature review in shaping the theoretical models, the research questions, and the approaches to the
data analysis to be able to justify the choice of a specific type of grounded theory approach. Since the grounded theory is too
broad a methodology, this article will help provide a novice-level researcher with structuring and developing a grounded
theory methodology consistent with the essential elements of each grounded theory type.

Keywords: Grounded theory; Classical grounded theory; Straussian grounded theory; Constructivist grounded theory;
Theoretical sampling.

Introduction
Grounded theory (GT) methodology, a qualitative research approach, is frequently employed to explore and describe social
processes from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the particular social phenomenon under investigation (Birks &
Mills, 2012). Widely applied in diverse academic disciplines such as education, psychology, and nursing (Glaser & Strauss,
1967), GT encompasses three distinct schools: Classical Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), Straussian Grounded
Theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), and Constructivist Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2008). In essence, grounded theory seeks
to comprehend the actions of individuals from their own viewpoint. It endeavors to unveil the core problem at the heart of a
social phenomenon and subsequently elucidate how individuals address and resolve this issue through their behavior. The
resolution process becomes the central variable under scrutiny. The main goal of the grounded theory is to uncover the
principal phenomenon of interest and the underlying social processes that elucidate how individuals navigate and resolve
their concerns. The methodology involves the generation of emerging conceptual categories, complete with associated
properties, which are then synthesized into a substantive theory grounded in the empirical data. This dynamic process unfolds
as researchers concurrently collect data, analyze findings, and engage in participant sampling. The methodology is inherently
iterative, with researchers cycling through data collection, categorization, description of emerging phenomena, and revisiting
earlier stages. Central to grounded theory is the constant comparative analysis, a pivotal procedure aimed at developing and
refining theoretically linked categories and concepts. This involves a continuous comparison of generated categories against
previously collected data, facilitating the identification of similarities, differences, and variations. As the data collection
progresses, the process gradually hones in on emerging theoretical concerns. Commonly, in-depth interviews and participant
observation serve as primary data sources, supplemented by relevant documents when applicable. Typically involving 20 to
40 informants, grounded theory literature stresses the importance of the simultaneous nature of data collection, analysis, and
sampling.
This article is a comprehensive guide for novice researchers venturing into grounded theory, underscoring the
researcher's pivotal role in data interpretation. It emphasizes the influential role of literature reviews in shaping theoretical

36
Selecting the Methodological Path: A Beginner’s Guide to Grounded Theory Approaches
models, research questions, and data analysis approaches, providing a robust justification for choosing grounded theory
methodology.

The Birth of the Grounded Theory

In the 1960s, the grounded theory was conceived by Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, who initially introduced this
innovative methodology at the School of Nursing, University of California. Glaser and Strauss's seminal work, "The
Discovery of Grounded Theory," marked the inception of this approach (Birks & Mills, 2012). However, owing to
differences in their methodological perspectives, Glaser and Strauss opted for separate paths. Glaser pioneered Classical
Grounded Theory, while Strauss, joined by nurse Juliet Corbin, developed Straussian Grounded Theory, earning the moniker
of second-generation grounded theorists. Strauss and Corbin expounded their methodology in the controversial book "Basics
of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques," elucidating the foundational procedures for
constructing substantive-level theory. In response to the divergence in their methodologies, Glaser formulated his distinct
approach, outlined in the book "Emergence Versus Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis" in 1992. Emphasizing the
essence of grounded theory, Glaser underscored its purpose in generating concepts and theories that account for and interpret
behavioral variations within the investigated substantive area. Contrastingly, Strauss and Corbin envisioned grounded theory
as a tool to describe the complete spectrum of a phenomenon's behavior, irrespective of its relevance or variation. This
marked the evolution of the second-generation grounded theory. The emergence of a third generation of grounded theorists is
attributed to Kathy Charmaz, a student of both Glaser and Strauss. Charmaz introduced Constructivist Grounded Theory,
offering her distinct perspective on this methodological framework (Birks & Mills, 2012; Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss,
2015; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This expansion of grounded theory approaches has found extensive application across diverse
academic domains, including sociology, education, and medicine. Since their inception, these three grounded theory
approaches have been widely employed in academic research. Scholars and researchers in social and medical fields have
conducted studies utilizing Classical, Straussian, and Constructivist grounded theory approaches, reflecting this versatile
methodology's enduring influence and adaptability.

Theoretical Sampling
The significance of theoretical sampling in grounded theory methodologies extends beyond mere data collection; it is an
intricate and iterative process designed to enhance the rigor and depth of qualitative research. Theoretical sampling,
embedded in the core of grounded theory across various schools, operates as a dynamic tool throughout the entire research
journey. The essence of theoretical sampling lies in its role as an ongoing data collection strategy conducted concomitantly
with the analysis process. This deliberate and strategic approach aims to gather data and systematically validate and elucidate
emerging concepts (Fassinger, 2005). At the heart of grounded theory studies, the process involves the meticulous selection
of participants based on predefined criteria, followed by a thorough analysis of their contributions. This cyclic method
persists until the critical point of data saturation is attained, signifying that no novel information is being uncovered.
Theoretical sampling aims to reach theoretical saturation, where the corpus of data becomes saturated with insights, rendering
further data collection redundant. This marks a crucial juncture in the research process, indicating that the emerging theory
has comprehensively understood the phenomenon under study. The selection of participants in theoretical sampling is not
arbitrary; instead, it is intricately linked to the evolving conceptualization of the study. The researcher, guided by the
emergent concepts and categories, strategically determines whom to include in the study to enrich and refine the evolving
theory. As the research approaches saturation, final sampling takes center stage. This phase is pivotal in confirming or
refuting the nascent theory, ensuring its robustness and applicability. The continued collection and analysis of data during this
stage serve as a comprehensive validation mechanism, further solidifying the credibility and generalizability of the grounded
theory. In essence, theoretical sampling in grounded theory represents a dynamic, responsive, and systematic approach that
captures the richness of data and contributes to the methodical development and refinement of a grounded theory, adding
depth and nuance to the research findings.

Epistemological Perspective
Creswell (2013) underscores the pivotal role of epistemology in qualitative research, emphasizing its significance in
effectively communicating the study to the audience. A researcher's philosophical stance fundamentally shapes the
formulation of research problems, the framing of research questions, and the methodology employed to gather information
and address those questions. Grounded theory, rooted in symbolic interactionism (Aldiabat & Navenee, 2011), draws upon an
empirical perspective of human interactions and behavior, interpreting these phenomena through the lens of symbols imbued
with meaning or value (Blumer, 1986). Notably, researchers bring diverse philosophical perspectives to their approach to
grounded theory (Singh & Estefan, 2018). Glaser (1978), aligning with a positivist philosophy in his Classical grounded
theory, posits that a studied phenomenon reflects a social process. Positivism asserts the existence of an objective reality
independent of human interaction, emphasizing an objectivist view that seeks independence from subjectivity (Hall et al.,
2013). Classical grounded theorists, influenced by this perspective, adopt a passive approach to research, allowing data to
manifest itself while maintaining the objectivity and impartiality of the researcher. Glaser (1978) contends that data remains
uncontaminated when approached with objectivity and lack of bias.

37
 Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives Print ISSN 2984-8288 eISSN 2984-8385 Vol 2(3), 2024

In contrast, Strauss and Corbin (2015), influenced by the philosophical tenets of symbolic interactionism, argue for the
construction of reality. They advocate for active researcher involvement in the theory development process, acknowledging
the need for systematicity to prevent subjectivism. Consequently, Straussian grounded theory embraces the role of the
researcher in shaping and constructing reality. Philosophical positioning significantly influences the choice of the grounded
theory approach. For instance, a post-positivist researcher, in alignment with an objective view of reality, follows an
integrated approach where the construction of knowledge is inseparable from the method to avoid subjectivity, reflecting the
Straussian version. Charmaz (2006) introduces a distinct perspective with Constructivist grounded theory, viewing reality
from multiple perspectives. According to Charmaz (2006), reality is dynamic and contingent on the researcher's
interpretation. This approach encourages researchers to derive knowledge of reality through multiple interpretations,
recognizing the impact of their previous experiences in shaping these interpretations. In this way, Constructivist grounded
theory stands apart from the Classical and Straussian perspectives, embracing the fluidity and multiplicity inherent in
constructing reality.

Role of the Researcher

Grounded theorists play a pivotal role in the interpretation of data, shaping their understanding of reality through this
interpretive lens. Strauss and Corbin (1998) assert that the analysis and interpretation of data are integral to the grounded
theory method, necessitating active involvement by the researcher. The Straussian grounded theory framework advocates for
a dynamic interaction between the researcher and participants, emphasizing the researcher's pivotal role in theory
development while maintaining a strategic distance from the data and analysis to mitigate subjectivity and biases (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). In this approach, the researcher engages in participant interactions and constructing substantive-level
categories at each stage yet employs a systematic approach to maintain objectivity. Contrastingly, Glaser (1978) posited that
the grounded theory researcher functions as a distant observer and an independent investigator. This perspective underscores
an objective relationship between the researcher and participants, aiming to discern true meanings without biases or undue
influence on interpretation (Lauridsen & Higginbottom, 2014). Glaser and Strauss stress the importance of objectivity in
theory development. In contrast to the emphasis on detachment in traditional grounded theory, Charmaz (2006) champions a
Constructivist grounded theory approach. Here, the researcher actively participates in the theory generation process, viewing
reality as a co-constructed outcome of interactions between the researcher and participants. In this perspective, the researcher
and research process are inseparable, leading to a mutually discovered understanding of reality. While Glaser and Strauss
prioritize objectivity, Charmaz highlights knowledge construction's collaborative and interactive nature in the Constructivist
grounded theory paradigm.

Place of Related Literature

The role of the literature review is intricately tied to the choice of grounded theory methodology. Traditional grounded
theorists, as advocated by Glaser (1978; 1998), emphasize the need to approach data collection without preconceived notions
from existing literature, as such ideas can inadvertently shape the data. To safeguard against potential influence, these
theorists avoid delving into literature within their areas of interest, prioritizing the freedom necessary for theory discovery.
On the contrary, adherents of Straussian grounded theory, such as those outlined by Hall et al. (2013), advocate for a
proactive engagement with literature at the outset and throughout the research process. This approach encourages researchers
to leverage existing knowledge to get a nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under study. Corbin and Strauss (2015;
1990) underscore the significance of an early and ongoing literature review in the grounded theory framework. They posit
that such reviews contribute to theoretical sensitivity, offer supplementary validation, serve as secondary data sources, guide
theoretical sampling, and provide a framework for shaping research questions.
Similarly, constructivist grounded theorists, as per Charmaz (2006), are urged to review specific literature pertinent
to their study thoroughly. Charmaz advocates for a dedicated section in the research paper to discuss and compile relevant
literature, fostering openness and creativity in data analysis. In summary, the role of the literature review in grounded theory
varies across methodological perspectives. While traditional grounded theorists avoid extensive literature reviews to preserve
the purity of data collection, Straussian and constructivist grounded theorists actively embrace literature reviews as integral
components of their research methodologies, leveraging existing knowledge to inform and enrich their investigations.

Research Questions
Much like the literature review, the nature of the grounded theory approach intricately shapes the formulation of research
questions. The type of grounded theory chosen significantly influences the framing and structure of these questions.
According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), research questions within grounded theory should emanate from a broader
sociological perspective, aligning with a comprehensive understanding of the social context. Glaser (1978) further specifies
that practical research questions should encompass causes, contexts, contingencies, consequences, covariances, and
conditions, aiming to explore the phenomenon under study thoroughly. In the Straussian grounded theory approach, there is a
distinct focus on identifying a specific phenomenon, and the corresponding research questions are tailored to elucidate
aspects of this targeted topic area (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The nature of these questions allows for

38
Selecting the Methodological Path: A Beginner’s Guide to Grounded Theory Approaches
extracting properties that can be generalized to a broader context, a hallmark of the Straussian grounded theory approach
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Similarly, in the constructivist grounded theory approach, the attention remains on specific areas, but the scope of
these inquiries is confined to the localized and specific context (Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz's methodology encourages
research questions that delve into the nuances of the local context, emphasizing the importance of capturing the intricacies
inherent to the specific setting under investigation. In essence, the chosen grounded theory approach guides the research
questions' specificity and determines the level of generalizability intended. Straussian grounded theory seeks broader
applicability, reaching beyond specific contexts, while constructivist grounded theory concentrates on localized and specific
contexts, aiming for a deeper understanding within those confines. The intricacies of grounded theory methodologies thus
extend beyond data collection and analysis, fundamentally shaping the essence of the research questions posed in the pursuit
of knowledge generation.

Data Analysis
Grounded theory is a constant comparison method, systematically comparing elements across different data sources to
identify commonalities. It significantly emphasizes achieving a fit and evaluating how emerging concepts align with
incidents. While approaches to grounded theory share coding terminology, they diverge in their execution and
methodologies. In the Classical grounded theory approach, coding occurs at two levels: substantive and selective (open) and
theoretical (Glaser & Holton, 2004). This approach utilizes coding to unveil patterns in data and uncover social problems.
Substantive codes, such as open and selective codes, offer insights into the research topic. Open coding captures data by
analyzing incidents and commonalities at Level I, Level II, and Level III. When a core category emerges, selective coding
follows, focusing only on data related to the core category. Glaser (1998) outlines nine criteria for identifying a core
category: centrality, recurrence, saturation duration, meaningful relationships, theoretical implications, considerable carry-
through, complete variability, being a dimension of the problem, and potential for any theoretical code. Glaser (1998) also
introduces 18 theoretical codes to help connect substantive codes, such as process, strategy, and the six C's.
On the other hand, Straussian grounded theory employs open, axial, and selective coding in a step-by-step
procedure, wherein the axial coding links categories at the level of properties and dimensions, creating a paradigm that
identifies linkages among conditions, actions, and consequences. The integration of findings occurs through selective coding,
which leads to identifying the core category. Techniques include writing a storyline, using diagrams, and organizing memos.
Open coding dissects transcripts into snippets, and axial coding establishes code connections using a paradigm model that
guides systematic data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
The Straussian grounded theory approach yields a full conceptual description, whereas the Classical version
generates a theory that explains how fundamental social problems are processed in a social setting. However, critics, as
highlighted by Charmaz (2006), argue that the Straussian approach stifles researcher creativity and emphasizes the
importance of flexibility. Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory involves initial and focused coding, allowing for the
researcher's interpretive creativity in presenting interview results through a descriptive lens (Charmaz, 2006). This approach
has faced criticism for allegedly contradicting the true conceptual nature of participants (Glaser, 2002). Critics argue that the
Constructivist grounded theory is a misnomer, asserting that a grounded theory is inherently not constructivist. Researchers
document their ideas, themes, and emerging conceptual patterns in memos throughout the grounded theory analysis. These
memos serve as a record of reflections on data and become crucial in the later stages of development, allowing researchers to
comprehensively describe schemes, patterns, and relationships among categories.

Conclusion
This article review offers a pragmatic guide for novice researchers in selecting a grounded theory approach, emphasizing the
importance of aligning the choice with the researcher's philosophical perspective. Acknowledging that the methodological
approach is inherently tied to the researcher's philosophical stance, the review delves into critical considerations such as the
researcher's role, the significance of the literature review, the formulation of research questions, and the approach to data
analysis. The aim is to provide insights into how these factors contribute to justifying selecting a specific grounded theory
approach from the three available types.

Contributions of Authors
This paper has a single author and confirms that the author reviewed this study.

Funding
This work received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Conflict of Interests
The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest

39
 Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives Print ISSN 2984-8288 eISSN 2984-8385 Vol 2(3), 2024

Acknowledgment
The author thanks the research advisory board.

References
Aldiabat, K. M., & Navenec, L. (2011). Philosophical roots of classical grounded theory: Its foundations in symbolic
interactionism. The Qualitative Report, 16(4), 1063-1080.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2012). Grounded theory: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructing grounded theory. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of Constructionist
research (pp. 397–416). New York: The Guilford Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications
Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise; Grounded theory in counseling psychology research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 156-166.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valey, CA: Sociology
Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/forum:
Qualitative social research.
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago:Transaction.
Hall, H., Griffiths, D., & McKenna, L. (2013). From Darwin to constructivism: The evolution of grounded theory. Nurse
Researcher, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.01.20.3.17.c9492
Lauridsen, E. I., & Higginbottom, G. (2014). The roots and development of constructivist grounded theory. Nurse
Researcher, 21(5). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.5.8.e1208
Singh, S., & Estefan, A. (2018). Selecting a grounded theory approach for nursing research. Global qualitative nursing
research, 5, 2333393618799571. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393618799571
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basic of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

40