Grounded theory has been defined as ‘theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered and analyzed through the research process. In this method, data collection, analysis, and eventual theory stand in close relationship to one another’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.12). Two central strands of grounded theory are that it is concerned with the development of theory out of data and the approach is iterative (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2008, p.158) meaning that the data collection and analysis proceed in tandem, repeatedly referring back to each other – ‘these become the foundations for making comparisons and discovering properties and dimensions’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.5).
Providing a definitive definition is difficult because different ethnographic researchers have developed their own interpretations. Glaser and Strauss (1967) published ‘The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research and was based on the view that ‘the study of human beings should be scientific, in the way understood by quantitative researchers’ (Travers, 2001, p.42); but since then Glaser and Strauss have developed grounded theory along different paths (Study Guide,p.60). Glaser (1992) felt that Strauss’ (1987) approach to grounded theory was too prescriptive and placed too much emphasis on the development of concepts rather than of theories. Charmaz (2000) discusses how there is considerable controversy about what grounded theory is and actually entails; and implies that grounded theory is often claimed to have been used but that evidence of this being the case is not clear. Blumer (1969) strongly contests grounded theory on the basis that human life is too complex to be interpreted by quantitative analysis. In contrast, Denzin (1997,p.16) describes grounded theory as ‘the most influential paradigm for qualitative research in the social sciences today’.
Grounded theory is more than just a theorist grounding his or her theory in data; as Hammersley and Atkinson (2008) discuss, grounded theory refers to a set of procedures (Study Guide, p.60). It involves asking questions of the data collated and making theoretical comparisons to help gain a better understanding of them. This is achieved through micro analysis of line-by-line of field data; however this is very time-consuming. In my own small-scale study, I have found the micro-analysis will be more difficult with a larger mass of data, including detailed field notes, transcripts and my own thoughts.
A benefit of grounded theory is that it focuses attention on objectivity, which is often seen to be lacking in ethnographic studies. A key process of the theory is organising data into codes(Study Guide,p.61) to categorize and label themes as the research progresses and to continue this process until all codes are saturated. Within my own research, labels emerged, such as pedagogy, learner support, e-learning techniques and reflective practice. Although, these have been identified, they can be modified, qualified and open to negotiation, however, the aim of grounded theory is that it is grounded in data and therefore the theorist is confident in its validity.
A key advantage of grounded theory is that it is more objective, according to Strauss and Corbin (1998, p.12). They say ‘a researcher does not begin with a preconceived theory in mind (unless his or her purpose is to elaborate and extend existing theory)’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.12). The key objective is to interpret qualitative data to discover concepts and relationships which are then coded and organised into theories.
Charmaz’s (1997) research (recommended reading from the Study Guide, p.97) focuses on the identity of dilemmas of men who have chronic illnesses. She outlines the main stages of her analysis: interviews with men and some women; exploring transcripts for gender differences; searching for themes; building ‘analytic categories from men’s definitions of and taken-for-granted assumptions about their situations (Charmaz, 1997,p.39); further interviewing and re-reading and then making ‘comparisons with women on selected key points (Charmaz, 1997,p.39). Charmaz’s grounded theory helps to explain the importance of notions of masculinity for the carving out of an identity for chronically ill men.
Grounded theory is criticized by Silverman (2005, pp.232-237) for failing to acknowledge implicit theories which guide work at an early stage and how the theories can become linked. He also accuses the method of generating large amounts of meaningless categories. The use of theoretical sampling results in a lack of precise planning. It is not possible to predict in advance, the size of a sample required.
The emphasis on coding may result in important factors, such as, the influence of culture, social, economic and political factors being missed – however, this does depend on the coding generated.
There is also the question of whether grounded theory is achievable. One aspect is the need for the researcher to have an open-mind but in practice, is it possible for anybody to be free of preconceptions and if prior knowledge is ignored, then there is the risk of re-inventing the same findings. Bulmer (1979) questions whether researchers can detach their awareness of relevant theories or concepts until much later in the analysis process and whether grounded theory does result in theory.
Layder (1998) argues the approach is naive about the complex relationship between theory and data collection and the way researchers are to approach the data without the use of prior theories and concepts. It is said to rely to heavily on empirical data because of the source of fieldwork data being the basis for theory.
In conclusion, grounded theory aims to generate concepts and theory based on empirical data and represents one of the most influential strategies for conducting qualitative data analysis. Though how far grounded theory is achieved is still debated.