[ ] p2-6
[ ] p4-21
We used grounded theory methodology to investigate social processes in private dental practices in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This grounded theory study builds on a previous Australian Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) called the Monitor Dental Practice Program (MPP) [ 27 ]. We know that preventive techniques can arrest early tooth decay and thus reduce the need for fillings [ 28 - 32 ]. Unfortunately, most dentists worldwide who encounter early tooth decay continue to drill it out and fill the tooth [ 33 - 37 ]. The MPP tested whether dentists could increase their use of preventive techniques. In the intervention arm, dentists were provided with a set of evidence-based preventive protocols to apply [ 38 ]; control practices provided usual care. The MPP protocols used in the RCT guided dentists to systematically apply preventive techniques to prevent new tooth decay and to arrest early stages of tooth decay in their patients, therefore reducing the need for drilling and filling. The protocols focused on (1) primary prevention of new tooth decay (tooth brushing with high concentration fluoride toothpaste and dietary advice) and (2) intensive secondary prevention through professional treatment to arrest tooth decay progress (application of fluoride varnish, supervised monitoring of dental plaque control and clinical outcomes)[ 38 ].
As the RCT unfolded, it was discovered that practices in the intervention arm were not implementing the preventive protocols uniformly. Why had the outcomes of these systematically implemented protocols been so different? This question was the starting point for our grounded theory study. We aimed to understand how the protocols had been implemented, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process. We hoped that such understanding would help us to see how the norms of Australian private dental practice as regards to tooth decay could be moved away from drilling and filling and towards evidence-based preventive care.
Figure Figure1 1 illustrates the steps taken during the project that will be described below from points A to F.
Study design . file containing a figure illustrating the study design.
Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact . This shows the influence of symbolic interactionism, a social psychological approach focused on the meaning of human actions [ 39 ]. Grounded theory studies begin with open questions, and researchers presume that they may know little about the meanings that drive the actions of their participants. Accordingly, we sought to learn from participants how the MPP process worked and how they made sense of it. We wanted to answer a practical social problem: how do dentists persist in drilling and filling early stages of tooth decay, when they could be applying preventive care?
We asked research questions that were open, and focused on social processes. Our initial research questions were:
• What was the process of implementing (or not-implementing) the protocols (from the perspective of dentists, practice staff, and patients)?
• How did this process vary?
In our experience, medical researchers are often concerned about the ethics oversight process for such a flexible, unpredictable study design. We managed this process as follows. Initial ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Sydney. In our application, we explained grounded theory procedures, in particular the fact that they evolve. In our initial application we provided a long list of possible recruitment strategies and interview questions, as suggested by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We indicated that we would make future applications to modify our protocols. We did this as the study progressed - detailed below. Each time we reminded the committee that our study design was intended to evolve with ongoing modifications. Each modification was approved without difficulty. As in any ethical study, we ensured that participation was voluntary, that participants could withdraw at any time, and that confidentiality was protected. All responses were anonymised before analysis, and we took particular care not to reveal potentially identifying details of places, practices or clinicians.
Grounded theory studies are characterised by theoretical sampling, but this requires some data to be collected and analysed. Sampling must thus begin purposively, as in any qualitative study. Participants in the previous MPP study provided our population [ 27 ]. The MPP included 22 private dental practices in NSW, randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. With permission of the ethics committee; we sent letters to the participants in the MPP, inviting them to participate in a further qualitative study. From those who agreed, we used the quantitative data from the MPP to select an initial sample.
Then, we selected the practice in which the most dramatic results had been achieved in the MPP study (Dental Practice 1). This was a purposive sampling strategy, to give us the best possible access to the process of successfully implementing the protocols. We interviewed all consenting staff who had been involved in the MPP (one dentist, five dental assistants). We then recruited 12 patients who had been enrolled in the MPP, based on their clinically measured risk of developing tooth decay: we selected some patients whose risk status had gotten better, some whose risk had worsened and some whose risk had stayed the same. This purposive sample was designed to provide maximum variation in patients' adoption of preventive dental care.
One hour in-depth interviews were conducted. The researcher/interviewer (AS) travelled to a rural town in NSW where interviews took place. The initial 18 participants (one dentist, five dental assistants and 12 patients) from Dental Practice 1 were interviewed in places convenient to them such as the dental practice, community centres or the participant's home.
Two initial interview schedules were designed for each group of participants: 1) dentists and dental practice staff and 2) dental patients. Interviews were semi-structured and based loosely on the research questions. The initial questions for dentists and practice staff are in Additional file 1 . Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The research location was remote from the researcher's office, thus data collection was divided into two episodes to allow for intermittent data analysis. Dentist and practice staff interviews were done in one week. The researcher wrote memos throughout this week. The researcher then took a month for data analysis in which coding and memo-writing occurred. Then during a return visit, patient interviews were completed, again with memo-writing during the data-collection period.
Coding and the constant comparative method.
Coding is essential to the development of a grounded theory [ 15 ]. According to Charmaz [[ 15 ], p46], 'coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data. Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means'. Coding occurs in stages. In initial coding, the researcher generates as many ideas as possible inductively from early data. In focused coding, the researcher pursues a selected set of central codes throughout the entire dataset and the study. This requires decisions about which initial codes are most prevalent or important, and which contribute most to the analysis. In theoretical coding, the researcher refines the final categories in their theory and relates them to one another. Charmaz's method, like Glaser's method [ 13 ], captures actions or processes by using gerunds as codes (verbs ending in 'ing'); Charmaz also emphasises coding quickly, and keeping the codes as similar to the data as possible.
We developed our coding systems individually and through team meetings and discussions.
We have provided a worked example of coding in Table Table2. 2 . Gerunds emphasise actions and processes. Initial coding identifies many different processes. After the first few interviews, we had a large amount of data and many initial codes. This included a group of codes that captured how dentists sought out evidence when they were exposed to a complex clinical case, a new product or technique. Because this process seemed central to their practice, and because it was talked about often, we decided that seeking out evidence should become a focused code. By comparing codes against codes and data against data, we distinguished the category of "seeking out evidence" from other focused codes, such as "gathering and comparing peers' evidence to reach a conclusion", and we understood the relationships between them. Using this constant comparative method (see Table Table1), 1 ), we produced a theoretical code: "making sense of evidence and constructing knowledge". This code captured the social process that dentists went through when faced with new information or a practice challenge. This theoretical code will be the focus of a future paper.
Coding process
Raw data | Initial coding | Focused coding | |
---|---|---|---|
Q. What did you take into account when you decided to buy this new technology? What did we... we looked at cost, we looked at reliability and we sort of, we compared a few different types, talked to some people that had them. Q. When you say you talked to some people who were they? Some dental colleagues. There's a couple of internet sites that we talked to some people... people had tried out some that didn't work very well. Q. So in terms of materials either preventive materials or restorative materials; what do you take in account when you decide which one to adopt? Well, that's a good question. I don't know. I suppose we [laughs] look at reliability. I suppose I've been looking at literature involved in it so I quite like my own little research about that, because I don't really trust the research that comes with the product and once again what other dentists are using and what they've been using and they're happy with. I'm finding the internet, some of those internet forums are actually quite good for new products. | Deciding to buy based on cost, reliability Talking to dental colleagues on internet sites Comparing their experiences Looking at literature Doing my own little research Not trusting research that comes with commercial products Talking to other dentists about their experiences | |
Throughout the study, we wrote extensive case-based memos and conceptual memos. After each interview, the interviewer/researcher (AS) wrote a case-based memo reflecting on what she learned from that interview. They contained the interviewer's impressions about the participants' experiences, and the interviewer's reactions; they were also used to systematically question some of our pre-existing ideas in relation to what had been said in the interview. Table Table3 3 illustrates one of those memos. After a few interviews, the interviewer/researcher also began making and recording comparisons among these memos.
Case-based memo
This was quite an eye opening interview in the sense that the practice manager was very direct, practical and open. In his accounts, the bottom line is that this preventive program is not profitable; dentists will do it for giving back to the community, not to earn money from it. I am so glad we had this interview; otherwise I am not sure if someone would be so up front about it. So, my question really is, is that the reason why dentists have not adopted it in other practices? And what about other patients who come here, who are not enrolled in the research program, does the dentist-in-charge treat them all as being part of the program or it was just an impression from the interview and what I saw here during my time in the practice... or will the dentist continue doing it in the next future? |
I definitely learned that dentistry in private practice is a business, at the end of the day a target has to be achieved, and the dentist is driven by it. During the dentist's interview, there was a story about new patients being referred to the practice because the way they were treating patients now; but right now I am just not sure; I really need to check that... need to go back and ask the dentist about it, were there any referrals or not? Because this would create new revenue for the practice and the practice manager would surely be happy about it. On the other hand, it is interesting that the practice manager thinks that having a hygienist who was employed few months ago is the way to adopt the preventive program; she should implement it, freeing the dentist to do more complex work. But in reality, when I interviewed the hygienist I learned that she does not want to change to adopt the program, she is really focused on what she has been doing for a while and trust her experience a lot! So I guess, the dentist in charge might be going through a new changing process, different from what happen when the MPP protocols were first tried in this practice; this is another point to check on the next interview with the dentist. I just have this feeling that somehow the new staff (hygienist) is really important for this practice to regain and maintain profit throughout the adoption of preventive protocols but there are some personality clashes happening along the way. |
We also wrote conceptual memos about the initial codes and focused codes being developed, as described by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We used these memos to record our thinking about the meaning of codes and to record our thinking about how and when processes occurred, how they changed, and what their consequences were. In these memos, we made comparisons between data, cases and codes in order to find similarities and differences, and raised questions to be answered in continuing interviews. Table Table4 4 illustrates a conceptual memo.
Conceptual memo
In these dental practices the adaptation to preventive protocols was all about believing in this new approach to manage dental caries and in themselves as professionals. New concepts were embraced and slowly incorporated into practice. Embracing new concepts/paradigms/systems and abandoning old ones was quite evident during this process (old concepts = dentistry restorative model; new concepts = non-surgical approach). This evolving process involved feelings such as anxiety, doubt, determination, confidence, and reassurance. The modification of practices was possible when dentists-in-charge felt that perhaps there was something else that would be worth doing; something that might be a little different from what was done so far. The responsibility to offer the best available treatment might have triggered this reasoning. However, there are other factors that play an important role during this process such as dentist's personal features, preconceived notions, dental practice environment, and how dentists combine patients' needs and expectations while making treatment decisions. Finding the balance between preventive non-surgical treatment (curing of disease) and restorative treatment (making up for lost tissues) is an every moment challenge in a profitable dental practice. Regaining profit, reassessing team work and surgery logistics, and mastering the scheduling art to maximize financial and clinical outcomes were important practical issues tackled in some of these practices during this process. |
These participants talked about learning and adapting new concepts to their practices and finally never going back the way it was before. This process brought positive changes to participants' daily activities. Empowerment of practice staff made them start to enjoy more their daily work (they were recognized by patients as someone who was truly interested in delivering the best treatment for them). Team members realized that there were many benefits to patients and to staff members in implementing this program, such as, professional development, offering the best care for each patient and job satisfaction. |
At the end of our data collection and analysis from Dental Practice 1, we had developed a tentative model of the process of implementing the protocols, from the perspective of dentists, dental practice staff and patients. This was expressed in both diagrams and memos, was built around a core set of focused codes, and illustrated relationships between them.
We have already described our initial purposive sampling. After our initial data collection and analysis, we used theoretical sampling (see Table Table1) 1 ) to determine who to sample next and what questions to ask during interviews. We submitted Ethics Modification applications for changes in our question routes, and had no difficulty with approval. We will describe how the interview questions for dentists and dental practice staff evolved, and how we selected new participants to allow development of our substantive theory. The patients' interview schedule and theoretical sampling followed similar procedures.
We now had a detailed provisional model of the successful process implemented in Dental Practice 1. Important core focused codes were identified, including practical/financial, historical and philosophical dimensions of the process. However, we did not yet understand how the process might vary or go wrong, as implementation in the first practice we studied had been described as seamless and beneficial for everyone. Because our aim was to understand the process of implementing the protocols, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process, we needed to understand how implementation might fail. For this reason, we theoretically sampled participants from Dental Practice 2, where uptake of the MPP protocols had been very limited according to data from the RCT trial.
We also changed our interview questions based on the analysis we had already done (see Additional file 2 ). In our analysis of data from Dental Practice 1, we had learned that "effectiveness" of treatments and "evidence" both had a range of meanings. We also learned that new technologies - in particular digital x-rays and intra-oral cameras - had been unexpectedly important to the process of implementing the protocols. For this reason, we added new questions for the interviews in Dental Practice 2 to directly investigate "effectiveness", "evidence" and how dentists took up new technologies in their practice.
Then, in Dental Practice 2 we learned more about the barriers dentists and practice staff encountered during the process of implementing the MPP protocols. We confirmed and enriched our understanding of dentists' processes for adopting technology and producing knowledge, dealing with complex cases and we further clarified the concept of evidence. However there was a new, important, unexpected finding in Dental Practice 2. Dentists talked about "unreliable" patients - that is, patients who were too unreliable to have preventive dental care offered to them. This seemed to be a potentially important explanation for non-implementation of the protocols. We modified our interview schedule again to include questions about this concept (see Additional file 3 ) leading to another round of ethics approvals. We also returned to Practice 1 to ask participants about the idea of an "unreliable" patient.
Dentists' construction of the "unreliable" patient during interviews also prompted us to theoretically sample for "unreliable" and "reliable" patients in the following round of patients' interviews. The patient question route was also modified by the analysis of the dentists' and practice staff data. We wanted to compare dentists' perspectives with the perspectives of the patients themselves. Dentists were asked to select "reliable" and "unreliable" patients to be interviewed. Patients were asked questions about what kind of services dentists should provide and what patients valued when coming to the dentist. We found that these patients (10 reliable and 7 unreliable) talked in very similar ways about dental care. This finding suggested to us that some deeply-held assumptions within the dental profession may not be shared by dental patients.
At this point, we decided to theoretically sample dental practices from the non-intervention arm of the MPP study. This is an example of the 'openness' of a grounded theory study potentially subtly shifting the focus of the study. Our analysis had shifted our focus: rather than simply studying the process of implementing the evidence-based preventive protocols, we were studying the process of doing prevention in private dental practice. All participants seemed to be revealing deeply held perspectives shared in the dental profession, whether or not they were providing dental care as outlined in the MPP protocols. So, by sampling dentists from both intervention and control group from the previous MPP study, we aimed to confirm or disconfirm the broader reach of our emerging theory and to complete inductive development of key concepts. Theoretical sampling added 12 face to face interviews and 10 telephone interviews to the data. A total of 40 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 were recruited. Telephone interviews were of comparable length, content and quality to face to face interviews, as reported elsewhere in the literature [ 40 ].
After theoretical sampling, we could begin coding theoretically. We fleshed out each major focused code, examining the situations in which they appeared, when they changed and the relationship among them. At time of writing, we have reached theoretical saturation (see Table Table1). 1 ). We have been able to determine this in several ways. As we have become increasingly certain about our central focused codes, we have re-examined the data to find all available insights regarding those codes. We have drawn diagrams and written memos. We have looked rigorously for events or accounts not explained by the emerging theory so as to develop it further to explain all of the data. Our theory, which is expressed as a set of concepts that are related to one another in a cohesive way, now accounts adequately for all the data we have collected. We have presented the developing theory to specialist dental audiences and to the participants, and have found that it was accepted by and resonated with these audiences.
We have used these procedures to construct a detailed, multi-faceted model of the process of incorporating prevention into private general dental practice. This model includes relationships among concepts, consequences of the process, and variations in the process. A concrete example of one of our final key concepts is the process of "adapting to" prevention. More commonly in the literature writers speak of adopting, implementing or translating evidence-based preventive protocols into practice. Through our analysis, we concluded that what was required was 'adapting to' those protocols in practice. Some dental practices underwent a slow process of adapting evidence-based guidance to their existing practice logistics. Successful adaptation was contingent upon whether (1) the dentist-in-charge brought the whole dental team together - including other dentists - and got everyone interested and actively participating during preventive activities; (2) whether the physical environment of the practice was re-organised around preventive activities, (3) whether the dental team was able to devise new and efficient routines to accommodate preventive activities, and (4) whether the fee schedule was amended to cover the delivery of preventive services, which hitherto was considered as "unproductive time".
Adaptation occurred over time and involved practical, historical and philosophical aspects of dental care. Participants transitioned from their initial state - selling restorative care - through an intermediary stage - learning by doing and educating patients about the importance of preventive care - and finally to a stage where they were offering patients more than just restorative care. These are examples of ways in which participants did not simply adopt protocols in a simple way, but needed to adapt the protocols and their own routines as they moved toward more preventive practice.
There are a number of important assurances of quality in keeping with grounded theory procedures and general principles of qualitative research. The following points describe what was crucial for this study to achieve quality.
1. All interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed in detail and the transcripts checked against the recordings.
2. We analysed the interview transcripts as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice sampled as shown on Figure Figure1. 1 . This allowed the process of theoretical sampling to occur.
3. Writing case-based memos right after each interview while being in the field allowed the researcher/interviewer to capture initial ideas and make comparisons between participants' accounts. These memos assisted the researcher to make comparison among her reflections, which enriched data analysis and guided further data collection.
4. Having the opportunity to contact participants after interviews to clarify concepts and to interview some participants more than once contributed to the refinement of theoretical concepts, thus forming part of theoretical sampling.
5. The decision to include phone interviews due to participants' preference worked very well in this study. Phone interviews had similar length and depth compared to the face to face interviews, but allowed for a greater range of participation.
1. Detailed analysis records were kept; which made it possible to write this explanatory paper.
2. The use of the constant comparative method enabled the analysis to produce not just a description but a model, in which more abstract concepts were related and a social process was explained.
3. All researchers supported analysis activities; a regular meeting of the research team was convened to discuss and contextualize emerging interpretations, introducing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives.
We developed a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and analysed the variation in this process in different dental practices. Transferring evidence-based preventive protocols into these dental practices entailed a slow process of adapting the evidence to the existing practices logistics. Important practical, philosophical and historical elements as well as barriers and facilitators were present during a complex adaptation process. Time was needed to allow dentists and practice staff to go through this process of slowly adapting their practices to this new way of working. Patients also needed time to incorporate home care activities and more frequent visits to dentists into their daily routines. Despite being able to adapt or not, all dentists trusted the concrete clinical evidence that they have produced, that is, seeing results in their patients mouths made them believe in a specific treatment approach.
This paper provides a detailed explanation of how a study evolved using grounded theory methodology (GTM), one of the most commonly used methodologies in qualitative health and medical research [[ 8 ], p47]. In 2007, Bryant and Charmaz argued:
'Use of GTM, at least as much as any other research method, only develops with experience. Hence the failure of all those attempts to provide clear, mechanistic rules for GTM: there is no 'GTM for dummies'. GTM is based around heuristics and guidelines rather than rules and prescriptions. Moreover, researchers need to be familiar with GTM, in all its major forms, in order to be able to understand how they might adapt it in use or revise it into new forms and variations.' [[ 8 ], p17].
Our detailed explanation of our experience in this grounded theory study is intended to provide, vicariously, the kind of 'experience' that might help other qualitative researchers in medicine and health to apply and benefit from grounded theory methodology in their studies. We hope that our explanation will assist others to avoid using grounded theory as an 'approving bumper sticker' [ 10 ], and instead use it as a resource that can greatly improve the quality and outcome of a qualitative study.
GTM: grounded theory methods; MPP: Monitor Dental Practice Program; NSW: New South Wales; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design of this study. AS carried out data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. SMC made substantial contribution during data collection, analysis and data interpretation. AS, SMC, RWE, and AB have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/128/prepub
Initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff.
Questions added to the initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the initial interview schedule
Questions added to the modified interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the modified interview schedule
We thank dentists, dental practice staff and patients for their invaluable contributions to the study. We thank Emeritus Professor Miles Little for his time and wise comments during the project.
The authors received financial support for the research from the following funding agencies: University of Sydney Postgraduate Award 2009; The Oral Health Foundation, University of Sydney; Dental Board New South Wales; Australian Dental Research Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 632715.
Home Market Research
In the realm of qualitative research, the grounded theory approach stands as a stalwart methodology that has reshaped how researchers unravel the complexities of the human experience.
This approach, developed by Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss in the 1960s, provides a systematic framework for generating theories from empirical data.
Grounded theory methods involve systematically deriving theories from qualitative data, facilitating a deep understanding of complex phenomena. The grounded theory method empowers researchers to construct concepts and theories directly from the data they collect, fostering a comprehensive and contextually rich analysis.
In this blog, we delve into the core principles of the grounded theory approach and explore how platforms like QuestionPro can enhance its application in qualitative research.
Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology that involves developing theories directly from the data collected during the research process instead of relying on pre-existing theories or hypotheses.
This approach aims to generate insights and understanding about a particular phenomenon by systematically analyzing and coding the data to uncover patterns, relationships, and concepts.
It emphasizes research’s iterative and inductive nature, allowing theories to emerge organically from the data rather than being imposed on it. This methodology is commonly used in social sciences and other fields to explore complex social processes and generate new theories from empirical observations and interviews.
Grounded theory research is particularly well-suited for situations where you want to develop a new theory or gain a deeper understanding of a complex phenomenon that hasn’t been extensively studied before. Here are some scenarios where such theory research can be valuable:
When you’re exploring a new area of research where little prior theory exists, it can help you generate theories and concepts directly from the data.
It can provide insights into the underlying dynamics if you’re studying complex social processes, behaviors, interactions, or cultural phenomena.
When examining a relatively new or rapidly evolving phenomenon, grounded theory can help you uncover the underlying structures and trends driving its emergence.
If you aim to develop a new theoretical framework based on empirical evidence, it provides a systematic approach to theory building grounded in data.
When you want to deeply understand a phenomenon within its specific context, it allows you to capture the nuances and intricacies that more hypothesis-driven methods might miss.
It effectively captures participants’ perspectives and experiences in a detailed and nuanced manner.
It’s useful when you’re working with diverse types of qualitative data, such as interviews, observations, field notes, or textual documents.
Grounded theory allows you to develop insights that contradict or expand upon established knowledge to challenge existing assumptions or theories.
This can be valuable in interdisciplinary research, where you’re attempting to integrate perspectives from multiple disciplines to develop new insights.
In fields like education, healthcare, or social work, where practical solutions are needed, it can help in developing theories that inform real-world applications.
The grounded theory process involves several key steps researchers follow to generate theories from empirical data systematically. While there might be variations and adaptations in different researchers’ approaches, the following steps are commonly associated with the grounded theory methodology:
The foundation of the constructivist grounded theory approach lies in collecting data through methods such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. This raw data serves as the bedrock for theory construction.
Researchers meticulously dissect the data, assigning initial codes to capture the fundamental concepts present. This stage facilitates unbiased exploration, as researchers do not force-fit data into pre-existing categories.
Building upon the initial codes, researchers start categorizing and interlinking them to form more comprehensive themes. The aim is to identify connections and relationships between these categories.
The process evolves further as a core category central to the phenomenon under study emerges. Researchers refine and establish links between this core category and other concepts.
Throughout the journey, researchers consistently compare new data with existing codes and categories, refining their understanding and allowing the theory to evolve organically.
Researchers strategically select new data sources or participants to enrich the theory’s development and validation, ensuring that the existing theory resonates with diverse perspectives.
The journey reaches its zenith with theoretical sensitivity saturation, where new data ceases to alter the theory significantly. This signifies a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon.
Researchers compile their insights into a coherent narrative that encapsulates emerging relationships, patterns, and concepts. This narrative becomes the tangible outcome of the grounded theory study.
Here are some advantages and disadvantages of using grounded theory:
In their study of online community dynamics, the researchers employed grounded theory analysis to uncover emergent patterns of interaction and collaboration among participants. Platforms like QuestionPro offer a range of tools that complement and enhance the grounded theory Approach in qualitative research:
The grounded theory Approach remains a cornerstone in qualitative research, fostering a dynamic interplay between data and emerging theory construction.
QuestionPro’s suite of tools lends a helping hand to researchers embarking on this journey, providing support across data collection, analysis, collaboration, and visualization.
As the landscape of research evolves, the synergy between methodologies like the grounded theory approach and innovative platforms like QuestionPro paves the way for deeper insights into the tapestry of human experiences.
LEARN MORE FREE TRIAL
Sep 5, 2024
Sep 4, 2024
Sep 3, 2024
Sep 2, 2024
Theory development.
Grounded theory proposes that careful observation of the social world can lead to the construction of theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). It is iterative and evolving, aiming to construct new theory from collected data that accounts for those data. It is also known as the “grounded theory method”, although the terms have become interchangeable (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007).
Grounded theory characteristics include:
Notably, data collection is cyclical and reflective. This is different from the more linear processes occurring in other methodologies.
Theoretical sampling is a key aspect of the sampling stage of grounded theory. Recruitment continues until the sample finally represents all aspects that make up the theory the data represent (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Participants are recruited based on their different experiences of a phenomenon.
Researchers collect participant data using these methods:
Focus groups and interviews are typically being more practical in health research than observation (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007).
After the initial phase of data collection, researchers repeat the following cycle of steps:
Researchers’ developing understanding of the concepts, categories and relationships informs their actions at each step. These elements result in a theoretical framework explaining the data.
This cycle reflects two crucial components of grounded theory:
Attree, M. (2001). Patients' and relatives' experiences and perspectives of 'Good' and 'Not so Good' quality care . J Adv Nurs , 33(4), 456-466. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01689.x
Lingard, L., Reznick, R., Espin, S., Regehr, G., & DeVito, I. (2002). Team communications in the operating room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices . Acad Med , 77(3), 232-237. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200203000-00013
Pettersson, S., Ekstrom, M. P., & Berg, C. M. (2013). Practices of weight regulation among elite athletes in combat sports: a matter of mental advantage? J Athl Train , 48(1), 99-108. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.1.04
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory : SAGE Publications Ltd.
Charmaz, K. (2017). An introduction to grounded theory : SAGE Publications Ltd.
Lingard, L., Albert, M., & Levinson, W. (2008). Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research . BMJ , 337, a567. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47
Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: a health focus . South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2007). Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory . Qualitative Health Research , 17(10), 1372-1380. doi: 10.1177/1049732307307031
Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to uncover the meanings of people’s social actions, interactions and experiences….
Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to uncover the meanings of people’s social actions, interactions and experiences. These explanations are called ‘grounded’ because they are grounded in the participants’ own explanations or interpretations.
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss originated this method in their 1967 book, The Discovery Of Grounded Theory . The grounded theory approach has been used by researchers in various disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics and public health.
Grounded theory qualitative research was considered path-breaking in many respects upon its arrival. The inductive method allowed the analysis of data during the collection process. It also shifted focus away from the existing practice of verification, which researchers felt didn’t always produce rigorous results.
Let’s take a closer look at grounded theory research.
How to conduct grounded theory research, features of grounded theory, grounded theory example, advantages of grounded theory.
Grounded theory is a qualitative method designed to help arrive at new theories and deductions. Researchers collect data through any means they prefer and then analyze the facts to arrive at concepts. Through a comparison of these concepts, they plan theories. They continue until they reach sample saturation, in which no new information upsets the theory they have formulated. Then they put forth their final theory.
In grounded theory research, the framework description guides the researcher’s own interpretation of data. A data description is the researcher’s algorithm for collecting and organizing data while also constructing a conceptual model that can be tested against new observations.
Grounded theory doesn’t assume that there’s a single meaning of an event, object or concept. In grounded theory, you interpret all data as information or materials that fit into categories your research team creates.
Now that we’ve examined what is grounded theory, let’s inspect how it’s conducted. There are four steps involved in grounded theory research:
Grounded theory is a relatively recent addition to the tools at a researcher’s disposal. There are several methods of conducting grounded theory research. The following processes are common features:
compile findings.
Data collection in the grounded theory method can include both quantitative and qualitative methods.
By now, it’s clear that grounded theory is unlike other research techniques. Here are some of its salient features:
It is flexible, it starts with data, data is continually assessed.
Grounded theory qualitative research is a dynamic and flexible approach to research that answers questions other formats can’t.
Grounded theory can be used in organizations to create a competitive advantage for a company. Here are some grounded theory examples:
These are just some of the possible applications of grounded theory in a business setting.
Its flexibility allows its uses to be virtually endless. But there are still advantages and disadvantages that make the grounded theory more or less appropriate for a subject of study. Here are the advantages:
As with any method, there are some drawbacks too that researchers should consider. Here are a few:
While professionals may never have to conduct research like this themselves, an understanding of the kinds of analytical tools available can help when there are decisions to be made in the workplace. Harappa’s Thinking Critically course can help with just this. Analytical skills are some of the most sought-after soft skills in the professional world. The earlier managers can master these, the more value they’ll bring to the organization. With our transformative course and inspiring faculty, empower your teams with the ability to think through any problem, no matter how large.
Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics such as Meaning Of Halo Effect , Different Brainstorming Methods , Operant Conditioning Theory of learning and How To Improve Analytical Skills to upgrade your knowledge and skills.
Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service
Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve
Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered to teams on the ground
Know how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention
Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth
Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people
Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone
Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts
Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market
Explore the platform powering Experience Management
Popular Use Cases
Market Research
The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.
Your complete guide to grounded theory research.
11 min read If you have an area of interest, but no hypothesis yet, try grounded theory research. You conduct data collection and analysis, forming a theory based on facts. Read our ultimate guide for everything you need to know.
Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then creates a theory ‘grounded’ in the results.
The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book, Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory.
Research teams use grounded theory to analyze social processes and relationships.
Because of the important role of data, there are key stages like data collection and data analysis that need to happen in order for the resulting data to be useful.
The grounded research results are compared to strengthen the validity of the findings to arrive at stronger defined theories. Once the data analysis cannot continue to refine the new theories down, a final theory is confirmed.
Grounded research is different from experimental research or scientific inquiry as it does not need a hypothesis theory at the start to verify. Instead, the evolving theory is based on facts and evidence discovered during each stage.Also, grounded research also doesn’t have a preconceived understanding of events or happenings before the qualitative research commences.
Free eBook: Qualitative research design handbook
Grounded theory research is useful for businesses when a researcher wants to look into a topic that has existing theory or no current research available. This means that the qualitative research results will be unique and can open the doors to the social phenomena being investigated.
In addition, businesses can use this qualitative research as the primary evidence needed to understand whether it’s worth placing investment into a new line of product or services, if the research identifies key themes and concepts that point to a solvable commercial problem.
There are several stages in the grounded theory process:
The researcher decides what area they’re interested in.
They may create a guide to what they will be collecting during the grounded theory methodology. They will refer to this guide when they want to check the suitability of the qualitative data, as they collect it, to avoid preconceived ideas of what they know impacting the research.
A researcher can set up a grounded theory coding framework to identify the correct data. Coding is associating words, or labels, that are useful to the social phenomena that is being investigated. So, when the researcher sees these words, they assign the data to that category or theme.
In this stage, you’ll also want to create your open-ended initial research questions. Here are the main differences between open and closed-ended questions:
Open-ended questions | Closed-ended questions |
---|---|
Qualitative | Quantitative |
Contextual | Data-driven |
Personalized | Manufactured |
Exploratory | Focused |
These will need to be adapted as the research goes on and more tangents and areas to explore are discovered. To help you create your questions, ask yourself:
Data analysis happens at the same time as data collection. In grounded theory analysis, this is also known as constant comparative analysis, or theoretical sampling.
The researcher collects qualitative data by asking open-ended questions in interviews and surveys, studying historical or archival data, or observing participants and interpreting what is seen. This collected data is transferred into transcripts.
The categories or themes are compared and further refined by data, until there are only a few strong categories or themes remaining. Here is where coding occurs, and there are different levels of coding as the categories or themes are refined down:
During analysis, the researcher will apply theoretical sensitivity to the collected data they uncover, so that the meaning of nuances in what they see can be fully understood.
This coding process repeats until the researcher has reached theoretical saturation. In grounded theory analysis, this is where all data has been researched and there are no more possible categories or themes to explore.
The researcher takes the core categories and themes that they have gathered and integrates them into one central idea (a new theory) using selective code. This final grounded theory concludes the research.
The new theory should be a few simple sentences that describe the research, indicating what was and was not covered in it.
One example of how grounded theory may be used in business is to support HR teams by analyzing data to explore reasons why people leave a company.
For example, a company with a high attrition rate that has not done any research on this area before may choose grounded theory to understand key reasons why people choose to leave.
Researchers may start looking at the quantitative data around departures over the year and look for patterns. Coupled with this, they may conduct qualitative data research through employee engagement surveys , interview panels for current employees, and exit interviews with leaving employees.
From this information, they may start coding transcripts to find similarities and differences (coding) picking up on general themes and concepts. For example, a group of excepts like:
Using open coding, a researcher could compare excerpts and suggest the themes of managerial issues, a culture of long hours and lack of traveling routes at night.
With more samples and information, through axial coding, stronger themes of lack of recognition and having too much work (which led people to working late), could be drawn out from the summaries of the concepts and themes.
This could lead to a selective coding conclusion that people left because they were ‘overworked and under-appreciated’.
With this information, a grounded theory can help HR teams look at what teams do day to day, exploring ways to spread workloads or reduce them. Also, there could be training supplied to management and employees to engage professional development conversations better.
Evaluating qualitative research can be tough when there are several analytics platforms to manage and lots of subjective data sources to compare. Some tools are already part of the office toolset, like video conferencing tools and excel spreadsheets.
However, most tools are not purpose-built for research, so researchers will be manually collecting and managing these files – in the worst case scenario, by pen and paper!
Use a best-in-breed management technology solution to collect all qualitative research and manage it in an organized way without large time resources or additional training required.
Qualtrics provides a number of qualitative research analysis tools, like Text iQ , powered by Qualtrics iQ, provides powerful machine learning and native language processing to help you discover patterns and trends in text.
This also provides you with research process tools:
Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, qualitative research questions 11 min read, qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, request demo.
Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?
Most recent answer.
Get help with your research
Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.
My data speak to me: grounded theory as a tool for analysis in qualitative research.
An overview of grounded theory design in educational research, brief encounters with qualitative methods in health research : grounded theory, a grounded theory study of decision-making within informal work environments, a framework of holistic and sustainable personal leadership development, learning how to be participatory: an emergent research agenda, this is not an experiment: using vignettes in qualitative accounting research, role of focus group discussion (fgd) in e-business research, framework and determinants of benchmarking: a theoretical analysis and case study in vietnam, 59 references, qualitative evaluation and research methods, the discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research [book review], emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research, using case studies as an approach for conducting agribusiness research, qualitative research in information systems: a reader, the discipline and practice of qualitative research, research on the management of innovation : the minnesota studies, case study research methods for firm and market research, handbook of qualitative research, human resource management practices in small and medium-sized enterprises: unanswered questions and future research perspectives, related papers.
Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers
As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:
To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Title: A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose Citation: Bronk, K. C. (2012).A grounded theory of the development of noble youth purpose. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(1), 78-109.. Description: This study explores the development of noble youth purpose over time using a grounded theory approach.Something notable about this study was that it returned to collect ...
Grounded Theory. Definition: Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to generate theories based on data that are grounded in the empirical reality of the research context. The method involves a systematic process of data collection, coding, categorization, and analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data.
Grounded theory provided an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to determine truths about the world. 11 Glaser and Strauss 5 challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory.
Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project.
Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology that involves developing theories directly from the data collected during the research process instead of relying on pre-existing theories or hypotheses. This approach aims to generate insights and understanding about a particular phenomenon by systematically analyzing and coding the data to ...
Grounded theory, first published in 1967 by Glaser and Strauss, is the master metaphor of qualitative research. According to Lee and Fielding (1996), many qualitative researchers choose it to justify their research approach, particularly in more quantitative fields. Grounded theory is a methodology of developing inductive theories that are ...
Abstract. Since being developed as a research methodology in the 1960s, grounded theory (GT) has grown in popularity. In spite of its prevalence, considerable confusion surrounds GT, particularly in respect of the essential methods that characterize this approach to research. Misinformation is evident in the literature around issues such as the ...
In the past decade, the acceptance of qualitative research among the management research community has risen significantly. Methodologies such as grounded theory (GT), phenomenology, narrative, discourse analysis, ethnography and case study research have become popular among management scholars.
Straightforward and accessible, this pragmatic guide takes you step-by-step through doing grounded theory research. With hands-on advice focussed around designing real projects, it demonstrates best practice for integrating theory building and methods. Its extensive examples and case studies are drawn from across the social sciences, presenting students with a range of options for both ...
The term "grounded theory" first came to prominence with the publication of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (hereafter Discovery) by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967.Since that time, the term itself has come to encompass a family of related approaches to research that reaches across many disciplines, including the social sciences, psychology, medicine, and many others.
Definition. Grounded theory proposes that careful observation of the social world can lead to the construction of theory (Rice & Ezzy, 1999). It is iterative and evolving, aiming to construct new theory from collected data that accounts for those data. It is also known as the "grounded theory method", although the terms have become ...
The authors of this paper are interested in qualitative research, and the utility of qualitative research methods for education, linguistics, logistics, the study of second language acquisition, urban studies and the analysis of public space. Therefore, the authors seek to engage with accounts of qualitative research in various fields.
in grounded theory. The book introduces us to the practicalities of research design, theory building, coding and writing up and gives us the tools to tackle key questions: • What is grounded theory? • How do we code and theorise using grounded theory? • How do we write up a grounded theory study? This is an exciting new text for students ...
Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to uncover the meanings of people's social actions, interactions and experiences. These explanations are called 'grounded' because they are grounded in the participants' own explanations or interpretations. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss originated this method in their ...
Several examples of grounded theory illustrating when it is best used in qualitative research. Chapter 1: Grounded Theory in Qualitative Research icon angle down
The "Grounded Theory" is the most commonly found methodology to analyze qualitative data. The literature declares the "Grounded Theory" as the master metaphor of qualitative research (Bitsch, 2005 ...
Grounded theory is a systematic qualitative research method that collects empirical data first, and then creates a theory 'grounded' in the results. The constant comparative method was developed by Glaser and Strauss, described in their book, Awareness of Dying (1965). They are seen as the founders of classic grounded theory.
Grounded theory provided an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to determine truths about the world. 11 Glaser and Strauss 5 challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory.
This paper was used in a doctoral course on qualitative methods as an example of an article with grounded theory as method. ... Geiger, S. and Turley, D. (2003) Grounded theory in sales research: ...
The logic of grounded theory. Glaser and Strauss (Citation 1967) developed grounded theory by explaining the methods they used to construct their remarkable qualitative studies of death and dying in hospitals (Glaser & Strauss, Citation 1965, Citation 1968).In this methodological treatise, they introduced the innovative and systematic strategy of simultaneous data collection and analysis.
Grounded theory is identified as one of the 'methodologies' or. 'strategies of inquiry' of qualitative research (Creswell 2009; Punch 2005) - the other prominent methodologies or strategies of inquiry. being ethnography, case study, phenomenology and narrative research.
Grounded theory was first introduced more than 50 years ago, but researchers are often still uncertain about how to implement it. This is not surprising, considering that even the two pioneers of this qualitative design, Glaser and Strauss, have different views about its approach, and these are just two of multiple variations found in the literature.
Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach developed by Glaser and Strauss in the 1950s but the methodology for this study was modelled on Clarke's (2005) approach and was underpinned by a symbolic interactionist theoretical perspective, post-structuralist theories of Michel Foucault and a constructionist epistemology. The study ...
The qualitative research paradigm, although occasionally applied, is not widely discussed in agribusiness and agricultural economics literature. The primary goals of this paper are (a) to present insights into qualitative research approaches and processes by outlining grounded theory as an example of a systematic and rigorous qualitative approach, and (b) to discuss criteria for scientific ...
Grounded Theory: Constant comparative analysis Constant comparative analysis is an analytical process used in GT for coding and category development. This process commences with the first data generated or collected and pervades the research process as presented. Incidents are identified in the data and coded. The initial stage of analysis compares incident to incident in each code.
In vivo coding - where you create codes using the words of your research participants. Process coding - where you create codes based on actions . Examples of coding methods to use after initial coding: Axial coding - In grounded theory, axial coding immediately follows the initial coding phase.