03 · What You Need to Know
Distinguishing Grounded Theory Methodology From Grounded Theory-Informed Analysis
Grounded Theory Is a Methodology, Not Simply a Coding Procedure
Grounded theory was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss as an approach to generating theoretical explanations through systematic comparative analysis of empirical data.
Its methodological significance extends beyond coding transcripts. Grounded theory connects research questions, sampling, data collection, analysis, memo-writing, and theoretical development within an iterative research process.
In a grounded theory study, early analytical findings influence what the researcher investigates next. Emerging categories are compared and refined, additional evidence is sought to develop their properties and relationships, and the analysis progresses toward an integrated explanatory account.
Researchers who use grounded theory coding techniques without these broader commitments may still conduct rigorous qualitative research. However, their study should not automatically be described as grounded theory.
This distinction is especially important when determining whether grounded theory is the appropriate research design in the first place.
What Is the Difference Between Methodology, Method, and Technique?
The terms methodology, method, and technique are sometimes used interchangeably in research reports, but they refer to different levels of methodological decision-making.
A methodology provides an overall logic for investigating a research problem. A method refers to a systematic approach to collecting or analyzing evidence. A technique is a more specific procedure used within that process.
| Level |
Grounded theory example |
What it establishes |
| Methodology |
Constructivist grounded theory |
The philosophical and methodological logic guiding the study and its theoretical contribution. |
| Analytical method |
Systematic comparative analysis directed toward category development |
How empirical material is examined and concepts are progressively developed. |
| Analytical technique |
Line-by-line coding |
A specific procedure for examining segments of qualitative material. |
| Analytical technique |
Memo-writing |
A procedure for recording developing analytical ideas and questions. |
These distinctions are useful but not absolute. Methodological authors sometimes use the terms differently. What matters is that researchers explain precisely what they have adopted and what claims that adoption supports.
Which Grounded Theory Techniques Can Be Used Outside Grounded Theory?
Several analytical practices associated with grounded theory can inform other qualitative approaches when their adaptation is transparent and methodologically coherent.
Initial and Line-by-Line Coding
Initial coding involves close examination of qualitative material to identify potentially meaningful actions, events, processes, or ideas.
Line-by-line coding is one way of maintaining close engagement with participants' accounts. It may help researchers avoid immediately imposing broad categories on complex material.
For example, an interview statement about consulting colleagues before using AI-generated feedback might be coded as "seeking reassurance," "checking professional judgment," or "negotiating responsibility," depending on the context and analytical purpose.
These are provisional analytical possibilities, not findings established by the wording alone.
Line-by-line coding is not exclusive to grounded theory, and using it does not automatically establish a grounded theory design.
Constant Comparison
Constant comparison involves examining similarities and differences among incidents, codes, categories, and developing interpretations.
Outside grounded theory, comparative analysis may help researchers refine categories, identify distinctions, and avoid treating superficially similar accounts as identical.
For example, researchers might compare how different instructors describe seeking institutional guidance about AI assessment.
However, comparison within grounded theory is specifically connected to theoretical category development and integration.
When constant comparison is adapted for another design, researchers should explain its actual purpose rather than imply that it necessarily produced theory.
Analytical Memo-Writing
Analytical memos record developing interpretations, questions, conceptual distinctions, and decisions made during analysis.
Memo-writing can support many qualitative approaches. Researchers may use memos to examine contradictory accounts, document changes to coding decisions, or reflect on the relationship between evidence and interpretation.
Within grounded theory, memos have a particularly important role in conceptual development and theoretical integration.
Outside grounded theory, their function may be broader or more descriptive.
The presence of memos does not establish that a grounded theory has been developed.
Focused Coding and Category Development
Researchers may use more selective coding to organize initial observations into analytically useful categories.
In constructivist grounded theory, focused coding involves identifying significant or frequent initial codes and using them to examine larger segments of data.
Other qualitative approaches may adapt similar procedures to develop a coherent analytical account.
However, a set of categories is not necessarily a theory. Theoretical development requires attention to conceptual relationships and explanatory integration.
Researchers should avoid assuming that progressively abstract coding labels automatically transform descriptive analysis into grounded theory.
Which Grounded Theory Procedures Cannot Simply Be Replaced by Coding?
Some grounded theory commitments are difficult to separate from the methodology without changing the nature of the study.
These include theoretical sampling, meaningful iteration between data collection and analysis, and the progressive integration of categories into an explanatory theory.
Theoretical sampling involves seeking additional evidence according to emerging analytical needs. It is not equivalent to recruiting a predetermined number of participants through purposive sampling.
Similarly, collecting all data before beginning analysis removes opportunities for emerging categories to influence subsequent investigation.
Researchers may still compare and code an existing dataset, but they should acknowledge that the research process did not fully follow grounded theory's iterative logic.
The importance of iterative data collection and analysis should not be reduced to an optional procedural preference.
Can Grounded Theory Be Used to Analyze an Existing Dataset?
Existing qualitative datasets can be analyzed using techniques associated with grounded theory. Whether a complete grounded theory methodology is feasible depends on the dataset, research question, and opportunities for theoretical development.
For example, archived interviews may contain sufficiently varied incidents to support extensive comparison and conceptual analysis. Researchers may also be able to examine additional documents or other relevant materials in response to emerging theoretical questions.
However, if the dataset is fixed and no further theoretically directed evidence can be obtained, the researcher may have limited opportunities for theoretical sampling.
That limitation does not make the analysis worthless. It affects what methodological claims can reasonably be made.
Researchers should distinguish between applying grounded theory-informed techniques to existing material and conducting a study that fulfills the commitments of a particular grounded theory methodology.
Can Grounded Theory Coding Be Combined With Thematic Analysis?
Researchers sometimes use initial coding or constant comparison while developing themes. Such combinations require careful explanation.
Thematic analysis is not a single standardized procedure. Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis, for example, has its own conceptual assumptions about coding, theme development, and researcher interpretation.
Importing grounded theory procedures into reflexive thematic analysis should not be treated as automatically compatible. Researchers need to explain whether the adopted techniques support the analytical logic of the selected approach.
A study that uses line-by-line coding and comparative examination may be appropriately described as thematic analysis if its principal objective is to develop patterns of meaning rather than an explanatory grounded theory.
Conversely, a study that claims grounded theory but ends with ordinary thematic categories may not have fulfilled its stated methodological purpose.
The distinction becomes important when evaluating whether grounded theory has become thematic analysis.
What About Qualitative Content Analysis?
Qualitative content analysis can also involve coding, categorization, and comparison. These procedures may resemble selected grounded theory techniques at a practical level.
However, qualitative content analysis may aim to organize and interpret the content of material without developing a substantive theory through theoretical sampling.
For example, researchers might analyze institutional AI policies to identify categories of responsibility, disclosure requirements, and assessment procedures.
They could compare policy provisions systematically without claiming that the analysis constitutes grounded theory.
Methodological similarity at the level of coding does not establish equivalence at the level of research design.
Does Using Open, Axial, and Selective Coding Make a Study Grounded Theory?
No. These coding terms are particularly associated with Straussian grounded theory traditions, although their use and interpretation have developed across methodological publications.
They should not be treated as a universal sequence required by every grounded theory approach.
Classic grounded theory and constructivist grounded theory use different terminology and analytical emphases.
Furthermore, applying open, axial, and selective coding to a completed dataset does not automatically establish theoretical sampling, iterative data collection, or a sufficiently developed theory.
Researchers should identify the methodological source of their coding procedures and explain how those procedures contribute to the study's actual analytical purpose.
How Should Researchers Describe Selective Use of Grounded Theory Techniques?
Accurate reporting should distinguish the overall research design from the specific techniques used during analysis.
For example, a qualitative descriptive study might state that its analysis incorporated constant comparative techniques to refine descriptive categories.
A generic qualitative study might explain that initial coding and memo-writing were informed by constructivist grounded theory while explicitly stating that the project did not undertake theoretical sampling or aim to generate a substantive theory.
Such descriptions are more transparent than claiming that the study used grounded theory methodology when only selected analytical techniques were adopted.
The phrase "grounded theory-informed" should be accompanied by a description of what was borrowed and what was not.
Researchers should not use the phrase merely to make an otherwise unspecified analytical procedure sound more established.
Does Grounded Theory-Informed Analysis Require Theory Development?
Not necessarily. When researchers explicitly adopt selected grounded theory techniques within another design, the intended contribution may remain descriptive or interpretive rather than theoretical.
However, the absence of theory development means that the study should not automatically be presented as a completed grounded theory investigation.
The distinction is between borrowing analytical tools and adopting a methodology whose defining purpose is theoretical explanation.
Researchers should understand what grounded theory is expected to produce before deciding how to characterize their findings.
What Makes an Adaptation Methodologically Defensible?
A defensible adaptation identifies the source of the technique, explains why it is appropriate for the research question, and clarifies how it operates within the overall analytical approach.
Researchers should consider whether the borrowed technique is compatible with their epistemological assumptions and analytical objectives.
For example, constant comparison may be useful in qualitative description when it helps distinguish participants' reported experiences. However, researchers should not claim that comparison alone establishes theoretical saturation.
Likewise, analytical memo-writing may support reflexivity without being presented as proof of grounded theory development.
The study should report what was actually done, acknowledge the limits of the adaptation, and avoid claiming methodological procedures that were not undertaken.
Selective borrowing is not inherently problematic. Unexplained borrowing and inaccurate methodological labeling are the more consequential concerns.
