03 · What You Need to Know
What Makes Grounded Theory Appropriate for a Research Problem?
Grounded Theory Is Designed to Develop Explanatory Understanding
Grounded theory originated in the work of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, particularly their 1967 book The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Their contribution challenged approaches in which empirical research was treated primarily as a means of verifying theories established in advance.
Grounded theory instead provides a methodological approach for developing theoretical explanations through sustained engagement with data.
Its purpose is not simply to produce an organized description of what participants report. Researchers seek to develop conceptual categories and explain relationships among them.
For example, a study of teachers' responses to generative AI might move beyond identifying concerns about assessment, professional autonomy, and institutional expectations. It could investigate how instructors recognize disruptions, negotiate professional responsibilities, adjust practices, and establish new working arrangements.
The intended contribution would be an explanatory account of that process, including the conditions under which particular actions occur and their consequences.
Such an account is commonly described as a substantive theory because it addresses a particular empirical area rather than claiming to explain all social behavior.
The Research Question Should Concern a Process, Action, or Interaction
Grounded theory is particularly suitable for questions asking how people respond to circumstances, manage situations, negotiate relationships, or participate in developing social processes.
Examples include:
- How do novice teachers negotiate professional authority during their first year of classroom teaching?
- How do doctoral researchers respond to repeated manuscript rejection and reconstruct their publication strategies?
- How do university departments negotiate responsibility for generative AI use in teaching and assessment?
- How do students manage conflicting expectations about academic integrity when AI tools become readily available?
These questions are potentially suitable because they direct attention toward processes that may require conceptual explanation.
However, the word how does not automatically establish grounded theory. A question such as "How satisfied are students with AI-supported learning?" primarily concerns evaluation. A question asking how participants experience professional uncertainty may be better suited to phenomenology if lived meaning is the central interest.
The research question must justify the need for theory development rather than merely describe a topic involving change or behavior.
When Is Existing Theory Insufficient?
Grounded theory may be useful when existing explanations do not adequately account for the process, population, context, or relationships being investigated.
This does not mean the topic must be entirely unstudied. Grounded theory researchers can investigate established areas when existing theories leave important processes unexplained or inadequately understood.
For example, technology acceptance models may help explain beliefs associated with adopting educational technologies. However, a researcher might be interested in how instructors negotiate competing responsibilities when AI-generated feedback challenges established assessment practices.
Existing adoption theories may provide relevant context without adequately explaining that particular negotiation process.
The researcher should establish the gap through engagement with the literature rather than simply claiming that no theory exists.
Grounded theory is not automatically justified by a limited number of previous studies. The question is whether developing an explanatory account is a necessary and feasible contribution.
What Kind of Theory Does Grounded Theory Produce?
A grounded theory generally consists of analytically developed concepts or categories and an account of how they relate within the phenomenon being investigated.
The resulting explanation may address conditions, actions, interactions, consequences, and changes over time. However, the specific conceptual structure depends on the grounded theory tradition and the empirical material.
For example, a study of instructors adapting to generative AI might develop categories concerning recognizing disruption, negotiating responsibility, testing boundaries, and stabilizing new practices.
Those categories would not constitute a grounded theory merely because they were identified in interviews. The researcher would need to establish how they relate, what process they explain, and how the explanation was developed through analysis.
A diagram is not automatically a theory. Neither is a list of themes.
Theoretical contribution depends on the explanatory relationships among concepts and their grounding in the research process.
Which Grounded Theory Tradition Should You Choose?
Grounded theory has developed into several methodological traditions. Researchers should not assume that all approaches share identical philosophical assumptions or coding procedures.
| Tradition |
General orientation |
Methodological implications |
| Classic or Glaserian grounded theory |
Emphasizes emergence, theoretical sensitivity, constant comparison, and the development of an integrated theory. |
Researchers seek to avoid forcing data into predetermined conceptual frameworks and develop theoretical categories through comparative analysis. |
| Straussian grounded theory |
Associated with Strauss and Corbin's more explicitly articulated analytical procedures and attention to relationships among categories. |
Researchers may use structured coding procedures to examine conditions, actions or interactions, and consequences. |
| Constructivist grounded theory |
Associated particularly with Kathy Charmaz and an interpretivist understanding of knowledge construction. |
Researchers acknowledge their interpretive involvement and develop theoretical accounts through reflexive engagement with participants and data. |
These descriptions identify broad orientations rather than exhaustive methodological definitions. Grounded theory traditions have also developed through subsequent scholarship and methodological debate.
Researchers should identify the approach they intend to follow and consult its primary methodological literature. Combining coding procedures from different traditions requires justification rather than assuming that every grounded theory technique is interchangeable.
Why Must Data Collection and Analysis Be Iterative?
Grounded theory ordinarily requires a continuing relationship between data collection and analysis.
Researchers begin analyzing early material while data collection is still underway. Emerging categories inform subsequent questions, comparisons, and decisions about what evidence is needed next.
Suppose early interviews suggest that instructors respond to AI-related assessment uncertainty by seeking informal advice from trusted colleagues.
The researcher might investigate whether this process occurs differently when institutional policies are clear, ambiguous, or absent.
Additional data collection would then be directed toward developing the emerging explanation rather than merely increasing the number of interviews.
This iterative logic distinguishes grounded theory from designs in which all data are collected before analytical questions are developed.
Although practical constraints may influence the sequence of research activities, a study that removes meaningful iteration needs to explain how it retains grounded theory's methodological logic.
What Is Constant Comparison?
Constant comparison involves systematically comparing incidents, actions, codes, and emerging categories throughout analysis.
The researcher examines similarities and differences to clarify what categories represent, identify their properties, and develop relationships among them.
For example, one instructor may respond to unclear AI policy by independently modifying assessment procedures. Another may seek departmental approval before making changes.
Comparing these incidents could help the researcher investigate the conditions under which instructors act independently or seek institutional authorization.
Constant comparison is not simply checking whether several participants mention the same topic. It is an analytical process through which concepts are developed, differentiated, and integrated.
The procedure should contribute to theory development rather than end with a descriptive inventory of recurring responses.
Why Is Theoretical Sampling Important?
Theoretical sampling is a defining feature of grounded theory methodology. It involves selecting additional data sources, participants, situations, or incidents according to the needs of emerging analytical categories.
Researchers may begin with an initial purposive sample, but subsequent sampling decisions should increasingly respond to what the analysis reveals.
For example, if the emerging theory suggests that institutional ambiguity shapes how instructors negotiate AI-related responsibility, the researcher may seek additional cases involving different policy conditions.
The purpose is to develop and refine the theoretical categories, not simply to increase demographic diversity.
Theoretical sampling should be distinguished from recruiting participants according to fixed characteristics established entirely before analysis.
It also differs from adding more interviews merely because the initial target has not been reached.
Researchers should establish a feasible plan for theoretical sampling before claiming grounded theory as their design.
What Role Does Memo-Writing Play?
Memo-writing is an important analytical practice in grounded theory. Researchers use memos to record developing ideas about codes, categories, relationships, uncertainties, and possible directions for further investigation.
For example, a memo might explore whether instructors' reliance on informal colleagues represents a response to unclear institutional authority.
The memo could identify competing explanations and propose comparisons needed to investigate them.
Memos are not merely chronological records of research activities. Their purpose is to support conceptual development and theoretical integration.
They also provide a record of how analytical reasoning develops over time.
Researchers should not wait until all interviews are completed before beginning analytical memo-writing.
How Is Grounded Theory Different From Phenomenology?
Both approaches can investigate human experience, but their principal research purposes differ.
Phenomenology seeks to understand experience as lived or meaningfully encountered, according to the selected phenomenological tradition.
Grounded theory seeks to develop an explanatory theoretical account of a process, action, or interaction.
For example, "How do instructors experience uncertainty about their professional expertise during AI adoption?" may support phenomenology.
"How do instructors negotiate professional responsibility as AI becomes integrated into assessment?" may support grounded theory when the objective is to explain the negotiation process.
The same participants could contribute to either study. The distinction concerns the research question and intended analytical contribution rather than the population or interview method.
How Is Grounded Theory Different From Qualitative Description and Thematic Analysis?
Qualitative description may be appropriate when researchers want a comprehensive account of participants' reported practices, experiences, or concerns.
Thematic analysis provides approaches for identifying and interpreting patterns in qualitative material. It does not automatically require theory development through theoretical sampling and iterative category integration.
Grounded theory has a different methodological purpose. Its analytical categories should contribute to an explanatory account, and its research process should support the development of that account.
| Primary objective |
Potentially appropriate approach |
| Describe instructors' reported AI-related challenges and support needs. |
Qualitative description |
| Identify and interpret patterns of meaning across accounts. |
An appropriately specified thematic analysis approach |
| Understand the lived meaning of professional uncertainty. |
Phenomenology |
| Develop an explanatory account of how instructors negotiate changing professional responsibilities. |
Grounded theory |
These approaches can overlap in the kinds of material they analyze. Their methodological identities depend on what researchers do with that material.
Grounded theory should not become ordinary thematic analysis under a different label.
When Might Grounded Theory Be the Wrong Choice?
Grounded theory may be inappropriate when the intended contribution does not require an explanatory theory or when the research design cannot support its essential procedures.
For example, a study whose purpose is to evaluate whether an institutional AI policy meets established standards may be better approached through evaluation research or policy analysis.
A study investigating the lived meaning of professional displacement may be better suited to phenomenology.
A study primarily documenting how instructors currently use AI may be adequately addressed through qualitative description.
Grounded theory may also be difficult to justify when recruitment is completely fixed, all data must be collected before any analysis, and there is no feasible opportunity to pursue emerging theoretical questions.
These constraints do not automatically make meaningful qualitative research impossible. They may, however, make another design more appropriate.
What Must Be Feasible Before Choosing Grounded Theory?
Grounded theory requires sufficient flexibility to allow analysis to influence subsequent data collection.
Researchers should consider whether they can conduct early analysis, write analytical memos, pursue emerging categories, and collect additional evidence when theoretical questions arise.
Ethical approval and recruitment procedures should accommodate the intended iterative design where possible.
The researcher also needs sufficient analytical time to move beyond descriptive coding toward conceptual integration.
Sample size should not be treated as a fixed numerical guarantee of theoretical adequacy. The study needs a defensible approach to determining when its categories have been sufficiently developed.
The meaning of theoretical saturation varies across grounded theory traditions, and researchers should avoid using the term without specifying how it will be assessed.
These practical requirements should be considered before selecting grounded theory, not discovered only after the interviews have been completed.
