Grounded Theory: Glaser, Strauss, Corbin and Charmaz Explained

What is grounded theory?

Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology in which you develop a theory that is “grounded” in systematically gathered and analysed data. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss introduced it in *The Discovery of Grounded Theory* (1967) as a counter-model to research that only tests existing grand theories. Instead of starting with hypotheses, you start with a broad question, collect data, analyse it immediately and let the emerging analysis guide what data you collect next.

The result of a grounded theory study should be a theory: a set of related concepts that explains a process or action, usually organised around a core category. That distinguishes GT from thematic analysis or content analysis, which aim to describe and interpret patterns.

Running example: you interview first-generation students about belonging. A GT question would be: “How do first-generation students come to feel that they belong at university?” The aim is a model of the process, for example from “feeling like a tourist” through “learning the hidden rules” to “claiming legitimacy”.

Three traditions: Glaser, Strauss & Corbin, Charmaz

After 1967, Glaser and Strauss went separate ways. Today you should state explicitly which tradition you follow, because they differ in procedures and philosophical assumptions.

Open, axial and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin)

Open coding breaks the data into small pieces and labels concepts, often line by line. You ask questions of the data: what is happening here, who is acting, under what conditions? Axial coding relates categories to their subcategories around an “axis”. Strauss and Corbin proposed a coding paradigm with conditions, actions/interactions and consequences to structure these relationships. Selective coding integrates the categories around one core category that explains most of the variation in the data.

In the later editions (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), open and axial coding are treated as intertwined rather than strictly sequential, and the final step is described as integration. If you use these terms, cite the edition you actually follow.

Initial, focused and theoretical coding (Charmaz)

Charmaz (2014) recommends initial coding line by line using gerunds (words ending in -ing), because they keep the focus on actions and processes: “watching others”, “hiding the job”, “testing the waters”. In focused coding, you select the most significant or frequent initial codes and use them to sift through larger amounts of data. Theoretical coding specifies how the focused codes relate to each other and integrates them into a theory.

Throughout, you write memos: analytic notes in which you define codes, compare cases, raise questions and develop categories. In Charmaz’s view, memo writing is the pivotal step between coding and writing the first draft.

Constant comparison, theoretical sampling and saturation

Three strategies distinguish GT from other approaches. Constant comparison means comparing data with data, data with codes, codes with codes and categories with categories throughout the analysis. Theoretical sampling means that you select further participants, sites or questions based on your developing categories, not on a fixed plan: if “paid work” seems important for belonging, you deliberately interview students with and without jobs. Theoretical saturation is reached when new data no longer add new properties to your categories, not simply when participants start repeating themselves.

All three require that data collection and analysis alternate. If you collect all interviews first and then analyse them, you cannot sample theoretically.

• Interview 1–4: open/initial coding, memos on first categories
• Interviews 5–8: theoretical sampling of students who work alongside studying; adapted interview guide
• Interviews 9–12: sampling of “negative cases” (students who felt they belonged from the start)
• Analysis: integration around a core category, diagram of the process

Full grounded theory or grounded theory techniques?

Many student projects cannot fully implement GT: ethics approval often requires a fixed sample and interview guide in advance, and the time frame is short. In that case, be honest and describe your approach as “using grounded theory coding procedures” or “informed by constructivist grounded theory”. Claiming a full GT study without theoretical sampling and saturation is one of the most frequent criticisms by examiners.

Supervisors and departments differ in how strictly they apply these labels. Follow your university’s guidelines and agree the wording with your supervisor; you can upload the guidelines to Professor Digital so feedback is based on them.

Presenting a grounded theory in your dissertation

The findings chapter of a GT study presents the theory: the core category, the main categories with their properties and dimensions, and how they relate to each other. A process diagram is usually expected. Each category is supported by data excerpts and analytic commentary. Compare your theory with existing literature in the discussion, not before the analysis, because in GT the literature review is often deferred or used as additional data.

Our free coding tool at /codieren helps you organise codes into parent and child categories, attach memos to coded segments and export the coded material for your appendix.