what is the main purpose of a literature review in grounded theory research

Grounded Theory In Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Grounded theory is a useful approach when you want to develop a new theory based on real-world data Instead of starting with a pre-existing theory, grounded theory lets the data guide the development of your theory.

What Is Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory is a qualitative method specifically designed to inductively generate theory from data. It was developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967.

• Data shapes the theory:  Instead of trying to prove an existing theory, you let the data guide your findings.
• No guessing games:  You don’t start with assumptions or try to confirm your own biases.
• Data collection and analysis happen together:  You analyze information as you gather it, which helps you decide what data to collect next.

It is important to note that grounded theory is an inductive approach where a theory is developed from collected real-world data rather than trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis like in a deductive scientific approach

You gather information, look for patterns, and use those patterns to develop an explanation.

It is a way to understand why people do things and how those actions create patterns. Imagine you’re trying to figure out why your friends love a certain video game.

Instead of asking an adult, you observe your friends while they’re playing, listen to them talk about it, and maybe even play a little yourself. By studying their actions and words, you’re using grounded theory to build an understanding of their behavior.

This qualitative method of research focuses on real-life experiences and observations, letting theories emerge naturally from the data collected, like piecing together a puzzle without knowing the final image.

When should you use grounded theory? 

Grounded theory research is useful for beginning researchers, particularly graduate students, because it offers a clear and flexible framework for conducting a study on a new topic.

Grounded theory works best when existing theories are either insufficient or nonexistent for the topic at hand.

Since grounded theory is a continuously evolving process, researchers collect and analyze data until theoretical saturation is reached or no new insights can be gained.

What is the final product of a GT study?

The final product of a grounded theory (GT) study is an integrated and comprehensive grounded theory that explains a process or scheme associated with a phenomenon.

The quality of a GT study is judged on whether it produces this middle-range theory

Middle-range theories are sort of like explanations that focus on a specific part of society or a particular event. They don’t try to explain everything in the world. Instead, they zero in on things happening in certain groups, cultures, or situations.

Think of it like this: a grand theory is like trying to understand all of weather at once, but a middle-range theory is like focusing on how hurricanes form.

Here are a few examples of what middle-range theories might try to explain:

• How people deal with feeling anxious in social situations.
• How people act and interact at work.
• How teachers handle students who are misbehaving in class.

Core Components of Grounded Theory

This terminology reflects the iterative, inductive, and comparative nature of grounded theory, which distinguishes it from other research approaches.

• Theoretical Sampling: The researcher uses theoretical sampling to choose new participants or data sources based on the emerging findings of their study. The goal is to gather data that will help to further develop and refine the emerging categories and theoretical concepts.
• Theoretical Sensitivity:  Researchers need to be aware of their preconceptions going into a study and understand how those preconceptions could influence the research. However, it is not possible to completely separate a researcher’s history and experience from the construction of a theory.
• Coding: Coding is the process of analyzing  qualitative data  (usually text) by assigning labels (codes) to chunks of data that capture their essence or meaning. It allows you to condense, organize and interpret your data.
• Core Category:  The core category encapsulates and explains the grounded theory as a whole. Researchers identify a core category to focus on during the later stages of their research.
• Memos: Researchers use memos to record their thoughts and ideas about the data, explore relationships between codes and categories, and document the development of the emerging grounded theory. Memos support the development of theory by tracking emerging themes and patterns.
• Theoretical Saturation:  This term refers to the point in a grounded theory study when collecting additional data does not yield any new theoretical insights. The researcher continues the process of collecting and analyzing data until theoretical saturation is reached.
• Constant Comparative Analysis:  This method involves the systematic comparison of data points, codes, and categories as they emerge from the research process. Researchers use constant comparison to identify patterns and connections in their data.

Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss first introduced grounded theory in 1967 in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory .

Their aim was to create a research method that prioritized real-world data to understand social behavior.

However, their approaches diverged over time, leading to two distinct versions: Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory.

The different versions of grounded theory diverge in their approaches to  coding , theory construction, and the use of literature.

All versions of grounded theory share the goal of generating a  middle-range theory  that explains a social process or phenomenon.

They also emphasize the importance of  theoretical sampling ,  constant comparative analysis , and  theoretical saturation  in developing a robust theory

Glaserian Grounded Theory

Glaserian grounded theory emphasizes the  emergence of theory from data  and discourages the use of pre-existing literature.

Glaser believed that adopting a specific philosophical or disciplinary perspective reduces the broader potential of grounded theory.

For Glaser, prior understandings should be based on the general problem area and reading very wide to alert or sensitize one to a wide range of possibilities.

It prioritizes  parsimony ,  scope , and  modifiability  in the resulting theory

Straussian Grounded Theory

Strauss and Corbin (1990) focused on developing the analytic techniques and providing guidance to novice researchers.

Straussian grounded theory utilizes a more structured approach to coding and analysis and acknowledges the role of the literature in shaping research.

It acknowledges the role of  deduction  and  validation  in addition to induction.

Strauss and Corbin also emphasize the use of  unstructured interview questions  to encourage participants to speak freely

Critics of this approach believe it produced a rigidity never intended for grounded theory.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

This version, primarily associated with Charmaz, recognizes that knowledge is situated, partial, provisional, and socially constructed. It emphasizes abstract and conceptual understandings rather than explanations.

Kathy Charmaz expanded on original versions of GT, emphasizing the researcher’s role in interpreting findings

Constructivist grounded theory acknowledges the researcher’s influence on the research process and the co-creation of knowledge with participants

Situational Analysis

Developed by Clarke, this version builds upon Straussian and Constructivist grounded theory and incorporates  postmodern ,  poststructuralist , and  posthumanist  perspectives.

Situational analysis incorporates postmodern perspectives and considers the role of nonhuman actors

It introduces the method of  mapping  to analyze complex situations and emphasizes both  human and nonhuman elements .

• Discover New Insights:  Grounded theory lets you uncover new theories based on what your data reveals, not just on pre-existing ideas.
• Data-Driven Results:  Your conclusions are firmly rooted in the data you’ve gathered, ensuring they reflect reality. This close relationship between data and findings is a key factor in establishing trustworthiness.
• Avoids Bias:  Because gathering data and analyzing it are closely intertwined, researchers are truly observing what emerges from data, and are less likely to let their preconceptions color the findings.
• Streamlined data gathering and analysis:  Analyzing and collecting data go hand in hand. Data is collected, analyzed, and as you gain insight from analysis, you continue gathering more data.
• Synthesize Findings : By applying grounded theory to a qualitative metasynthesis , researchers can move beyond a simple aggregation of findings and generate a higher-level understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Limitations

• Time-Consuming:  Analyzing qualitative data can be like searching for a needle in a haystack; it requires careful examination and can be quite time-consuming, especially without software assistance6.
• Potential for Bias:  Despite safeguards, researchers may unintentionally influence their analysis due to personal experiences.
• Data Quality:  The success of grounded theory hinges on complete and accurate data; poor quality can lead to faulty conclusions.

Practical Steps

Grounded theory can be conducted by individual researchers or research teams. If working in a team, it’s important to communicate regularly and ensure everyone is using the same coding system.

Grounded theory research is typically an iterative process. This means that researchers may move back and forth between these steps as they collect and analyze data.

Instead of doing everything in order, you repeat the steps over and over.

This cycle keeps going, which is why grounded theory is called a circular process.

Continue to gather and analyze data until no new insights or properties related to your categories emerge. This saturation point signals that the theory is comprehensive and well-substantiated by the data.

Theoretical sampling, collecting sufficient and rich data, and theoretical saturation help the grounded theorist to avoid a lack of “groundedness,” incomplete findings, and “premature closure.

1. Planning and Philosophical Considerations

Begin by considering the phenomenon you want to study and assess the current knowledge surrounding it.

However, refrain from detailing the specific aspects you seek to uncover about the phenomenon to prevent pre-existing assumptions from skewing the research.

• Discern a personal philosophical position.  Before beginning a research study, it is important to consider your philosophical stance and how you view the world, including the nature of reality and the relationship between the researcher and the participant. This will inform the methodological choices made throughout the study.
• Investigate methodological possibilities.  Explore different research methods that align with both the philosophical stance and research goals of the study.
• Plan the study.  Determine the research question, how to collect data, and from whom to collect data.
• Conduct a literature review.  The literature review is an ongoing process throughout the study. It is important to avoid duplicating existing research and to consider previous studies, concepts, and interpretations that relate to the emerging codes and categories in the developing grounded theory.

2. Recruit participants using theoretical sampling

Initially, select participants who are readily available ( convenience sampling ) or those recommended by existing participants ( snowball sampling ).

As the analysis progresses, transition to  theoretical sampling , involving the deliberate selection of participants and data sources to refine your emerging theory.

This method is used to refine and develop a grounded theory. The researcher uses theoretical sampling to choose new participants or data sources based on the emerging findings of their study.

This could mean recruiting participants who can shed light on gaps in your understanding uncovered during the initial data analysis.

Theoretical sampling guides further data collection by identifying participants or data sources that can provide insights into gaps in the emerging theory

The goal is to gather data that will help to further develop and refine the emerging categories and theoretical concepts.

Theoretical sampling starts early in a GT study and generally requires the researcher to make amendments to their ethics approvals to accommodate new participant groups.

3. Collect Data

The researcher might use interviews, focus groups, observations, or a combination of methods to collect qualitative data.

• Observations : Watching and recording phenomena as they occur. Can be participant (researcher actively involved) or non-participant (researcher tries not to influence behaviors), and covert (participants unaware) or overt (participants aware).
• Interviews : One-on-one conversations to understand participants’ experiences. Can be structured (predetermined questions), informal (casual conversations), or semi-structured (flexible structure to explore emerging issues).
• Focus groups : Dynamic discussions with 4-10 participants sharing characteristics, moderated by the researcher using a topic guide.
• Ethnography : Studying a group’s behaviors and social interactions in their environment through observations, field notes, and interviews. Researchers immerse themselves in the community or organization for an in-depth understanding.

4. Begin open coding as soon as data collection starts

Open coding   is the first stage of coding in grounded theory, where you carefully examine and label segments of your data to identify initial concepts and ideas.

This process involves scrutinizing the data and creating codes grounded in the data itself.

The initial codes stay close to the data, aiming to capture and summarize critically and analytically what is happening in the data

To begin open coding, read through your data, such as interview transcripts, to gain a comprehensive understanding of what is being conveyed.

As you encounter segments of data that represent a distinct idea, concept, or action, you assign a code to that segment. These codes act as descriptive labels summarizing the meaning of the data segment.

For instance, if you were analyzing interview data about experiences with a new medication, a segment of data might describe a participant’s difficulty sleeping after taking the medication. This segment could be labeled with the code “trouble sleeping”

Open coding is a crucial step in grounded theory because it allows you to break down the data into manageable units and begin to see patterns and themes emerge.

As you continue coding, you constantly compare different segments of data to refine your understanding of existing codes and identify new ones.

For instance, excerpts describing difficulties with sleep might be grouped under the code “trouble sleeping”.

This iterative process of comparing data and refining codes helps ensure the codes accurately reflect the data.

Open coding is about staying close to the data, using in vivo terms or gerunds to maintain a sense of action and process

5. Reflect on thoughts and contradictions by writing grounded theory memos during analysis

During open coding, it’s crucial to engage in memo writing. Memos serve as your “notes to self”, allowing you to reflect on the coding process, note emerging patterns, and ask analytical questions about the data.

Document your thoughts, questions, and insights in memos throughout the research process.

These memos serve multiple purposes: tracing your thought process, promoting reflexivity (self-reflection), facilitating collaboration if working in a team, and supporting theory development.

Early memos tend to be shorter and less conceptual, often serving as “preparatory” notes. Later memos become more analytical and conceptual as the research progresses.

Memo Writing

• Reflexivity and Recognizing Assumptions:  Researchers should acknowledge the influence of their own experiences and assumptions on the research process. Articulating these assumptions, perhaps through memos, can enhance the transparency and trustworthiness of the study.
• Write memos throughout the research process.  Memo writing should occur throughout the entire research process, beginning with initial coding.67 Memos help make sense of the data and transition between coding phases.8
• Ask analytic questions in early memos.  Memos should include questions, reflections, and notes to explore in subsequent data collection and analysis.8
• Refine memos throughout the process.  Early memos will be shorter and less conceptual, but will become longer and more developed in later stages of the research process.7 Later memos should begin to develop provisional categories.

6. Group codes into categories using axial coding

Axial coding is the process of identifying connections between codes, grouping them together into categories to reveal relationships within the data.

Axial coding seeks to find the axes that connect various codes together.

For example, in research on school bullying, focused codes such as “Doubting oneself, getting low self-confidence, starting to agree with bullies” and “Getting lower self-confidence; blaming oneself” could be grouped together into a broader category representing the impact of bullying on self-perception.

Similarly, codes such as “Being left by friends” and “Avoiding school; feeling lonely and isolated” could be grouped into a category related to the social consequences of bullying.

These categories then become part of the emerging grounded theory, explaining the multifaceted aspects of the phenomenon.

Qualitative data analysis software often represents these categories as nested codes, visually demonstrating the hierarchy and interconnectedness of the concepts.

This hierarchical structure helps researchers organize their data, identify patterns, and develop a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between different aspects of the phenomenon being studied.

This process of axial coding is crucial for moving beyond descriptive accounts of the data towards a more theoretically rich and explanatory grounded theory.

7. Define the core category using selective coding

During  selective coding , the final development stage of grounded theory analysis, a researcher focuses on developing a detailed and integrated theory by selecting a  core category  and connecting it to other categories developed during earlier coding stages.

The core category is the central concept that links together the various categories and subcategories identified in the data and forms the foundation of the emergent grounded theory.

This core category will encapsulate the main theme of your grounded theory, that encompasses and elucidates the overarching process or phenomenon under investigation.

This phase involves a concentrated effort to refine and integrate categories, ensuring they align with the core category and contribute to the overall explanatory power of the theory.

The theory should comprehensively describe the process or scheme related to the phenomenon being studied.

For example, in a study on school bullying, if the core category is “victimization journey,” the researcher would selectively code data related to different stages of this journey, the factors contributing to each stage, and the consequences of experiencing these stages.

This might involve analyzing how victims initially attribute blame, their coping mechanisms, and the long-term impact of bullying on their self-perception.

Continue collecting data and analyzing until you reach theoretical saturation

Selective coding focuses on developing and saturating this core category, leading to a cohesive and integrated theory.

Through selective coding, researchers aim to achieve theoretical saturation, meaning no new properties or insights emerge from further data analysis.

This signifies that the core category and its related categories are well-defined, and the connections between them are thoroughly explored.

This rigorous process strengthens the trustworthiness of the findings by ensuring the theory is comprehensive and grounded in a rich dataset.

It’s important to note that while a grounded theory seeks to provide a comprehensive explanation, it remains grounded in the data.

The theory’s scope is limited to the specific phenomenon and context studied, and the researcher acknowledges that new data or perspectives might lead to modifications or refinements of the theory

• Constant Comparative Analysis:  This method involves the systematic comparison of data points, codes, and categories as they emerge from the research process. Researchers use constant comparison to identify patterns and connections in their data. There are different methods for comparing excerpts from interviews, for example, a researcher can compare excerpts from the same person, or excerpts from different people. This process is ongoing and iterative, and it continues until the researcher has developed a comprehensive and well-supported grounded theory.
• Continue until reaching theoretical saturation : Continue to gather and analyze data until no new insights or properties related to your categories. This saturation point signals that the theory is comprehensive and well-substantiated by the data.

8. Theoretical coding and model development

Theoretical coding is a process in grounded theory where researchers use advanced abstractions, often from existing theories, to explain the relationships found in their data. 

Theoretical coding often occurs later in the research process and involves using existing theories to explain the connections between codes and categories.

This process helps to strengthen the explanatory power of the grounded theory. Theoretical coding should not be confused with simply describing the data; instead, it aims to explain the phenomenon being studied, distinguishing grounded theory from purely descriptive research.

Using the developed codes, categories, and core category, create a model illustrating the process or phenomenon.

Here is some advice for novice researchers on how to apply theoretical coding:

• Begin with data analysis:  Don’t start with a pre-determined theory. Instead, allow the theory to emerge from your data through careful analysis and coding.
• Use existing theories as a guide:  While the theory should primarily emerge from your data, you can use existing theories from any discipline to help explain the connections you are seeing between your categories. This demonstrates how your research builds on established knowledge.
• Use Glaser’s coding families:  Consider applying Glaser’s (1978) coding families in the later stages of analysis as a simple way to begin theoretical coding. Remember that your analysis should guide which theoretical codes are most appropriate.
• Keep it simple:  Theoretical coding doesn’t need to be overly complex.   Focus on finding an existing theory that effectively explains the relationships you have identified in your data.
• Be transparent:  Clearly articulate the existing theory you are using and how it explains the connections between your categories.
• Theoretical coding is an iterative process : Remain open to revising your chosen theoretical codes as your analysis deepens and your grounded theory evolves.

9. Write your grounded theory

Present your findings in a clear and accessible manner, ensuring the theory is rooted in the data and explains the relationships between the identified concepts and categories.

The end product of this process is a well-defined, integrated grounded theory that explains a process or scheme related to the phenomenon studied.

• Develop a dissemination plan : Determine how to share the research findings with others.
• Evaluate and implement : Reflect on the research process and quality of findings, then share findings with relevant audiences in service of making a difference in the world

Reading List

Grounded Theory Review : This is an international journal that publishes articles on grounded theory.

• Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015).  Grounded theory: A practical guide . Sage.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
• Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn .  Symbolic interaction ,  26 (4), 553-576.
• Glaser, B. G. (1978).  Theoretical sensitivity . University of California.
• Glaser, B. G. (2005).  The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding . Sociology Press.
• Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004, May). Remodeling grounded theory. In  Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: qualitative social research  (Vol. 5, No. 2).
• Charmaz, K. (2012). The power and potential of grounded theory.  Medical sociology online ,  6 (3), 2-15.
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1965). Awareness of dying. New Brunswick. NJ: Aldine. This was the first published grounded theory study
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017).  Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Routledge.
• Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (1997). Using grounded theory in psychological research. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance Articles
• Editor's Choice
• Supplements
• Patient Perspectives
• Methods Corner
• Science for Patients
• Invited Commentaries
• ESC Content Collections
• Knowledge Translation
• Author Guidelines
• Instructions for reviewers
• Submission Site
• Why publish with EJCN?
• Open Access Options
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Read & Publish
• About European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing
• About ACNAP
• About European Society of Cardiology
• ESC Publications
• Editorial Board
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• War in Ukraine
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, distinguishing features of grounded theory, the role and timing of the literature review.

• < Previous

Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Carley Turner, Felicity Astin, Grounded theory: what makes a grounded theory study?, European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing , Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2021, Pages 285–289, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaa034

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Grounded theory (GT) is both a research method and a research methodology. There are several different ways of doing GT which reflect the different viewpoints of the originators. For those who are new to this approach to conducting qualitative research, this can be confusing. In this article, we outline the key characteristics of GT and describe the role of the literature review in three common GT approaches, illustrated using exemplar studies.

Describing the key characteristics of a Grounded theory (GT) study.

Considering the role and timing of the literature review in different GT approaches.

Qualitative research is a cornerstone in cardiovascular research. It gives insights in why particular phenomena occur or what underlying mechanisms are. 1 Over the past 2 years, the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing published 20 qualitative studies. 2–21 These studies used methods such as content analysis, ethnography, or phenomenology. Grounded theory (GT) has been used to a lesser extent.

Grounded theory is both a methodology and a method used in qualitative research ( Table 1 ). It is a research approach used to gain an emic insight into a phenomenon. In simple terms, this means understanding the perspective, or point of view, of an ‘insider’, those who have experience of the phenomenon. 22 Grounded theory is a research approach that originated from the social sciences but has been used in education and health research. The focus of GT is to generate theory that is grounded in data and shaped by the views of participants, thereby moving beyond description and towards theoretical explanation of a process or phenomenon. 23

Grounded theory as a method and methodology

One of the key issues with using GT, particularly for novices, is understanding the different approaches that have evolved as each specific GT approach is slightly different.

The tradition of GT began with the seminal text about classic GT written by Glaser and Strauss, 24 but since then GT has evolved into several different types. The approach to GT chosen by the researcher depends upon an understanding of the epistemological underpinnings of the different approaches, the match with the topic under investigation and the researcher’s own stance. Whilst GT is frequently used in applied health research, very few studies detail which GT approach has been used, how and why. Sometimes published studies claim to use GT methodology but the approaches that form the foundation of GT are not reported. This may be due to the word limit in academic journals or because legitimate GT approaches have not been followed. Either way, there is a lack of clarity about the practical application of GT. The purpose of this article is to outline the distinguishing characteristics of GT and outline practical considerations for the novice researcher regarding the place of the literature review in GT.

There are several distinguishing features of GT, as outlined by Sbaraini et al. 25 The first is that GT research is conducted through an inductive process. This means that the researcher is developing theory rather than testing it and must therefore remain ‘open’ throughout the study. In essence, this means that the researcher has no preconceived ideas about the findings. Taking an inductive approach means that the focus of the research may evolve over time as the researchers understand what is important to their participants through the data collection and analysis process.

With regards to data analysis, the use of coding is initially used to break down data into smaller components and labelling them to capture the essence of the data. The codes are compared to one another to understand and explain any variation in the data before they are combined to form more abstract categories. Memos are used to record and develop the researcher’s analysis of the data, including the detail behind the comparisons made between categories. Memos can stimulate the researcher’s thinking, as well as capturing the researcher’s ideas during data collection and analysis.

A further feature for data analysis in a GT study is the simultaneous data analysis and sampling to facilitate theoretical sampling. This means that as data analysis progresses participants are purposefully selected who may have characteristics or experiences that have arisen as being of interest from data collection and analysis so far. Questions in the topic guide may also be modified to follow a specific line of inquiry, test ideas and interpretations, or fill gaps in the analysis to build an emerging substantive theory. This evolving and non-linear methodology is to allow the evolution of the study as indicated by data, rather than analysing at the end of data collection. This approach to data analysis supports the researcher to take an inductive approach as discussed above.

Theoretical sampling facilitates the construction of theory until theoretical saturation is reached. Theoretical saturation is when all the concepts that form the theory being developed are well understood and grounded in data. Finally, the results are expressed as a theory where a set of concepts are related to one another and provide a framework for making predictions. 26 These key features of GT are summarized in Table 2 .

Distinguishing features of a GT study (adapted from Sbaraini et al. 25 )

The identification of a gap in the published literature is typically a requirement of successful doctoral studies and grant applications. However, in GT research there are different views about the role and timing of the literature review.

For researchers using classic Glaserian GT, the recommended approach is that the published literature should not be reviewed until data collection, analysis and theory development has been completed. 24 The rationale for the delay of the literature review is to enable the researcher to remain ‘open’ to discover theory emerging from data and free from contamination by avoiding forcing data into pre-conceived concepts derived from other studies. Furthermore, because the researcher is ‘open’ to whichever direction the data takes they cannot know in advance which aspects of the literature will be relevant to their study. 27

In Glaserian GT, the emerging concepts and theory from data analysis inform the scope of the literature review which is conducted after theory development. 24 This approach to the literature review aligns with the rather positivist stance of Glaser in which the researcher aims to remain free of assumptions so that the theory that emerges from the data is not influenced by the researcher. Reviewing the literature prior to data analysis would risk theory being imposed on the data. Perhaps counterintuitively, Glaser does recommend reading literature in unrelated fields to understand as many theoretical codes as possible. 28 However, it is unclear how this is different to reading literature directly related to the topic and could potentially still lead to the contamination of the theory arising from data that delaying the literature review is intended to avoid. It is also problematic regarding the governance processes around research, whereby funders and ethics committees would expect at least an overview of the existing literature as part of the justification for the study.

A study by Bergman et al. 29 used a classic Glaserian GT approach to examine and identify the motive of power in myocardial infarction patients’ rehabilitation process. Whilst the key characteristics of GT were evident in the way the study was conducted, there was no discussion about how the literature review contributed to the final theory. This may have been due to the word limit but illustrates the challenges that novice researchers may have in understanding where the literature review fits in studies using GT approaches.

In Straussian GT, a more pragmatic approach to the literature view is adopted. Strauss and Corbin 30 recognized that the researcher has prior knowledge, including that of the literature, before starting their research. They did not recommend dissociation from the literature, but rather that the literature be used across the various stages of the research. Published literature could identify important areas that could contribute to theory development, support useful comparisons in the data and stimulate further questions during the analytical process. According to Strauss and Corbin, researchers should be mindful about how published work could influence theory development. Whilst visiting the literature prior to data collection was believed to enhance data analysis, it was not thought necessary to review all the literature beforehand, but rather revisit the literature at later stages in the research process. 30

A study published by Salminen-Tuomaala et al. 31 used a Straussian GT approach to explore factors that influenced the way patients coped with hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. The authors described a reflexive process in which the researcher noted down their preconceived ideas about the topic as part of the data analysis process. The literature review was conducted after data analysis.

The most recent step in the evolution of GT is the move towards a constructivist epistemological stance advocated by Charmaz. 32 In simple terms, this means that the underlying approach reflects the belief that theories cannot be discovered but are instead constructed by the researcher and their interactions with the participants and data. As the researcher plays a central role in the construction of the GT, their background, personal views, and culture will influence this process and the way data are analysed. For this reason, it is important to be explicit about these preconceptions and aim to maintain an open mind through reflexivity. 32 Therefore, engaging in a preliminary literature review and using this information to compare and contrast with findings from the research undertaken is desirable, alongside completing a comprehensive literature review after data analysis with a specific aim to present the GT.

A study published by Odell et al. 33 used the modified GT approach recommended by Charmaz 32 to study patients’ experiences of restenosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The authors described the different GT approaches and key features of GT methodology which clearly informed the conduct of the study. However, there was no detail about how the literature review was used to shape the data analysis process and findings.

A solution: be clear on the approach taken to the literature review and why

Despite the clear differences in the approach to the literature review in GT, there appears to be a lack of precise guidance for novice researchers regarding how in depth or exhaustive a preliminary literature review should be. This lack of guidance can lead to a variety of different approaches as evidenced in the GT studies we have cited as examples, which is a challenge for the novice researcher. This uncertainty is further compounded by the concurrent approach to data collection and analysis which allows for the research focus to evolve as the study progresses. The complexity of the research process and the role and timing of the literature review is summarized in Figure 1 .

Literature review in Grounded Theory.

Taking a pragmatic approach, researchers will need to familiarize themselves with the literature to receive funding and approval for their study. This preliminary literature review can be followed up after data analysis by a more comprehensive review of the literature to help support the theory that was developed from the data. The key is to ensure transparency in reporting how the literature review has been used to develop the theory. The preliminary literature review can be used to set the scene for the research as part of the introduction, and the more extensive literature review can then be used during the discussion section to compare the theory developed from the data with existing literature, as per Probyn et al. 34

Whilst this pragmatic approach aligns with Straussian GT and Charmaz’s constructivist GT, it is at odds with Glaserian GT. Therefore, if Glaserian GT is chosen, the researcher should be explicit about deviation and provide a rationale.

Word count for journal articles is often a limiting factor in how much detail is included in why certain methodologies are used. Submitting detail about the methodology and rationale behind it can be presented as online supplementary material, thereby allowing interested readers to access further information about how and why the research was executed.

The use of GT as a methodology and method can shed light on areas where little knowledge is already known, generating theory directly from data. The traditional format of a published article does not always reflect the iterative approach to the literature review and data collection and analysis in GT. This can generate tension between how the research is presented in relation to how it was conducted. However, one simple way to ensure clarity in reporting is to be transparent in how the literature review is used.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest : The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Greenhalgh T , Taylor R. Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research) . Br Med J 1997 ; 315 : 740 – 743 .

Google Scholar

Wilson RE , Rush KL , Reid RC , et al.  The symptom experience of early and late treatment seekers before an atrial fibrillation diagnosis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :231--242.

Lauck SB , Achtem L , Borregaard B , et al.  Can you see frailty? An exploratory study of the use of a patient photograph in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2021 ; 20 :252--260.

Sundelin R , Bergsten C , Tornvall P , Lyngå, P. et al.  Self-rated stress and experience in patients with Takotsubo syndrome: a mixed methods study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120919387.

Janssen DJ , Ament SM , Boyne J , et al.  Characteristics for a tool for timely identification of palliative needs in heart failure: the views of Dutch patients, their families and healthcare professionals . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120918962.

Steffen EM , Timotijevic L , Coyle A. A qualitative analysis of psychosocial needs and support impacts in families affected by young sudden cardiac death: the role of community and peer support . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; doi: 10.1177/1474515120922347.

Molzahn AE , Sheilds L , Bruce A , Schick-Makaroff K , Antonio M , Clark AM. Life and priorities before death: a narrative inquiry of uncertainty and end of life in people with heart failure and their family members . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 629 – 637 .

Wistrand C , Nilsson U , Sundqvist A-S. Patient experience of preheated and room temperature skin disinfection prior to cardiac device implantation: a randomised controlled trial . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 529 – 536 .

Widell C , Andréen S , Albertsson P , Axelsson ÅB. Octogenarian preferences and expectations for acute coronary syndrome treatment . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 521 – 528 .

Ferguson C , George A , Villarosa AR , Kong AC , Bhole S , Ajwani S. Exploring nursing and allied health perspectives of quality oral care after stroke: a qualitative study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2020 ; 19 : 505 – 512 .

Sutantri S , Cuthill F , Holloway A. ‘ A bridge to normal’: a qualitative study of Indonesian women’s attendance in a phase two cardiac rehabilitation programme . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 , doi: 10.1177/1474515119864208.

Liu X-L , Willis K , Fulbrook P , Wu C-J(J) , Shi Y , Johnson M. Factors influencing self-management priority setting and decision-making among Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 700 – 710 .

Wingham J , Frost J , Britten N , Greaves C , Abraham C , Warren FC , Jolly K , Miles J , Paul K , Doherty PJ , Singh S , Davies R , Noonan M , Dalal H , Taylor RS. Caregiver outcomes of the REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 611 – 620 .

Olsson K , Näslund U , Nilsson J , Hörnsten Å. Hope and despair: patients’ experiences of being ineligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 593 – 600 .

Heery S , Gibson I , Dunne D , Flaherty G. The role of public health nurses in risk factor modification within a high-risk cardiovascular disease population in Ireland – a qualitative analysis . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 584 – 592 .

Brännström M , Fischer Grönlund C , Zingmark K , Söderberg A. Meeting in a ‘free-zone’: clinical ethical support in integrated heart-failure and palliative care . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 577 – 583 .

Haydon G , van der Riet P , Inder K. Long-term survivors of cardiac arrest: a narrative inquiry . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 458 – 464 .

Freysdóttir GR , Björnsdóttir K , Svavarsdóttir MH. Nurses’ Use of Monitors in Patient Surveillance: An Ethnographic Study on a Coronary Care Unit . London, England : SAGE Publications ; 2019 . p 272 – 279 .

Google Preview

Pokorney SD , Bloom D , Granger CB , Thomas KL , Al-Khatib SM , Roettig ML , Anderson J , Heflin MT , Granger BB. Exploring patient–provider decision-making for use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the INFORM-AF study . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 280 – 288 .

Instenes I , Fridlund B , Amofah HA , Ranhoff AH , Eide LS , Norekvål TM. ‘ I hope you get normal again’: an explorative study on how delirious octogenarian patients experience their interactions with healthcare professionals and relatives after aortic valve therapy . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 224 – 233 .

Palmar-Santos AM , Pedraz-Marcos A , Zarco-Colón J , Ramasco-Gutiérrez M , García-Perea E , Pulido-Fuentes M. The life and death construct in heart transplant patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2019 ; 18 : 48 – 56 .

De Chesnay M , Banner D. Nursing Research Using Grounded Theory: Qualitative Designs and Methods . New York, NY : Springer Publishing Company ; 2015 .

Corbin J , Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory . 3rd ed. California : SAGE ; 2007 .

Glaser BG , Strauss AL. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . New York : Aldine ; 1967 .

Sbaraini A , Carter SM , Evans RW , Blinkhorn A. How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices . BMC Med Res Methodol 2011 ; 11 : 128 – 128 .

Charmaz K. ‘ Discovering’ chronic illness: using grounded theory . Soc Sci Med 1990 ; 30 : 1161 – 1172 .

Thornberg R , Dunne C. Literature review in grounded theory. In Bryant A , Charmaz K , eds. The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory . London : SAGE Publications ; 2019 .

Glaser BG. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions . California : Sociology Press ; 1998 .

Bergman E , Berterö C. ‘ Grasp Life Again’. A qualitative study of the motive power in myocardial infarction patients . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2003 ; 2 : 303 – 310 .

Strauss A , Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques . 2nd ed. California : Sage ; 1998 .

Salminen-Tuomaala M , Åstedt-Kurki P , Rekiaro M , Paavilainen E. Coping—seeking lost control . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012 ; 11 : 289 – 296 .

Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory . 2nd ed. Los Angeles : SAGE ; 2014 .

Odell A , Grip L , Hallberg LRM. Restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): experiences from the patients' perspective . Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2006 ; 5 : 150 – 157 .

Probyn J , Greenhalgh J , Holt J , Conway D , Astin F. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients’ and cardiologists’ experiences of the informed consent process in Northern England: a qualitative study . BMJ Open 2017 ; 7 : e015127 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1873-1953
• Print ISSN 1474-5151
• Copyright © 2024 European Society of Cardiology
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature

• Research Article
• Published: 29 November 2011
• Volume 22 , pages 45–55, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Joost F Wolfswinkel 1 ,
• Elfi Furtmueller 1 &
• Celeste P M Wilderom 1  

10k Accesses

428 Citations

35 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper offers guidance to conducting a rigorous literature review. We present this in the form of a five-stage process in which we use Grounded Theory as a method. We first probe the guidelines explicated by Webster and Watson, and then we show the added value of Grounded Theory for rigorously analyzing a carefully chosen set of studies; it assures solidly legitimized, in-depth analyses of empirical facts and related insights. This includes, the emergence of new themes, issues and opportunities; interrelationships and dependencies in or beyond a particular area; as well as inconsistencies. If carried out meticulously, reviewing a well-carved out piece of literature by following this guide is likely to lead to more integrated and fruitful theory emergence, something that would enrich many fields in the social sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory Methodology: Principles and Practices

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 107–136.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baarspul HC and Wilderom CPM (2011) Do employees behave differently in public- versus private-sector organizations? A state-of-the-art review. Public Management Review 13 (7), 967–1002.

Buchanan DA and Bryman A (2011) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. Sage Publications, London.

Google Scholar  

Cooper HM (1998) Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. Sage, London.

Creswell JW (2008) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Prentice Hall, Pearson/Merrill.

Dubin R (1978) Theory Development. Free Press, New York.

Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.

Fernandez WD and Lehmann H (2011) Case studies and grounded theory method in information systems research: issues and use. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 13 (1).

Furtmueller E, van Dick R and Wilderom C (2011) Service behaviour of highly committed financial consultants. Journal of Service Management 22 (3), 317–343.

Glaser B and Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago.

Glynn A and Raffaelli R (2010) Uncovering mechanisms of theory development in an academic field: lessons from leadership research. The Academy of Management Annals 4 (1), 359–401.

Hart C (1998) Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. Sage, London.

Hart C (2000) Doing a Literature Search: A Comprehensive Guide for the Social Sciences. Sage, London.

Humphrey SE (2011) What does a great meta-analysis look like? Organizational Psychology Review 1 (2), 99–103.

Kaplan A (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry. Harper & Row, New York.

Merton RK (1967) On Theoretical Sociology. Free Press, New York.

Salipante P, Notz W and Bigelow J (1982) A matrix approach to literature reviews. Research in Organizational Behavior 4, 321–348.

Schwartz RB and Russo MC (2004) How to quickly find articles in the top IS journals. Communications of the ACM 47 (2), 98–101.

Suddaby R (2006) From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4), 633–642.

Sutton RI and Staw M (1995) What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3), 371–384.

Strauss A and Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, London.

Strauss A and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London.

Urquhart C and Fernandez W (2006) Grounded theory method: the researcher as blank slate and other myths. Twenty-Seventh International Conference on Information Systems , Milwaukee, United States of America.

Webster J and Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26 (2), 13–23.

Whetten DA (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 490–495.

Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller E and Wilderom CPM (2010) Reflecting on e-recruiting research using grounded theory. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems , Pretoria, South Africa.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

Joost F Wolfswinkel, Elfi Furtmueller & Celeste P M Wilderom

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joost F Wolfswinkel .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wolfswinkel, J., Furtmueller, E. & Wilderom, C. Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur J Inf Syst 22 , 45–55 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

Download citation

Received : 31 August 2009

Revised : 25 September 2011

Accepted : 16 October 2011

Published : 29 November 2011

Issue Date : 01 January 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• grounded theory
• systematic state-of-the-art literature reviews
• theory development
• theory emergence
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Directories

Grounded theory literature reviews

Another type of literature review is one done for a grounded theory research project. According to one approach, in grounded theory projects, the researcher tends to conduct empirical research before writing a literature review. However, this approach can be problematic if you are a postgraduate research student who is doing deadline-dependent research into a topic that is relatively new or unfamiliar to you. Most academics who do grounded theory research already have a well-developed understanding of the field and theory, which is why they may be more comfortable with leaving a literature review late into the process.

For research students doing grounded theory projects, many argue that it is both practical and important to research the theory early on in the project, to make sure that your project is not duplicating extant work, or go on an irrelevant tangent (Dunne, 2011, p. 116; McGhee, Marland & Atkinson, 2007, p. 340). Also, researching into academic literature takes a long time, so doing it from the start of your project will save you stress later on. So, for a grounded theory project it's useful to start writing your literature review early on.

When writing a grounded theory literature review, it's important to take note of how the literature influences your ideas, and to keep track of your original ideas. To maintain your grounded theory perspective, McGhee, Marland and Atkinson (2007, p. 340) argue that "Reflexivity is needed to prevent prior knowledge distorting the researcher's perceptions of the data." Unlike the traditional approach, where the literature review leads on to the research question, in a grounded theory approach the empirical research is used to reflect on the academic literature's values and limitations.

In this sense, then, the placement of the literature review may be different between traditional and grounded theory projects. Some grounded theory projects don't have a dedicated literature review chapter and instead reflect on the literature throughout the chapters. Others incorporate and reflect on literature throughout the chapters as well as in a substantial section or chapter towards the end of the document. Many follow more of a traditional approach with a literature review early on and reflection on the literature throughout the writing.

Whichever option you choose, discuss it early on with your supervisor. Although there are a variety of ways to structure a grounded theory project, it is frequently recommended that you place a literature review early on in the thesis, possibly in the introduction or first chapter. Having a literature review upfront helps your readers to understand how your research fits into the field. It also helps your readers to identify how your research questions relate to the academic literature.

References and resources about grounded theory research

• Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2010). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
• Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 14 (2), 111-124. doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930
• Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business and market researchers . Sage Publications Ltd. Retrieved from ProQuest ebrary.
• McGhee, G., Marland G.R., & Atkinson J. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60 (3), 334-342. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x
• Williams, M., & Vogt, P. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of innovation in social research methods . Los Angeles, California; London: Sage.
• Wisker, G. (2008). The postgraduate research handbook: Succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD  (2nd ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Literature reviews

Purpose of traditional literature reviews

Placement of traditional literature reviews

Structuring a literature review

Language of the literature review

Systematic literature reviews

• ANU Library Academic Skills
• +61 2 6125 2972

• DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2010.494930
• Corpus ID: 37777849

The place of the literature review in grounded theory research

• Ciarán Dunne
• Published 1 March 2011
• International Journal of Social Research Methodology

488 Citations

Approaches to reviewing the literature in grounded theory: a framework., varying perspectives of grounded theory approach: a critical literature review, literature review and constructivist grounded theory methodology, the use of grounded theory in researching information centres, reflecting on the challenges of choosing and using a grounded theory approach..

• Highly Influenced

Avoid " Contamination " : Diverging on How

New perspectives for implementing grounded theory, an introduction to the grounded theory approach in social research, surviving grounded theory research method in an academic world: proposal writing and theoretical frameworks, how to use grounded theory method (gtm) as a research tool for qualitative research and the problems associated with it., 60 references, grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity..

• Highly Influential

Exploring the influences and use of the literature during a grounded theory study

Methodological issues in grounded theory., using grounded theory to research parent participation, grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure, rigour and grounded theory research., grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study, the discipline and practice of qualitative research, grounded theory in nursing research: part 1--methodology., from the editors: what grounded theory is not, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being
• v.5(3); 2010

Some thoughts about the literature review in grounded theory studies

In a conventional quantitative study, the aim of the literature review mainly is to refine the research question, determine gaps in earlier research and identify a suitable design, and data collection method for a planned study. In qualitative research the literature search—when and how—is of a more ambiguous character. Grounded theory (GT), one qualitative method among many others, is described as a “general inductive method possessed by no discipline or theoretical perspective or data type” (Glaser, 2005 , p. 141). In a GT-study, concepts are generated from empirical data rather than from existing literature. Like a detective who strives to explain what is actually happening, the GT-researcher strives to explain the main concern of participants in a specific situation/area and to find out how they resolve or process this main concern. The emerging result is presented either as a hypothesis, a model or as an abstract conceptual theory. The theory is built up around a core category and related categories. In Glaser's words, the aim of GT is to “generate a theory that accounts for a pattern of behavior which is relevant and significant for those involved” (Glaser, 1978 , p. 93). Conceptualisation is a core process in GT, which thereby is a theory-generating rather than a descriptive method. Generating theory demands creative and conceptual thinking.

Barney Glaser, the originator of the classical GT methodology, has stressed the importance of that a GT-researcher avoids preconceptions and remains open-minded to what actually appears in the research field. He encourages GT-researchers to “just get on and do it.” However, when a hypothesis, model or theory can be discerned in the data, a relevant literature search should be conducted and interwoven into the emerging theory. Glaser argues that an early reading of the literature (i.e., before conducting the study) is problematic. This includes that the researcher is encouraged to ignore the existing literature before entering the research field. This approach rests on the opinion that what is important in the research area will show itself repeatedly, or in other words, what is important will emerge without the “neutral” researcher is doing nothing but listen and look with an open mind. In order to understand the participants’ viewpoint, the researcher must put aside his/her personal perspective and, of course, have knowledge and competence in how to conceptualise data. Unfortunately, many researchers lack competence in conceptualisation.

Any researcher has acquired considerable knowledge in the professional and disciplinary literature. To think conceptually requires that the researcher continually follows the cross-disciplinary literature, i.e., they are reading a lot. It is not easy for the researcher to put this knowledge aside when starting a new study but the point is, as I see it, not to be consciously directed by earlier theories and concepts in interpretations and conclusions of the data. One way to stay open and do good GT-studies is to maintain theoretical sensitivity through constant comparisons (e.g., constantly comparing incidents to incidents, incidents to concepts, and concept to concept) and continuous memo writing. There is a fine line between avoiding the use of literature before a study begins and being informed so that a study is focused enough. In my opinion, it is necessary to conduct an early literature review to find out if the planned study, or something similar as the planned study, has been published before. This literature review may also give a background to and motivate the interest for the particular research area. Such a literature review will also be requested by authorities when researchers apply for research grants and/or ethical permission to conduct a study or when a presumptive doctoral student applies for acceptance as a PhD candidate. At least a presumptive researcher has to demonstrate that a problem worthy of research really exists and that he/she has the necessary skill to conduct such a study. This is in line with the view of Glaser ( 1998 ) when advocating GT-researchers to do some preliminary reading before the study begins in order to put the study into a context.

• Glaser B.G. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B.G. Doing grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B.G. The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The timing of the literature review in grounded theory research: an open mind versus an empty head

Affiliation.

• 1 Flinders University School of Nursing and Midwifery, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. [email protected]
• PMID: 23644269
• DOI: 10.1097/ANS.0b013e3182902035

The timing of the literature review in grounded theory has been debated for decades, with previous recommendations to delay the review now under question. Mounting evidence suggests that a preliminary review can enhance theoretical sensitivity and rigor and may lead to innovative insights. However, researchers must acknowledge the influence of prior knowledge during data analysis and theory development to avoid bias. This article critically examines the ongoing debate and recommends that we should not seek to avoid preconceptions but ensure that they are well grounded in evidence and always subject to further investigation, revision, and refutation. If used reflexively, a preliminary literature review may well enhance grounded theory research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Using a synthesised technique for grounded theory in nursing research. Chen HY, Boore JR. Chen HY, et al. J Clin Nurs. 2009 Aug;18(16):2251-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02684.x. Epub 2009 Apr 3. J Clin Nurs. 2009. PMID: 19374696 Review.
• Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity. McGhee G, Marland GR, Atkinson J. McGhee G, et al. J Adv Nurs. 2007 Nov;60(3):334-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x. J Adv Nurs. 2007. PMID: 17908129
• The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Jeon YH. Jeon YH. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004 Sep;18(3):249-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2004.00287.x. Scand J Caring Sci. 2004. PMID: 15355518 Review.
• Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: implications for research design. Mills J, Bonner A, Francis K. Mills J, et al. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006 Feb;12(1):8-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2006.00543.x. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006. PMID: 16403191 Review.
• How grounded theory can improve nursing care quality. Nathaniel AK, Andrews T. Nathaniel AK, et al. J Nurs Care Qual. 2007 Oct-Dec;22(4):350-7. doi: 10.1097/01.NCQ.0000290417.27393.91. J Nurs Care Qual. 2007. PMID: 17873733 Review.
• A Mixed Methods Examination of Decision-Making During Program Exploration and Implementation in Schools. Barrett CA, Sleesman DJ, Amin T. Barrett CA, et al. Prev Sci. 2024 Apr;25(3):459-469. doi: 10.1007/s11121-024-01655-0. Epub 2024 Feb 28. Prev Sci. 2024. PMID: 38416383
• Using a Constructivist-Oriented Modified Grounded Theory Approach in the Study of Intrafamily Trauma Communication Process in War-Affected Families: A Methodologic Example. Hoffman SJ, Fredkove WM. Hoffman SJ, et al. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2023 Jul 27:10.1097/ANS.0000000000000506. doi: 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000506. Online ahead of print. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2023. PMID: 37498059
• How Did People with Functional Disability Experience the First COVID-19 Lockdown? A Thematic Analysis of YouTube Comments. Hall KAE, Deusdad B, D'Hers Del Pozo M, Martínez-Hernáez Á. Hall KAE, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Aug 24;19(17):10550. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191710550. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36078263 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Wolters Kluwer

Other Literature Sources

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Open Access
• Submissions
• Barney Glaser – In Memoriam

Criteria for Assessing a Classic Grounded Theory Study: A Brief Methodological Review with Minimum Reporting Recommendations

Kara L. Vander Linden, Saybrook University, USA

Patrick A. Palmieri, South American Center for Qualitative Research, Perú

Introduction: Reporting criteria for research studies are essential to assess the methods and to evaluate the usefulness of the findings. The purpose of this review was to identify the essential criteria to report a classic grounded theory (classic GT) study.

Method: A methodological review of the reporting criteria for a classic GT study.

Results: Grounded theory studies generally report theoretical sampling, theoretical saturation, memoing, and constant comparative analysis. In addition, classic GT studies reported unstructured interviews, a grand tour question, substantive and theoretical coding, and hypothetical probability statements. However, they did not report comprehensive literature reviews. An early focus on useability of the resulting theory was expanded to include criteria for fit, understandability, relevance, grab, general, work, control, and modifiability.

Conclusion: Essential criteria were identified for reporting grounded theory research with differentiations for classic GT. The classic GT criteria should be included as a reporting extension to complement the existing reporting guidelines.

Key Words: Classic grounded theory (Classic GT), theoretical sampling, theoretical coding, theoretical sensitivity, theoretical saturation, constant comparative analysis, grand tour question, reporting guidelines, peer-review, research evaluation, COREQ, SRQR, EQUATOR

Introduction

Recommended reporting criteria are essential for researchers developing a manuscript to guide the disclosure of their research methods and findings (Moher et al., 2008). This paper is the first in a series about the methodological processes and procedures that should be disclosed in a manuscript reporting a classic grounded theory (classic GT) study. Reporting criteria are also important for reviewers tasked with evaluating the methodological quality of a manuscript reporting a qualitative research study. In this regard, the reviewer is responsible for carefully assessing the manuscript to identify study limitations requiring revision, or fatal flaws requiring rejection. All qualitative research methods have established procedures to demonstrate rigor and techniques to establish trustworthiness. The same is true for classic grounded theory.

The purpose of this methodological review is to identify the essential reporting criteria for qualitative research manuscripts reporting a classic GT study. First, an overview of the methods and results sections will be described in terms of the research protocol and the work to implement the study. Next, the minimum reporting criteria for a classic GT study are identified and discussed. Then, the importance of reporting criteria for a classic GT study are explained within the context of the two primary guidelines for reporting qualitative research. Finally, minimum reporting criteria for a classic GT study are recommended as an extension to strengthen existing guidelines for reporting qualitative research.

Research Designs and Protocol Development

The protocol for a research study is a plan for how a study will be conducted (Salkind, 2010). The protocol should be based on the methodological norms for the selected study design with a clear explanation about how the procedures will be operationalized. Researchers should cite the appropriate methodological literature to support the procedures. The protocol should guide the implementation of the research study. Although implementation should follow the protocol as closely as possible, minor variations are common occurrences, especially within the context of qualitative research. Any variation from the original research protocol, should be clearly identified and briefly justified. The protocol implementation should result in a manuscript that clearly and concisely reports the study findings in alignment with the research methods.

Criteria for Reporting the Research Methodology for a Classic Grounded Theory

When reviewing a manuscript reporting a grounded theory study, the first criterion for assessment is the demonstrated familiarity with the multiple approaches to grounded theory. The three most common approaches, or versions, for grounded theory studies are classic (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), Straussian (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), and constructivist (Charmaz, 2006). Although the approaches appear similar in the case of inexperienced researchers, there are unique characteristics for the research protocol of a classic GT study essential for reporting in the manuscript. For this reason, the reviewers need to be able to clearly identify the approach, understand the justification, and assess the implementation.

Avoiding a preliminary literature review is a basic tenet of classic GT (Glaser, 1978). Thus, reviewers should examine whether a preliminary literature was conducted. There are times when a researcher must conduct a preliminary literature review, for example, to meet the requirements of a university or ethics review board. In these cases, the reviewer should look for a statement about how the researcher limited the influence of the literature during the study implementation.

A classic GT study should not begin with a predetermined research problem, whether it is based on literature or personal or professional experience (Glaser & Holton, 2004). Instead, within a classic GT study, the problem should emerge from the data analysis as the problem or issue that the people within the area of study are trying to resolve. Reviewers should be able to determine if the problem statement was developed in advance by the researcher or if it was discovered from an analysis of the data.

A general research question for a classic GT is articulated in general terms related to the topic area of the study. For example, a research question in a study on infertility may be framed as “what is the main concern (issues, problem) for people who are living with infertility, and how do they resolve this concern (issues, problem)?” This allows for the problem and theory to emerge from the data. Similarly, a purpose statement for the same study may be something like “The purpose of this study is to develop a theory about the main concern (issues, problem) for people who are living with infertility and the patterns of behaviors used to resolve this concern (issues, problem).” The purpose statement should indicate generating theory as a primary part of the purpose. Regardless of the exact wording used in the research question and purpose statement, the reviewer should consider if the question and purpose statement are sufficiently broad to allow both the problem and a theory about the patterns of behaviors used to address the problem to emerge from the data.

The next area for a review to consider is the sample and method of sampling. Within a classic GT study, the sample is comprised of people who have firsthand knowledge and experience within the topic area of study. However, later participants are selected based on theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling involves analyzing each piece of data as it is collected and prior to the collection of the next piece of data so that the data analysis can guide what data to collect next (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Within all the approaches to grounded theory, theoretical sampling is the specific sampling technique to support theory development. The technique guides the researchers to determine what data is needed to facilitate reaching theoretical saturation, the point where no new variations are among the significant concepts are found in the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Due to the nature of theoretical sampling, the size of the sample cannot be predetermined. Some theories may have a small sample of 10-20 while other theories may have much larger samples. The sample size depends on the quality of the data and the scope of the theory. The reviewer should identify whether the initial sample seems appropriate to the topic area (i.e., did they have firsthand experience?), whether data were analyzed one piece at a time, and whether theoretical sampling was used to determine what data were needed next.

The purpose of grounded theory is to generate a theory, rather than suggest or verify a theory. Thus, the types of data and how they are collected and analyzed should align with this purpose. While classic GT may use any type of data (Glaser, 1998), interviewing is the most common form of data collection. When interviewing participants, researchers use unstructured, in-depth interviews with a broadly worded question about the topic area called the grand tour question (Simmons, 2010). Building on the previous examples, a grand tour question might ask “Can you tell me about your experience with infertility?” The question invites participants to discuss what is significant to them within the topic area. Probing questions are then used to focus on only the topics brought up by the participants. While engaging in theoretical sampling, the grand tour question usually changes and become less “grand” as the researcher works to theoretically saturate various aspects of the emerging theory. Reviewers should initially determine if unstructured, in-depth interviews along with probing questions were used for the research. Reviewers should question the fidelity to the classic GT if the researchers reported semi-structured or structured interviews.

Data analysis procedures in classic GT involves substantive coding, which includes open and selective coding, and theoretical coding later in the process (Glaser, 1978). Constant comparative analysis is central to data analysis in any grounded theory study, and memos are used to capture the theoretical ideas generated from constant comparative analysis (Glaser, 1965). Two aspects of data analysis often missed when reporting the protocol and implementation are sorting and creating a theoretical outline. These are tied to theoretical coding, which helps the researcher identify the theoretical structure for the resulting theory (Glaser, 1978). The reviewer should carefully determine whether all components of the data analysis are included, especially constant comparative analysis, as critical reporting elements.

After sorting and creating a theoretical outline, the final step is to “write up” the theory. At this point in the process, relevant examples are included in the theory and external evidence from the literature is referenced (Holton & Walsh, 2017). The structure and presentation of the theory is the result or research product. This is the next area for reviewers to evaluate for a classic GT study.

Criteria for Reporting Research Findings from a Classic Grounded Theory Study

For grounded theory, first and foremost, the results should be a theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The theory that results should identify the theoretical concepts and relationships which are often expressed as hypothetical probability statements (Yalof, 2014). Hypothetical probability statements (Glaser, 1978) explain how one concept interacts with and affects another concept. Thus, the theory should be written conceptually (i.e., about the concepts) and theoretically (i.e., about the relationships). The product/result should not describe the data or participants as is common in many qualitative approaches. Thus, the theory should not reference the participants unless using them as an example of a theoretical concept or relationship. It should also not produce themes, as thematic analysis does.

Constant comparative analysis (Glaser, 1965) leads to the discovery of a core category (Glaser, 2002), which is the central pattern of behavior that addressed the problem that emerged from the data. In some literature, the core category is used interchangeably with core variable (Glaser, 1965, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and core concept (Glaser, 2014). The core category is the central idea of the theory that explains how people within the area of study resolve what is problematic to them. All the other concepts in the theory relate to this core category and help explain it. The reviewer should first determine if the theory clearly identifies a core category and the centrality to the theory. Then the reviewer should determine if the other concepts relate to the centrality of theory and help explain the core category.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) recognized grounded theory required criteria to define the unique research design and, more importantly, to evaluate the resulting theory. When Glaser and Strauss (1967) first articulated grounded theory as a method, they presented criteria focused on establishing the useability of the theory. With time, Glaser (1978, 1998) expanded the criteria to include fit, understandability, relevance, grab, general, work, control, modifiability. These criteria are met by a theory grounded in the data.

The theory must closely fit the data and the substitute area. Because it fits the data and substantive areas, the theory should be understandable and relevant to both professionals and laypersons concerned with the area (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). When a theory is understandable and relevant is often has g rab, meaning it is interesting and is memorable (Glaser, 1978) to those within the substantive area. In addition, the theory must also be general enough to be “applicable to a multitude of diverse daily situations within the substantive area” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 237), allowing it to work by “explain[ing] what happened, predict[ing] what will happen and interpret[ing] what is happening” (Glaser, 1978, p. 4) in the substantive area and allowing the user a degree of control within the situation. Finally, the theory should also be modifiable as new data is introduced and as the substantive area changes over time.

When reviewing the “write up” of a theory, the reviewer should make sure the theory goes beyond merely describing concepts by explaining the relationships among the concepts. As mentioned earlier, these are often expressed as hypothetical probability statements that clarify how one concept influences other concepts within the context of the theory. Furthermore, Glaser (1998) discussed the need for a classic GT to be parsimonious. Thus, the theory should only contain the concepts that represent the applicable patterns of behavior and that are necessary to explain, predict and interpret what is occurring with the substantive area.

Beyond the criteria presented by Glaser and Strauss (Glaser, 1978, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), reviewers should also examine several elements related to how the theory is written. Simmons (personal communication May 25, 2004) explained that when “writing up” the theory, theoretical concepts are presented and discussed prior to providing examples from the data or the related relevant literature. Examples should be limited in use and primarily used to illustrate concepts or relationships that maybe clarified using an example. The theory should be written in the present tense with only examples from the data expressed in past tense.

Grounded Theory Research and Existing Reporting Guidelines

Appropriate criteria to assess the quality of a manuscript reporting a research study depends on many factors including the research approach, study design, methods, findings, and limitations (Guyatt et al., 2008).  Although there has been robust development of standard reporting criteria for most quantitative study designs (Simera et al., 2010), there has been minimal advancement for qualitative research. With inadequate reporting of qualitative study designs, reviewers cannot adequately assess the trustworthiness and rigor of a research manuscript and the readers are unable to interpret the validity of the data and the strength of the findings. Arguably, the lack of a reporting checklist and limited reviewer knowledge about existing classic GT reporting criteria has contributed to the remodeling of the method (Glaser & Holton, 2004).

Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research

The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network established in 2006 is an international initiative that seeks “to improve the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines” (Equator Network, 2021, p. 5) They have published evidence-based reporting guidelines (Altman et al., 2008) organized within eleven main study areas specific to study designs, methodological strategies, procedures and techniques, sections of manuscripts, and protocol development. For qualitative research, there are two main reporting guidelines, including the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (Tong et al., 2007), or COREQ, and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (O’Brien et al., 2014), or SRQR. Although the guidelines provide checklists for reporting the minimum criteria for a qualitative research study, neither provides appropriate criteria for reporting a properly constructed and rigorously conducted grounded theory study (Leyva-Moral et al., 2021).

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) checklist was developed to support the adequate reporting of methodological criteria for interviews and focus group study designs. The 32-items in the checklist are recommendations derived from the literature for reporting studies using interviews and focus groups for data collection. The items are organized into three domains including research team and reflexivity, study design, and analysis and findings. The subdomains with individual criteria for quality reporting are specifically focused on the study design attributes associated with the trustworthiness and rigor of the interviews. As such, the COREQ is too narrowly focused to be useful for evaluating the special features defining a classic GT study.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

Developed from an assessment of the qualitative research literature, the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist improves the transparency of reporting ‘all aspects’ of qualitative research. The 32-item checklist is more comprehensive in scope than the COREQ with the criteria for reporting organized into six areas aligned with the standard manuscript sections for reporting a qualitative study. The areas include title and abstract, introduction, methods, results and findings, discussion, and others (disclosures). Whereas the COREQ is heavily concentrated on reporting key criteria for conducting interviews, the SRQR is focused on the research design including reporting the data collection processes and analysis. In the context of classic GT, the SRQR is too broad to cover the narrow but essential reporting criteria identified in this article as conceptualized by the original, unmodified, works of Glaser.

This article identified the essential methodological criteria for reporting a classic GT study. The evaluation of a classic GT study requires a reviewer to determine how the study was constructed (protocol) and how the study was conducted (implementation) based upon essential reporting criteria. Despite the existing reporting criteria for classic GT studies, the current qualitative reporting guidelines are too general to identify a manuscript with an inadequate study design or attempts to remodel the method based upon researcher preferences. As such, the classic GT criteria discussed in this article should be incorporated into existing guidelines to preserve the integrity and rigor of grounded theory as a distinct research method. The criteria identified in this review should be included as a classic GT study design extension in the EQUATOR framework to support the existing qualitative reporting guidelines.

Disclosures

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Altman, D. G., Simera, I., Hoey, J., Moher, D., & Schulz, K. (2008). EQUATOR: Reporting guidelines for health research. The Lancet , 371 (9619), 1149-1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60505-X

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis . SAGE Publishing. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/constructing-grounded-theory/book235960

Equator Network. (2021). EQUATOR Network: What we do and how we are organised . UK EQUATOR Centre. Retrieved November 1 from https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/equator-network-what-we-do-and-how-we-are-organised/

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems , 12 (4), 436-445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory . Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions . Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 1 (2), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100203

Glaser, B. G. (2014). Applying grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review , 13 (1), 46-50. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2014/06/22/applying-grounded-theory/

Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Qualitative Social Research Forum , 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory . Aldine Publishing Company.

Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008). What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ , 336 (7651), 995-998. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.BE

Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative and quantitative data . SAGE Publishing.

Leyva-Moral, J. M., Palmieri, P. A., Loayza-Enriquez, B. K., Vander Linden, K. L., Elias-Bravo, U. E., Guevara-Vasquez, G. M., Davila-Olano, L. Y., & Aguayo-Gonzalez, M. P. (2021). ‘Staying alive’ with antiretroviral therapy: A grounded theory study of people living with HIV in Peru. BMJ Global Health , 6 (10). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006772

Moher, D., Simera, I., Schulz, K. F., Hoey, J., & Altman, D. G. (2008). Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Medicine , 6 , 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-6-13

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine , 89 (9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388

Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Medicine , 8 , 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24

Simmons, O. E. (2010). Is that a real theory or did you just make it up? Teaching classic grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review , 9 (2), 15-38. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2010/06/25/is-that-a-real-theory-or-did-you-just-make-it-up-teaching-classic-grounded-theory/

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Sage Publications.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care , 19 (6), 349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

Yalof, B. (2014). Marshaling resources: A classic grounded theory study of online learners. Grounded Theory Review , 13 (1), 3. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2014/06/22/marshaling-resources-a-classic-grounded-theory-study-of-online-learners/

Subscribe to receive updates

Your email:

Call for Papers

Are you developing a classic grounded theory? Do you have data that could be resorted and further developed into a new grounded theory? Are you working on a formal theory, or are you reflecting on a methodological issue? We invite you to submit your paper for consideration for the next issue of Grounded Theory Review, which is published in late December and June each year.

The database of the Grounded Theory Review now contains more than a hundred articles on classic grounded theories—from either a methodological or a theoretical perspective. We would like to expand the open access database with more grounded theories that truly demonstrates the interdisciplinary potential of the classic grounded theory method. Following the 50th anniversary wish of GT’s co-founder Dr. Barney Glaser, we would like to see a conglomerate of new grounded theories that span a wide array of disciplines and topics and that demonstrate general applicability and conceptual strengths in diverse social contexts. The theories will be peer reviewed by experienced members of the advisory board of the Grounded Theory Review.

Please submit your paper no later than April 1 for the June edition and September 15 for the December edition.

Current Issue

• Issue 1, June 2023
• GT Institute
• GT Mentoring
• The Grounded Theory Review is published by Sociology Press ISSN: 1556-1550

Indexed by:

• EBSCO, Google Scholar, and DOAJ
• ESCI (Web of Science)
• Article Archives
• PDF Archives