Dear Colleagues
I need help as soon as you can. I just registered this year to study PhD with University of Pretoria. I need a simplified explanation on what is it all about and how this model works?

I am in a process of writing my research proposal. My work will be focusing on developing a model of practice to improve the service delivery for adolescents to access health facilities to get quality sexual reproductive health care services to empower them to become resilient to withstand sexual coercion. I am reading Research Books and Journal to get a better understanding. If somebody can explain Grounded Theory it will help me to speed up my writing. Thanks, Olga.

You can't go wrong with the original, although it can be a bit inaccessible at times. Most academic books of the 60's and 70's were. I guess it created a nice elitist barrier for us oiks, either that or typewriters had no Flesch–Kincaid tests.

1. Glaser, B & Strauss, A (2006) The discovery of grounded theory : strategies for qualitative research / Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss.
Glaser has a website: http://www.groundedtheory.com/

If you want a systematic fool-proof, methodologically fraught guide (harder to defend at a viva):
2. Strauss, A & Corbin, J (1990) Basics of qualitative research : grounded theory procedures and techniques

If you want more a loose structure:
3. Charmaz, K (2006) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques

Other than that, just look at pretty much any qualitative data analysis book for the last 30 years in social sciences section, GT will be there. Remember it is a methodology not a method. Also go to the British library ethos online. Search for GT and there are 1000's of theses with simplified explanations in methodology chapters. Some are shockingly bad mind, but others are good. If you get really stuck, laughable as it may be - wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on GT

thank you very much for the reply. managed to get the Strauss and Corbin book. I also googled info on GT through WIkipedia and got 2 articles which were helpful. I really appreciate your guidance. Stay blessed.

Thank you this is very helpful. Much appreciated. Olga

The book by Charmaz (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory mentioned by Bluespace is pretty good. I'm currently using it as a mouse pad for my wireless mouse while reading with laptop propped on lap and watching Eurovision song contest semi finals on TV. But seriously, I'm finding it a bit more useful for my purposes than straight Glaser and Strauss or Strauss and Corbin. Charmaz is turning up in many of the studies and articles, Ive been checking out for methodology-they are mainly nursing articles (bit of a sideways step for me in Education) but they sound good for health care services though.:-)

Thank you . That was helpful. I purchased a Charmaz copy through Amazon and it is enroute to me. I value and appreciate your advice. I am hanging there and working hard to finalize my Research Proposal. Cheers, Olga.

just to echo Pjlu, LOTS of GT studies in nursing. I referenced quite a few of them in my research which isn't in any way health or nursing related.

There are websites devoted to GT as others have said and obviously many articles. A few good ones are freely available and might help to get your head around what GT is and what it is not:

Elliott, N. and Lazenbatt (2005) How to recognise a 'quality' grounded theory research study

Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria

Wilson Scott, K. (2004) Relating categories in grounded theory analysis: using a conditional relationship guide and reflective coding matrix

Hallenberg, L. (2006) The "core category" of grounded theory: making constant comparisons

Suddaby, R. (2006) From the editors: what grounded theory is not {Get this one above all others}

Rutherford, G. (2011) Peeling the layers: a grounded theory of interprofessional co-learning with residents of a homeless shelter {very very useful paper on 'how to' report a grounded theory study}

McFerran, K. (2010) tipping the scales: a substantive theory on the value of group music therapy for supporting grieving teenagers {another very useful paper for how to report GT}

Wilson, H. and Ambler, S. (1996) Methodologic mistakes in grounded theory

I found all of these useful for getting to grips with GT, regardless of what the authors were actually researching. Pm me if you want any but can't access.

The 'GT' portion of my viva was the part I enjoyed most:-)

Ady, thanks for supplying the extra articles. And Olga, I have done my research proposal as part of my initial application but am now having to finalise my formal research plan, which needs to be in by June 8th, so like you, I am trying to condense my methodology into something succinct and hopefully intelligent sounding! Good luck(up)

Yes thank you Ady for posting all of those really helpful references, I'm also using "an approach similar to GT" (!) so this has been really great! (up) thanks to the OP for starting the thread too! :-)

This is an update on the Grounded Theory topic. I have just received (from my uni's library) a copy of the SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (Eds. Bryant and Charmaz) publication date 2007. I had to wait for it for weeks on order. It is a really thorough book but a chapter I am reading currently by Hood called 'Defining Traits of Grounded Theory' has made me a little cautious about whether what I thought I would be doing is actually true grounded theory or something else-basically an inductive interpretive model, very similar but some core differences.

I love my PhD supervisor but I am not sure that she actually understands how rigorous real grounded theory is. It was her suggestion that I use it as methodology and when I have discussed things like how a literature review is conducted in a grounded theory-which is a bit different to a general case study methodology or inductive model, I'm not sure whether she got the differences because she was encouraging me to just go ahead in the usual way. But it could be that I am just having 'cold feet'. I am going to have to put some boundaries on my collection of data and time-lines and authentic grounded theory would not impose these forms of boundaries (at least that is what I understand from present readings) plus my sample will be purposeful but also based on some a priori criteria-and I don't think grounded theory uses the a priori criteria.

Anyway, this handbook is really good-can't send it on or bits of it as it is a hard copy and I had to wait weeks for my own library to get it to me but it is worth a look. Good luck all...if I am in a better more positive methodological space in a couple of days, I'll post my findings...

Hi Pjlu,

I'm also using GT for my PhD, and have taken a constructivist approach. A couple of weeks ago at my uni, we had a GT interest group and we managed to arrange for Barney Glaser to attend via Skype for a Q+A...really cool! I asked him a few questions (sheepishly!) regarding the use of technology (I.e NVIVO) and also about epistemological assumptions and 'classic' GT.

Anyway, having reflected on that what he and others from the Classic GT institute I'm convinced I'm not doing GT, as it was originally described. Classic GT appears quite different to either S+C or Charmazian GT. I'm probably doing (as you said), qualitative conceptual description...or something like that. However, I do tick many of the GT 'boxes' i.e data collection and analysis together, memo writing, theoretical sampling, achieving saturation/suffcicency, coding, and grounding my 'theory' in the data. I'm more than happy to defend not using Classic GT, as it's positivist/post positivist assumptions don't align with my personal assumptions about knowledge, reality etc.

I think Classic GT is a 'utopian' ideal, and that thinking you can just 'see patterns' and allow the theory to 'emerge' without any active involvement by the researcher/observer is problematic, and I would find it hard to defend when analysing and interpreting interview data.....

What's in a name anyway!?!

======= Date Modified 31 May 2012 09:59:18 =======
============= Edited by a Moderator =============
*Removed by PostGrad Forum team - SPAM*

Hi Olga and Phdee,

Well after three hectic days of tooing and froing, I have my research plan complete and the beginning methodology complete-now two glasses of wine later in celebration and listening to music combo of Amy Winehouse, Michael Jackson's Thriller and "I will walk 500 miles" giving away my age here-am going to try to remain coherent and hope my spelling and grammar skills remain with me...

Okay-Grounded theory is out for me but I will use (as you are Phdee) some of the methodologies. I am using experiential phenomenology instead after Van Manen-looking at hermaneutical phenomenological analysis of emergent themes-so will use general inductive methods but stop short of some of the GT methods as I think that I will want to look at the literature before and after and I think that I'm going to find that attribution of meaning (by participants- and discussion of beliefs as well) is going to be important to my topic. I think intuitively I'm doing the right thing but hope that my supervisor who was getting excited by the grounded theory aspect is okay with this. But am just going to send her and the Grad research office the complete plan and hope it reads exotically enough that everyone is happy.

God knows, I'm going to have to learn to say phenonemological as well as spell it! Hope all is well Olga with your methods plans and your argument sounds really cogent PhDee so much luck and positive vibes to you as well. Now I'm having a one day break, doing some washing and cleaning and then after that it is onto the ethics application before work starts up again.;-)