Introduction to
Grounded Theory
By Steve Borgatti
Discussion drawn from:


Glaser and Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
Strauss and Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research.
Goals and Perspective
The phrase "grounded theory" refers to theory that is developed
inductively from a corpus of data. If done well, this means that the
resulting theory at least fits one dataset perfectly. This contrasts with
theory derived deductively from grand theory, without the help of data,
and which could therefore turn out to fit no data at all.
Grounded theory takes a case rather than variable perspective, although
the distinction is nearly impossible to draw. This means in part that the
researcher takes different cases to be wholes, in which the variables
interact as a unit to produce certain outcomes. A case-oriented
perspective tends to assume that variables interact in complex ways, and
is suspicious of simple additive models, such as ANOVA with main effects
only.
Part and parcel of the case-orientation is a comparative orientation.
Cases similar on many variables but with different outcomes are compared
to see where the key causal differences may lie. This is based on John
Stuart Mills' (1843, A system of logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive)
method of differences -- essentially the use of (natural) experimental
design. Similarly, cases that have the same outcome are examined to see
which conditions they all have in common, thereby revealing necessary
causes.
The grounded theory approach, particularly the way Strauss develops it,
consists of a set of steps whose careful execution is thought to
"guarantee" a good theory as the outcome. Strauss would say that the
quality of a theory can be evaluated by the process by which a theory is
constructed. (This contrasts with the scientific perspective that how you
generate a theory, whether through dreams, analogies or dumb luck, is
irrelevent: the quality of a theory is determined by its ability to explain
new data.)
Although not part of the grounded theory rhetoric, it is apparent that
grounded theorists are concerned with or largely influenced by emic
understandings of the world: they use categories drawn from respondents
themselves and tend to focus on making implicit belief systems explicit.
Methods
The basic idea of the grounded theory approach is to read (and re-read)
a textual database (such as a corpus of field notes) and "discover" or
label variables (called categories, concepts and properties) and their
interrelationships. The ability to perceive variables and relationships
is termed "theoretical sensitivity" and is affected by a number of things
including one's reading of the literature and one's use of techniques
designed to enhance sensitivity.
Of course, the data do not have to be literally textual -- they could be
observations of behavior, such as interactions and events in a restaurant.
Often they are in the form of field notes, which are like diary entries.
An example is here.
Open Coding
Open coding is the part of the analysis concerned with identifying, naming,
categorizing and describing phenomena found in the text. Essentially,
each line, sentence, paragraph etc. is read in search of the answer to
the repeated question "what is this about? What is being referenced here?"
These labels refer to things like hospitals, information gathering,
friendship, social loss, etc. They are the nouns and verbs of a conceptual
world. Part of the analytic process is to identify the more general
categories that these things are instances of, such as institutions, work
activities, social relations, social outcomes, etc.
We also seek out the adjectives and adverbs --- the properties of these
categories. For example, about a friendship we might ask about its
duration, and its closeness, and its importance to each party. Whether
these properties or dimensions come from the data itself, from respondents,
or from the mind of the researcher depends on the goals of the research.
It is important to have fairly abstract categories in addition to very
concrete ones, as the abstract ones help to generate general theory.
Consider what is implied in the following passage of text (Strauss and
Corbin pg. 78):
Text Fragment 1
Pain relief is a major problem when you have arthritis. Sometimes, the pain is worse
than other times, but when it gets really bad, whew! It hurts so bad, you don't want to
get out of bed. You don't feel like doing anything. Any relief you get from drugs that you
take is only temporary or partial.
One thing that is being discussed here is PAIN. Implied in the text is
that the speaker views pain as having certain properties, one of which
is INTENSITY: it varies from a little to a lot. (When is it a lot and when
is it little?) When it hurts a lot, there are consequences: don't want
to get out of bed, don't feel like doing things (what are other things
you don't do when in pain?). In order to solve this problem, you need PAIN
RELIEF. One AGENT OF PAIN RELIEF is drugs (what are other members of this
category?). Pain relief has a certain DURATION (could be temporary), and
EFFECTIVENESS (could be partial).
One can see that this sort of analysis has a very emic cast to it, even
though I think that most grounded theorists believe they are theorizing
about how the world *is* rather than how respondents see it.
The process of naming or labeling things, categories, and properties is
known as coding. Coding can be done very formally and systematically or
quite informally. In grounded theory, it is normally done quite informally.
For example, if after coding much text, some new categories are invented,
grounded theorists do not normally go back to the earlier text to code
for that category. However, maintaining an inventory of codes with their
descriptions (i.e., creating a codebook) is useful, along with pointers
to text that contain them. In addition, as codes are developed, it is
useful to write memos known as code notes that discuss the codes. These
memos become fodder for later development into reports.
An example of a code note is found here.
Axial Coding
Axial coding is the process of relating codes (categories and properties)
to each other, via a combination of inductive and deductive thinking. To
simplify this process, rather than look for any and all kind of relations,
grounded theorists emphasize causal relationships, and fit things into
a basic frame of generic relationships. The frame consists of the
following elements:
Element
Description
Phenomenon
This is what in schema theory might be called the name of the schema
or frame. It is the concept that holds the bits together. In grounded
theory it is sometimes the outcome of interest, or it can be the subject.
Causal
conditions
These are the events or variables that lead to the occurrence or
development of the phenomenon. It is a set of causes and their
properties.
Context
Hard to distinguish from the causal conditions. It is the specific
locations (values) of background variables. A set of conditions
influencing the action/strategy. Researchers often make a quaint
distinction between active variables (causes) and background variables
(context). It has more to do with what the researcher finds interesting
(causes) and less interesting (context) than with distinctions out in
nature.
Intervening
conditions
Similar to context. If we like, we can identify context with moderating
variables and intervening conditions with mediating variables. But it is
not clear that grounded theorists cleanly distinguish between these two.
Action
strategies
The purposeful, goal-oriented activities that agents perform in response
to the phenomenon and intervening conditions.
Consequences
These are the consequences of the action strategies, intended and
unintended.
In the text segment above, it seems obvious that the phenomenon of interest
is pain, the causal conditions are arthritis, the action strategy is
taking drugs, and the consequence is pain relief. Note that grounded
theorists don't show much interest in the consequences of the phenomenon
itself.
It should be noted again that a fallacy of some grounded theory work is
that they take the respondent's understanding of what causes what as truth.
That is, they see the informant as an insider expert, and the model they
create is really the informant's folk model.
Selective Coding
Selective coding is the process of choosing one category to be the core
category, and relating all other categories to that category. The
essential idea is to develop a single storyline around which all
everything else is draped. There is a belief that such a core concept
always exists.
I believe grounded theory draws from literary analysis, and one can see
it here. The advice for building theory parallels advice for writing a
story. Selective coding is about finding the driver that impels the story
forward.
Memos
Memos are short documents that one writes to oneself as one proceeds
through the analysis of a corpus of data. We have already been introduced
to two kinds of memos, the field note and the code note (see above). Equally
important is the theoretical note. A theoretical note is anything from
a post-it that notes how something in the text or codes relates to the
literature, to a 5-page paper developing the theoretical implications of
something. The final theory and report is typically the integration of
several theoretical memos. Writing theoretical memos allows you to think
theoretically without the pressure of working on "the" paper.
An example of a theoretical memo is here.
Process
Strauss and Corbin consider that paying attention to processes is vital.
It is important to note that their usage of "process" is not quite the
same as Lave and March, who use process as a synonym for "explanatory
mechanism". Strauss and Corbin are really just concerned with describing
and coding everything that is dynamic -- changing, moving, or occurring
over time -- in the research setting.
Example
Example of Field and Code Notes
From Strauss and Corbin (1990)
9/15/88 Field Note
You asked me to tell you about my experience with pain in childbirth. It's
been quite a few years since I've had a baby. The funny thing about pain,
whatever its source, is that once it's over, you kind of bury it deep in
your subconscious somewhere. You can say that it was awful or not so bad,
but this expression is filtered through a haze. You can't really feel it
anywhere, you just have images of what you think it was like. Do you know
what I mean?
Childbirth is weird. You kind of dread it because you hear so much about
the pain of labor, on the other hand you look forward to it because you're
tired of carrying the child and anxious to see it. The pain is seen as
the only way of getting there so you know you have to go through it. You
just hope that it won't be too bad. Or that they will give you something
if it is. The pain is expected, you think about it, dread it, prepare for
it by going to classes and learning how to control and tolerate it. In
the beginning it's not too bad, toward the end though, it kind of
overwhelms you. The force just kind of takes you over. But you do have
moments of rest in between. And you know it is going to end, as soon as
that baby comes out. And they can give you something to make it hurt less.
I was lucky. I had short labors. So I didn't need any kind of medication.
I just used my breathing and relaxing exercises. But I can see that if
it goes on for hours and hours how you would get tired and need something.
10/10/89 Code Note
Analysis pertains to fieldnote Code #45, p.2, dated 9/15/88. PAIN, PAIN
MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS, ACTION/INTERACTION STRATEGIES, CONSEQUENCES OR
MANAGING THE PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH
We are talking here about a particular type of pain event-that associated
with childbirth. This association gives the pain experience its specific
properties or location along the dimensional continua. The pain of
childbirth is expected (degree of expectancy), can be controlled (degree
of controllability) grows more intense as the labor progresses (degree
of intensity also denotes that there is phasing), has a known beginning,
onset of labor, and an end, delivery of the child (course of trajectory),
and it is intermittent with periods of no pain in between (degree of
continuity). Oddly enough, the pain of childbirth has another quality or
characteristic that is quite strange and difficult to express. Pain is*
part of a labor process, labor of course serving an end-the end of
pregnancy, the delivery of the awaited child. Hmm. How do I describe this
property? The pain itself is not purposeful, but associated with a
purposeful activity-labor. (**** I'll note this though I'm not yet sure
what to do with this. It doesn't necessarily mean acceptance (though it
might to some people), or tolerance, but perhaps it gives the pain a
certain degree of predictability? This still doesn't quite capture this
phenomenon.)
These specific properties of childbirth pain create the context in which
the management of that pain takes place from the women's perspective.
From this fieldnote I can come up with the following potential
relationships. Under conditions, where the pain (childbirth) is known
beforehand, thus one can prepare; when it is intermittent rather than
continuous; when its intensity varies over the course from mild at the
beginning to more intense later; when labor is fairly short or at least
follows a predictable course; and there are known techniques for
controlling its intensity and these can be learned or negotiated for. Then,
one can take action to control the intensity of the pain during labor
through pain management techniques such as the use of relaxation and
breathing techniques, pain medication, or anesthesia (caudal,
pericervical). The consequences or outcomes of the use of these management
techniques may not be absolute control but control of sufficient degree
to get one through the labor.
One may enter labor with some predefined sense of what management
techniques one is likely to use, such as breathing and relaxation
techniques, however if the pain management context changes due to
contingency such as labor becoming prolonged due to complications, then
one may have to alter that predefined plan of management and use
supplements or alternatives to those original techniques.
Other potential categories, properties to come out of this fieldnote to
be explored in further memos are:
pain consciousness or memory-this seems acute at first but dulls with time.
Phases of pain trajectory-this bears examining. Predictability of the
pain and how this acts as a condition for management.
This fieldnote suggests but does not address: What about the timing and
amount of medication, anesthesia? What are their effects, potential
risks?
Theoretical Note.
Strauss and Corbin 1990. pp. 216-7.
AS/JC 7-22-88 (Telephone)
************IMPORTANT MEMO: ROUTINE/NOVEL
I posed the issue, long ago observed, that nurses encountered typical
problems --- often costly of time and effort and sentiment --- but do not
act to change institutional rules or procedures to prevent. Rather they
go on with their institutionalized-routine ways of doing work.
(Problematic dying patients for instance, or as in pain book). Rather they
typify this patient as like one(s) they have had before. But afterward
there is no institutional change. These I have thought for a long time
are due to the way organizations get work done, their priorities, and
perhaps structural strains that precipitate recurrent semicrises. But
here is a much better and detailed set of answers.
1. When work processes break down, then there is a change of procedure.
2. If they don't change procedures, it's because the work associated with the problem is not
of high priority. The nurses are SO BUSY doing the high priority work, that they don't
have time and effort to do anything else. They will, in fact, if the problem (like a problem
patient) gets bad enough call in specialists-social work- ers, chaplains,
psychiatrists-because their own work has to go on. Or they will ignore the patient;
perhaps making the problem worse, but...
3. If the work affected by the breakdown of work process is of high priority (like affect its
efficiency or patient's safety), then they have to reflect on how to prevent this from
occurring again.
1. If the change is easily done, then it is done through interactional processes:
negotiation, persuasion, even some coercion.
2. If the change will be difficult organizationally, this essentially means a lot of
additional work must be done but it must be done --- that is: figuring out what's
to be done, planning decision making, persuading, negotiating, finding new
resources, acting to raise motivation, additional supervising when the new routines are instituted, etc. And of course, an additional drain on the total articulation
process until everything is acting smoothly again.
4. So, what we are saying is that THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR AND
MECHANISMS THROUGH WHICH ACTION IS INSTITUTED TO REPLACE
ROUTINES WITH NEW INSTITUTIONALIZED PROCEDURES. Notice: we have to
look more closely at the meaning of routine procedures. At the lowest level, it means how
tasks are done. But this can be done by staff agreement as well as by administrative rules.
How To Theorize
This material drawn liberally from Lave & March
An Introduction to Models in the Social Science
(some changes have been made)
Start with an observation. For example, think about being in college.
You're in class, and the guy next to you -- who is obviously a football
player -- says an unbelievably dumb thing in class. So you ask yourself:
Why? And the answer comes thundering back:

Football players are dumb.
This is a theory. It is not a very good one, but it is a start. What would
make it better?
One thing would be to make it a little more general. Theories that are
too narrow and specific are not very interesting, even if they are correct.
So, we could say:

Athletes are dumb
This is better, but the theory still has no sense of process, of
explanation. It says, athletes have this property of being dumb, and
that's why they ask dumb questions. Dumb begets dumb. Does that actually
explain anything? Or does it just push the thing to be explained one step
back? Why are athletes dumb? It's like when kids ask you 'Why is the sky
blue?' and you say 'Because it is, that's why'.
There is also a circularity here. What do we mean when we say that a person
is dumb? Practically speaking, it means that they consistently behave
dumbly. We cannot perceive dumbness directly. The only way we can know
whether people are dumb is by what they say and do. Yet what we are trying
to explain is a dumb thing that they said. So in effect we are saying that
they say dumb things because they say dumb things.
The really big problem with circularity is that it prevents theories from
being falsifiable. For example, take the theory that if you perform the
Rain Dance Ceremony and all the participants are pure of heart, it will
rain the next day. This theory is not falsifiable because if you perform
the ceremony and it rains, the theory is confirmed. If you perform the
ceremony and it doesn't rain, that tells you right away that one of the
participants was not pure of heart, and again the theory is confirmed.
A good theory has a sense of process. It describes a mechanism by which
A makes B happen, like the way the gears in a car transfer the rotation
in the engine to a rotation of the tires. For example, look at this
explanation:

To be a good athlete requires lots of practice time; being smart in class also requires study
time. Amount of time is limited, so practicing a sport means less studying which means
being less smart in class.
This has much more of a sense of explanation. When reading this account,
we have a much greater sense of satisfaction that something is being
accomplished by theorizing. Of greatest importance is that the focus of
the story is a mechanism, not an enduring property of a class of people
(athletes). This means that we can apply the same reasoning to other people
and other situations. Let's rewrite it this way:

[Limited Time Theory] There is limited time in a day, so when a person engages in a
very time-consuming activity, such as athletics, it takes away from other very
time-consuming activies, such as studying.
An implication of this theory is that we should also observe that good
musicians (who practice many hours a day) should also be dumb in class.
If we don't find this, the theory is wrong. This is in part what makes
it such a good theory. It is general enough to generate implications for
other groups of people and other contexts, all of which serve as potential
tests of the theory. That is, the theory is fertile.
The essence of theorizing is that you start with an observation, and then
imagine the observation as the outcome of a (hidden) process.
Here is another process that would lead to the outcome of a football player
asking a dumb question in class:

[Excellence Theory] Everyone has a need to excel in one area. Achieving excellence in
any one area is enough to satisfy this need. Football players satisfy their need for
accomplishment through football, so they are not motivated to be smart in class.
This theory also has implications for other groups of people, such as
musicians or beauty queens.
Here's one last theory:

[Jealousy Theory] We are jealous of others’ success. When we are jealous, we
subconsciously lower our evaluation of that person’s performance in other areas. So we
think football players ask dumb questions.
This theory has some interesting implications. For example, because we
are jealous of rich people, we love soap operas which reveal how unhappy
the rich really are. Similarly, perhaps really beautiful women get a lot
of recognition and status, so others will feel that beautiful women are
dumb. This would explain the widespread stereotype of the "dumb blonde"
or "bimbo".
Choosing Among Competing Theories
We can use the fertility and non-circularity of all these theories to help
test and choose among them. If the theory is specified clearly enough,
we can essentially present a situation to a theory and ask what it would
expect as an outcome. The idea, then, is to collect a set of situations
which the different theories would have different predictions or
expectations about.
Consider, for example, how football players should behave (or appear to
behave) in class out of season. Will they still be asking dumb questions?
According to the first theory (Limited Time), football players should not
ask dumb questions out of season, because there is plenty of time to study.
[Whether or not there is ever a time when football players are not consumed
by the sport is another question.] But according to the second theory
(Recognition), members of the football team should continue to ask dumb
questions because they are still football players and still getting
recognition, so they still don't need to excel academically. The third
theory (Jealousy) also yields the expectation of continued dumb questions,
because we are still jealous.
So studying football player behavior out of season should help to
distinguish between the first theory and the other two, no matter how the
data turn out. If the football players appear smart, then the Recognition
and Jealousy theories are wrong. If the football players appear dumb, then
the Limited Time theory is wrong. [Of course, we can make the theory more
complicated: having limited time during the season makes them dumb in
class for those times, which erodes their confidence and interest, so they
that even when they have the time, they still don't study effectively,
so they don't do any better in the off-season. We'll deal with that some
other time.]
Now, consider athletes who do not look like athletes -- they are not
unusually big (like football) or tall (like basketball) or fat (like sumo
wrestling). Will they appear to ask dumb questions? The Limited Time
theory will again clearly say "yes" because practice time is unaffected
by physique. The Excellence theory will also say "yes" because even if
people can't recognize them on the street, they are still fulfilling their
need to do one thing really well so they will not feel the need to excel
in class. The Jealousy theory would say "no" for most people because they
just don't know that they are in the presence of an athlete.
Expectations Generated by Each Theory For Two Situations
Question
Limited
Time
Football players ask dumb questions out of season?
No
Yes
Yes
Will athletes who do not look like athletes ask dumb
questions?
Yes
Yes
No
Excellence Jealousy
Once again, no matter how the data turn out, we will know which theories
are wrong. Note that if the answer to both questions is No, that means
that all the theories are wrong, since none predict a NO answer to both
questions.
In practice, we would want to ask many other questions as well, even ones
that more or less duplicate the expected answers for other questions. For
example, consider how football players appear in schools where football
is not important. Will they still be asking dumb questions? The Limited
Time theory clearly says "yes" because they still have to practice even
if nobody on campus cares about football. The Excellence theory also says
"yes", because football is still satisfying their need for accomplishment.
And the Jealousy theory would say "no" because we are not jealous unless
football is a source of status. So this question has the same pattern of
expected answers as question #2:
Question
Limited
Time
FB players ask dumb questions in schools where FB is not
important?
Yes
Excellence Jealousy
Yes
No
Every implication of one theory is potentially useful in choosing among
all the theories. For example, we noted earlier that an implication of
the limited time theory was that students studying music should also ask
dumb questions, because of the time they spend practicing their instrument.
So what would the other theories say about musicians?
Question
Limited Time Excellence Jealousy
Musicians ask dumb questions too?
Yes
Yes
No
(I'm assuming here that people don't realize, just by looking at their
classmates, who is a musician, and that it not terribly high status
anyway.)
Copyright ©1996 Stephen P.
Borgatti
Go to Home Page
Revised: September 22, 1996