grounded theory

An exploration of the origin of

classic grounded theory
Jennifer Moore looks at the origin, development,
misinterpretation and misuse of grounded theory
Abstract
In grounded theory, assumptions and paradigms underpin the approach giving the researcher an understanding and ability to justify what makes something count as knowledge. However, the epistemological assumptions related
to grounded theory are not clearly explained, which appears to have led to

key words

misinterpretation and misuse of method, particularly in nursing research.

grounded theory
symbolic interactionism
epistemological underpinning
qualitative research

Analysis of the literature pertaining to the development of grounded theory

and its epistemological roots shows a general consensus relating to where,
how and why the method originated. Wells (1995) suggests that it was developed in the mid-1960s by social science researchers Glaser and Strauss while
studying the interactions of hospital personnel with dying patients. They then
went on to publish it in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser
and Strauss 1967). Wells also suggests that this theory has gone on to be
extended and refined by its authors and their students.
However, this oversimplified description, which is mirrored in much of the
literature, understates this innovative and radical theory the two researchers
appear to have developed as a consequence of methodological restrictions
they experienced. Indeed, their disenchantment with logico-deductive theorys emphasis on verification, which was inherent in social science research at
that time, is apparent in their early work:
8 NURSERESEARCHER 2009, 17, 1

grounded theory

Grounded theory can help to forestall the opportunistic use of theories that
have a dubious fit and working capacity. So often in journals we read a
highly empirical study which at its conclusion has a tacked-on explanation
taken from a logically deduced theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
It should also help students defend themselves against verifiers who would
teach them to deny the validity of their own scientific intelligence. By making generation a legitimate enterprise, and suggesting methods for it, we
hope to provide the ingredients of a defence against internalized professional mandates dictating that sociologists research and write in the verification
rhetoric, and against the protests of colleagues who object to their freedom
in research from the rigorous rules of verification (so stifling the creative
energies required for discovering theory) (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Although both authors were social scientists, they were working in nurse education and, according to Lowenburg (1993), taught nurse scholars at doctoral
level. Significantly, it was during this time that nursing as a discipline was
undergoing a radical cultural shift through education and the emergence of
research activity. As Simpson (1989) comments, the earliest studies of nursing
began in the 1960s, alongside the studies of nurses, their education, organisation and management. Perhaps Glaser and Strauss aligned themselves with
another discipline to enjoy greater latitude in a profession with a fledgling
research culture and tradition.
Misconceptions in grounded theory
It is suggested in the literature that the foundations of grounded theory are
embedded in symbolic interactionism (Polit and Beck 2006), which focuses
on the manner in which people make sense of social interactions and the
interpretations they attach to social symbols, such as language. However,
Glaser and Strauss did not make this explicit themselves, and it is not apparent in their work. Rather, it was Hammersley (1989) who compared grounded theory with Blumers interactionist approach.
In their early work, Glaser and Strauss (1967) did little to suggest that the
perspectives of those studied should be voiced unless they were subsumed
NURSERESEARCHER 2009, 17, 1

grounded theory

into the over-arching goal of theory development. They state that the
researcher is an active sampler of theoretically relevant data, not an ethnographer trying to get the fullest data on a group (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Although Strauss has been credited with incorporating representation in
his modified versions of grounded theory, his focus is on representation of
concepts in their various forms hence his suggestion that researchers stay
conceptual when recording memos as they are not about people, or incidents
or events (Strauss and Corbin 1990). The example he uses to illustrate coding from data is illustrative of this lack of commitment to representation of
perspectives of people:
The pain in my hands from my arthritis is really bad in damp cold weather.
I wake up with it in the morning and it lasts throughout the day. The only
time it seems to get better is at night when I am warm and under the
covers.
Is converted to:
10/7/89 Refer to field note code #5, p.6, dated 10/1/8. Code Note: Pain
And Its Properties And Dimensions (Strauss and Corbin 1990).
This vivid account of the lived experience of a person having to cope with
and adapt to chronic pain has been reconfigured into a detached abstraction,
devoid of the person or meaning to that person.
Another misconception that exists in relation to grounded theory is that
it is often identified as a qualitative research approach. However Glaser
and Strauss (1967) were critical of qualitative research, describing it as too
impressionistic and not theoretical enough. They suggested that monographs based on qualitative data consisted of lengthy, detailed descriptions
that resulted in very small amounts of theory. They also criticised qualitative
research because of its poor showing in producing the scientifically reproducible fact (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Their stated aim in generating grounded theory was to further systematise
qualitative research and to systematically relate qualitative and quantitative
10 NURSERESEARCHER 2009, 17, 1

grounded theory

research to obtain the best of both methods for generating theory (Glaser
and Strauss 1967). Grounded theory could therefore be used by those wishing to generate theory with quantitative data, as the process of generating theory is independent of the data. This did not suggest, however, that
grounded theory was intended as an overall qualitative method.
Later, Strauss attempted to move away from the positivist emphasis subliminally inherent in The Generation of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss,
1967) using an example from art: If the artist does not perfect a new vision
in his process of doing, he acts mechanically and repeats some old model
fixed like a blueprint in his mind (Strauss and Corbin 1990). This may be
interpreted as a criticism of Glaser, who adhered to the original principles of
grounded theory and who had previously criticised Strausss reworking of the
traditional approach (Glaser 1978). The use of phrases such as old model
and new vision certainly convey this message. In addition the word process, although used in a different context, provides a strong association with
grounded theory, as it is one of the underlying epistemological tenets of this
approach. Alternatively, it could be seen as a form of apology and explanation by Strauss to Glaser for exactly the same reasons.
The misinterpretation of the epistemological basis of grounded theory
has contributed to the inconsistencies in understanding and application of
this approach. I believe that Glaser and Strauss never intended their original descriptor of grounded theory to be used as a prescriptive framework.
Their main aim was to stimulate other theorists to codify and publish their
methods for generating theory. They admit that they were keeping the discussion open minded and that their intention was to stimulate rather than
freeze thinking on the topic (Glaser and Strauss 1967). This appears not to
have happened, and they were left with the legacy of trying to justify the
old model in Glasers case or rework it in Strausss.
Grounded theory as a qualitative methodology
Grounded theory was taken on board as a qualitative research approach
because of the effect Glaser and Strauss had through proximity to neophyte
nurse researchers. Lowenberg (1993) suggests that the methods advocated
by the authors were widely disseminated by graduates of their doctoral proNURSERESEARCHER 2009, 17, 1

11

grounded theory

gramme, and as a result the grounded theory approach became prominent

in nursing and education.
However, their desire to break free from the culture of playing theoretical
capitalists to proletariat testers (Glaser and Strauss 1967) appears to have
been a self-fulfilling prophecy. There was a ready acceptance of grounded
theory in nursing research (Lowenberg 1993) with little attempt to challenge
or modify the propositions made. Paradoxically, during this time, social scientists moved in diametrically opposite directions with research. Approaches in
social science became more radical and less structured, and the accompanying discourse examined the nature of social knowledge and the problematic
aspects of presentation (Lowenberg 1993).
It would appear that the reworking of grounded theory by the authors has
also contributed to the confusion and ambiguities voiced by many commentators. There is even some disagreement over whether there are fundamental
differences in the epistemological basis of the approaches taken by Glaser and
Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1990).
Developments in grounded theory
The modifications made to grounded theory by both authors have been welldocumented in the literature (McCann and Clark 2003, Heath and Cowley
2004, Lowenberg 1993), so I will not present a comprehensive analysis.
However, a brief summary of the differences will be given.
Heath and Cowley (2004) suggest that divergence mainly occurred in
the methodological aspect rather than the ontological and epistemological aspects of the theory, proposing that this was made explicit in Strauss
and Corbins (1990) work. Here, the classic method was reformulated and
focused further on analytical techniques. Heath and Cowley (2004) also
argue that Glasers work of 1978 and 1992, while remaining faithful to the
original approach, extended grounded theory and explained in more detail
concepts such as theoretical sampling, theoretical coding and theoretical
memos.
Alternatively, McCann and Clark (2003) suggests that there are marked
differences in the epistemological underpinning of the approaches taken by
both Glaser and Strauss. He argues that classical grounded theory is an inter12 NURSERESEARCHER 2009, 17, 1

grounded theory

pretative approach to research, guided by critical realist ontology and a postpositivist paradigm. He suggests that Strauss and Corbins (1990) approach
to grounded theory draws on social constructionist ontology and the poststructuralist paradigm. He asserts that their modification of grounded theory
moved from a flexible, laissez-faire approach that takes into account the
principles and practices of qualitative research and the informants socially
constructed realities, to an approach to data collection and analysis more
governed by rules, moving from the emergence of categories in the classical
model to the imposition of a more structured paradigm model to guide data
collection and analysis.
Conclusion
In the light of Heath and Cowleys (2004) suggestion that a researcher
should not mix the two approaches because they might violate philosophical underpinnings of both, I used Glaser and Strausss (1967) classic version
of grounded theory as a guiding methodology for my doctoral research.
However, one of the main problems I encountered using this approach is that
there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake many stages of the research
process in between question generation and data analysis. However, this is
now unsurprising to me, having reviewed the underlying aims and paradigms
of its development as outlined in this paper n
Jennifer Moore is a lecturer at the Faculty of Health, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK

This article has been subject to double-blind review

NURSERESEARCHER 2009, 17, 1

13

grounded theory
references
Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Aldine de Grutyer, Hawthorne NY.
Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory.
Sociology Press, Mill Valley CA.
Glaser BG (1992) Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill
Valley CA.
Hammersley M (1989) The Dilemma Of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and The Chicago
Tradition. Routledge, London.
Heath H, Cowley S (2004) Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and
Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 41, 2, 141-150.
Lowenberg JS (1993) Interpretive research methodology: broadening the dialogue. Advances in
Nursing Science. 16, 2, 57-69.
McCann TV, Clark E (2003) Grounded theory in nursing research: part 2 critique. Nurse
Researcher. 11, 2, 19-28.
Polit DF, Beck CT (2006) Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. Sixth
Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia PA.
Simpson M (1989) Foreword. In: Macleod Clark J, Hockey L (Eds) Further Research for Nursing:
A New Guide for the Enquiring Nurse. Scutari Press, London.
Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park CA.
Wells K (1995) The strategy of grounded theory: possibilities and problems. Social Work Research.
19, 1, 33-37.

14 NURSERESEARCHER 2009, 17, 1