A topic in the Open Knowledge Graph — a free, open map of 15,290 topics and the order to learn them in.
Introduces Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory traditions for developing substantive theory from qualitative data. Covers open/axial/selective coding, constant comparison method, theoretical saturation, and memos as theory-building tools. Distinguishes GT from general qualitative analysis.
Code qualitative data with memo-writing, build category hierarchies, trace theory development across coding phases, compare Glaser and Strauss approaches on the same dataset.
Grounded theory is best understood as a systematic antidote to a common failure in qualitative research: arriving at fieldwork with a theory already in mind and then finding it confirmed everywhere. Where ethnography gives you rich description from immersive fieldwork, grounded theory provides a protocol for building conceptual categories *from* that data — rising from the particular to the theoretical without imposing prior frameworks prematurely.
The process begins with open coding: reading transcripts or field notes and naming every observation you encounter, as granularly as possible. At this stage you do not privilege one observation over another. Accompanying memos capture the thinking behind each code. Then comes axial coding: grouping open codes into categories and examining relationships — what conditions produce this phenomenon, what strategies do actors use, what are the consequences? The final phase, selective coding, involves identifying a core category that ties all other categories together and building a coherent theoretical narrative around it.
What distinguishes grounded theory from any other systematic qualitative coding is constant comparison: every new piece of data is compared against existing codes, categories, and emerging theory. Does this interview confirm the pattern? Contradict it? Suggest a new dimension? This iterative movement between data and developing theory is what makes the resulting theory genuinely grounded — it emerged through sustained contact with data rather than deduction from prior assumptions.
The stopping rule is theoretical saturation: you continue collecting data until new material no longer modifies or extends your categories. This is a conceptual criterion, not a numerical one — saturation is reached when theory is stable, regardless of how many interviews that required. The Glaserian tradition emphasizes pure discovery without forcing prior categories onto data; the Straussian (and later Constructivist) tradition accepts that researchers bring prior knowledge and that coding is inherently interpretive. The practical tension is real: strict Glaserians worry that structured coding imposes rather than discovers, while Straussian protocols provide the scaffolding many researchers need to build theory rigorously and transparently.
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.