Keywords

3.1 Introduction

The chapter contains extracts from Przemysław Hensel’s unpublished MA thesis entitled Język podczas zmiany kulturowej (Language in the process of cultural change), Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, 1997.

Grounded theory is a strategy for conducting qualitative research; its origins in social sciences date back to the 1960s. It is founded on three principles: First, researchers should embark on fieldwork without having formulated any hypotheses. By doing so, they ensure that existing theories do not affect their perception of phenomena encountered during fieldwork. Second, the method requires that researchers continuously compare and contrast pieces of collected empirical material. Through such comparison, a set of codes is developed and used subsequently for organizing and interpreting the empirical material, and for singling out the most important categories that will serve in formulating a theory about the studied phenomenon. Third, the research process is governed by the principle of theoretical sampling. Researchers select individuals and groups participating in the study in order to expand the researcher’s understanding of the problem rather than to form a representative sample , which is common for more traditional methodologies .

In this chapter, we shall present the genesis of grounded theory, its major principles and areas of application. It shall allow the reader to grasp the essential elements of grounded theory, understand basic differences between grounded theory and other research concepts, understand basic principles of research and become familiar with the most common methods and their application in procedures typical of grounded theory, and finally identify cases that best lend themselves to grounded theory methods.

3.2 Origins of Grounded Theory

Grounded theory dates back to the 1960s, when Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss published The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967). Since then, it has become one of the most influential methodological perspectives in social sciences. Grounded theory was created in opposition to the paradigm of deduction-based research process that had prevailed for decades. The deductive process begins with formulating hypotheses based on the existing theories; the collection of data follows; the process culminates in the verification of hypotheses as they are juxtaposed with the data. This deductive procedure has always had as many advocates as critics. Its proponents claim, inter alia, that more general and broader theories can be developed on the basis of logical arguments formulated on a number of a priori assumptions. Deductive procedures simplify the verification of the theory and its potential modification. Critics argue that this approach inhibits the emergence of new concepts; what is more, in the process of verifying the theory, we adjust the reality and the data to the theory’s convention, even if its fundamental role is to reflect the reality, not the other way around. Glaser and Strauss (1967) proposed a method that was alternative to the deductive approach and called it “grounded theory.” Grounded theory employs inductive methods that have a long tradition in social sciences: as Glaser, one of the originators of grounded theory, recently stated, “GT is simply the discovery of emerging patterns in data” (Walsh et al. 2015, p. 593). Glaser and Strauss’s approach is strongly related to symbolic interactionism , an approach to social reality that can be traced back to the work of George Herbert Mead. According to Blumer, it is based on the following three premises (Blumer 1969/2007, pp. 5–9). Firstly, human beings act toward objectsFootnote 1 on the basis of the meaning that these objects have for them. Secondly, the meaning of objects is derived from the social interaction between the individual and its environment. Thirdly, the meaning assigned to objects is subject to changes in the processes of interpretation and interaction—not only do individuals conform to the existing meanings, but they also change them.

Given the above premises, grounded theory seems suitable for the exploration of problems related to the perception of social phenomena rather than for the study of the “objective” reality (Suddaby 2006). The qualitative nature of this method renders it particularly suitable for research projects based on case studies (Eisenhardt 1989).

Glaser and Strauss (1967) emphasize that their strategy of comparative analysis focuses on the generation of theory understood as a process: in this sense, a theory is not a finite, complete product, but evolves and grows (just as its “objects,” i.e. social phenomena on which the theory is based, change over time ).

Comparative analysis proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) may result in the emergence of two types of theories: substantive and formal. Substantive theory means a theory that pertains to a specific empirical area of sociological research, such as race relations, managerial education or managers’ professional role. Formal theory deals with a formal, conceptual area of interest, for example, the phenomenon of socialization, the process of succession, deviation, and so on. Both types of theories can be considered mid-range theories. Substantive and formal theories operate at a certain level of generalization and differ in terms of their degree of generalization: they may intertwine within a single study. Numerous theories may apply to a single area which, according to Glaser and Strauss (1967), is a positive phenomenon (unlike in the deductive approach). It is sometimes recommended that unexperienced researchers who carry out projects on the basis of grounded theory for the first time should formulate substantive rather than formal theories (Tan 2010).

Grounded theory proves useful to investigators exploring a wide variety of topics. Its methodology should be particularly valuable to the following groups (Martin and Turner 1986): researchers who carry out pilot studies that precede further research on a larger scale; researchers who carry out a case study, which is expected to provide more than just an impression on the examined object; researchers who enquire into these areas in organization that lend themselves best to exploration using qualitative methods, such as institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006) and the emergence of proto-institutions (Hensel 2018); and researchers who are interested in a systematic and precise collection of facts for the purposes of high quality organizational research.

It should be noted that in recent years, grounded theory has begun to open up to new possibilities afforded by quantitative methods and several interesting mixed-method studies have been published (Walsh et al. 2015). The outline of grounded theory presented in this chapter may therefore be considered an introduction and a description of one among the numerous trends of grounded theory. We encourage readers to explore its varieties and schools of thought (see References).

3.3 Research Strategy

Grounded theory requires the researcher to observe a set of rules of conduct. First of all, in line with the method, the researcher should approach the subject with an open mind (the approach aptly described by Czarniawska-Joerges (1992) as the anthropologic frame of mind), without attempting to formulate hypotheses during the initial stages of research.

Although the concept of grounded theory is based on the absence of any a priori assumptions about the examined issue, it is evident that no researcher, even a novice, is a tabula rasa and always brings to the research process his or her own viewpoint, beliefs and suppositions, which have been collected throughout his or her life (Suddaby 2006). It is important to be aware of these inescapable determinants that influence the cognitive process and to consider them in order to “put them in brackets” (Ashworth 1996; Fischer 2009). In other words, a researcher should try to understand, on the one hand, the extent to which his or her interpretation reflects the analyzed reality and, on the other hand, the influence of his or her preconceptions, preferences and beliefs .

Research carried out in accordance with the rules of grounded theory comprises the following three stages: data collection, coding and identification of ideas, and formulation of theories. It must, however, be emphasized that the above steps are intertwined. Therefore, already at the stage of data collection relevant codes and ideas may be identified, while at the stage of coding and the identification of ideas, the collection of additional data may prove necessary (see Sect. 3.3.1).

3.3.1 Theoretical Sampling and Theoretical Saturation

In the process of collecting data in accordance with the tenets of grounded theory, the principle of theoretical sampling should be applied. In traditional research strategies, the process is based on a representative sample, that is, one constructed in a manner allowing every member of a given population to be represented in the analyzed group. In grounded theory, the logic behind the selection of objects for study is different, as the goal is not to “provide a perfect description of an area, but to develop a theory that accounts for much of the relevant behavior” (Glaser and Strauss 1967, pp. 30). The sample must, therefore, provide maximum diversity in terms of research material; when selecting groups and individuals that will form part of the sample, the researcher must try to “generate, to the fullest extent, as many properties of the categories as possible” (Glaser and Strauss 1967, p. 49). The sequence of steps is also different. In studies carried out in accordance with the deductive strategy the definition of the population is followed by random sampling, and the process is concluded with the examination of the objects from the sample. When grounded theory is applied, the size and makeup of the sample are initially unknown; it is subsequently supplemented with new objects added during the research process. It is based on the following premise: we are only capable of deciding whether more observations are necessary after a certain number of observations and interviews have already been carried out.

Data is collected until the point of theoretical saturation is reached, which means that further data collection would not expand our knowledge of the examined phenomenon or contribute to the development of the theory. Some authors specify when theoretical saturation is likely to be reached (i.e. upon having carried out a certain numbers of interviews), but such statements should be regarded with caution. In each case, it is the researcher’s task to decide whether theoretical saturation has been reached. This may prove problematic to novice researchers and is, therefore, a matter of concern for many of them. It turns out, however, that in the majority of research projects, the theoretical saturation point is relatively easy to identify. Some researchers decide to carry out a few interviews or observations after the theoretical saturation point has been reached; gathering seemingly redundant evidence provides a specific safeguard for their research.

3.3.2 Data Collection and Taking Notes

The first stage, which comprises the collection of data, observations and taking notes, is laborious and time-consuming. Glaser, one of the founders of grounded theory, claims that “all is data” (1998, p. 8). Data collection usually involves numerous observations and interviewsFootnote 2 (with note-taking). Observations carried out within the framework of grounded theory can take many forms: from simple non-participant observation to participant observation to shadowing (understood as being the “shadow” of the research subject and accompanying him/her in daily activities, for instance following a member of the board at work over a period of several days) (Czarniawska 2007). Each of these methods has its advantages and limitations, and the researcher should be aware of them (they are described in detail in other chapters of this textbook3). When conducting interviews, researchers usually have recourse to open anthropological interviews, which are not standardized and do not have any strictly defined or homogenous structure. These types of interviews are helpful, because the researcher does not seek to verify previously formulated hypotheses; on the contrary, the purpose is to learn something, identify new and interesting threads. Interviews ought to be recorded, because the researcher should not have to rely solely on his/her memory and notes. In addition, recording allows the researcher to focus on the conversation and take notes that do not relate directly to the content of the interview (which is being recorded), but, for example, describe the circumstances, the environment, facial expressions of the interlocutor and other factors or elements that may be relevant at the stage of coding and interpretation . Before proceeding to the subsequent stage (coding), interviews are transcribed—manually or with the use of computer applications. Transcription should be as accurate as possible, that is, comprise all statements in their original wording along with pauses, hesitations, laughter and other non-verbal elements.

Data obtained through interviews and observations is complementary; it allows the researcher to depict the researched phenomenon more comprehensively. Furthermore, observations often allow researchers to interpret data collected through interviews, or infuse it with a different meaning. It should be noted, however, that the collection of data may go well beyond those traditional areas and include, for example, visual data. As pointed out by Konecki (2008), visual data can be regarded as a valid and valuable empirical material for the formulation of theories or theoretical proposals.

The basic principle is the triangulation of data; its purpose is to guarantee greater credibility of the collected evidence and its interpretation . Denzin (1970/2006) distinguishes four basic types of triangulation:

  • methodological triangulation—combination of different research methods

  • data triangulation—using various data (e.g. comparing research carried out among different groups, at different times and in different places)

  • investigator triangulation—involving multiple researchers (at the stage of collecting material and/or its interpretation )

  • theory triangulation—use of different theoretical concepts to explain social phenomena

Taking notes is crucial: they are the starting point for the identification of categories , or ideas, that will serve as a basis of theory. Martin and Turner (1986, p. 145) define good notes as follows:

  1. 1.

    They provide complete descriptions of the studied situations, are full of details and tell “stories” about the events.

  2. 2.

    They are more than a chronological record of the situation: they shed light on the context of the events described.

  3. 3.

    Good notes contain as few comments as possible; if comments are necessary, they should be clearly marked as such.

Good notes should remain useful for a long time after the research and they can serve as a source of inspiration for future research projects. In grounded theory, data is collected until the theoretical saturation point is reached, which often entails a long research process, especially in the case of complex problems (see the subsection on Sect. 3.3.1). Grounded theory is therefore not a good option when time is limited. If a student decides to rely on grounded theory to prepare his/her MA thesis with only a few months left before the deadline, it is probably not a good idea. Even if the thesis is submitted on time , it is likely to be incomplete, unfinished or based on insufficient data.

3.3.3 Coding and Identification of Ideas/Concepts

Coding is a phase in the research process during which the researcher’s attention shifts from data to abstract categories . Coding is one of the most important stages of a research project carried out in accordance with the principles of grounded theory, as it is during this very phase of the study that specific categories emerge; in the final phase, they will form the basis for the mid-range theory.

Codes should be adjusted to the empirical material and reflect the events observed or the narratives provided by the respondents. Any references to theoretical concepts should be avoided to minimize the risk of data being analyzed through a theoretical lens—after all, the aim of the grounded theory is to proceed in the opposite direction: empirical evidence should lead to development of new theory.

It should be emphasized that qualitative coding used in grounded theory rests on a completely different premise than quantitative coding. In the latter, codes and categories exist prior to the coding process, and they typically originate in existing theories. In qualitative coding, codes “emerge from the field,” which means that they are generated during the coding process and derive from it (Charmaz 1983).

We also need to remember that the term “code” is used in a variety of contexts even by the precursors of grounded theory (Locke 2001). Coding can be construed as the process of naming individual fragments of observation, but also as assigning observations to specific categories and the theoretical analysis of the created codes .

Regardless of the adopted coding strategy, the crux of this phase is the constant comparison of the various elements that form part of the collected empirical material. It results in the creation of interesting codes that, in turn, allow the researcher to formulate compelling conceptualizations and captivating theories.

Clearly, the meaning of codes is determined by the context of comparisons. A quote becomes meaningful only after it is juxtaposed with other statements on a similar topic. Codes and categories are created as a result of comparing statements; it also provides them with a specific meaning.

A variety of coding strategies are applied to empirical material (Charmaz 2006, pp. 42–71): word-by-word coding, line-by-line coding or incident-to-incident coding. The three coding strategies have the same goal, namely, they let the researcher look at the empirical evidence with the anthropologic frame of mind, in order to perceive new phenomena within well-known and seemingly trivial behaviors and descriptions of the world. Through word-by-word coding, the researcher focuses on nuances, on the manner in which respondents express their thoughts and on details that might elude him/her if other methods of coding were applied. Line-by-line coding lets us look at the coded material through the prism of the division imposed by the width of a column of text, which rarely coincides with the logic of the analyzed material. In the case of incident-to-incident coding, text analysis echoes to the greatest extent our natural perception of the narrative. This type of coding emphasizes the chronological order and reveals the sequence of events, along with the broader context in which they occur. This coding method is also closest to the original proposal advanced by Glaser and Strauss.

The choice of the coding strategy depends on many factors, including the length of the text itself. Word-by-word coding is exceptionally well suited to the analysis of short documents from the studied organization; nevertheless, applying this method of coding to several hours of interviews would be too time-consuming. Hence, any potential benefits would be lost given the effort expanded.

A distinct coding strategy is the so-called in vivo coding (i.e. “live coding”) (Charmaz 2006, pp. 55–57). This approach involves the creation of codes based on terms commonly employed within the examined organization: terms that all members of the organization are familiar with. In other words, instead of being developed in the language of the researcher, codes are based on the language of respondents.

When specific phrases used within the organization are used as codes , the researcher can detect different meanings attributed to these phrases; this, in turn, may reveal certain interesting dimensions of the organizational reality. In vivo codes are, in general, specific terms used to denote human types, objects, organizational and technological solutions. Researchers should be aware of in vivo coding already at the stage of interviews and observations. They must not assume that the respondent and the researcher understand commonly used terms in the same manner.

Coded descriptions are grouped into categories and labelled/named as specific phenomena. The aim of this stage is not to organize the notes, but to replace thinking about specific incidents with a more abstract analysis. Grouping can be done, for example, on the margins of notes (transcripts of interviews) or—as proposed by Martin and Turner—using the so-called concepts cards. A particular description can be assigned to different categories , labels (or written on different cards), especially during initial research phases. Nowadays, coding is usually conducted with the use of dedicated software packages, such as Atlast.ti or NViVo. The longer the coding process, the less emphasis is placed on comparing new data with other data within the same category. The focus is shifted onto comparing new data with the idea represented by this category. In other words, we become less interested in comparing a new citation—concerning, for instance, the perception of organizational structures—to previously analyzed citations; instead, we strive to understand how it contributes to our understanding of the category that has been labelled the “perception of organizational structure.”

We present below an example of the use of in vivo coding and the creation of concept cards in the study of the language employed by CEOs of large Polish companies operating in the FMCG sector in the context of discussing organizational changes.

Example 3.1 Examples of Results Obtained with Grounded Theory Methods. Source: Authors’ Own

Czarniawska-Joerges (1988) identifies four main linguistic tools that are applied to construct the organizational reality: labels, metaphors , clichés and irony. Labels serve primarily the purpose of classification. For a phrase or expression to become a label, it must be repeated time and time again. It is through repetition and dissemination that a phrase gains its categorizing power. Labels are essential in the process of constructing reality, primarily because prior to measuring up with a problem, we have to name it. Naming the problem presents multiple advantages: first and foremost, what is named becomes familiar. Once a phenomenon is named, we feel more assured. The same mechanism is observed, for instance, when members of aboriginal tribes name meteorological phenomena after deities, in an attempt to “tame” them. Labelling allows us to structure the world around us: through naming specific phenomena, we define relationships between them.

Czarniawska-Joerges believes that labelling is a powerful tool of influence within the organization. More often than not, the name we attribute to a phenomenon contains a value-laden element and indications about the future (i.e. what should be done with this phenomenon). Those who are able to convince others to adopt their labels hold a mighty tool with which they can exercise power. Weick (1985) points to the role of labels in organizational life:

Labels carry their own implications for action, and that is why they are so successful in the management of ambiguity. Consider these labels: that is a cost (minimize it), that is a spoilage (reduce it) ... this is a stupidity (exploit it), and so forth. In each of these instances a label consolidates bits and pieces of data, gives the meaning, suggests appropriate action, implies a diagnosis, and removes ambiguity. (Weick 1985, p. 128, quoted in Czarniawska-Joerges 1988, p. 15)

Types of labels depend on the particular situation of a given organization. Labels in times of change differ from those that are used when the organization does not go through any spectacular transformation. What is more, a label may denote different phenomena and its value is contingent on the current situation of the organization.

(...)

Through coding and analysis of the material, a number of labels used by the managers of the analyzed company have been distinguished. By far, the strongest label is “structure.”

Extracts from the concept card for the “structure” code

“I have been convinced from the very beginning that these problems are due to the organizational structure.”

“This new structure is completely different from the previous one. You never step into the same river twice.”

“I have had here my fair share of failures, and this is due to the structure of the company: it is not open to outsiders.”

The label was mentioned several times during each interview with members of the Board. Different meanings were assigned to the “structure” label: some defined it as the division of tasks and responsibilities within the organization, others understood it as a hierarchy or nomenclature that does not accept outsiders.

It is linked to a number of secondary labels: centralization, decentralization and divisionalization.

Extracts from the “centralization” code concept card

“Prior to these changes, the company was managed in a rather centralist manner.”

“The abolition of centralism meant that the staff very quickly felt there was no one supervising them, which immediately brought disastrous effects.”

“In Communist times, the enterprise was centralized to the same extent everything was centralized during that period.”

“Later, during the transformation period, some things could not be centrally controlled and certain decisions were made, granting a high degree of autonomy to these entities.”

Extracts from the “decentralization” code concept card

“A decision was made to maximize decentralization.”

“To this day, this maximum decentralization is in progress.”

“After a period of overall decentralization, we went back to centralization and the process of renewed, reasonable centralization is still ongoing.”

“I tried to get what I could out of that decentralized structure.”

Extracts from the “divisionalization” code concept card

“The new divisional structure will allow us to organize everything.”

“Due to the resistance of factory floor staff, the process of divisionalisation is not, in fact, what we would like it to be.”

“We are now starting to create a divisional structure.”

In order to explain the importance attached by respondents to the structure label, we must look back into the company's history. In recent years, the company has undergone a thorough restructuring process with three distinct stages. At the beginning, it was managed centrally, from its headquarters in Warsaw. In 1989, the company initiated a far-reaching decentralization process, only to eventually revert to the centralization of management several years later.

The consequence of the above is a certain confusion related to the valuation of labels. Labels that once were considered positive (e.g. decentralization), now have a negative status, because the management believes that the majority of the company’s problems have their roots in excessive decentralization. The opposite has been observed in the case of the centralization label: once a symbol of mismanagement and poor structure, it is now promoted as a remedy.

Managers do their best to make sure that labels are understood in the way they “should” be understood at a given point in time . Thus, they are almost always qualified with adjectives that help distinguish the old meaning from the new.

Table 1 Adjectives affecting the valuation of labels
Full size table

Divisionalization is a particular example, as this label has replaced the previous centralization label. Therefore, instead of saying, “we revert to centralization,” the company refers to “divisionalization” which, in the case of this entity, is synonymous with centralization.

Codes and categories are not rated as more or less true, but as more or less useful. Over time , irrelevant codes cease to be used, whereas useful concepts remain helpful. Through the analysis of relations between the most useful categories , the core category is formulated. It then becomes the most important axis of the theory that is being created. The analysis that allows the researcher to explore the relationship between codes and concepts is called axial coding. When selecting categories , our primary goal should be to ensure that the level of abstraction is high enough to avoid creating a separate category for each incident, yet sufficiently low to ensure that each concept relates to a specific phenomenon. It should be emphasized that little is irreversible in grounded theory: if categories prove excessively detailed or abstract, they can be subsequently modified. The process is, by definition, non-linear and iterative, and therefore nothing prevents the researcher from going back to the previous phase and, for instance, creating a new category at any stage of the research process. The primary and overarching methodological requirement is fidelity toward the empirical data.

Glaser (1978) distinguishes two types of coding: substantive and theoretical. In his view, substantive codes conceptualize the empirical substance of the researched area, while theoretical codes conceptualize the manner in which substantive codes may relate to each other. In other words, theoretical coding allows us to integrate substantive codes (Hernandez 2009; Holton 2010). Glaser also proposes “a list of ‘coding families’ that contain codes unified through logical and formal relationships (e.g. elements, divisions, characteristics, sectors, segments etc.) or the dimension of relationships (e.g. strategies, tactics, achievements, manipulation, maneuvering, intrigues, meaning, goals, etc.)” (Konecki 2008, pp. 91).

He proposes a total of 18 coding families (which are not mutually exclusive), including, for example, the “The Six Cs” family (causes, contexts, contingencies, consequences, covariances and conditions), the “Process” family (including stages, phases, transitions, passages, careers, chains and sequences), or the “Degree” family (comprising, inter alia, extent, level, intensity, range and critical points) (Konecki 2008, pp. 91–92). Other approaches to coding can also be found in the extant literature (e.g. Strauss and Corbin 1990).

3.3.4 Generating Theory

It is, by definition, impossible to formulate a single recipe for developing a valid scientific theory. This creative process is complex and the application of an imposed algorithm does not guarantee good results (Strauss and Corbin 1990; Suddaby 2006).

The crux of this concept—understood as a formula for developing a theory—lies in the integration of the three phases of data collection mentioned above. As the authors of the concept argue, “Joint collection, coding, and analysis of data is the underlying operation. The generation of theory, coupled with the notion of theory as process, requires that all three operations be done together as much as possible” (Glaser and Strauss 1967, p. 43).

As the research process unfolds, the investigator better understands the studied phenomena; the codes , categories and hypotheses formulated begin to reflect reality to a greater extent, creating a grid of meanings around the core category . The core category should play a central role and explain to a great extent the described behavior, refer to many observations and be significantly correlated with other categories (Goulding 2002).

It must, however, be emphasized that theory does not emerge from the data itself; data does not “choose” the manner in which it wishes to be recounted (Locke 2001, p. 53). In fact, the researcher keeps making decisions that shape to a great extent the theory that will be formulated at the end of the research process. The researcher decides which data will be taken into account and which will be discarded, what seems interesting and what is banal, and so on.

According to Glaser and Strauss, a theory consists of categories and properties , as well as the relationships between them. Both derive from the data that has been collected and analyzed. What is the difference between them? An example of a category is the “perception of modern management techniques,” while a property is the justification of the use of such techniques. Relations between categories are discovered through comparison. At this stage, it is recommended to take notes and draw diagrams to visualize such comparisons (Locke 2001, p. 52).

One of the stages of generating a theory is the formulation of hypotheses that emerge as a result of comparing the empirical evidence collected in different places or derived from interviews with various interlocutors. Glaser and Strauss emphasize that what we deal with throughout the process is the logic of exploring the theory, and therefore we do not need to concern ourselves with the number of cases on the basis of which we hypothesize: the aim is not to verify on the basis of a representative sample, but to develop a theory.

In the following step, hypotheses are integrated: thus, the theory is developed. An integrated theory emerges from the data, and therefore the researcher should not be tempted to try and match the theory with other concepts derived from the extant literature. Literature research can only supplement the collected data and it should not have any substantial impact on the final theory.

At this stage, the researcher can also note references to literature and existing theories (both Glaser (1978) and Turner (1981) object to referring to literature at earlier stages in order to minimize the impact of existing theories on the process of formulating one’s own concepts related to the subject of research; nevertheless, Strauss and Corbin recommend tapping into the existing sources during the early stages of the researchFootnote 3). The process of in-depth defining of categories is non-linear and iterative: certain common threads may start to appear at an early stage of research, and one often goes back to previously described phenomena.

3.4 Misconceptions Related to Grounded Theory

The grounded theory method is based on premises that strongly differ from those typical of traditional, deductive research (see Sect. 3.1). At the same time , it is an iterative method, which requires the investigator to repeatedly go back to earlier stages of the research. Conflicts around the “right” understanding of grounded theory are all the more understandable when we take into account that even the authors of the original concept eventually “fell out” and each of them advanced his own, distinct version of the theory. In his later studies, Glaser emphasizes the emergence of theory from data, while Strauss (in cooperation with Corbin) advocates the use of strict coding rules (Goulding 2002, pp. 158–160). Glaser argues that Strauss’s suggestion contradicts the very premise of grounded theory (Glaser 1992). Glaser’s approach seems to put a greater emphasis on creativity, potentially at the expense of theoretical cohesion, while the approach represented by Strauss and Corbin poses the risk of excessive formalism and inflexibility (Fendt and Sachs 2008). The researcher must decide on one of the two versions of the theory prior to the commencement of research, as striving to combine them may prove unsuccessful.

Given the above, scholars who decide to use the method for the first time may feel confused. Let us, therefore, clarify what grounded theory is not (Suddaby 2006):

  1. (a)

    Grounded theory is not an excuse to ignore literature. As noted in the Introduction, a researcher is not a tabula rasa, has his/her own thoughts, opinions and at least partial knowledge of literature. No researcher embarks on fieldwork without having formulated the problem he/she intends to examine. A general idea about the topic of the study is necessary: without it, the researcher is likely to collect a wealth of empirical evidence that will prove impossible to organize and will yield no conclusions. Literature can be instrumental in defining crucial categories that will help analyze the researched reality. Detachment from the existing research, suggested by Glaser and Strauss, means first and foremost that one should not regard the findings of other researchers as absolute and unquestionable, but instead look for new categories , concepts and codes where it is possible and justified.

  2. (b)

    Grounded theory is not presentation of the raw data. According to Suddaby, many reports from studies carried out in accordance with the methodology of grounded theory do not have any substantial cognitive value because, in fact, they do not present a theory, but only a description of events that took place within the observed social reality. In other words, some authors fail to move up to a higher level of abstraction: instead of exposing relationship between categories and their properties , they present incidents organized in categories .

  3. (c)

    Grounded theory is not theory testing, content analysis, or word counts. As noted earlier, the method in question is expected to result in the development of a new theory and not in verifying existing hypotheses. For that reason alone, it makes no sense to use grounded theory to test hypotheses. In addition, there is a great risk that in the process of testing hypotheses, the researcher will identify within the collected evidence only the categories that are related to the previously formulated hypothesis , and not those stemming from the empirical data.

  4. (d)

    Grounded theory is not simply routine application of formulaic technique to data. As mentioned in the section on theory generation, this approach cannot be understood as a simple recipe for good research results. Although a number of general recommendations about methods of conducting research in accordance with the tenets of grounded theory can be formulated, in no way does their observance guarantee the development of a new and valid theory. Neither a strict application of coding guidelines nor the use of modern software packages (e.g. Atlas.ti or NVivo) to analyze the empirical material can replace the researcher’s skills of reading and interpreting the collected evidence.

  5. (e)

    Grounded theory is not perfect. According to Suddaby, the great popularity of this method has attracted a number of scholars who focus only on its theoretical aspects, without ever undertaking any empirical studies. They are responsible for promoting the dogmatic version of grounded theory and recommend to future researchers strict adherence to their guidelines that are supposed to facilitate research (e.g. one of these tips is that theoretical saturation is usually reached after 25–30 interviews). Tensions between theorists and practitioners are a natural phenomenon, yet we need to keep in mind that the techniques of grounded theory are inherently a little “messy” (Suddaby 2006, p. 638); the primary goal should always be the development of a valid theory.

  6. (f)

    Grounded theory is not easy. Contrary to what one might think after having read the best reports presenting the results of research conducted in accordance with the tenets of grounded theory, it is not an easy research strategy. Not only does it require the understanding of the method itself, but also the ability to discern the impact of researchers’ beliefs and experiences on the research process (see Sect. 3.3). What is more, not all scholars possess the same interpretation skills and the same ability to discern patterns within the collected material.