In Glaserian classic grounded theory, there is an expectation that a researcher will have a great number of codes (and memos) during a study as data are analyzed. While having many descriptive ideas may be acceptable in other designs, during open coding, a researcher needs to be mindful of the types of codes that are used. Codes in Glaserian classic grounded theory need to be conceptual rather than descriptive, which allows the researcher to reduce the potentially excessive number of codes. In this methodological memo, the author will discuss, explain, and offer examples of descriptive versus conceptual coding.
Most novice researchers want to conduct their research correctly and accurately; they may even want to plan things out clearly. Those things are not bad desires at all. However, in Glaserian classic grounded theory, confusion is needed, tolerated, expected, and mandatory because if a researcher plans out certain elements ahead of time, then the tenets of the design will be violated. The “trick” in this case is to expect confusion and welcome it because confusion offers a researcher some important opportunities that must be understood.
During the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, symptoms, spread, and treatment were not fully known. Nurses felt poorly trained and unprepared. The study’s objective was to develop a classic grounded theory of registered nurses and assistant nurses in COVID-19 care by exploring their main concern and how they handle this concern. The method used was a Classic grounded theory. Eleven registered nurses and assistant nurses, and 13 articles from the two main Swedish quality newspapers describing the working situation for registered nurses and assistance nurses during the first year of COVID-19 were used. ‘How to adapt to a constantly changing reality’ emerged as the main concern in the situation of confronting the unknown. The theory involves two sub-core categories: Adjusting and Surrendering. There is no easy way of handling the situation. However, knowledge about how nurses use different strategies, use them in succession or shift back and forth over time, can increase awareness of how to address similar incidents in the future.
The process of writing memos is foundational to Glaserian classic grounded theory because it enables the researcher to engage in important preconscious and conscious processing as a theory is being developed. If a person waits to write down a given memo or thought, then the likelihood is great that the idea will be permanently missed. And a lost idea is a lost opportunity in Glaserian classic grounded theory that should not be experienced.
Though one may presume that all qualitative designs are similar—and to a certain degree, they are, there are some similarities and differences in two designs—phenomenology and Glaserian classic grounded theory—which need to be explored in a more nuanced manner. By explaining these connections and divergences, less-experienced researchers will not only gain a greater understanding of the designs, but also will be able to make more informed decisions about them. Though the use of description to talk about the given experience is not encouraged in Glaserian classic grounded theory, on some level initially it is present, whereas in phenomenology description of the experience is foundational and inextricably linked to the design. In both designs, a researcher needs to set aside judgments, theories, and previous ideas to see the data as purely as possible. Once greater focus is achieved, there are different ways, according to the design, that the researcher will assemble the data into a coherent explanation of the experience. In this paper, several connections and points of difference will be presented.
For some novice Glaserian classic grounded theorists, sorting memos creates great internal confusion because the process seems never-ending. But sorting is a vital component to the design as it helps the researcher slowly discover the emergent theory. The process takes time and a researcher must not try to rush this process; the theory will develop in due course. In this article, the author presents a simple example of sorting and shows how the process develops.
In some Glaserian classic grounded theories, authors have worked hard to develop a multivariate theory but have neglected an important element: theoretical codes. These codes are what can make a theory truly special and unified. Yet, perhaps, people do not fully understand what they are and how to use them. In this short article, the author explains the value that theoretical codes have on a theory and why they are needed.
This article reconceptualizes grounded theory research methodology as a form of structured play. Challenging linear and instrumental views of research, it argues that inquiry in social contexts unfolds through improvisation, rehearsal, and low-stakes experimentation akin to play in human learning. Drawing on Vygotsky’s theories of play and the notion of zone of proximal development, Dewey’s account of play as an intrinsically meaningful activity, and Huizinga’s concept of Homo ludens, the article positions learning and research as inherently social and developmental practices. Game design theory further frames play as free movement within rule-based systems. Within this perspective, grounded theory methods including interviewing, coding, memoing, and memo sorting may be understood as research “toys” that afford exploration, discovery, and theory generation. Emphasizing play may revitalize qualitative inquiry, fostering curiosity, reflexivity, and what Barney Glaser described as “youthifying” research practice.
A commonly accepted truth in qualitative and quantitative research is that bias is a bad thing. Such a statement would be accurate. However, in classic grounded theory, bias is not a concern—a very different perspective. A discussion about what bias is and why it is not an issue will be discussed, along with an explanation of the constant comparative method. On the other hand, and additionally, the term preconception is explained with a more nuanced discussion about why that researcher-derived externality is not allowed in classic grounded theory.
This study explores ways Tanzanian and European fisheries actors solve and resolve their main concern given the persistently ongoing unsustainability occurrences in the management and exploitation of fisheries resources. It used classic grounded theory (CGT) methodology to collect and analyse the data. Lack of trust, credibility, and inadequacies in public governance emerged as the main concerns that enabled local and foreign rogue actors to unsustainably overexploit fisheries resources. A core category and basic social process (BSP) called fishmining, emerged as fishmining BSP CGT, and met the requirements of a formal GT (FGT) because its general implications of unsustainability transcended the fisheries resources context into other resource-based spheres: management, geography/jurisdiction, legal/regulatory regimes, and many other sustainable development aspects of the United Nations. Also, this fishmining BSP FGT appeared to fit and work while keeping relevant and modifiable to new unsustainability situations given changes over time, people, and places.
Care Realignment is a theory that conceptualizes how former spousal caregivers with PD resolve their main concern of redefining life and self, following the death of their partner. Using Glaserian classic grounded theory methodology, interviews with widowed caregivers were coded and analyzed through constant comparison and memoing to generate a theory. The theory of Care Realignment identifies three phases - Experiencing Loss, Reorienting, and Rebuilding - and explains how caregivers resolve their main concerns about redefining life and self after the end of caregiving. Grieving expresses the initial destabilization and withdrawal caregivers face in the dual loss of spouse and caregiving role. Reorienting depicts the effort to reestablish meaning and connection through reflection, faith, and dialogue. Rebuilding conveys the reconstruction of stability and identity through self-care, reciprocity, and renewed purpose. Movement across these phases is neither linear nor uniform; rather, it represents a cyclical process of adapting, integrating, and transforming loss into continuity. Care Realignment reframes bereavement as an adaptive process of identity reconstruction rather than recovery from pathology. It contributes to grief literature by extending existing models to include the post-caregiving transition and by offering a theory to support widowed caregivers as they integrate caregiving, loss, and self-renewal into a continuing life narrative.
Language barriers impact patient's , families' involvement in childhood cancer care, risking the quality of care and patient safety. Despite several studies in the field, few focus on the patient/family perspective. The aim of this observational study was to explore social patterns of communication across language barriers , to explore how children and families dealt with their main concern. Through the lens of classic grounded theory, we collected and analysed data from observations and interviews conducted at two Swedish childhood cancer centres. Translating behind the scenes is used to resolve the main concern of overcoming language barriers. The causes are varying proficiency in the languages of the conversation, and being uninitiated to the setting, and in a context of respecting the importance of the initiated people. Consequences include being left out of the communication and staying uninitiated. We argue that this leads to ineffective communication and lack of support for patients and their families, which ultimately threatens the patient safety.
Many academic journals are adopting standardized reporting guidelines for qualitative research to assess the quality and rigor of the qualitative research being peer-reviewed. Applying generic reporting criteria to Glaserian classic grounded theory studies often leads to misunderstandings or pressures to conform to practices that violate the methodology, contributing to its remodeling. Existing rubrics should include methodological sections that are specific to the research methods and methodologies being used in the research. This article presents and explains such a rubric for Glaserian classic grounded theory. The rubric contains 25 items categorized into 7 categories: (1) methodological clarity, (2) role of the researcher, (3) literature review, (4) problem, purpose, and research question, (5) data collection & theoretical sampling, (6) data analysis, and (7) theory write-up.
The term grounded theory, in the vernacular sense, has a certain je-ne-sais-quoi; it sounds scholarly and is appealing to many researchers worldwide. Since its formal inception in 1967 with Glaser and Strauss the design has, for good or bad, undergone many modifications. However, the name has remained. To present the original design as grounded theory and modified versions of the design also as grounded theory seems awkward and confusing especially for students who are trying to learn the design. This confusion begs the question: When is grounded theory not grounded theory? In this paper, the author will present several methodological convergences and divergences in the design.
Care Realignment is a theory that conceptualizes how former spousal caregivers with PD resolve their main concern of redefining life and self, following the death of their partner. Using Glaserian classic grounded theory methodology, interviews with widowed caregivers were coded and analyzed through constant comparison and memoing to generate a theory. The theory of Care Realignment identifies three phases — Experiencing Loss, Reorienting, and Rebuilding — and explains how caregivers resolve their main concerns about redefining life and self after the end of caregiving. Grieving expresses the initial destabilization and withdrawal caregivers face in the dual loss of spouse and caregiving role. Reorienting depicts the effort to reestablish meaning and connection through reflection, faith, and dialogue. Rebuilding conveys the reconstruction of stability and identity through self-care, reciprocity, and renewed purpose. Movement across these phases is neither linear nor uniform; rather, it represents a cyclical process of adapting, integrating, and transforming loss into continuity. Care Realignment reframes bereavement as an adaptive process of identity reconstruction rather than recovery from pathology. It contributes to grief literature by extending existing models to include the post-caregiving transition and by offering a theory to support widowed caregivers as they integrate caregiving, loss, and self-renewal into a continuing life narrative.
Theoretical sampling “is controlled by the emerging theory [and is] the process of data collection for generating theory” (Glaser, 1978 p. 36). This simply means that as we analyse data, questions arise, gaps in the theory are noticed, and we theoretically sample for particular data to address those questions and gaps. The emphasis is on making theoretical decisions rather than logical decisions. A problem arises of how to start data collection. Novice grounded theorists may notice a sampling naming gap, which they are required by research proposal templates to fill. Unaware of the methodological inconsistency, novices deploy logical sampling techniques of convenience sampling, selective sampling, purposive sampling and snowball sampling, which are more attuned to a confirmatory/verification research perspective than with the exploratory perspective of the grounded theorist. Glaser (1992) resisted “fracturing [the concept] theoretical sampling” (p. 102), however to address the emergent issue of a naming gap, I propose that we begin theoretical sampling with open sampling where “open sampling is based on the twin tenets of ‘all is data’ and ’emergence’ (Glaser, 1992)” (Scott, 2025, pp. 40 41). This will support novice researchers in protecting their exploratory perspective and enable them to collect data in a manner consistent with the grounded theory research method.
This study explores ways Tanzanian and European fisheries actors solve and resolve their main concern given the persistently ongoing unsustainability occurrences in the management and exploitation of fisheries resources. It used classic grounded theory (CGT) methodology to collect and analyse the data. Lack of trust, credibility, and inadequacies in public governance emerged as the main concerns that enabled local and foreign rogue actors to unsustainably overexploit fisheries resources. A core category and basic social process (BSP) called fishmining, emerged as fishmining BSP CGT, and met the requirements of a formal GT (FGT) because its general implications of unsustainability transcended the fisheries resources context into other resource-based spheres: management, geography/jurisdiction, legal/regulatory regimes, and many other sustainable development aspects of the United Nations. Also, this fishmining BSP FGT appeared to fit and work while keeping relevant and modifiable to new unsustainability situations given changes over time, people, and places.
With regard to grounded theory research methodology, there are three types of literature: (1) non-professional, popular, and pure ethnographic descriptions, (2) professional literature related to the substantive area under research, and (3) professional literature that is unrelated to the substantive area. First, I will consider the related literature, then unrelated, and lastly descriptions.
Many academic journals are adopting standardized reporting guidelines for qualitative research to assess the quality and rigor of the qualitative research being peer-reviewed. Applying generic reporting criteria to Glaserian classic grounded theory studies often leads to misunderstandings or pressures to conform to practices that violate the methodology, contributing to its remodeling. Existing rubrics should include methodological sections that are specific to the research methods and methodologies being used in the research. This article presents and explains such a rubric for Glaserian classic grounded theory. The rubric contains 25 items categorized into 7 categories: (1) methodological clarity, (2) role of the researcher, (3) literature review, (4) problem, purpose, and research question, (5) data collection & theoretical sampling, (6) data analysis, and (7) theory write-up.
Generally, when researchers think of one type of data associated with classic grounded theory, most probably qualitative data that comes to mind. While a researcher may, indeed, use qualitative data with classic grounded theory, there is a possible misapprehension that exists whereby that is the only type of data permitted. With classic grounded theory, qualitative and quantitative data may be used with equally successful results. In this paper, the author will offer a detailed discussion, using some fake sample data, to show how quantitative information may be used with a classic grounded theory design. Though a multivariate theory will not be presented here, such a goal is understood and quite possible with the data.
