Qualitative Research Basics: A Guide for Engineering Educators

Grounded Theory
Grounded theory is an approach to qualitative data that aims to develop theory that is
“grounded” in data. Grounded theory was first described by Glaser and Strauss in 1967,
and has since been refined and expanded. It was originally developed in reaction to the
trend within sociology to propose theories and then test them (Creswell, 2007). In
contrast, Glaser and Strauss emphasized the development of theory based on empirical
data. The approach is inductive rather than deductive.
Grounded theory is primarily a data analysis technique, and details of the data analysis
are covered in Chapter 6. Some of the key attributes of a grounded theory study are:
• Data collection and analysis occur simultaneously. As analysis occurs, missing
elements are identified, which become targets for further data collection.
• Data analysis proceeds through the constant comparative method, in which
interview statements are coded, categorized, and grouped to develop a theory.
• Data collection proceeds until the categories are “saturated,” that is, until no new
information is obtained with further data collection.
• The theory developed is not necessarily high level theory. It is often what
Creswell calls a “substantive-level theory,” which applies to the specific setting or
context in which the data was collected.
Some authors, Charmaz (2006) in particular, argue that classic grounded theory is
positivist in its theoretical perspective. This is seen in the original description of
grounded theory that implies that the data are discovered by the researcher and are
“untouched by the competent researcher’s interpretations” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 132). In
contrast, Charmaz advocates a more flexible view of grounded theory. In her view of
constructivist grounded theory, the researcher’s perspective becomes part of the data
analysis and interpretation. There are no objective data waiting to be discovered; rather
data and analysis are, “created from shared experiences and relationships with
participants and other sources of data” (p. 130). Further, “the theory depends on the
researcher’s view; it does not and cannot stand outside of it” (p. 130, italics in original).
Charmaz’s view moves grounded theory closer to the interpretivist perspective than
classic descriptions.
Case Study
A case study is characterized by in-depth study of a bounded system. The boundaries of
the case may be defined in terms of time, space, or participants (Merriam, 2002). For
example, a case may be a classroom, a particular event, or an organization. A case study
is selected when one wants to study a specific situation (the case) in depth. Within this
broad definition of a case study, there are many possible approaches that can be taken,
depending on the overall purpose of the study. For example, Stake (2005) identifies three
different types of case studies. The intrinsic case study has as its focus an in-depth
understanding of that particular case. The case is not chosen because it is representative
of a more general phenomenon, but simply because it is interesting in and of itself. The
instrumental case study is chosen to provide insight into a more general phenomenon.
12