LongBench v2 / 66f2adaf821e116aacb2aca9 / In both The Varieties of Grounded Theory and Advancing Grounded Theory with…

THE VARIETIES 
OF GROUNDED 
THEORY


In 1976 SAGE published a series of short ‘university papers’, which led to the 
publication of the QASS series (or the ‘little green books’ as they 
became known to researchers). More than 40 years since the release of 
the first ‘little green book’, SAGE is delighted to offer a new series of swift, 
short and topical pieces in the ever-growing digital environment.
SAGE Swifts offer authors a new channel for academic research with the 
freedom to deliver work outside the conventional length of journal articles. 
The series aims to give authors speedy access to academic audiences 
through digital first publication, space to explore ideas thoroughly, yet at a 
length which can be readily digested, and the quality stamp and reassurance
of peer-review. 
swifts
sage


swifts
sage
THE VARIETIES 
OF GROUNDED 
THEORY
ANTONY BRYANT


SAGE Publications Ltd
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
SAGE Publications Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road
New Delhi 110 044
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Editor: Jai Seaman
Editorial assistant: Lauren Jacobs
Production editor: Victoria Nicholas
Copyeditor: Sarah Bury
Proofreader: Jill Birch
Marketing manager: Susheel Gokarakonda
Cover design: Shaun Mercier
T
ypeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, India
Printed in the UK
© Antony Bryant 2019
First published 2019
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of 
research or private study, or criticism or review, as 
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents 
Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored 
or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with 
the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in 
the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance 
with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright 
Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction 
outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018963668
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the 
British Library
ISBN 978-1-5264-7431-5
Web PDF 978-1-5264-7976-1
At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using responsibly sourced 
papers and boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the 
PREPS grading system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.


CONTENTS
About the Author
vi
Acknowledgements
vii
	
Introduction and Rationale
1
1	
GTM – A Family of Variants
5
2	
The Core Characteristics of GTM
30
3	
GTM from a Logical Point of View
57
4	
GTM Paradoxes
81
5	
Indigeneity
92
6	
Student and Learning Issues
104
7	
GTM, Pragmatism and Social Justice
114
	
In Conclusion
121
Appendix A:  Key Resources and Recommended Reading
123
Appendix B:  
The Sage Handbook of Current Developments in  
Grounded Theory – List of Chapters
127
References
131
Index
140


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Antony Bryant is currently Professor of Informatics at Leeds Beckett 
University, Leeds, UK.
He has written and taught extensively on research methods, with a par-
ticular interest in qualitative research methods, and the Grounded Theory 
Method in particular. His book Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: 
Pragmatism in Research Practice was recently published by Oxford University 
Press (2017). He is Senior Editor of The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory 
(Sage, 2007) and The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded 
Theory – both co-edited with Kathy Charmaz (Sage, 2019).
He has supervised over 50 doctoral students, and examined many others, 
in topics including formal specification of software systems, development 
of quality and maturity frameworks, new forms of business modelling, and 
various aspects of e-government and e-democracy.
He is currently working with Professor Frank Land, who worked on the 
first commercial computer (LEO 1951), and was also the first UK Professor 
of Information Systems, on a series of ‘conversations’ planned for publica-
tion that will cover issues in the development and impact of computer 
technology since the 1950s.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Publication of The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory and The Sage Handbook 
of Current Developments in Grounded Theory would not have been possible 
without Kathy Charmaz. The contributors were almost entirely her rec-
ommendations, and almost all those approached readily accepted the 
invitation largely because of her involvement. She has worked with GTM 
almost since its inception, and her contribution to the development and 
flourishing of the method is unique and incomparable.
This discussion of the varieties of GTM was initially intended to be 
a joint editorial essay for Current Developments, and Kathy offered useful 
advice on earlier drafts. Her influence should be obvious throughout the 
discussion, although I know there will be many aspects about which she 
will have reservations. It was at her suggestion that I publish this as sole 
author. Given its length, Jai Seaman, Senior Commissioning Editor at Sage, 
recommended that the essay be published separately in the Swifts series, to 
appear prior to Current Developments itself. Jai, Lauren Jacobs, and their col-
leagues at Sage have been enormously supportive in moving both Varieties 
and Current Developments to publication.
I must also thank all contributors to Current Developments. Their chap-
ters provided the starting point for much of what follows, affording me 
the opportunity for an idiosyncratic, but I hope informed and respectful, 
discussion on GTM and several important and related topics. I have learned 
a great deal from all the chapters, and from extended email exchanges with 
many of the contributors. I look forward to these exchanges continuing in 
the future.




INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
This monograph was initially written as an introduction to what was envis-
aged as a revised and updated version of The SAGE Handbook of Grounded 
Theory (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007a). In preparation Kathy Charmaz and 
I contacted contributors to the earlier volume, inviting them to submit 
revised versions of their work, or to consider new material, possibly but 
not necessarily related to their earlier chapter. We also invited submissions 
from authors not included in 2007. The result is a volume comprising 
 
31 chapters with more than 75% of the material being substantively differ-
ent from the 2007 volume. Since the material in the 2007 volume retains 
its validity and importance, publishing the new volume as a ‘revised’ 
 
edition would have been misleading. Hence the decision to publish it as 
The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory (Bryant and 
Charmaz, 2019, hereafter Current Developments).
The new chapters indicate the range and depth of writing on the 
Grounded Theory Method (GTM), and the ways in which discussion of 
research methods has developed and expanded in recent years. I felt that it 
was important to bring key aspects of all of this to the attention of readers; 
also to discuss the complexities, interrelationships, and contrasts between 
the submissions. This necessitated a detailed and considered overview of 
the material – something far more substantial than an editors’ introduc-
tion. As the work developed, I sent revised drafts to Kathy, who offered 
insightful responses and eventually suggested that the material, now over 
40,000 words, appear as a chapter solely under my name.
Given its length, and in discussion with Jai Seaman, Senior 
Commissioning Editor at Sage, it was agreed that the ‘chapter’ should be 
revised and published as a separate monograph in the SAGE Swifts series, 
to appear just ahead of Current Developments: A precursor heralding the 
new volume, but which can also be read as a stand-alone publication. (The 
original title for this chapter/monograph was ‘The Varieties of Grounded 
Theory Experience’, evoking William James’s The Varieties of Religious 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
2
Experience (1902), James being one of the founding figures of Pragmatism, 
a key component of GTM.)
The rich variety of the contributions to Current Developments inevitably 
results in potentially or actually contradictory statements; some relating to 
GTM itself, others having wider ramifications. I therefore saw my position 
as Senior Editor as providing the opportunity not only to present some of 
the key concerns covered by the contributors, but also to take issue with 
some of them. (NB: References to chapters in Current Developments will be 
indicated in this manner – i.e. CD:NN, where NN is the chapter number. 
The titles of the individual chapters are listed in Appendix B. In some cases, 
the actual quote may differ slightly from that in the published version 
since I have worked from the draft versions dating from mid-2018.)
My discussion of these contributions might be regarded as idiosyn-
cratic, but I hope I have done justice to the nuances and details of the 
chapters themselves. Some of my ideas developed from comments evoked 
by early drafts, and were communicated to the contributors, allowing them 
the opportunity to respond and revise if they so wished. But many others 
only arose once I had the later versions, and so will come as a surprise to 
the authors concerned. If this is seen as taking unfair advantage of my role 
as Senior Editor then I can only apologise, but trust that I have treated 
people’s arguments fairly and given them all due consideration. Moreover, 
if these do evoke discussion and disagreement, I trust that we can find 
reasoned and reasonable ways to develop our deliberations in the future.
GTM has always represented a challenge to research orthodoxy, and 
this shows no sign of abating. Current Developments exemplifies and contin-
ues this characteristic tendency, offering readers rich insights into current 
GTM thinking. Vivian Martin (CD:11) identifies a crucial point, noting 
that ‘Flick (2015) observed that many of the challenges that faced qualita-
tive research in the 1980s and 1990s, including concerns with rigor and 
quality, remain’. But other concerns have arisen, for instance those ema-
nating from the development of computer-based tools, issues around the 
role of researchers and their interaction with their subjects/participants, 
and the status of research findings and associated knowledge-claims. For 
GTM these trends are evident in
•	
discussions about CAQDAS [Computer Assisted Qualitative Data 
Analysis Software];
•	
research in the age of Big Data;1


INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE
3
•	
the nature of abductive reasoning;2
•	
researching across cultures and subcultures;
•	
and the ways in which researchers can and should relate to issues such 
as inequality and social justice.
In part, these developments provide opportunities to extend the repertoire 
available to researchers, but like all innovations they can sometimes side-
track or undermine good research practices. In this vein, Martin notes that 
Flick ‘identified trends such as evidence-based research and the rise of big 
social science projects, with collaborators across departments and institu-
tions, as a threat to small, individual qualitative studies’.
Our introduction to the 2007 volume offered an overview of GTM 
(Bryant and Charmaz, 2007b), and we also contributed a chapter dis-
cussing its historical development, offering an epistemological account 
of the method’s origins and later variants (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007c). 
The present discussion is designed to serve a different purpose, essentially 
focusing on the ways in which GTM has developed since 2007, integrating 
and discussing key points raised in Current Developments. Some of these 
developments are specific to GTM, but many are bound up with issues that 
impact upon research in general and qualitative approaches in particular. 
So although closely linked to, and building upon, the chapters in Current 
Developments, this discussion of the varieties of grounded theory offers a 
complementary and supplementary perspective.
In what follows I address the following issues, in most cases initially 
relating them to chapters in Current Developments:
•	
A restatement of my view that GTM is best regarded as a ‘family of meth-
ods’, that has flourished and developed, leading to a number of variants 
that should be regarded as capable of enriching each other, providing 
the basis for more credible and rigorous research practice in general;
•	
Discussion of the ways in which GTM can be related to earlier ideas 
and research, particularly that associated with the Chicago School;
•	
Clarification of terminology, including GTM-specific terms such as 
‘code’, ‘category’, and ‘concept’;
•	
Some further clarification of the ways in which epistemological and 
ontological discussions relate to GTM, and vice versa;
•	
The role of metaphors in characterizing and distinguishing between 
variants of GTM and researching generally;


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
4
•	
Consideration of the concept of ‘abduction’ and the ways in which the 
term is now generally understood, particularly within the context of 
GTM;
•	
The impact of technological advances on GTM – particularly CAQDAS 
and Big Data;
•	
The paradoxical relationship between GTM and sociology;
•	
The ways in which writers have developed and enhanced the set of 
initial, open-ended questions that GTM researchers can consider at the 
outset of their investigations;
•	
What is meant by the claim that GTM facilitates the development of 
a theory, particularly in the light of several criticisms of the method 
that pose the rhetorical challenge ‘Where is the theory in Grounded 
Theory?’;
•	
Work within GTM that pays specific attention to ‘sensitizing issues’ 
such as feminism, race, ethnicity, and indigeneity;
•	
GTM, Pragmatism and social justice.
These topics should be of interest to anyone wishing to find out more 
about GTM with a view to using it as part of their research strategy. 
In general, I have assumed that readers already have some familiarity 
with GTM, hopefully including Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory 
(2014a); by far the best introduction to the method. But for one or 
two topics, such as abduction, I offer a more detailed exposition, also 
 
suggestions for further reading.
I encourage readers to consider the arguments offered here, while also 
referring to the relevant chapters in Current Developments, bearing in mind 
that my ‘reading’ may well differ from yours.
Notes
1	 Big Data consist of enormous data sets that exceed traditional modes of analysis. 
Despite multiple challenges in accessing, storing, and managing these data sets, 
they are increasingly mined for purposes such as improving business practices. 
See Bryant & Raja, 2014.
2	 In brief, abductive reasoning occurs when a researcher cannot explain a finding 
by invoking theories that account for other patterns in the data. The researcher 
then considers a range of theoretical explanations and infers what is the best 
explanation, which he or she then puts through some form of test or validation.


1
GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
The first generation – Glaser, Strauss, and Quint
In our introductory essay in 2007 (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b), we described 
GTM as a ‘family of methods’, a metaphor that can be construed in sev-
eral ways, for instance, evoking Tolstoy’s opening to Anna Karenina: ‘All 
happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way’. 
Charmaz also uses the term ‘constellation’ (Charmaz, 2014a), and others 
have referred to GTM as an ‘umbrella term’ or ‘framework’ (unified or not, 
as the case may be). Charmaz now avoids the term ‘family’ because of its 
connotations, ranging from unwavering commitment to conflict and abuse.
The main rationale for my use of the term ‘family’ was derived from 
Wittgenstein’s discussion of ‘family resemblances’:
we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and cries-crossing [sic 
criss-crossing]: sometimes overall similarities. I can think of no better expression 
to characterize these similarities than family resemblances; for the various 
resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, 
temperament, etc. etc. overlap and cries-cross [sic criss-cross] in the same way. 
(Wittgenstein, n.d., extract from Aphorisms 66 and 67, emphasis in original)
A close reading of this section of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations 
(2001[1953]) indicates that in addition to postulating the concept of ‘fam-
ily resemblances’, he was also advocating something akin to the method 
of constant comparison. Indeed, he uses a phrase that by complete coinci-
dence echoes a key sentiment of Glaser and Strauss.
66. Consider for example the proceedings that we call ‘games’. I mean board-
games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
6
to them all? – Don’t say: ‘There must be something common, or they would 
not be called “games”’ – but look and see whether there is anything common 
to all. For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, 
but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don’t 
think, but look! (Wittgenstein, n.d., extract from Aphorisms 66, emphasis added)
In similar fashion, a discussion of the ways in which GTM has developed 
since the 1960s might be understood as a series of relationships and deri-
vations between and across different generations and offspring of the 
method from its inception. This is not unique to GTM, but a common fea-
ture of many methods, and usually a sign of healthy growth and engaging 
debate. Action Research (AR), for instance, originating in the work of Kurt 
Lewin and colleagues in the 1930s, has spawned numerous variants. Some 
of these alternatives clearly derive from AR, incorporating the term itself 
(e.g. Participatory AR, Community AR, and so on); others do not (e.g. Soft 
Systems Analysis). Yet they co-exist and provide the basis for new method-
ological insights, both for those using AR and for others among the wider 
research community (see Reason & Bradbury-Huang, 2015). For exam-
ple, Joyce Duckles, George Moses, and Robert Moses (CD:31) depict how 
 
community-based participatory action research combined with construc-
tivist grounded theory can contribute to social transformation.
Our concern in 2007 was to explain that the various forms of GTM 
testified to its importance and vitality, albeit carrying the potential for 
confusion and raising issues regarding the core aspects of the method. 
As I will argue below, GTM proponents largely agree on some ‘core’ or 
‘essential’ characteristics of GTM but differ regarding others. Nonetheless, 
researchers should never forget that the ultimate significance of a method 
is how it facilitates developing new and critical insights; something that 
often involves departing from the well-trodden paths of specific disciplines 
and common procedures. This proviso should come as no surprise to those 
involved with GTM, since the method itself grew from precisely these 
motivations.
The metaphor of a family also evokes images of parentage and subse-
quent generations. The earliest GTM texts, Awareness, Discovery, and Time, 
(Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, 1967, 1968) must be seen as products of various 
influences and strands of thought and practice brought together through 
the work of three progenitors: Barney Glaser, Anselm Strauss, and Jeanne 
Quint (later Jeanne Quint Benoliel). The contrasting backgrounds of Strauss 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
7
and Glaser are now fairly well understood, although differing views have 
been expressed regarding the impact and influence these formations had 
on GTM itself. (See Charmaz, 2014a; Gibson & Hartman, 2014; and below.)
The role of Quint, on the other hand, has only recently become more 
widely acknowledged when GTM is discussed. Although her brilliant 
 
article, ‘Institutionalized practices of information control’ (Quint, 1965), 
confirmed her analytic skill, her earliest contributions to the method 
remain less visible. Quint learned field research from Anselm Strauss and 
worked with Strauss and Glaser on their projects on death and dying 
before she wrote her doctoral dissertation on identity among children with 
juvenile diabetes, receiving her PhD in nursing in 1969. Quint’s role was 
critical in data collection for the death and dying project, but she seldom 
appears in discussions of the development of GTM.1 She made various con-
tributions to the literature on GTM and qualitative methods in nursing 
research throughout her career (see, for example, Benoliel, 1984, 1996).2
More controversially, Phyllis Stern (2012), in her obituary for Quint, 
argued that ‘[W]hen Glaser and Strauss treated her data as their own, she beat 
them to the punch by publishing first’ (emphasis added). The book in ques-
tion was The Nurse and the Dying Patient (Quint, 1967). Kathy Charmaz, 
contributing much of the detail here about Quint, has pointed out that 
her book actually used some of Glaser and Strauss’s substantive concepts, 
published in earlier papers.
Quint’s book, appearing in 1967, offered a thorough description of 
what student nurses learned about working with dying patients, and their 
attitudes and actions towards them. The book contributed to monumental 
changes in the care of the dying, but was neither a methodological exegesis 
nor a grounded theory.
Given the important turn in GTM research, and research generally, to 
question the position from which research is carried out (see below), it is 
important that Quint’s critical if circumscribed role is acknowledged and 
understood. For instance, one of the earliest papers resulting from this 
research appeared in 1964 with the names of all three authors in the fol-
lowing order – Strauss, Glaser, and Quint (1964).
Looking back after 50 years, it might be hard to grasp the impact 
that Glaser and Strauss’s writings had on US social science. If research-
ers in the 1960s did not realize it before, then Discovery made it clear 
that there was a dominant, if largely taken-for-granted and unexamined, 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
8
mode of doing social science research in the USA. As Adele Clarke points 
out in her chapter (CD:1), Glaser and Strauss’s impact on conventional 
conceptions and practices of research cannot be overstated. These con-
ventions encompassed methodological-cum-procedural aspects, but also 
 
institutional-cum-hierarchical ones. All neatly evoked by Glaser and 
Strauss’s imagery of ‘theoretical capitalists and proletarian research-
ers’, the latter toiling hypothetico-deductively amid the minutiae of the 
most notable theorists – particularly the Parsonians and Mertonians: i.e. 
Talcott Parsons and R. K. Merton. Discovery (1967), together with the two 
paradigm examples of GTM-in-use – Awareness of Dying (1965b) and Time for 
Dying (1968) – offered new insights into existing research practices as well as 
a new way of doing research, particularly at doctoral level. Although at first 
this was only apparent to the fortunate few enrolled on the doctoral program 
at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), and to some of Glaser 
and Strauss’s peers, who read and grasped the importance of Discovery. The 
wider impact of GTM took some time to develop, led initially by Strauss 
and the earliest generation of UCSF doctoral graduates. (NB: Not every soci-
ologist agreed that grounded theory was new. For some Chicago school 
ethnographers, grounded theory restated strategies such as induction and 
comparative analysis, among other ideas that were common in that group.)
Discovery gained a wider readership among graduate students and 
researchers who wanted to do qualitative studies. In the early years follow-
ing its publication, both students and established scholars relied on the 
book more for legitimating inductive qualitative research than for provid-
ing an explicit guide through the research process. Strauss’s 1987 book, 
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, and Strauss and Corbin’s (1990 & 
1998) Basics of Qualitative Research made grounded theory world-renowned. 
Clarke points out that the popularity of grounded theory derived from its 
thoroughly empirical orientation. She places the appeal and development of 
grounded theory in its historical context. Most sociological research at the 
time was theory-driven. Clarke explicitly addresses the abductive, iterative 
movement between empirical materials and theory as part of the method 
from its early beginnings. Although few researchers wrote about abduction, 
it had always been part of the method for those who studied with Strauss.
Kathy Charmaz debated whether to include a section on abduction 
in an early paper (1983) but decided against it because the paper intro-
duced grounded theory to students and was intended to clarify a method 
that few researchers of the day understood. I now argue (Bryant, 2017) 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
9
that abduction, or our understanding of it, has come of age and is a vital 
part of research discussions. Several chapters in both Handbooks (Bryant & 
Charmaz, 2007a, 2019) provide vital discussions on abduction.
Discovery proposed an alternative to classical hypothetico-deductive 
research, where theoretical issues and hypotheses were derived from exist-
ing ‘authoritative’ work, and then subjected to ‘verification’ in the field. 
Instead, it was argued that researchers should immerse themselves in their 
chosen research context from the start, and allow theories to ‘emerge’ from 
the data. I would argue that this metaphor was often taken too far, even by 
Glaser and Strauss themselves (see below), who suggested that researchers 
could and should abandon their previous theoretical knowledge and expe-
rience before analyzing their data.
Glaser and Strauss, however, recognized that this naïve inductivism was 
unrealistic and unworkable, arguing that researchers needed to develop 
their ‘theoretical sensitivity’; the ability to conceptualize relevant data in 
theoretical terms, which can be only achieved by drawing on already exist-
ing theories and models. Kelle (CD:3) argues that
[T]he development of Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) was characterized 
by different attempts to elaborate the concept of ‘theoretical sensitivity’ and to 
describe modes of a non-deductive use of theories and models in the process 
of empirically grounded theory building. Thereby a variety of new and complex 
concepts were proposed like ‘theoretical coding’, ‘coding families’, ‘axial cod-
ing’, ‘coding paradigm’, and many others.
It might be an exaggeration to ask ‘who now reads Talcott Parsons and/or 
Robert Merton?’,3 but it is certainly the case that, at least from the 1990s 
onwards, far more researchers and students across many disciplines read, 
cite, and use Glaser and Strauss – both individually and in concert – than 
do likewise for Parsons or Merton.4
A focus on methods has developed since the 1960s, itself in part an 
effect of the publication of Discovery. From my experience as a doctoral 
student in social science in the UK in the 1970s, the issue of ‘methods’ was 
not a priority; there were few, if any, support sessions on the topic, and 
very few texts particularly on qualitative methods. The situation in the 
USA, where doctoral programs – such as that at UCSF – included taught 
qualitative methods courses and epistemological assessments, was mark-
edly different. In the interim, and with apologies to Jane Austen, it is now 
a truth universally acknowledged that a research student in pursuit of a 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
10
doctorate must be in want of a clear and extended account of their research 
design and method(s).5
At least since the 1990s, a standard expectation is that all research reports 
devote a specific section to research methods, and researchers are expected 
to justify their research strategy, either planned (for research proposals) or 
carried out in arriving at the results of the study in question. This expec-
tation is a welcome development since it ensures that research findings 
are not reported in some mysterious or furtive manner. Rather, the over-
all process, including the trade-offs and decisions endemic to research, is 
rendered visible and accountable. One downside occurs if such discussions 
are untruthful or retro-fitted to the findings: what might be termed meth-
odological hindsight. Unfortunately, GTM, when deliberately or unwittingly 
misunderstood and misrepresented, has proved particularly ‘convenient’ 
in these instances. This has led to credibility issues when assessors and 
other ‘gate-keepers’ are confronted with GTM research proposals or out-
puts, often with at best only a tenuous connection to the method itself.
Mis-application of methods, however, is not confined to GTM or quali-
tative methods, and some degree of methodological scepticism is essential 
for anyone evaluating research proposals or outputs. GTM suffers dispro-
portionately in this regard because it appears, erroneously, to offer a 
laissez-faire or ‘anything goes’ model of research. Also, since it is far-
and-away the most widely used method in many domains, there are 
far more examples of good, bad, and indifferent GTM-oriented research 
than any other. Writers on GTM need to take account of both issues – they 
are two sides of the same coin: the flexibility and open-mindedness inherent in 
GTM affords researchers the basis for investigative strategies that can lead 
to novel insights and innovative outcomes. As a consequence, the method 
has widespread appeal to early-career researchers and others looking 
for ways in which they can move beyond the confines of specific disci-
plines or customary or ‘expected’ modes of investigation. The downside 
of such popularity and widespread appeal is that, in some cases, invok-
ing GTM amounts to little more than a methodological veneer, disguising 
inadequate attention to research design. This observation is certainly not 
restricted to GTM, but it is compounded by its popularity, since there are 
so many more research papers and other outputs than is the case for other 
methods. There is, consequently, more scope for ambiguities and misun-
derstandings in statements regarding GTM, particularly since advocates of 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
11
different variants do not always couch their arguments in the clearest and 
most respectful manner. Judith Holton (CD:20) quotes Nagel et al. (2015), 
who note that novice GTM researchers have to weave their way
through a myriad of paths in a landscape of varied and divergent perspec-
tives … differences of opinion … differing paradigmatic inclinations or lack of 
agreement amongst established GT methods and procedures (p. 366) … [this 
confusion is compounded by the] … lack of respect for alternate approaches 
within [the] GT community, terminology varied and fluid, slurring of methods 
between approaches (p. 369).
It must be noted, however, that the phrase ‘fluid, slurring of methods’ is 
used here in a pejorative manner, which is unfortunate and unwelcome 
since it is important to respect alternative methodological positions, and to 
encourage and foster methodological sensitivity as part of research practice – 
see Rapoport’s rules below.
In too many cases, however, those assessing and evaluating research 
proposals and publications appear to have little or no familiarity with 
GTM. Often their assessments exhibit various prejudices that preclude 
clear and cogent assessment and evaluation. Given that GTM has been 
in use for more than 50 years, this is a severe failing on the part of aca-
demic gate-keepers. There is now, however, a growing recognition of this 
issue, with some GTM writers presenting guidelines to assist gate-keepers in 
their deliberations, and advice for those submitting their work to pre-empt 
what I have termed ‘a strange hostility’ to GTM. For instance, the summary 
tables in my recent book (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18) aimed specifically at 
research students, GTM-researchers, research assessors, PhD examiners, 
journal editors, and reviewers.
Rapoport’s four rules
The period immediately following publication of Discovery witnessed a 
gradual advance in knowledge, use, and teaching of GTM as graduates from 
the doctoral program at UCSF moved out into the academic field, both 
in the USA and elsewhere – particularly in Germany. But it was only in 
the 1990s that its influence grew by several orders of magnitude, largely 
through publication of Strauss’s (1987) work, and his subsequent work 
with Juliet Corbin (Strauss & Corbin, 1990 & 1998). Since then GTM has 
developed, resulting in several variants of the method (see below), and it 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
12
behoves all those writing about GTM to ensure that they offer clear and 
balanced accounts of these alternatives.
If one’s position is largely derived from one specific perspective, this 
should be made clear, with respectful attention drawn to the ways in which 
other accounts differ, ensuring that any rebuttal or criticism only takes place 
after the opposing position has been expressed clearly and accurately, together 
with key points that are common to both and anything that has been learned 
from the differing view.
This proviso is a critical concern, and all those writing about and teaching 
GTM need to consider the impact their critical comments may have on those 
seeking clarification and guidance. I deliberately opened my recent book on 
GTM quoting Rapoport’s four rules regarding how to write a successful critical 
commentary on someone’s work. They are worth quoting in full.
1.	
First, he said, you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so 
clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says ‘Thanks, I wish I’d thought 
of putting it that way’.
2.	
Then, you should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not 
matters of general or widespread agreement).
3.	
Third, you should mention anything you have learned from your opponent.
4.	
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or 
 
criticism. (Bryant, 2017, p. ix)
I have sought to ensure that this monograph adheres to these precepts, 
albeit that I take issue with various writers, including some of those who 
have contributed to Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019). I offer 
my apologies to anyone who feels poorly treated in this extended discus-
sion, but trust that any differences can be discussed if not resolved in a 
fruitful and respectful manner.
After Discovery – first and second generations 
and beyond
Writing in the early 1990s, 25 years after Discovery, Strauss and Corbin 
observed that
… no inventor has permanent possession of the invention – certainly not even 
its name – and furthermore we would not wish to do so. No doubt we will 
always prefer the later versions of grounded theory that are closest to or elabo-
rate our own, but a child once launched is very much subject to a combination 
of its origins and the evolving contingencies of life. Can it be otherwise with a 
methodology? (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, p. 283)


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
13
Twenty-five years later, and given the popularity of the method, it is not 
surprising that there has been a burgeoning of texts and other resources 
on the method itself, together with an enormous number of completed 
PhDs and larger research projects across a growing number of disciplines. 
Glaser has continued to publish his own texts as well as establishing and 
encouraging initiatives such as The Grounded Theory Institute,6 which offers 
support 
and 
visibility 
to 
GTM 
researchers, 
including 
doctoral 
students. 
Juliet 
Corbin has published two further editions of Basics of Qualitative Research 
(Corbin 
& 
Strauss, 
2008 
& 
2015), 
while 
Kathy 
Charmaz 
has 
produced 
a 
second 
 
edition of Constructing Grounded Theory (2014a, 3rd edition in preparation), 
as well as significant writings that address issues of social justice from a 
GTM perspective. I have published Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing 
(Bryant, 2017), drawing on the work of many of my PhD students over the 
years, and explicitly addressing the Pragmatist orientation in the method. 
Other developments in the method can be found in the work of Clarke’s 
Situational Analysis (2005, 2015; Clarke et al., 2017), and Morse et al. 
(2009 & 2016) have addressed the ways in which GTM has moved on to a 
second generation, offering an account of GTM that includes contribu-
tions from six key grounded theorists who all worked with and/or studied 
under Strauss.
These works, in many cases authored by contributors to the two 
Handbooks, have developed and enhanced GTM since the 1990s, when 
Strauss and Corbin made their point about the ‘evolving contingencies’. 
These variations and developments can be bewildering to those with lit-
tle or no familiarity with GTM, but they are testimony to the vitality and 
importance of the method. It would be a far more serious indictment if 
GTM had failed to produce new variants and off-shoots since Discovery.
Strauss, Glaser, and Quint-Benoliel comprise the first generation 
of grounded theorists; Morse et al. are key figures from the second gen-
eration (see Morse et al., 2009 & 2016), together with their ‘cousins’ 
in the German-speaking tradition. The situation now is significantly 
more complex and diverse, with several variants, leading to a situa-
tion where it is important to distinguish between the ‘essences’ and the 
‘accidents’ of GTM (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 4). Katja Mruck and Günter 
Mey (CD:23) argue that one can characterize GTM approaches in terms of 
generation, background, and epistemology. Joanna Crossman and Hiroko 
Noma (CD:29) note that Charmaz ‘has argued that the cultural, economic, 
historical, political and geographic conditions of the United States have 
determined the logic, values, epistemological assumptions and worldview 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
14
that influence the kinds of problems investigated and the research ques-
tions posed within grounded theory’, and has also contended that the 
grounded theory method itself reflects the economic, social, and historical 
conditions in the US in the early 1960s.
Crossman and Noma go on to argue that it is ironic that ‘few scholars 
have explored the cultural assumptions that underpin the methodology 
itself’, given that GTM incorporates a call to study phenomena in situ. 
They see this as part of a wider strategy to investigate ‘the implications of 
globalization and more specifically, internationalization, for the teaching, 
learning, practice and development of grounded theory’. They also refer to 
Ralph, Birks, and Chapman (2015), who
argue that a contemporaneous interpretation of grounded theory is depend-
ent upon prevailing forces that shape societal views about the world and 
ultimately, the ontological and epistemological assumptions of the researcher. 
Over time, changing circumstances and the responsiveness of grounded 
theorists to them, affect methodological consumerism, or more specifically, 
the extent to which communities become receptive to variants of grounded 
theory.
These early statements were further developed as part of the doctoral 
program at UCSF. Given that this group of researchers and the first genera-
tion of students included Anselm Strauss, Barney Glaser, Virginia Olesen, 
Patrick Biernacki, Kathy Charmaz, Phyllis Stern, Carolyn Wiener, Juliet 
Corbin, and Adele Clarke, among others, it is not surprising that a rich 
variety of articulations and examples of the method-in-use arose in this 
period. Taken together, they attest to the vibrancy and vitality that the 
method engendered among a talented and articulate subgroup within the 
larger research community. Discovery itself had enormous impact on new 
scholars, who embraced it as justification for conducting inductive quali-
tative research. A paucity of such developments would have indicated that 
Glaser and Strauss’s manifesto had fallen on deaf ears or was ill-founded 
and unworthy of further consideration.7
Grounded theory before Discovery
It is important to stress the originality of GTM, but its precursors must also 
be recognized, albeit discussing them in no way diminishes the pioneer-
ing work of Strauss, Glaser, and Quint. We need to understand how earlier 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
15
work was influential and, in some cases, re-fashioned and incorporated 
into GTM. This, together with re-evaluation of the importance of Quint’s 
role, amounts to a re-discovery or re-construction of the history and devel-
opment of GTM.
One feature of this has been the increasing attention paid to studies 
with which Strauss was involved before he teamed up with Glaser (see 
Flick, CD:6). For example, in Awareness (1965b) reference is made to the 
pioneering study of medical training, Boys in White (Becker et al., 1961), 
with a footnote on page 4 referring to the realization that the standard 
training of medical students failed to address the issue of how to interact 
with dying patients and their relatives. (For younger readers, in those 
unenlightened times boys became doctors, girls were, for the most part, 
channelled into nursing.) This realization was ‘the result of a secondary 
analysis of field-notes from a study of Kansas Medical School published 
as Boys in White’ (Becker et al., 1961). Other examples include Psychiatric 
Ideologies and Institutions (Strauss, 1964), and ‘The hospital and its negoti-
ated order’ (Strauss et al., 1963).
Strauss’s background as a leading exponent of the ‘Chicago School of 
Sociology’ was key to his development, and that of GTM. Many writers 
have commented on this, but rarely go further in their analysis. Alvin 
Gouldner (1973), a colleague of Strauss, writing in the 1970s, made 
some important observations regarding Strauss’s intellectual formation. 
Strauss is listed together with Howard Becker and Erving Goffman as 
exemplifying ‘the purest vein of Romanticism8 in American sociology’. 
For Gouldner, Romanticism embodied a trend in thought that rebelled 
against ‘disciplined conformity to … received and impersonal rules’ 
(1973, p. 327). Initially this stance was purely dogmatic, lacking any 
‘rationale of a new language or a new logic’. Gouldner traces this trend 
through the development of European social thought, noting that the 
Romantics and the Positivists shared an antipathy towards traditional 
forms of authority. The former seeking a new basis in the imagination, 
and the latter in science. Seeing a congruence between Romanticism 
and Positivism is highly unusual, but Gouldner’s argument is notewor-
thy and persuasive.
Having postulated this link between ‘imagination’ (Romanticism) and 
‘science’ (Positivism), Gouldner characterizes GTM, through Strauss, as 
seeking to combine the strengths of both. He argues that


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
16
Strauss (together with B. Glaser) [who] has spoken for the merits of ‘data-grounded 
theory’ [sic!] [the method being] primarily a polemic against deductive, formal 
styles of sociological theorizing and an argument for inductive theorizing – once 
again revealing the paradoxical but abiding affinity of certain forms of Positivism 
and Romanticism. (Gouldner, 1973, p. 345, see online version)
Gouldner quotes Strauss describing Romanticism in the hands of 
 
G. H. Mead, who stripped it of its ‘mysticism’ and gave it ‘biological and 
scientific traits’, providing the basis for prying open ‘the deterministic 
framework of modern science’ restating ‘problems of autonomy, freedom 
and innovation’ (1973, p. 348).
Here is an intimation of the tension in early GTM, between imagination 
on the one hand, and a positivist view of science on the other, also drawing 
attention to the Pragmatist and emancipatory predispositions in GTM that 
are now more widely understood. All built upon Glaser and Strauss’s con-
cern to delegitimize the existing hierarchy in US social science. Charmaz’s 
(2000) delineation between ‘objectivist’ and ‘constructivist’ forms of 
GTM can be seen as a restatement and enhancement of Gouldner’s earlier 
analysis, but her demarcation necessarily places greater emphasis on the 
imaginative aspects in the light of the critiques of ‘normal science’, posi-
tivism, and ‘scientism’ that have gained ground and significance since the 
1960s. The incorporation of ‘imagination’ into social theorizing opens the 
way for abduction, integrating Peirce (1986, 1992) and Mead (1934, 1959 
[1932]), and the Pragmatism of Dewey (1929, 1938) and James (2000), with 
GTM (see below).
There are then strong ties between Chicago School sociology and GTM. 
But GTM also encompasses Glaser’s contribution, and through him, aspects 
of the social theorizing from Columbia University in New York in the 
immediate post-war period. Again, Gouldner offers useful insights, referring 
to Paul Lazarsfeld, a key influence on Glaser. For Gouldner in the 1970s, 
Lazarsfeld was ‘surely the dean of social science methodologists in the 
United States today’, yet his (Lazarsfeld’s) position was that social scientists 
should not be guided first and foremost by ‘formal canons of science’ but 
by ‘the implicit rules and procedures which successful social scientists tacitly 
employ and embody in their researches’ (Gouldner, 1973, p. 355, emphasis 
in original). Gouldner argues that Lazarsfeld viewed social science research 
proceeding ‘on the basis of (at first) inarticulate operational rules and often 
ineffable information or experience’ (emphasis added). The ‘inarticulateness 
 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
17
of the creative … needs to be rendered articulate’. Gouldner concludes that 
while the ‘sociological theorists at Chicago University were more Romantic 
that those at Columbia University, it may be that the statistical methodologists 
at Columbia University were more Romantic than those elsewhere’ (p. 356). 
Gouldner effectively provides an outline lineage for GTM: Romanticism 
reinterpreted by Mead, drawing on John Dewey and Pragmatism, combined 
with a methodological view of creativity via Lazarsfeld.
It is crucial, however, to understand that, while making these associa-
tions, I am not arguing that such precursors explain, anticipate, or devalue 
the innovations of GTM. On the contrary, in many respects Strauss and 
Glaser specifically turned against or re-invented key aspects of their respec-
tive intellectual influences. Strauss certainly built on the work of Mead and 
other Chicago sociologists, often re-orienting or revising some key aspects. 
For instance, as Jörg Strübing argues (CD:2):
In shifting the Blumerian emphasis from symbolic interaction towards a more 
material view of sociality as situated activity, and thereby blurring the somewhat 
artificial separation of action from structure, Strauss both established a strictly 
anti-dualistic view of the social and showed the dynamic tension between doubt 
and belief to be the mover of human activity.
Re-constructing the history of GTM: Archaeology  
and genealogy
This trend of re-invention or enhancement has continued as GTM has 
developed, producing a rich diversity. Thus, Strübing contends that Strauss 
retained and strengthened the link to Pragmatism that Blumer had undone; 
but it is only in more recent times that this link and its ramifications for 
GTM have been discussed and articulated.
In similar vein, Gregory Hadley (CD:28) points out that Theodor 
Adorno denounced Lazarsfeld’s preference for simply describing life as 
it is, without also suggesting how it should be, resulting in ‘a bourgeois 
sociology reinforcing the domination inherent in society’ (quoting 
Gibson, 2007, p. 438).9 Hadley notes that similar criticism was raised 
against Symbolic Interactionism, and later directed at GTM itself by 
Layder (1993) and Burawoy (1991), who argued that Grounded Theorists, 
claiming to let the data speak for itself, are merely supporting the status 
quo. Hadely quotes Kincheloe and McLaren (2000) who explain that 
theoretical descriptions ‘are not simply about the world but serve to 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
18
construct it … language in the form of discourses serves as a form of reg-
ulation and domination (2000, p. 284)’. The recent work relating GTM 
to issues around social justice and inequality can then be understood as 
consciously remedying this omission or inattention in earlier grounded 
theories. Charmaz has led the way in attending to these concerns, and, 
contrary to the sorts of criticism of Layder and Burawoy, argues that 
GTM, through its lineage with Symbolic Interaction and Pragmatism, 
inherently encompasses issues of social justice and critical inquiry, a 
theme developed by Duckles et al. (CD:31), explicitly taking their lead 
from recent work by Charmaz (2017a).
Taken together this provides the basis for a genealogy for GTM, under-
stood in Nietzsche’s philosophical sense, later developed by Foucault. 
Genealogy is not the investigation of a glorious past culminating in the 
present, but rather something that is complex, mundane, and contingent. 
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) refers to this as follows:
Foucault intended the term ‘genealogy’ to evoke Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals, 
particularly with its suggestion of complex, mundane, inglorious origins – in no 
way part of any grand scheme of progressive history. The point of a genealogical 
analysis is to show that a given system of thought (itself uncovered in its essential 
structures by archaeology, which therefore remains part of Foucault’s historiogra-
phy) was the result of contingent turns of history, not the outcome of rationally 
inevitable trends. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d. – entry on genealogy)
Several chapters in both Handbooks (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a & 2019) 
offer accounts of how GTM developed, and, in many instances, they extend 
its history to the period before publication of Awareness and Discovery. 
These accounts amount to an archaeology of GTM in Foucault’s sense, 
with different archaeologists coming up with differing accounts, albeit with 
extensive areas of agreement and mutual support. In so doing, the gene-
alogy of GTM is further clarified. Gouldner offers an early example; later 
ones focus on what we now understand to be key issues for GTM – e.g. 
 
the role and nature of what was meant by ‘induction’ in the early works, the 
 
influence of Pragmatism, the relationship to Symbolic Interaction, and 
 
the contingencies that brought Quint, Strauss, and Glaser together at UCSF.
This all contributes to a ‘re-construction’ of the history of GTM, with 
the proviso that all histories are understood to be constructions in one way 
or another (see Bryant et al., 2013; Maines et al., 1983; Mead, 1959 [1932]). 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
19
Critically this re-construction needs to incorporate the ways in which our 
current understanding of GTM differs from people’s understanding at the 
time of its first articulation, and at various points in the 50+ years since its 
appearance. We can all benefit from engaging in a dialogue with those ear-
lier statements, building upon them and adding new insights. Inevitably 
this will involve some challenges to the ‘received wisdom’, just as Glaser 
and Strauss’s original work challenged the orthodoxy of the 1960s.
Once we move beyond the work of Quint, Glaser, and Strauss in the 
1960s things get more complex. The initial corpus of work and teaching 
of the method was located at UCSF, although not all those in the initial 
cohort of the PhD programme completed PhDs using GTM, and of those 
who did, only a few later undertook GTM-oriented research. Quint went on 
to build upon the work on dying, incorporating it into professional nursing 
practices and helping to establish what we now understand as terminal/
hospice care. Glaser’s role at UCSF was confined to teaching the grounded 
theory seminars.10 He also produced his key text Theoretical Sensitivity 
(1978) in this period. Only in the 1990s did he take on a higher GTM pro-
file, including publishing, teaching, and mentoring – activities with which 
he continues to be deeply involved.
Strauss was the key promulgator of GTM in the 1970s and 1980s, lec-
turing and publishing widely. He ran several GTM studies with former 
doctoral students (e.g. Fagerhaugh, Suczek, and Weiner), and worked 
with Juliet Corbin in 1980 when she was a doctoral student in nursing. 
She collaborated with Strauss until his death in 1996. Corbin and Strauss 
published widely during the 1980s, including Unending Work and Care: 
Managing Chronic Illness at Home (1988). Their collaboration led to pub-
lication of Basics of Qualitative Research in 1990. At the same time, the 
German-speaking GTM tradition was flourishing – see below.
Together with mention of Quint’s contribution, the ways in which 
the work of Strauss and his colleagues in Chicago can be seen as nascent 
GTM studies has been noted, although this is in no way to disparage or 
minimize Glaser’s contribution. Identifying the antecedents is at best a 
case of establishing the necessary but not sufficient conditions for the 
development of GTM. On the other hand, in some of his recent writ-
ings, Glaser seems to be offering his own re-construction of the history 
of GTM. In an article that first appeared in The Grounded Theory Review in 
2014, he wrote as follows:


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
20
In this book I am writing about only the application of classic GT as I originated 
it in 1967 in which the concepts of a GT theory are abstract of time, place, and 
people. (Glaser, 2014, emphasis added)
It may be that this is overstatement rather than a claim to be the sole origi-
nator of the method, but as it stands it is highly misleading.
One key statement re-constructing the history of GTM is the article 
by Strauss and Corbin in the first edition of The Handbook of Qualitative 
Research in 1994. The authors noted that it had taken more than 20 
years for the US sociological establishment to appreciate the ‘strong 
rationale’ for qualitative research lying at the core of GTM from its 
 
earliest embodiments. For Strauss and Corbin there was the danger – in 
the mid-1990s – that GTM would become fashionable and ‘would later 
be seen as old-hat’.
GTM in Germany11
Strauss held many visiting posts in Europe from the mid-1950s onwards, 
but his first visit to Germany in the aftermath of publication of Discovery 
was in 1975, when he was invited, by Thomas Luckmann, to spend time 
at the University of Konstanz as a researcher. There he met, among others, 
Hans Georg Soeffner. Soeffner spent time with Strauss at UCSF in the late 
1980s and early 1990s, collaborating with Strauss and colleagues, including 
Jeff Froner, Susan Leigh Star, and Adele Clarke, on a research project about 
‘illegals’ in the Bay Area.
In the late 1970s Fritz Schütze visited Strauss in San Francisco; so too 
did Gerd Riemann (University of Kassel), Richard Grathoff (Bielefeld) and 
Bruno Hildenbrand (Konstanz). Udo Kelle (personal communication) 
notes, however, that at this time ‘Glaser and Strauss were more widely 
known among medical sociologists for their work on interaction with 
dying patients than for their methodological writings’. Hence one of the 
earliest references to Glaser and Strauss’s work in Germany appears in 
 
the paper by Uta Gerhardt in 1976 ‘Krankenkarriere und Existenzbelastung’ 
(‘Healthcare and the burden of existence’).
Kelle also notes that the initial dissemination of Glaser and Strauss’s 
methodological work, in 1979, was the German translation of their 
1965 paper ‘Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underly-
ing qualitative research’, originally published in American Behavioural 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
21
Scientist (Glaser & Strauss, 1965a). The translation appeared in Qualitative 
Sozialforschung, edited by Christel Hopf and Elmar Weingarten, with 
the title ‘Die Entdeckung gegenstandsbezogener Theorie’. Kelle points 
out that throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s GTM was referred 
to in Germany as ‘gegenstandsbezogene Theoriebildung or gegenstandsnahe 
Theoriebildung (the original German translation for “substantive theory” 
building)’.
In 1982 Soeffner, Grathoff, and Schütze invited Strauss to Germany for 
a study visit, where he met Jo Reichertz. During this visit he produced
a Study Letter for the students of sociology of the FernUniversität Hagen with 
the title: Qualitative analysis in social research: Grounded theory methodology: 
Study Letter, University Hagen. It was an early version of Qualitative Analysis for 
Social Scientists (Strauss, 1987). For some years I used to be the tutor of this 
course. (Reichertz, personal communication)
A German translation of Strauss’s 1987 book appeared in 1991, edited 
by Hildenbrand, and a German edition of Strauss and Corbin’s book 
followed in 1996. But as Strübing points out, Strauss’s work was already 
well known in Germany, based on the 1968 translation of ‘his early 
masterpiece’ Mirrors and Masks (Strauss, 1959). Among German sociolo-
gists Spiegel und Masken was the key text for understanding issues of 
identity and interaction, ahead of Goffman’s work Presentation of Self in 
Everyday Life (1959).
Constructing grounded theories – GTM as a 
method-in-use
One aspect of the history of GTM that is critically unarticulated is the 
way in which the progenitors worked. The early GTM research projects 
involved all three, and Awareness, Discovery, and Time were produced 
collaboratively by Glaser and Strauss (1965b, 1967, 1968). Yet they never 
offered any extensive discussion of how this collaboration developed and 
operated. A brief hint appears in Status Passage, their only jointly pro-
duced formal grounded theory. Describing their method for ‘Generating 
Formal Theory’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1971, Chapter 9, pp. 192–193), they 
note that:


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
22
Because so much relevant data and theory was ‘in us’ from our previous work, 
the principal mode used to generate theory was to talk out our comparisons 
in lengthy conversations, and either record the conversation or take notes. 
 
We … studied relevant literature for more data and theory. These conversa-
tions went on almost five days a week for three months. At this time we gave 
up in exhaustion, and with the realization that we could begin to write it all 
up. (emphasis added)
It would be interesting to know more about their working practices. 
Strauss’s earlier experiences and observations, and later his six months of 
preliminary fieldwork, shaped the initial analysis of the social organiza-
tion of death and dying (see Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, pp. 286–287). Glaser 
joined the project five months after it received funding, and they soon 
worked out concepts concerning death-expectations and awareness. The 
data relied on observations and interviews, and perhaps other resources, 
although it is not clear how much of the data collection they did them-
selves. Moreover, there is little indication of how they worked on the data. 
They seem to have recorded their discussions in developing Status Passage, 
so did they do likewise in developing Awareness and Time; if so, did this 
involve only the two of them? How did they analyze their data? Did they 
each code the same data separately and then meet to discuss their indi-
vidual findings, or did they work things out together from scratch? What 
happened if they differed in their analyses? Do their field-notes or memos 
survive in any form?
In the 2007 volume, the chapter by Carolyn Wiener (2007) focused 
specifically on team-working, offering an account of how some of the early 
doctoral graduates at UCSF worked with Strauss on several major projects. 
Her account gives a glimpse of how Strauss worked with others, both aca-
demic colleagues and former doctoral students.
Accounts and insights into how research is actually carried out are 
few-and-far-between, which is unfortunate since it gives free rein to the 
stereotype of the lone, usually male, researcher, reinforced in films, books, 
plays, awards of international prizes, and so on. Early-career researchers, 
and PhD students in particular, often feel isolated and in need of guidance, 
not only from experienced advisors and supervisors, but also from those 
who are only a few steps ahead of them in their development. In recent 
years, students’ accounts have appeared (e.g. Bryant, 2017, Chapter 19), 
and various forms of research workshop provide a forum for such interac-
tions. Yet it is ironic and unfortunate that the process of researching in all 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
23
its various forms is itself so under-researched. In particular, wider recogni-
tion and understanding of the ways in which researchers work together 
need to be developed, undermining the mistaken assumption that research 
is for the most part a one-man [sic] endeavour.
For GTM specifically, there is the issue of the role of the supervisor/
advisor at various stages of doctoral research. Glaser has made continu-
ous use of Phyllis Stern’s term ‘minus mentoring’, i.e. where PhD students, 
aiming to use GTM, are supervised by staff with little or no understanding 
of the method, or, even worse, a highly imperfect and ill-informed one. 
This applies across all methods, but with regard to GTM it seems to be par-
ticularly problematic. I am aware of cases where students have been told 
erroneously that (a) they cannot use GTM as ‘they have already read the lit-
erature’, (b) they need clear research questions and hypotheses at the start 
of their research, (c) that their coding is ‘incorrect’, and that their advisor 
has a ‘better understanding’ of the data.
One problem with the term ‘discovery’, coupled with an often unstated 
but influential objectivist epistemology, is that it can lead to a view that 
the grounded theory resulting from use of GTM in a research project could 
indeed have been discovered by any researcher with the requisite skills. 
Thus, an advisor assisting, guiding or even correcting a doctoral student in 
their coding might be thought to be acting legitimately and helpfully since 
the codes, concepts, and theory are already embryonically in the data.
As Gouldner noted in 1973, GTM is at least as much about ‘imagina-
tion’ and creativity as it is about ‘science’. This tension between ‘discovery’ 
and ‘creativity’ is a generic one. Charles Darwin is credited with the discov-
ery of evolution via natural selection, but it is now understood that Alfred 
Russel Wallace was an independent co-discoverer. Yet if neither Darwin nor 
Wallace had completed and published their research, someone else would 
have arrived at these conclusions. Similarly, Einstein is credited with dis-
covering relativity, but had he not done so, others would have, based on 
the earlier and highly regarded work of Lorentz and other theoretical physi-
cists. Contrast this with Mozart’s music or Shakespeare’s plays; if neither 
had produced their various works, no one else would or could have done 
so. Grounded theories are a balanced combination of ‘imagination’ and ‘sci-
ence’. They should offer new and useful insights, the outcome of creative 
imaginings, albeit ones produced rigorously and transparently – abductively.
Consequently, any research mentor should refrain from active engage-
ment with GTM-researchers, over-mentoring, as they develop their codes 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
24
and later analysis, simultaneously ensuring that those being mentored 
are aware of the intricacies of employing specific methods, and the need 
for all researchers to develop and constantly enhance their methodological 
sensitivity (see below).
From a constructivist/interpretivist perspective, GTM-oriented research is 
a continuing and developing dialogue between researchers and the data. For 
doctoral and other early-career researchers, this dialogue also involves others, 
such as advisors, a term that encompasses ‘promoters’, ‘Directors of Studies’, 
and ‘supervisors’. But these exchanges need to avoid both minus mentoring 
and over-mentoring. Recognition that GTM, or more correctly grounded theo-
rizing, demands this balance leads to the understanding that conceptualizing 
is a skill that has to be learned, and can only be accomplished through exten-
sive practice and trial-and-error. The dialogue then includes mentors, but 
their role is to facilitate the dialogue, and not intervene as a (full) participant 
in their mentee’s work. Crossman and Noma (CD:29) focus on key aspects 
of mentoring. In particular, they point to the need to research into the ways 
in which ‘students of grounded theory navigate the tricky spaces of their 
research’. Some are able to ‘learn their craft … in mentored relationships 
with other qualitative researchers and in the best of circumstances, seasoned 
grounded theorists’. But what can be done to assist those not so fortunate?
GTM and the interpretative turn
GTM appeared in the 1960s, coinciding with the interpretative turn, 
although it was only with Charmaz’s writing in the 1990s that the two 
were brought together in any coherent, persuasive, and systematic man-
ner. Clarke (CD:1) describes this orientation as follows:
•	
Meaning is re-located from ‘reality out there’ to ‘reality as experienced 
by the perceiver’;
•	
An observer is assumed to inevitably be a participant in what is observed, 
more or less reflexive;
•	
Interpretations are not universal but must be located and situated in 
space and time;
•	
Cultures are best understood as unevenly changing assemblages of 
 
distinctive symbols and signifying practices;
•	
Interpretation per se is conditioned by historic cultural perspectives 
and mediated by symbols and practices.


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
25
In essence, using Rorty’s (1999) succinct paraphrase, for interpretivism/
constructivism truth is made, whereas for positivists or objectivists truth 
is discovered. Glaser and Strauss’s Discovery can now be seen perhaps as an 
unfortunate misnomer, albeit that the title confronted the orthodoxy of 
the time: ‘discovery’ implying that the ‘proletarian researchers’ could and 
should develop their own concepts, challenging the ‘theoretical capital-
ists’ in their academic redoubts. In contrast, by the 1990s Charmaz was 
developing and articulating the constructivist view of GTM, culminating 
in Constructing Grounded Theory (2006), which can be seen as a cogent and 
genuinely innovative re-statement of the method, fully engaged with and 
incorporating the interpretative turn.
There were, however, premonitions of this even in the 1960s. 
Leonard Schatzman, who worked with Strauss in Chicago and at UCSF, 
was responsible for the UCSF course on field methods. Students took 
this in preparation for the GTM courses taught first by Glaser and later 
by Strauss. Schatzman interacted with the teachers and students at UCSF 
for many years, continuing the tradition of the Chicago School, offering 
students the opportunity to discuss their work from its earliest stages 
with their peers and others.
Jane Gilgun quotes Marianne McCarthy, who participated in a group 
independent study with Schatzman: ‘The group independent study was 
wonderful. … We worked as a group, critiqued each others’ fieldnotes and 
each others’ memos’ (Gilgun, 1993). Schatzman’s method of Dimensional 
Analysis was developed in response to GTM, partly to support students 
who found GTM hard going. ‘The method Strauss teaches and Glaser 
teaches is very, very difficult. … It simply is not easy to grasp’ (Gilgun, 
1993). Although to an extent Schatzman’s method might be seen as too 
prescriptive, it encouraged students to work within an interpretive perspec-
tive, developing what I have termed methodological sensitivity.
Methodological sensitivity can be defined as the skill or aptitude required 
by researchers in selecting, combining, and employing methods, tech-
niques, and tools in actual research situations. Researchers can and need to 
develop this skill as a result of a combination of:
•	
guidance from and working with other researchers;
•	
insightful study of available research methods, techniques, and tools;
•	
and learning from their own experience. (See Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2)


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
26
Hadley (CD:28) argues that Schatzman developed Dimensional Analysis 
as a partial form of GTM, but one that ‘nevertheless anticipated the next 
turn that took place in GT, which was to understand social reality as more 
elastic’, partly anticipating Charmaz’s constructivist form. Kearney (2007, 
p. 129) noted that Strauss described his first large-scale research ven-
ture, Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions (1964), where Schatzman was a 
co-author, as ‘virtually a grounded theory study, but only implicitly so’.
Hadley (CD:28) echoes Gouldner in stating that this development 
characterizes coding as ‘less a question of scientific technique and more 
of an intuitive art developed according to the researcher’s individual tal-
ents, worldview, and temperament’. Interestingly, he sees this development 
taken further in Clarke’s Situational Analysis, ‘a postmodern, relativist 
Grounded Theory, similar to Charmaz (2006, 2014a), [that] highlights 
the process of theorizing over the product of theory’ (Hadley’s emphasis). 
Schatzman commended Glaser and Strauss for their contribution in articu-
lating GTM, simultaneously challenging others to do likewise. ‘Their great 
contribution was to push us into making methodological commitments 
which historically we did not do’ (quoted in Gilgun, 1993). But he also saw 
how these methodological statements could solidify and so become barriers 
to researchers’ efforts at constructing theoretical insights; i.e. being treated 
as algorithms rather than as heuristics (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2).
There are various ways of describing the different forms of GTM, and 
how they relate to one another. For instance, we can identify the canonical 
works of Glaser and Strauss in the 1960s, from which three main variants 
have developed, exemplified by:
1.	
Strauss and Corbin’s writings, particularly those from the 1990s;
2.	
Glaser’s writings, particularly those from the 1990s;
3.	
The constructivist writings of Charmaz (2000, 2006, 2014a) and later Bryant 
(2002, 2017) beginning in the 1990s.
In addition, and in many cases cutting across these three forms, or inter-
secting with at least one of them, are approaches such as Clarke’s Situational 
Analysis (2005; Clarke et al., 2017).
Jo Reichertz (CD:13), however, refers to ‘at least five different varieties 
which are arranged consecutively, suggesting one may also talk about vari-
ous phases of its development or about different generations of Grounded 
Theory’. In order these are:


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
27
1.	
‘Inductively oriented’ GT – i.e. as evidenced in Glaser and Strauss’s earliest 
writings in the 1960s, but also including Glaser’s later writings since they 
maintain the stance of ‘the researcher [remaining] passive … which leads to 
the reasonable objection that this approach is ingrained with Positivism’.
2.	
‘Classic’ GT – i.e. the work of Strauss in the 1980s, and later his earliest 
empirical work with Corbin: ‘ingrained in American Pragmatics (Peirce, 
Dewey, Mead) … [with] similarities to a (non-reflective) sociology of knowl-
edge and to social constructivism’. Here Reichertz uses the term ‘American 
Pragmatics’ as a synonym for Pragmatism. He also deliberately uses the 
term ‘classic’ GT with regard to Strauss rather than Glaser, as the former 
was already in the early 1960s producing research that can be considered 
embryonic GT. Glaser now claims the term ‘Classic’ for his variant.
3.	
Prescriptive positivistic ‘code-oriented’ GT – found in the 1990 and 1998 
editions of Strauss and Corbin’s Basics of Qualitative Research, and the con-
siderably more open-ended and flexible third and fourth editions (Corbin & 
Strauss, 2008 & 2015). Reichertz argues that ‘[T]his approach emphasizes 
precision, and strongly resembles qualitative analysis of content’. He argues 
that this ‘variety of Grounded Theory may most likely be linked to QDA-
software, e.g. ATLAS.ti, MAXQDA (Strauss & Corbin 1998; Corbin & Strauss 
2008 and 2015 – and especially Corbin 2011)’.
4.	
His fourth type is ‘Constructivist grounded theory (Bryant 2002; Bryant 
& Charmaz 2007b, 2007c; Charmaz 2006, 2014a; Charmaz & Keller 
2016), which especially criticizes the inductive approach of the former 
grounded theory methodology and moreover critically scrutinizes the 
capability of coding routines. This approach (referring to Pragmatism 
and the concept of abduction) considers research work as a search for 
patterns and best explanations in making comparisons and interpretations – 
 
and hence as a process which is always bound to a perspective and 
which is communicative.’
5.	
Finally, he identifies ‘Postmodern, situative grounded theory (Clarke 2005, 
2007; Clarke & Keller 2014), which is explicitly not only concerned with 
people/social actors and their perspectives but also with artefacts, practices 
and discourses’.
Hadley (CD:28) refers to the ‘diversity of practice’ within GTM, which:
An autopoietic perspective of grounded theorization frames is both a structured 
product and an ongoing process. Metaphorically, it is similar to how two aunts 
might describe their nephew as ‘a growing boy’. There is a boy (product) who is 
a structured entity, and a boy who is steadily growing (process). In like manner, 
Grounded Theories are constructions emerging from and supporting the process 
of ongoing theorization. Each form of theorization energizes the other along the 
lines of autopoiesis. All share the same genetic code. The value of such diversity 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
28
in the way GTM has been construed means that theorists have greater freedom in 
determining which procedures fit best for their paradigmatic, theoretical, and meth-
odological perspective. In the process, theories will be generated, constructed, 
deconstructed, and reconstructed within a system of dynamic intellectual activ-
ity. (emphasis added)
One result of this diversity is a bewildering plethora of acronyms, made 
more confusing since the same acronym is often used for different variants. 
For instance, CGT was widely used in the 2007 edition, and elsewhere, to 
refer to Constructivist GT, but it is also now used to refer to Classic GT – i.e. 
Glaser’s variant (although Reichertz uses the same term to refer to Strauss’s 
work in the 1980s) – and also to Critical GT.
Notes
  1	 Early in 2017 I was involved in the examination of a PhD in a UK university. The 
candidate was a practising nurse, working and researching in a highly reputable 
nursing department. The thesis was admirable in many respects, but failed to 
mention Quint in any way, and at the viva voce it was apparent that neither the 
candidate nor the supervisory team had any realization of Quint’s importance. 
Needless to say, the mild set of revisions required for final award of the doctorate 
included the necessity for inclusion of a clear statement about her role.
  2	 The ways in which women are written out of history is now widely documented, 
if still not generally acknowledged. Examples include women artists (Parker & 
Pollock, 1981/1995) and women engineers and scientists.
  3	 Parsons posed the rhetorical question ‘Who now reads (Herbert) Spencer?’ in his 
book The Structure of Social Action (1937).
  4	 But see Jeffrey C. Alexander (1985), who claimed and revised functionalism in 
his book, Neofunctionalism, which gained interest among scholars specializing 
in sociological theory.
  5	 ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good 
fortune, must be in want of a wife.’ The opening of Pride and Prejudice, Jane 
Austen.
  6	 www.groundedtheory.com
  7	 Kathy Charmaz comments, ‘The doctoral program was very small and most of its 
graduates did not have academic positions. Jobs were few in Sociology. In con-
trast, Nursing at the doctoral level was opening up and their doctoral students 
who were familiar with GT did get jobs.’ (Personal Communication)
  8	 Romanticism is a somewhat vague and multifarious term. The entry in the 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (n.d – entry on Romanticism) notes that 
‘[D]istinguished scholars, such as Arthur Lovejoy, Northrop Frye and Isaiah 
Berlin, have remarked on the notorious challenges facing any attempt to define 
Romanticism. The English Romantic poet offered a succinct summation in Ode on 
a Grecian Urn: ‘“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all//Ye know on earth, and 
all ye need to know’. Gouldner’s use of the term is largely rhetorical, contrasting 


GTM – A FAMILY OF VARIANTS
29
Romanticism and Positivism with traditional, authoritative claims to knowledge 
and insight. (His article is discussed in Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18.)
  9	 The relationship between Adorno and Lazarsfeld was fraught in many respects – 
see D. E. Morrison, ‘Kultur and culture: The case of Theodor W. Adorno and Paul 
F. Lazarsfeld’. Social Research, 45(2), Summer 1978.
10	 Kathy Charmaz notes that earlier expectations for the formation of a School of 
Social and Behavioural Sciences at UCSF, with program expansion, never mate-
rialized. In the 1970s, Governor Ronald Reagan put sharp constraints on higher 
education in California, and sociology was declining nation-wide.
11	 I am extremely grateful to Udo Kelle, Jo Reichertz, and Jörg Strübing for supply-
ing the information on which this section is based.


2
THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS  
OF GTM
Discussing GTM variants inevitably leads to consideration of the core char-
acteristics of the method; I have offered some clarification of this, making 
the distinction between the ‘accidents’ and ‘essences’ of GTM (Bryant, 
2017, Chapter 4, especially Table 4.4). The ‘accidental’ aspects mostly 
derive from the historical period within which GTM developed, so in time 
they should be revised, rectified, or clarified. The ‘essential’ ones are those 
that distinguish GTM from other approaches.
Not surprisingly, the authors of many of the chapters in Current 
Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) offer accounts of what they con-
sider are the essential features of GTM. For instance, Johnson and Walsh 
(CD:25) refer to ‘four foundational pillars [of the GT process]: all is data, 
emergence (of categories, relationships, theory, and research design), con-
stant comparative analysis, and theoretical sampling’.
The 2007 Handbook introduced the distinction between the method 
and the output, using the term GTM for the former and GTs (grounded 
 
theories) 
for 
the 
latter. 
This 
usage 
has 
now 
become 
conventional 
to 
some 
extent, 
including use of the acronym GTM, although the term ‘Grounded Theory’ 
understandably continues to be used both with reference to the outcome 
and the method; the context usually clarifies the actual meaning. Strübing, 
however, takes issue with this distinction (email correspondence with author).
I have strong objections regarding the partial renaming of GT into GTM. In 
your paper you state that GT would be a ‘misnomer’. That is not the case. 
It is actually an oxymoron that carries the meaning of both, the process of 
elaborating grounded theory and this (type of) theory itself. Why is that 
important? Because it is one of the key features of American pragmatism 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
31
to resolve reified objects into the processes of their becoming. In order to 
avoid false dichotomies and to reveal the power and the decision making 
that goes into those objects. ‘The published word is not the final one, but 
only a pause in the never-ending process of generating theory’ (Glaser/
Strauss 1967: 40). Theory for Strauss is a process, the same process that 
you would like to rename GTM. That would be one step back from the 
advances social sciences inherited from Strauss.
To separate methods from theorizing would at the same time mean to support 
exactly that kind of instrumentalism that led into quantitative methods core 
mistakes: There is no method without theory and if it appears as such, it simply 
disguises its roots and its embeddedness. We should be wiser than them:-)
Robert Thornberg and Ciarán Dunne (CD:10) offer:
At least three reasons [that] account for why GTM is necessary: (1) the literature 
does not provide enough theories to cover all aspects or areas of the social life; 
(2) due to their lack of grounding in data, extant theories seldom fit or work, 
nor are relevant or sufficiently understandable to use in research which aspires to 
be sensitive to the empirical field and its participants (Glaser and Strauss, 1967); 
and (3) our reality is dynamic, continuously shaped by diverse, subjective lived 
experiences and innovations.
Norman Denzin (CD:22) argues that although GTM is ‘not a unified frame-
work’ there is a common core. Despite the different variants,
there are commonalities: flexible guidelines for data collection (and analysis), 
including interviewing, archival analysis, observation, and participant observation. 
Most importantly, the commitment is to remain close to the world being studied.
He notes that some of these ‘techniques’ are common across other methods, 
albeit for differing purposes and with different approaches/commitments. 
More contentiously, he argues that the outputs from GTM are not theories, 
which is ‘perhaps a misnomer … a better word might be interpretation, 
grounded interpretation (GI)’.
Katherine Irwin (CD:18) refers to GTM as ‘a negotiated method’, and 
that it is ‘exposure of a generation of researchers to theoretical and epis-
temological developments in the late 20th and early 21st centuries that 
accounts for why and how GTM is currently being used to develop theo-
ries linking structure and agency’. This observation brings GTM back to 
Strauss’s work on precisely this inherently sociological issue, and the rela-
tionship between GTM and sociology discussed below.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
32
GTM coding and sampling
Two aspects of GTM that continue to prove troubling both to exponents 
and evaluators are coding and sampling; largely due to the differences 
between their respective meanings in the context of GTM as opposed to 
more generic ideas in research as a whole.
Coding
Readers will probably be aware that the term ‘coding’, in the sense of cod-
ing data, predates the appearance of GTM. It is used in a generic sense 
in the context of research and data analysis, but in most cases will have 
an explicit meaning depending on the specific research method and/or 
technique that is being used.1 Glaser and Strauss, however, deliberately 
changed the meaning of codes and coding in GTM, so for many research-
ers ‘coding’ is now first-and-foremost associated with GTM. But it can also 
be argued that coding has taken on a whole host of new meanings and 
nuances, particularly across qualitative research in general.2 Unfortunately, 
in their later writings, both in concert and individually, they offered further 
 
expositions, often differing from the earlier ones. Susanne Friese (CD:14) 
notes that in the 1966 German edition, ‘Strauss and Corbin define coding 
as “the process of data analysis” (p. 43). In the 2015 edition, it is defined as 
delineating concepts to stand for interpreted meaning (Chapter 12)’. This 
shift indicates the extent to which Corbin has sought to incorporate inter-
pretative methods in her more recent work. CAQDAS examples, such as 
NVivo, MAXQDA, and Atlas.ti, use the term ‘coding’, but in different ways 
from that used in GTM and from each other. In some respects, CAQDAS 
‘coding’ is a form of labelling or tagging, whereas GTM coding involves far 
more than this. Critics argue that many GTM research papers fail to move 
beyond the details of ‘codes’, offering little insight or coherence and simply 
re-labelling the data or describing some putative classification. But this is 
a failing on the part of the researchers themselves rather than anything 
inherent in the method.
Linda Belgrave and Kapriskie Seide (CD:8) point to the paucity of 
detail in the early GTM texts – particularly Discovery – regarding what was 
involved in GTM-type coding. In some regards this is understandable given 
that Discovery was primarily a manifesto written by Glaser and Strauss with 
their academic colleagues in mind (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 3). More 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
33
detailed expositions were provided in the methodological appendices in 
both Awareness and Time, these being the main sources of guidance on 
application of GTM in the early writings.
Later texts on GTM, however, have more than made up for this, but 
the result is often confusion as researchers try to make sense of the wide 
variety of explanations and terms that are used. Belgrave and Seide (CD:8) 
make the point that discussions on GTM coding must offer the basis for ‘a 
starting point and some organizational scheme’ for coding, based on an 
understanding of ‘elements of coding approaches as steps in a process’, but 
‘emphasizing that this process is not linear’.
They offer an overview of ‘the major branches of the GTM family’, 
including ‘Glaserian GTM and Constructivist GTM, as well as a note on 
Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis’. In doing so, they are con-
cerned to offer a comparison of different approaches, but in
a spirit of celebrating what we see as a rich garden of methodological possibilities, 
suited to diverse research paradigms. This is not to deny our differences, but to 
value our pluralism. In this, we see ourselves in tune with authors such as Phyllis 
Noerager Stern (2007), Adele Clarke (2009) and Frederick J. Wertz et al. (2011).
Belgrave and Seide stress ‘the impossibility of separating coding from other 
elements of analysis, even writing’ for GTM. This is correct up to a point, 
given that GTM is the method of constant comparison, an orientation that 
encompasses all the stages of GTM-oriented research, from initial coding 
to writing and presentation. But stated in their stark terms, it may mislead 
or deter GTM novices.
The consequence is that those tasked with writing about GTM coding are 
faced with a conundrum: efforts at ‘clarification’ may all too easily obfus-
cate and over-simplify the complexities of the processes involved, resulting 
in a mechanistic description of what is in fact a highly nuanced and subtle 
series of activities; but overly complicated and convoluted accounts might 
prove bewildering and unhelpful.
I have found that occasionally doctoral students, having gathered a 
fair amount of data – usually, but not only, from interviews – are then 
unable to commit themselves to coding, lacking the confidence to 
engage with this process. This is ironic, given that Glaser and Strauss 
were motivated to develop and teach GTM as a basis for giving doctoral 
researchers the confidence to develop their own theoretical concepts. 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
34
In some cases, such reticence arises from students misunderstanding 
the different forms of advice regarding getting started with coding – 
 
i.e. word-by-word or line-by-line or incident-by-incident. They need to 
heed Charmaz’s advice that it is best to start by moving quickly through 
the data, rather than getting bogged down trying to identify the minu-
tiae. Coding is one of those skills that can only be acquired through 
practice, even though it may appear to be straightforward. Inexperienced 
researchers need to trust themselves in the earliest stages and avoid won-
dering if they are developing ‘the correct codes’, instead looking for 
those that are most relevant and useful in developing further conceptu-
alizations of the context under investigation.
Belgrave and Seide stress that ‘coding is more than labeling’, and that 
the ways in which the process is described by different authors reveals their 
respective epistemologies. They offer a very clear account, illustrated with 
specific examples, of five different approaches:
•	
the somewhat sparse accounts offered by Glaser and Strauss;
•	
Glaser’s subsequent work;
•	
Strauss and Corbin’s ‘procedural approach’;
•	
Charmaz and Bryant’s constructivism; and
•	
Clarke’s situational analysis.
They conclude that GTM is not ‘a free-for-all’, but a robust methodology, 
where it is both possible and advisable ‘to draw from the works of multiple 
methodologists, bringing awareness of underlying assumptions, benefits 
and potential problems to one’s specific project’.
Sampling
Researchers can only start their coding once they have identified the basis 
for their sample; again, a term that has specific connotations within GTM, 
diverging and differing significantly from the ways in which it is used and 
understood in other contexts. Morse and Clark (CD:7) discuss GTM sampling, 
distinguishing between sampling in qualitative and quantitative inquiry, 
then further distinguishing GTM sampling from other qualitative forms.
We argue that sampling is not a procedure that is delegated for locating subjects 
who represent the population at the beginning of the study, as it is in quantita-
tive inquiry. Rather, in qualitative inquiry, the goal of sampling is to represent the 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
35
phenomenon. In grounded theory, it is a procedural tool that is integral to the 
entire research process, with the goal of attaining excellent data that enables to 
development and verification of an abstract and generalizable theory.
The key to sampling derives from what they term ‘the concept of ade-
quacy’. For qualitative research this is based on the relevance of the 
sample to the phenomenon under investigation, in sharp contrast to 
sampling in a quantitative study. For GTM, however, they stress that sam-
pling is part of the process of what they term ‘emergent design’, a key feature 
of GTM, implying that researchers cannot be expected to know from the out-
set the types of samples that will be required in later stages of research. In this 
regard, GTM sampling is a ‘situated action’ (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 11; 
Suchman, 1984) as opposed to one that can be prepared and planned from 
the start. In Morse and Clark’s terms ‘sampling strategies must be flexible … 
used for developing the concepts, as well as constructing and confirming the 
theory’, the process as a whole being ‘integrated into the process of inquiry’.
Morse and Clark stress that the issue of sampling extends into the latter 
stages of GTM research, so that it encompasses use of literature and ‘sam-
pling from the library, including research on the topic conducted by others’, 
developing ‘generalizability to other concepts, by linking to other theories, 
experiences and populations’. They offer a range of heuristic devices, includ-
ing how to ‘sample for process’, and how to establish one’s concepts beyond 
the specific research context itself. They also address the issue of the role of 
researchers, taking into account aspects such as ethnicity and culture.
Terminology
Although some of the acronyms used for variants of GTM may cause confu-
sion, this is remedied once the full expression of the acronym is confirmed, 
even if it is unique or specific to that text. GTM terminology, however, 
is another matter. Charmaz included a glossary in Constructing Grounded 
Theory (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a), and in the 2007 volume we incorporated 
these definitions in our expanded Discursive Glossary (Bryant & Charmaz, 
2007a). We have revised this glossary for Current Developments (Bryant & 
Charmaz, 2019), but readers should be aware that writers adhere to their 
own terms and we did not seek to impose any form of standardized ter-
minology. To paraphrase Crossman and Noma (CD:29), students have to 
navigate the tricky spaces of GTM texts.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
36
In her comments on an earlier version of Friese’s chapter, Charmaz 
noted that differing uses of terms such as codes and coding are an ongo-
ing issue for GTM, now made more complex with the advent of CAQDAS. 
Friese also argues:
Some ‘codes’, however, may never be methodological; they simply serve organ-
izational purposes to support data retrieval. Further, the code system needs to 
be structured in a way to be able to use more advanced software tools later in 
the analysis. This is based on technical requirements of the software and might 
lead to the impression to remodel GT to QDA. The latter would only be the case 
if the analyst was only tagging the data without writing, and thus not translating 
the underlying methodology in the intended way.
There is also the vexed question of the relationship between the terms 
code, category, and concept. In 2007 we discussed the different ways in 
which these terms were used in the GTM literature. In some cases, one 
text uses ‘code’ where another opts for ‘category’; similarly, for ‘category’ 
and ‘concept’. This applied not only to texts by different authors, but also 
to different texts by the same author(s). The early GTM texts referred to 
a ‘core category’ as the outcome of a GTM study, but also referred to a 
grounded theory as a study of a concept; Glaser himself argues (CD:21) 
that GTM ‘is itself a grounded theory with conceptualization being the 
core category’: GTM is ‘about developing conceptualizations’.
I continue to opt for a hierarchy moving from codes at the most basic 
and numerous level, through to a smaller number of categories, arriving at 
a single core concept, or perhaps two or three core concepts (Bryant, 2017, 
Chapter 5). Others, including Charmaz, employ the original sequence of 
code → concept → category. Regardless of the specific approach being 
employed, researchers will end up with numerous codes which need to 
be organized so that some sense can be made from the data. Friese makes 
this point with respect to CAQDAS ‘codes’, but it also applies to manual 
coding. Many GTM researchers report that their initial studies, when they 
are open coding, can result in an unmanageable number of codes, often in 
the hundreds. Although potentially bewildering, researchers usually find 
that they can group these, and provide a coherent and persuasive account 
for so doing. Charmaz (2014a) recommends assessing how analytic codes 
subsume more descriptive codes and coding to develop analytic codes that 
can be raised to tentative categories.


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
37
Different researchers may well develop different categories from the 
same data, but that is a ‘feature’ rather than a ‘bug’ – i.e. the process has 
to be understood interpretatively, involving a dialogue between researchers 
and data. Different researchers will have distinctive dialogues with the data, 
steering their investigations accordingly. Multiple researchers will compli-
cate but also enrich these ongoing dialogues. Researchers may also develop 
different categories and concepts from the same data, as Glaser and Strauss 
did for Awareness (1965b), then subsequently for Time (1968).
The outcome of a successful grounded theory study is a concept or 
some limited number of related concepts – in either case the term ‘concep-
tualization’ seems the most appropriate. Glaser (2004) uses the term as a 
distinguishing feature of GTM, which is ‘straightforward conceptualization 
integrated into theory – a set of plausible, grounded hypotheses’. Corbin 
and Strauss (2008, p. 263) likewise: ‘the point in analysis when all catego-
ries are well developed in terms of properties, dimensions, and variations. 
Further data gathering and analysis add little new to the conceptualization, 
though variations can always be discovered’ (emphasis added).
The gerund form conceptualizing is not defined in many GTM texts, includ-
ing the 2007 volume, but is included in Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 
2007a, 2019). Strauss and Corbin clearly noticed its relevance, arguing that it 
was the ‘first step in theory building’ (1998, p. 103) – a form of abstracting. 
This implies that it comes into force in the middle and later stages of GTM-
oriented research, after preliminary or open coding of initial data.
Charmaz offers the following characterization of ‘categorizing’ that 
seems to encompass ‘conceptualizing’ in all but name.
Categorizing: the analytic step in grounded theory of selecting certain codes as 
having overriding significance or abstracting common themes and patterns in sev-
eral codes into an analytic concept. As the researcher categorizes, he or she raises 
the conceptual level of the analysis from description to a more abstract, theoretical 
level. The researcher then tries to define the properties of the category, the condi-
tions under which it is operative, the conditions under which it changes, and its 
relation to other categories. Grounded theorists make their most significant theo-
retical categories into the concepts of their theory. (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a, p. 341)
Charmaz continues to use the initial GTM hierarchy, with codes leading 
to categories, and finally one or more core concepts. Her terms follow the 
traditions of her discipline, in which relationships between concepts are 
used in theorizing.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
38
Our introduction to the 2007 volume referred to several different uses 
of these terms, and there is no obvious resolution to this. Instead, I cau-
tion readers to satisfy themselves that they understand how the terms are 
used and how they relate to one another, in any specific text. Also, that 
they themselves, when writing about their research, clarify their use of the 
terms, striving for consistency and coherence.
Coding and CAQDAS: Text mining
Mitsuyuki Inaba and Hisako Kakai (CD:16) refer to ‘coding’ in the context 
both of GTM and what they term GTxA: ‘an innovative approach to quali-
tative data analysis called the grounded text mining approach’. They argue 
that there are three key advantages to this approach, linking GTM directly 
to CAQDAS. The first is that it helps balance ‘viewpoints in theory con-
struction’, i.e. ‘the two perspectives of depth and breadth in understanding 
text data by combining the GTM, which is based on the constructivist para-
digm, and the visualization of text resources via text mining’. Second, this 
enhances ‘transparency in the data analysis process’, allowing others to rec-
ognize the steps taken in moving from the initial data to the higher-level 
abstractions. Finally, building on these two features, the overall ‘cognitive 
load of the researcher’ can be reduced.
They offer various caveats relating to the use of CAQDAS and Big Data, 
echoing Bryant and Raja (2014), where we cautioned against reliance on 
algorithmic approaches to data – whether or not they involve computer 
technology. They admit that GTxA is time-consuming, in terms of the ini-
tial effort required to learn the CAQDAS package; also, that since ‘GTxA 
uses the methods of both the GTM and text mining, more time is required 
to obtain the final result compared with conducting each analysis indepen-
dently’. Andrea Gorra makes a similar point regarding time (CD:15).
Method, methodology, tool
Johnson and Walsh (CD:25) point out that ‘[S]ince GT was first described 
in 1967 through the epochal collaboration of Glaser and Strauss, GT has 
been understood by various authors as a technique, a method, a method-
ology, a framework, a paradigm, or as a meta-theory of inductive research 
design’. This is much to the consternation of students looking for clarifica-
tion rather than confusion from the research methods literature. To resolve 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
39
this, I have offered my own perspective on the relationship between terms 
such as method, methodology, model, tool, and technique – also strategy, 
approach, and design – with regards to research (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2), 
but others will have their own, differing approaches.
Many discussions use the terms ‘method’ and ‘methodology’ inter-
changeably, and unless otherwise specified they can be understood 
synonymously. Flick, who has written a number of important and authori-
tative texts on qualitative research (e.g. Flick, 2008a, 2008b, 2014a, 2014b, 
2015), opts for the term ‘research design’. He argues that the term ‘design’ 
is a fluid concept and highly appropriate in the context of research since 
researchers need to be ready to change their strategy and approach as their 
investigations develop. I have argued similarly that researching needs to be 
understood as a series of ‘situated actions’ (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 11). Flick 
(CD:6) quotes Charles Ragin:
Research design is a plan for collecting and analyzing evidence that will make it 
possible for the investigator to answer whatever questions he or she has posed. 
The design of an investigation touches almost all aspects of the research, from 
the minute details of data collection to the selection of the techniques of data 
analysis. (Ragin, 1994, p. 191)
Strübing uses the term ‘research style’, arguing that the
strong ties between Strauss’s pragmatist predisposition and his methodological 
perspective show up in the operational mode of Grounded Theory as a research 
style: The iterative-cyclical process mode he proposes (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) 
mirrors Dewey’s model of problem-solving – as does his notion of theory as a 
‘never-ending process’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967: 40). Also, the idea of theoretical 
sensitivity resonates with Mead’s concept of perspective (Mead, 1932/1959). 
(emphasis added)
Flick also quotes from Boys in White (1961), where Becker et al. claim 
that:
In one sense, our study had no design. That is, we had no well-worked-out set 
of hypotheses to be tested, no data-gathering instruments, purposely designed 
to secure information relevant to these hypotheses, no set of analytic proce-
dures specified in advance. Insofar as the term ‘design’ implies these features of 
elaborate prior planning, our study had none. If we take the idea of design in 
a larger and looser sense, using it to identify those elements of order, system, 
and consistency our procedures did exhibit, our study had a design. We can say 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
40
what this was by describing our original view of our problem, our theoretical 
and methodological commitments, and the way these affected our research and 
were affected by it as we proceeded. (1961, p. 17)
This statement hints at some characteristics of GTM, describing the balance 
between being open to surprise and the unexpected in the early stages of 
research, but also conducting the study in a disciplined and rigorous man-
ner, combining theoretical and methodological sensitivities. The statement 
also indicates the strong continuity between Chicago School ethnography 
and grounded theory.
Sharlene Hesse-Biber and Hillary Flowers (CD:24) focus on the added-
value that feminist grounded theoretical approaches can bring to mixed 
methods research designs, aiming for combinations that are ‘integra-
tive’ and ‘reciprocal’. Through case studies, they establish how using 
GTM can support feminist research goals, observing that feminist prin-
ciples can stretch and expand GTM-in-use, leading to more profound 
research. Moreover, building on the reciprocal effects between feminist 
principles and GTM strengthens each and makes the results more pow-
erful, credible, resonant, and useful (Charmaz’s terms).
In contrast, Johnson and Walsh (CD:25) seek to locate GTM against 
current discussion of mixed methods, making a distinction between mixed 
methods research (MMR) and multimethods research (MR). They provide 
an overview of current concerns, and demonstrate
how careful and thoughtful combining of grounded theory and mixed methods 
research can result in an exciting methodology that we call mixed grounded 
theory (MGT). MGT is an approach to research that relies on ideas found in 
grounded theory and mixed methods research.
Early statements by Strauss and his colleagues, such as that given earlier, 
indicate that the idea of mixing methods – i.e. combining aspects of one 
method with another – has always been a key aspect of good research practice. 
Consequently, building on Glaser and Strauss’s work, I have coined the term 
methodological sensitivity, in recognition that virtually all research involves 
plans and intentions with regards to the application of a combination of 
methods, tools, and techniques. There are few, if any, examples of unalloyed 
application of any single method, since methods, research plans, designs, and 
strategies usually falter at the first contact with the research setting.


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
41
Johnson and Walsh would argue that in many cases this is an exam-
ple of multimethod rather than mixed methods research. Their discussion 
demonstrates the need for researchers to understand the importance of 
articulating their overall approach, including the forms of data that are 
encompassed, and the forms of analysis that are employed.
Discovery included the subtitle Strategies for Qualitative Research, but this 
never precluded use of quantitative data. On the other hand, Glaser and 
Strauss rarely, if ever, refer to such data. Glaser’s dictum ‘All is data’ indi-
cates that all forms of data are amenable to GTM, and in 2008, in Doing 
Quantitative Grounded Theory, he argued that the GTM researchers should 
not shy away from ‘the rich meanings to be found and grounded in sec-
ondary quantitative measurement’ (Glaser, 2008, p. 89). Grounded theories 
can be generated from incorporation of quantitative data, including that 
collected by others in previous research exercises. In referring to this as 
‘quantitative GT’, however, Glaser introduces potential confusion, since it 
may be thought that this is a distinct form of GTM, rather than strengthen-
ing and clarifying the case that GTM researchers can and should consider 
using all forms of data, and in virtually any combination.
Johnson and Walsh refer to the issue of triangulation, defining it as ‘the 
convergence of findings across methods’, something that occurs both in 
mixed method and multimethod research. Flick, likewise, discusses trian-
gulation, tracing the concept in some senses from Glaser and Strauss’s term 
‘slices of data’.3
If we take again the first edition of this Handbook (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007) as 
a reference, it looks like triangulation is also a concept which is not too promi-
nent in grounded theory discussions about methodology. However, the ideas 
behind triangulation are not too far away from what is done in grounded theory 
research. The main idea of triangulation is to extend the research by using several 
methods, differing theories or multiple researchers. The resulting extension of data 
and interpretations in the process is seen as a contribution to make research and 
results more credible and fruitful. (Flick, CD:6, emphasis added)
In so doing, Flick introduces the issue of how multiple researchers interact 
in a research project. In this regard, ‘slices of data’ involves understanding 
that different researchers may well slice the same data in different ways, 
perhaps as a result of their individual backgrounds, training, or agendas. 
Again, this is something that underlines the importance of people’s theo-
retical and methodological sensitivities.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
42
As has already been noted, Glaser and Strauss hardly addressed the ways 
in which they collaborated in their work on death and dying. Collaboration 
is a topic barely broached in research methods texts. Flick (CD:6) quotes 
Hammersley and Atkinson (1995, p. 24) ‘who argue in the context of 
ethnography that “research design should be a reflexive process which 
operates throughout every stage of a project”’. Katja Mruck and Günter 
Mey devote their entire chapter (CD:23) to a discussion on reflexivity, 
delineating, and clarifying its place in the research process, and explain-
ing how it affects outcomes. They offer researchers a list of concerns that 
individual and multiple researchers should consider during their projects. 
But empirical discussions of how reflexivity leads multiple researchers to 
interact, discuss, and compromise during the research process have not 
really figured to any significant degree in the research methods literature.
Duckles et al. (CD:31) offer some important insights on this topic, 
including their statement of how they work together, seeking to incorporate 
other research participants.
We code both individually and as a team, develop consensus categories, review 
our data to saturate the categories and build themes. We reach into academic 
research literature, but also into local literature, stories and knowledge as part 
of our constant comparative methods and processes of abduction, as we chal-
lenge, revise, and enrich our analysis.
They include guidance showing how collaboration between academic and 
community-based researchers can:
1.	
build on local knowledge and address both local issues and systemic change 
through iterative cycles of research;
2.	
acknowledge and integrate the emergent tensions in community-based 
participatory action research to generate both practical solutions;
3.	
start from the principles of people in the community (Afrocentric philoso-
phies were crucial in their work);
4.	
use symbolic interactionism as a guiding perspective, and abductive analysis 
as a methodological strategy. (my paraphrase)
Crossman and Noma (CD:29) discuss how multiple researchers collabo-
rate using GTM, and several other contributors to Current Developments 
(Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) refer to the need to acknowledge research-
ers’ differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds. As will be seen below, 
however, terms such as ‘culture’, ‘paradigm’, and ‘indigeneity’ need to be 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
43
treated with care and critical insight. If pushed too far they lead to the 
paradox that irked readers of Thomas Kuhn’s work, and infamously Kuhn 
himself, namely the problem of ‘the incommensurability of paradigms’.4 
Aspects of this can often come to the fore in the interactions between stu-
dents and their supervisors, a topic discussed below in addressing student 
and learning issues.
Methodologizing: GTM and methodological 
positioning
Given all these developments, variants, and other off-shoots, it is not sur-
prising that Reichertz (CD:13) argues that there is ‘no central reference 
text’ for GTM, nor ‘a binding canonization’. He sees this as ‘both a blessing 
and a curse’, arising from the method being freed from ‘a specific form of 
working’. The ‘blessing’ is that GTM researchers are now guided by ‘general 
principles – which makes adaptation to the respective subject matter con-
siderably easier’. The converse of this, however, is it facilitates something 
of a free-for-all, allowing anyone ‘to perform a somehow “open” and “data- 
oriented” analysis [and] to flag their respective practice as “grounded theory”’.
As Strauss and Corbin feared in the 1990s, GTM is now ‘in vogue’, 
but whereas they worried about it then becoming ‘old-hat’, it has, on the 
contrary, become a fashion label, claimed and invoked extravagantly and 
all-too-often speciously. (Crossman and Noma (CD:29) use the phrase 
‘methodological consumerism’, albeit in a slightly different context.) Glaser 
reacts to such tenuous claims, using various epithets for what he sees as 
invalid or counterfeit forms of GTM. Unfortunately, he casts his net indis-
criminately, often aiming reproaches at variants of GTM from which he 
wishes to distance his own, but which are perfectly valid and robust forms 
of the method itself. The origins of this can be found in the earliest works 
of Glaser and Strauss, where they needed to clear the ground for GTM, 
and hence distinguish it from other positions with which it might be con-
fused. Glaser and Strauss, Strauss and Corbin, and Glaser on his own have 
coined numerous terms from which GTM needed to be distanced, includ-
ing ‘mindless empiricism’, ‘mere description’, ‘full conceptual description’, 
failure to achieve ‘conceptual density’, and ‘grounded description’. Glaser 
has also described what others would consider valid variants of GTM as 
‘remodelling’ the method or examples of ‘jargonizing’ – applying this term 
to 25 of the 27 chapters of the 2007 volume (Glaser, 2009).


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
44
The result is that GTM researchers need to position their use of the 
method against this rich, flexible, but bewildering and potentially mislead-
ing array of possibilities. In my grounded theory study of a large number of 
recent GTM papers, I developed the core concept of ‘methodologizing’, and 
a sub-concept of ‘methodological positioning’. Methodologizing refers to
the ways in which researchers link their actual approach to other methods … 
[the] process of methodologizing includes discussion of the scope of GTM, refer-
ence to philosophical issues such as induction, deduction, and concern with 
ontological and epistemological topics – a common indication of this will be 
in reference to ‘research paradigms’. … [also the sub-concept of ‘positioning’, 
including the statements researchers offer] relating to aspects or features of 
GTM – also to omissions or references to canonical or authoritative texts and 
issues. (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 14, Box 14.2, p. 295)
Reichertz’s point regarding the lack of a central text for GTM is understand-
able, if contentious. In the 1990s it was common to read research papers 
and doctoral theses that referred only to the second edition of Strauss and 
Corbin (1998). This is less common now, but I have found in various work-
shops, seminars, and doctoral examinations that although there is almost 
universal reference made to Discovery, the book itself has been read, at best, 
in a cursory manner. Ludwik Fleck argued that the existence of a central 
text is critical in establishing substantive and methodological aspects of a 
subject area
…a judgment about the existence or non-existence of a phenomenon belongs, 
in a democratic collective, to a numerous council, not to an individual. The text-
book changes the subjective judgment of an author into a proven fact. It will 
be united with the entire system of science, it will henceforward be recognized 
and taught, it will become a foundation of further facts and the guiding prin-
ciple of what will be seen and applied (1936, VI). (SEP entry on Fleck, Stanford 
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.)
Fleck refers to a single text, but with regard to GTM it would be more appro-
priate to consider which set of texts are ‘recognized and taught’; different 
selections indicating which variant of GTM is under consideration and 
use. Discovery itself is clearly ‘recognized’ in this sense, its inclusion being 
commonplace in most discussions of GTM or GTM-oriented research. 
Awareness and Time are cited as widely. My grounded theory of GTM 
papers (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 14) found that the inclusion and omission of 
 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
45
certain GTM texts was a reasonably accurate indicator of the methodo-
logical position taken by the researchers involved; this supports Fleck’s 
argument when applied to a set of texts rather than a specific one.
Since 2007 the volume of GTM literature has burgeoned. In many 
respects this is to be welcomed as researchers can now consult numerous 
sources if they want to learn and develop their ideas about GTM. Several 
introductory texts, and also chapters on GTM in handbooks and collec-
tions, are devoted to research methods in general or qualitative methods in 
particular. Also, a large and growing number of research papers and com-
pleted doctoral theses are available online. These provide something of a 
mixed blessing. On the plus side, they provide researchers with archetypes 
for GTM-oriented research that can assist those seeking guidance with 
 
regards to both the process and the presentation for their research – 
 
with the caveat that the actual process is accurately and candidly described 
in the publication. There is, however, the danger that such exemplars 
will become seen as standard models to be mimicked with little or no 
reflection on applicability and relevance. This issue arises with all forms 
of research and is not confined to GTM or qualitative research. Indeed, 
looking across the range of GTM outputs – journal papers, theses, and the 
like – there seems to be a varied and stimulating range of formats and struc-
tures. Some PhD theses are presented as straightforward reports, others 
are interspersed with detailed memos, extracts from the data, and various 
types of visualizations. Some PhD students strive to offer novel formats for 
their work, including the use of ‘story-line’ and narrative accounts, and even 
extended dialogues. Some of the ways in which GTM research has and might 
be presented are referred to in Chapter 6 on Student and Learning Issues.
A family divergence
The extended metaphor of family resemblances and genealogy encom-
passes the ‘family divergence’ that developed in the 1990s. Publication 
of Strauss and Corbin’s Basics of Qualitative Research drew a vehement 
response from Glaser, prompting publication of Basics of Grounded Theory 
(Glaser, 1992), where he distanced himself from the views expressed by 
Strauss and Corbin, claiming their book represented a move away from 
GTM while masquerading as an articulation of the method. He castigated 
Strauss for the ‘immoral undermining’ (p. 121) of GTM, arguing that Strauss 
was never really in tune with GTM proper, having remained wedded to 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
46
what Glaser termed the method of ‘full conceptual description’. Some 
have referred to this as a dispute between Glaser and Strauss, but Strauss, 
who died in 1996, never responded to Glaser. The chapter on grounded 
theory published in the first edition of Denzin and Lincoln’s Handbook of 
Qualitative Research includes a footnote that might be understood to refer 
obliquely to Glaser’s account (Strauss & Corbin, 1994):
AUTHORS’ NOTE: This summary statement represents the authors’ views as 
participants in, contributors to, and observers of grounded theory’s evolution. 
Others who have been part of this intellectual movement will differ in their views 
of some points made here and the relative importance we give them. (Strauss & 
Corbin, 1994, p. 273, emphasis added)
Many of the chapters, both in the 2007 Handbook and Current Developments 
(Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a, 2019), present explanations of these events 
that are couched in ameliorative rather than combative terms. One view 
is that both Glaser, and Strauss – initially on his own, then later together 
with Corbin – were, in their different ways seeking to support students 
with theoretical coding, and more generally moving from commonplace 
description to theoretical insights and conceptualization. Strauss and 
Corbin, writing in 1994, argued that although many researchers were 
‘claiming use of GTM’, they were often ‘failing to accomplish more than 
a fairly mundane level of coding, certainly not moving on to theoretical 
coding, and subsequently to generating theoretical statements’. Glaser has 
consistently made similar statements. Glaser’s response was couched in 
terms of his ‘coding families’, which first appeared in Theoretical Sensitivity 
(1978). Strauss and Corbin proposed their ‘coding paradigm’ in the 1990s, 
as a remedy to the repeated failure of researchers to move from the frac-
turing that results in ‘substantive’ coding to the articulation of more 
integrative conceptualizations.
Glaser criticized Strauss and Corbin for ‘forcing’ the outcome with their 
coding paradigm, but others have pointed out that Glaser’s coding fami-
lies are incoherent, bewildering, and can also encourage forcing the data 
into a particular coding family. Thus Kelle (CD:3) argues that ‘researchers 
with a broad theoretical background knowledge and a longstanding expe-
rience in the application of theoretical terms will certainly not need such 
a list’. On the other hand, he goes on to state that the coding paradigm 
‘may be much more helpful for researchers with limited experience in 
 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
47
conceptualizing empirical data in theoretical terms’, largely because it is 
more explicit. But this is also the reason why Glaser’s criticisms hit home. 
Kelle concludes that ultimately ‘Glaser’s critique that the coding paradigm 
may lead to the forcing of categories on the data cannot be dismissed’. 
Kelle characterizes the issue as emanating from the ‘antagonism between 
emergence and theoretical sensitivity’.
Although I do not have extensive evidence regarding how doctoral and 
other early-career researchers develop their concepts, I do have substantial 
familiarity in teaching, supervising, and examining numerous students – 
currently 50+ GTM-type PhDs. Based on this small but select sample, it 
appears that the intricacies of moving from low-level, embedded codes to 
higher-level, more abstract ones that are then related to one another as part 
of a conceptual model or theory, does not present a significant problem. 
Moreover, few if any have used Strauss and Corbin’s coding paradigm or 
Glaser’s coding families; those who have tried mostly report disappoint-
ment in their respective practicalities.
On the other hand, Charmaz has found grounded theory studies, across 
many different fields, that fail to offer conceptual analyses, much less a 
cogent theory, sometimes trying to disguise this by presenting their weak 
conceptualizations as neologisms in the form of gerunds, but which in 
fact are nothing more than everyday terms to which the suffix ‘-izing’ has 
been added.5 I suspect that many such cases of inadequate research are 
largely the result of poor GTM research practice and/or lack of mentoring 
or understanding, in which case guidance on theoretical coding would not 
really provide any effective remedy. A well-grounded study on GTM-in-use 
would be enormously helpful in shedding more light on this.
It may be that what was a common problem in the 1980s and 1990s 
has now largely been resolved or simply dissipated. Students do often find 
themselves ‘flooded with data’, but in most cases they manage to pro-
gress to develop higher-level abstractions that form the basis of theoretical 
accounts. Moreover, those who encounter problems with this transition 
often continue to do so even if they try to adopt the strategies proposed 
by Glaser or Strauss and Corbin. Neither the coding paradigm nor coding 
families quite seem to fit the bill.
Both Strauss and Corbin and Glaser combined the justification for their 
‘remedies’ with criticism of researchers claiming largely or wholly unwar-
ranted use of GTM. For this group, neither the coding paradigm nor the 
coding families will resolve anything. As Strauss and Corbin observed in 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
48
1994, ‘a child once launched is very much subject to a combination of its 
origins and the evolving contingencies of life. Can it be otherwise with a 
methodology?’ The problem of disobedient or misbehaving children persists!
Another explanation for the Glaser–Strauss divergence centres on 
abduction. Thanks to Kathy’s anecdote (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 202), we 
know that Strauss already saw GTM as an abductive method in the 1960s, 
whereas Glaser continues to stress only the inductive nature of GTM. Jane 
Gilgun (CD:5) discusses the deductive aspects of GTM, which may appear 
somewhat strange given the explicit rejection of orthodox social science 
research – characterized as hypothetico-deductive – in the early GTM texts, 
particularly Discovery. Gilgun, however, locates GTM against the back-
ground of Chicago School sociology, but in contrast to two other forms of 
analysis associated with Chicago. Her chapter focuses on:
Deductive qualitative analysis (DQA), one of three approaches to research asso-
ciated with the Chicago School of Sociology. The other two are GT and field 
research, which is descriptive in nature, and sometimes referred to as ethno-
graphic research.
Gilgun explains that ‘DQA is an updating of analytic induction … an 
approach older than GT’. Unlike GTM, DQA and its predecessor – analytic 
induction – ‘allows for qualitative hypothesis testing and theory testing as 
well as concept-guided descriptive research’. In both cases, such research 
begins with sensitizing concepts, which, Gilgun notes, was ‘traditional in 
the Chicago School for decades before Blumer (1969) gave them a name 
(Gilgun, 1999, 2005, 2016)’. All three forms of research ‘produce findings 
that are grounded in data on which findings are based’.
Reichertz (CD:13) argues that GTM ‘was to a very small extent abduc-
tive from the start and has become more and more abductive in its more 
recent stages. The controversy within GT can be characterized, at least in 
part, as one between induction and abduction’. The role of abduction 
 
in GTM is now far more widely understood than was the case even at the 
time of the 2007 Handbook. Strauss certainly understood this, even if he 
did not share the full ramifications with his colleagues or discuss it in his 
writings on GTM.
A later chapter addresses ‘Student and Learning Issues’ specifically, but 
I have already remarked on the ways in which the various disputes, diver-
gences, and differences can be perplexing for those seeking to understand, 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
49
gain familiarity with, and use GTM. GTM now comes in several variants, 
and even the founding texts are losing their canonical status. Graduate 
students and others should be able to contend with this. They need to 
read widely and make sense of how the method might be incorporated 
into their own research activities: developing and demonstrating methodo-
logical sensitivity. Those writing about GTM, however, need to understand 
that they can hinder this, particularly if they merely offer chastisement 
and censure, failing to offer clear and respectful accounts of positions with 
which they may well disagree, but which still warrant attention (see the 
earlier discussion of Rapoport’s rules).
Summary of ‘core characteristics’ of GTM
The Senior Editor’s Introduction to Current Developments (Bryant, 2019) 
includes my summary of what I consider the ‘essences’ of GTM; it is repro-
duced here to conclude this section. (Most of the key terms are included in 
the Discursive Glossary (2019) in Current Developments.)
•	
Coding-cum-analysis-cum-memoing – the form and strategy for 
coding in GTM was and remains innovative in many ways, including 
its starting point, and its iterative nature;
•	
Also the link to memoing, which, although largely absent from the 
earliest writings, is now a key feature;
•	
Substantive and formal theory generation – this developed in part 
from Merton’s idea that research should aim to provide theories of the 
middle range. In contrast to mid-20th century preoccupations with hypo-
thetical structural explanations of whole societies, Merton (1957) advocated 
constructing theories to explain empirical problems – both Substantive 
Grounded Theories and Formal Grounded Theories are examples of this;6
•	
Purposive/convenience sampling followed by theoretical 
sampling – qualitative sampling was and still is misunderstood, par-
ticularly by those whose research experience and expertise is derived 
largely or wholly from a quantitative background; GTM offers a basis 
for clarifying sampling issues for qualitative research in general;
•	
Theoretical saturation – often seen as a weakness of GTM, but, used 
correctly, it is in fact a strength of the method, since, unlike many 
methods, it offers the rationale for claiming to have reached an interim 
end-point for a research endeavour;


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
50
•	
Use of the literature – initially to establish the basis for the research but, 
far more importantly, to refer to and engage with the relevant literature as 
an additional and critical form of data against which interim or later analy-
ses can be positioned – this is what is referred to as theoretical coding;
•	
Criteria – fit, grab, work, modifiability; and also Charmaz’s 
credibility, originality, resonance, usefulness;
•	
Openness to serendipity;
•	
Pragmatism – particularly the ways in which GTM now has to be 
understood as a method for what I have termed ‘enacting abstrac-
tion and abduction’.
Some of these are important for many other, if not all other, methods, but 
several are specific to GTM, and their combination is unique to GTM. More 
critically, taken together, they embody a distinctively persuasive, coherent, 
rigorous, and effective method for undertaking qualitative research.
I do not expect all writers on GTM, nor all readers of this monograph 
and of Current Developments to concur with this account; indeed, I would be 
amazed if that was the case. Glaser and Strauss, particularly in Discovery, were 
keen to challenge their peers, and stir up controversy and debate. Those of 
us wishing to follow in their footsteps need to do likewise, but we must take 
care to understand the important distinction made by Albert Camus (2000 
[1951]) between the historical rebel and metaphysical rebel. The former aims at 
perfection, and some set of ‘absolute values’; the latter accepts the absurdity 
of the drama of social existence and the ‘unreasonable silence of the world’, 
recognizing social existence and any attempts to encapsulate it as uncertain, 
complex, and chaotic. GTM is the research method for metaphysical rebels par 
excellence, so it is no wonder that it remains beset by controversy and discord, 
both from within and without; yet it continues to provide an inimitable spur 
and support for challenging and innovative research and conceptualization.
GTM in the age of Big Data
CAQDAS – Computer Aided/Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis
The 2007 volume did not have a chapter devoted to computer-aided analysis, 
or anything on the ways in which digital technologies are and might be used 
in GTM (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a). One was planned, but unfortunately the 
chapter was not submitted. In 2007 this may not have been a major omis-
sion, but now it certainly would be. CAQDAS is now an inescapable aspect of 
 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
51
qualitative research; indeed, Friese (CD:14) wonders how anyone can con-
template data analysis without using it in some form or other. This position is 
reinforced by Gorra (CD:15), who refers to claims that the millennial genera-
tion, having, in Dan Tapscott’s (2008) terms, ‘grown up digital’, will undertake 
research assuming that computer-based technology is always at-hand, ready 
to be incorporated into the research process in any number of ways.
Glaser has consistently argued that GT researchers should not use 
computer-based facilities for coding and analysis, correctly pointing out 
that researchers cannot and should not rely on technology as a substitute 
for their own insights and skills, developed from experience in GT data 
analysis. But as both Friese and Gorra demonstrate, things have developed 
rapidly in this regard, and the manner in which CAQDAS and related tech-
nologies can and have been incorporated in highly successful GT research 
cannot be ignored; on the contrary, there are lessons here for everyone to 
heed even if they have no intention of using CAQDAS.
There is a certain irony in the term CAQDAS itself in the context of 
GTM. The term that it encompasses, QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis), was 
used by Strauss and Glaser, both in their joint work and their later, distinct 
publications, as a form of deprecation. From their earliest writings, Glaser 
and Strauss were at pains to stress that many forms of qualitative research 
did not, and could not, lead to theory generation. For example, in Discovery 
they argue that ‘[D]escription, ethnography, fact-finding, verification (call 
them what you will) … cannot generate sociological theory’ (1967, p. 7). 
Strauss often referred disdainfully to ‘mere description’. Glaser (CD:21) 
has used various terms in a similar manner, including QDA and Grounded 
Description. In the meantime, however, QDA has taken on a life of its own, 
so it is now seen as a neutral and generic term covering all forms of quali-
tative analysis and hence as the basis for CAQDAS. Friese (CD:14) herself 
distinguishes between CAQDAS and QDA, preferring the former since it 
incorporates the idea that the software ‘assists’ the analysis/analyst; the 
prime activity is undertaken by the researcher(s) and not the software.
QDA software implies that the software is doing the analysis instead of being 
a tool aiding the researcher (who still must do the thinking). Automation is 
certainly an issue these days given the massive amounts of data available. But 
big data analysis is different from qualitative data analysis even if big data may 
consist of qualitative, i.e., non-numeric data (Friese, 2016). Thus, we need to 
distinguish between the analysis of qualitative data and qualitative data analysis, 
whereby GT is a form of the latter.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
52
Friese demonstrates extensive familiarity, skill, and insight with the 
software, including NVivo,7 MAXQDA, and Atlas.ti,8 offering detailed 
descriptions of differing implementations of a case study drawn from the 
work of Strauss in the 1980s and Corbin more recently.
Charmaz commented on an early version of Friese’s chapter as follows:
Your chapter captured my interest and raised all kinds of foundational questions 
about GT. Readers will not only find it to be helpful in understanding the software 
but also in asking fundamental questions about the grounded theory method.
You do an excellent job in showing how researchers can use the programs to 
handle myriad details. The capability of the programs for synthesizing data is 
unassailable. The extent to which they help in scaling up to theory is less appar-
ent to me. What struck me is that what stands as a theoretical category or 
concept differs markedly between grounded theorists. That may be an artifact of 
using Strauss and Corbin’s approach, which Glaser (1992) dismissed as ‘full con-
ceptual description’. Fundamental questions arise. What is a code? When and 
how do CAQDAS programs help the researcher to raise codes? How is theorizing 
distinguished from describing? What makes an analysis theoretical?
I have argued elsewhere (Bryant, 2014), and in a range of different contexts, 
that the introduction of digital technology often exposes the complexities 
of what have previously been seen as mundane or unexceptional activi-
ties and practices, and this is certainly the case with Friese’s analysis of 
CAQDAS, as Charmaz’s comments indicate.
Based on her work using CAQDAS over 20 years, Friese wonders how 
anyone can avoid the technology: ‘I can hardly imagine how one would 
handle the expected data material manually, and how to keep track of it’. 
On the other hand, she also points out that researchers with little or no 
experience of CAQDAS should not attempt to develop these skills as part 
of a research project: ‘it is not a promising idea to begin learning to use a 
software tool because you have some data and now want to analyze them’.
This firmly resonates with Gorra’s complementary chapter (CD:15). 
Gorra used NVivo, with mixed results, in her own PhD (see Bryant, 2017, 
Chapter 19), and was keen to find out how current PhD students are far-
ing. Her approach was to do a grounded theory study of a small number 
of students, eventually producing the core concept of ‘Movement: Keep 
Moving (Self, Mind, Data)’. One key aspect of her study is that all the 
students demonstrated methodological sensitivity as they experimented 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
53
with different ways of ‘interacting with the data’, including consideration 
of possible tools such as CAQDAS. Gorra also found that ‘[B]ased on the 
analysis of my interviews with GT researchers, I believe that the many 
changes in the wider research environment, as discussed in the introduction, 
have had an impact on the actual practice of grounded theorizing’.
Gorra’s core concept develops some of the ideas touched on by Friese. 
It encompasses three different aspects centred on ‘time’ in the context of 
doctoral research, including: the ‘length of time available’ for the study; 
deciding whether or not to invest time to learn using a CAQDAS software 
package to gain potential time savings later on; and the time required for 
the actual data analysis.
In general, CAQDAS and a whole host of other technological develop-
ments must be recognized as having an extensive impact on the research 
process as a whole. Different researchers will find their own ways of incor-
porating available tools; in some cases, their strategies will prove to be 
dead-ends, but in others they will enhance the process and the outcomes. 
Peirce referred to musement in the research process; we now have digital 
musement as an important stage either early in the research process, as 
researchers experiment with their data and analytic codes, or later as they 
develop their concepts. Indeed, researchers should be encouraged to ‘play’ 
with the technology.
Data and Big Data
In the quote above, Friese distinguished between Big Data analysis and 
GTM analysis. Big Data is certainly a ‘hot topic’, and as such commonly 
over-sold. It has clear ramifications for GTM since it appears to be a way in 
which conclusions can emerge algorithmically through computerized pro-
cessing of massive data sources. Some have argued that we no longer need 
theories, since we now have ‘all the data’, although few go as far as this 
(see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 16, for further discussion). Clearly, the oppor-
tunities offered by massive data sources need to be grasped, although the 
challenge they afford is far more directly a concern of quantitative research 
than qualitative. For instance, issues of sampling and the appropriate form 
of statistical analysis may simply not apply if the ‘sample’ is more-or-less 
the entire population, and the process of accounting for ‘missing values’ is 
a very different form of activity and analysis.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
54
Some of the more outrageous claims regarding Big Data have been 
dismantled in our article in First Monday (Bryant & Raja, 2014; see also 
Bryant, 2017, Chapter 16), where we argue that far from Big Data eclipsing 
GTM and qualitative research and analysis, GTM actually provides a very 
clear and important corrective to some of the more outlandish claims of 
the Big Data proponents.
It might appear that claims along the lines of ‘now we have all the 
data, there is no need for theories’ is the logical conclusion of the idea 
that theories emerge from the data. I have always commended Glaser’s 
 
slogan that ‘all is data’, in the sense that GTM researchers should potentially 
approach anything and everything as worthy bases for investigation – 
 
e.g. interviews, documents, observations, literature, websites, and so on. On 
the other hand, I have also cautioned against the idea that ‘data is all’, in the 
sense that concepts, models, and theories will somehow ‘emerge’ from the 
data itself – whatever its source or nature. The more extreme, enthusiastic, or 
provocative adherents of Big Data take this misunderstanding even further, 
echoing a Beatles lyric, so it is now understood as ‘Big Data is all you need’. 
Clearly this is nonsense.
What Big Data claims fail to acknowledge is the role of human insight and 
conceptualization; exactly what the term theoretical sensitivity encompasses. 
Assertions that technology can do everything in this context are similar to 
those in the artifical intelligence (AI) community who claim that abduction 
can now be automated.
Inaba and Kakai (CD:16), describing their conception of GTxA (a grounded 
text mining approach), outline one way in which GTM researchers can use 
these technological advances:
[GTxA is] an integrative, reflective, and cyclical process that obtains an overview 
of the text data (Step 1), completes a qualitative data analysis (Step 2), creates 
visualization and performs an analysis with text mining (Step 3), and then devel-
ops a meta-inference (Step 4). By cyclically repeating these steps, researchers 
obtain a deeper understanding of the text data.
But they stress that it is the researchers who develop and have to 
articulate this deeper understanding of the data; a process best explained 
in terms of a constructivist understanding of GTM. They concur with 
Bryant and Raja (2014), where we argue that both Big Data analysis (often 
termed Knowledge Discovery from Data) and GTM are ‘instantiations of 


THE CORE CHARACTERISTICS OF GTM
55
hermeneutics’, envisaged not as a circle but rather as a ‘spiral moving from 
an origin focused on the data towards ever higher levels of abstraction and 
conceptual reach’.9
Whatever GTM researchers might think and seek to do with regards to 
CAQDAS, Big Data, and other manifestations of digital technology, they 
need to pay them some cognizance. In the first instance considering how 
they might be of assistance, and also being prepared to respond to those 
who might challenge their findings from a perspective based on misuse 
and misunderstanding of ‘Big Data’ or other resources that fail to incorpo-
rate insight and theoretical sensitivity.
Images as data
Krzysztof Konecki (CD:17) takes the idea of ‘all is data’ one stage further, 
arguing that images can and should be amenable to GTM analysis. He 
develops Glaser and Strauss’s metaphor of ‘slices of data’ with his concept 
of ‘multi-slice imaginings’, defined as a process that involves ‘identifying 
the layers of image that should be analyzed (levels of creation, structure, 
presentation and reception of image)’. He argues that ‘visual grounded the-
ory’ should be understood as a distinct way of doing GTM, and that this 
was already present to some extent in Clarke’s situational analysis, which 
‘announced her departure from the basics of GT and instead proposed a 
concentration on situational analysis using visual materials’ (Clarke, 2005).
One of Konecki’s objectives is to draw attention to the processes 
involved in ‘seeing’ or ‘observing’. He quotes Banks (2001, p. 7), ‘Seeing 
is not natural, however much we might think it to be’. This aligns with 
the constructivist orientation which views interaction between ‘researcher’ 
and ‘data’ as an interpretative dialogue, applying to all forms of data, 
not only to images. GTM analysis necessarily involves interpretation and 
‘multi-slice imaginings’, as discussed by Konecki.
Notes
1	 Wertz et al. (2011) Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis is a key source for those 
interested in learning more about different approaches.
2	 See for instance, Saldana’s book, which outlines several different forms of and 
approaches to coding (Saldana, 2015).
3	 This term is common in the works of Glaser and Strauss, but its meaning is some-
what opaque. Kathy Charmaz was unsure of its precise meaning, but recalled 
Glaser and Strauss using it when discussing bits or fragments of data. I would 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
56
argue that the metaphor is, however, clearly distinct from this, since ‘slicing’ 
implies that the total data is somehow in one piece from which slices can be 
taken. I do not want to press this too far, but it does illustrate the ways in which 
the term ‘data’ was in many, important ways a key ‘sensitizing concept’ in the 
early GT writings, rather than a definitive one – see below.
4	 Errol Morris relates an incident in his first year as one of Thomas Kuhn’s grad-
uate students. ‘I asked him, “If paradigms are really incommensurable, how is 
history of science possible? Wouldn’t we be merely interpreting the past in the 
light of the present? Wouldn’t the past be inaccessible to us? Wouldn’t it be 
incommensurable?” He started moaning. He put his head in his hands and was 
muttering, “He’s trying to kill me. He’s trying to kill me.” And then I added, “…
except for someone who imagines himself to be God.” It was at this point that 
Kuhn threw the ashtray at me. And missed.’ https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.
com/2011/03/06/the-ashtray-the-ultimatum-part-1/
5	 For a discussion of GTM and gerunds, see A. Bryant (2017). Introduction to 
Part Three. In Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research 
Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6	 Herbert Blumer (1954), a close colleague of Strauss in Chicago, similarly criti-
cized ‘grand theory’ in his essay ‘What is wrong with social theory?’, American 
Sociological Review, 19, 3–10.
7	 Confusion in conversation can arise in GTM since someone discussing NVivo 
codes may be understood to be referring to ‘in vivo’ codes.
8	 Atlas.ti is referred to in the UK as ‘Atlas-tee-eye’, but elsewhere, particularly in 
Germany where it was developed, as ‘Atlas-tee’.
9	 Hermeneutics is usually explained in terms of the hermeneutic circle – see https://
plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics


3
GTM FROM A LOGICAL  
POINT OF VIEW
Epistemology and ontology
It used to be the case that, in many disciplines, concerns about a research-
er’s epistemological stance were rarely more than nugatory. It was widely 
assumed that all researchers shared similar assumptions – essentially that 
scientific research was best accomplished by objective, disinterested, empir-
ical work aimed at discovering ‘the facts’. Not too far removed from Charles 
Dickens’ caricature of English education in the Victorian era, embodied in 
Mr Gradgrind.
NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts 
alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You 
can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever 
be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own chil-
dren, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, 
sir! (Dickens, Hard Times, 1854)1
Schatzman commended Glaser and Strauss for pushing researchers into 
making clear and articulate methodological commitments. The work of 
Thomas Kuhn (1962 & 1970) had an even greater impact, leading research-
ers to consider and articulate their epistemological orientation. Yet many 
researchers, particularly those in what are termed ‘the hard sciences’, sim-
ply carried on as before. Those employing qualitative methods, particularly 
in the social and human sciences, however, were expected to broach the 
issue at some point, and doctoral students in particular are now expected to 
address epistemological issues when discussing their method/methodology.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
58
I take the view that, while commendable to some extent, it seems 
somewhat churlish to expect doctoral students to grapple with and clarify 
topics that remain highly contentious and unresolved even for erudite 
and experienced philosophers. As such, I advocate serious consideration 
of epistemological avoidance, albeit recognizing that this is not always a 
feasible option (see below).
In various discussions introducing and developing Constructivist GTM, 
Kathy Charmaz and I have sought to expose the ways in which pre-existing 
variants – including Glaser and Strauss’s joint work, as well as their later 
distinct writings – were misleading in their epistemological claims; often 
with distinctly positivist assumptions and ramifications: Charmaz’s chap-
ter in the second edition of The Handbook of Qualitative Research being the 
fons et origo of this critique (Charmaz, 2000). Prior to this, the GTM posi-
tion on such topics was largely one of epistemological evasion – the matter 
was not addressed at all.
Subsequent to Charmaz’s and my writings, however, Glaser, and those 
who support his position, have responded by claiming that GTM is able to 
align with any and every epistemological orientation; a position I refer to as 
epistemological indifference (Glaser, 2002). Unfortunately, such cryptic catch-
all claims evade the real complexities. If researchers are required or feel the 
need to declare and discuss their epistemological stance, then they must be 
able to offer some substantiation, perhaps in the form of an appeal to a 
set of authoritative statements, simultaneously observing that other sources 
argue an alternative or opposing opinion. Some writers on GTM – and other 
 
methods – seem highly concerned about the links between a researcher’s 
stance on epistemology/ontology and the research strategy/process/methods 
that they then follow. This is more complex when more than one researcher 
is involved, particularly if researchers with differing – contrasting and even 
opposing – stances work in collaboration. Such collaborations might prove 
fruitful and insightful in the long run, if more time-consuming and trouble-
some in the short run.
Epistemological indifference is not a defensible position, neither is eva-
sion. I do not advocate either, but I do understand and, in some contexts, 
recommend epistemological avoidance. Much as with paying tax, avoidance 
is legal and understandable; evasion is neither; indifference is hazardous. So 
too for doctoral researchers. It is perfectly reasonable to avoid detailed and 
complex discussions on ‘the E and O words’ (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 2).


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
59
In contrast, Charmaz does not support avoidance, but instead advocates 
a thorough engagement with epistemology since many disciplines and 
publications require clear statements on the topic. We concur, however, 
that researchers must be able to substantiate any epistemological claims 
they offer; with the caveat that such claims can often be implicit. For GTM 
this is particularly important since so many papers and other research out-
puts incorporate statements such as GTM is ‘an inductive method’, or ‘we 
avoided all preconceptions’, or ‘the theory emerged from the data’, all of 
which raise complex and important epistemological issues, without neces-
sarily appearing to do so.
In my concluding discussion of ‘the E and O words’ I noted that:
… it is worth stressing that purity of method is no guarantee of value in research 
findings, or as Rorty (1977) has argued: ‘Nothing is to be gained for an under-
standing of human knowledge by running together vocabularies in which we 
describe the causal antecedents of knowledge with those in which we offer 
justification of our claims to knowledge.’ (Bryant, 2017, p. 56)
In other words, claimed adherence to a method is no substitute for effective 
insight.
GTM – an epistemological fairy-tale?
In his extended review of three books on the urban environment, Wacquant 
(2002) described GTM as ‘an epistemological fairy-tale’, a term often invoked in 
pejorative critiques of GTM. Wacquant applied this epithet both to GTM and 
‘diagnostic ethnography’, a term ‘coined by Duneier’s Wisconsin colleague Erik 
Wright to characterize this inductivist, I-began-to-get-ideas-from-the-things-
I-was-seeing-and-hearing-on-the-street approach to field-based inquiry’. 
Interestingly, he offers no references to GTM itself, seemingly assuming his 
sociological readership will understand the target of his gratuitous sideswipe.
Wacquant’s review is symptomatic of the paradoxical relationship 
between GTM and sociology (see below). But for now, it is worth noting 
that Wacquant’s sentiment regarding the inductivism of GTM seemed to be 
sufficiently commonplace in sociology in 2002 to require no further expla-
nation. Such statements indicate a severe misinterpretation of GTM, perhaps 
an understandable failing at the time. Yet the full context of his comment 
reveals that he is actually praising Duneier for what can and should now be 
understood as a form of abduction largely emanating from GTM.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
60
So he went about ‘fishing’ for questions to which these informants might have 
answers. But his problematic did not emerge inductively, as in the epistemologi-
cal fairy tale of ‘grounded theory’ or ‘diagnostic ethnography’: it resulted from 
the projection, onto the sidewalk, of Duneier’s personal interest in morality and 
‘respectability’ (already evident in Slim’s Table). Duneier must be given credit 
for the candor with which he acknowledges it: ‘I hadn’t formulated a precise 
research question. I had no theories that I wanted to test or reconstruct, and 
I didn’t have a particular scholarly literature to which I knew I wanted to con-
tribute. … I sought mainly to diagnose the processes at work in this setting and 
to explain the observed patterns of interactions of people. I also have a general 
theme that guides me in collecting data in all of my work: whether and how the 
people I am with are or are not struggling to live in accordance with standards of 
“moral” worth.’ (Wacquant, 2002, pp. 340–41, emphasis added)
Wacquant’s short-hand dismissal of GTM occurs within the context of 
describing an approach that looks remarkably similar to a credible and 
well-crafted grounded theory study:
•	
no precise research question;
•	
specifically eschewing verification of existing theories;
•	
deliberately not scouring the literature;
•	
and seeking to explain general patterns based on a general view of 
what was going on in specific urban settings.
Indeed, Wacquant criticizes one of the books under review for artificially 
overlaying the ‘narrative of deindustrialization and racial exclusion … onto 
field descriptions … [with a low] ratio of analysis to narrative and interview 
transcripts’ – i.e. too much description and too little analysis; precisely 
the failings that Strauss and Corbin, and Glaser were already pointing 
out in 1990 when criticizing inadequate research masquerading as GTM. 
Wacquant’s criticisms are aimed at the wrong target.
Epistemological metaphors – emergence, lens, 
extract, abstract
Although Strauss (Charmaz, 2014a; see also Strauss, 1987, p. 12) may 
have understood that GTM was ‘abductive’ – albeit that this key aspect 
was only more fully articulated, clarified, and made evident in recent 
times – the vocabulary used in the early GTM writings leads in other direc-
tions. Simplistic use of the term ‘data’, an over-playing (Strauss’s term) of 


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
61
induction, and the ramifications of the precept that researchers should 
allow the theory to emerge from the data, are all imbued with a positivist 
epistemology and its ramifications. The metaphor of ‘emerging’ continues 
to plague discussion of GTM, as do other metaphors centring on cognition 
and the role of the researcher. These also impact on ideas about research 
and insight more generally.
The metaphors we use influence and direct the ways in which we think 
about things, with both positive and negative ramifications. Ridding our-
selves of using metaphors is not possible; neither is it advisable, since the 
power of metaphors – by definition, opening up new ways of thinking and 
imagining – is important, particularly in research approaches aimed at artic-
ulating innovative and challenging conceptualizations. Grounding theory in 
the data is a very powerful, illuminating, and innovative metaphor!
The problem with the metaphor encapsulated in the idea that a grounded 
theory ‘emerges’ from the data is that it detracts from the active and interpre-
tative nature of research, as researchers seek to move from their data towards 
credible and coherent forms of abstraction – conceptualizations in the form 
of theories, models, or frameworks.
For Nietzsche, ‘truth is a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, 
anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been 
subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation and decora-
tion’ (quoted in Rorty, 1991, p. 32), a sentiment echoed by Lakoff and 
Johnson in Metaphors We Live By (2003). Researchers and those writing 
about research methods need to be aware of the role and power of meta-
phors. The metaphor of emerging, a central part of what I have termed ‘the 
GTM mantra’ (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 14 and Table 18.1), is double-edged 
and far too likely to be misleading or ambiguous. If theories are char-
acterized as ‘emerging’ from the data, then the role of the researcher is 
somewhat diminished since some level of agency appears to be granted to 
the data. Even if this is understood and taken into account, it still obscures 
or detracts from understanding the nature of the role of the researcher(s) as 
one of being in dialogue with their data.
Despite phrases such as ‘the theory arises from the data’, Glaser and 
Strauss clearly understood that the relationship between researchers and the 
data is more complex. Hence, they introduced the term theoretical sensitivity 
in Discovery (1967). Kelle (2007, p. 193) has defined this as the ‘the ability 
to see relevant data and to reflect upon empirical data material with the help 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
62
of theoretical terms’. Glaser and Strauss themselves stressed that ‘[O]nce 
started, theoretical sensitivity is forever in continual development’ (1967, 
p. 46). They also demonstrated the complex relationship between research-
ers and their data in their two initial grounded theories – Awareness (1965b) 
and Time (1968). Since both were derived from the same data, the theoreti-
cal insights for each must have been under the control of the researchers, 
and reliant on their skills and decisions on how best to pursue one line of 
thought and leave others for later consideration.
In part, the fault lies with uncritical use of phrases such as ‘the theory 
emerges from the data’ and the associated concept of ‘emergence’ in general. 
According to the authoritative Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (n.d.  – entry 
on emergence), the word ‘emergence’ is highly problematic.
Emergence is a notorious philosophical term of art. A variety of theorists have 
appropriated it for their purposes ever since George Henry Lewes gave it a 
philosophical sense in his 1875 Problems of Life and Mind. We might roughly char-
acterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) 
‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with 
respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an 
emergent property of the brain.) Each of the quoted terms is slippery in its own 
right, and their specifications yield the varied notions of emergence that we 
discuss below.
This description certainly resonates with its use in the context of GTM, in the 
sense that the method is designed to prompt and support researchers mov-
ing from the data and the specific context, to higher-level abstractions and 
concepts which, although clearly derived from the data, encompass proper-
ties and explanatory compass that are not reducible to the data itself – i.e. the 
resulting theory can be said to be an emergent entity. But this is not the same 
as promoting the idea that theories emerge from the data. This latter use of the 
term has too many other potentially misleading and deceptive ramifications 
and implications, particularly those relating to the role of researchers, the 
processes of cognition, and generating novel insights.
Similarly, acknowledging that grounded theory is an emergent method, 
in which researchers make methodological decisions through successively 
studying their data and nascent analyses, does not mean that theory simply 
arises from the data (Charmaz, 2008a). The process of developing theo-
retical insights is dependent on researchers examining and analyzing the 
data, then moving to develop conceptualizations; the initial phase might 


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
63
be understood as a form of induction, but the subsequent stages necessarily 
involve abduction (see below).
Glaser and Strauss were keen to distinguish GTM from existing methods, 
particularly those that relied on deriving testable hypotheses from existing 
theories. They were equally critical of what they termed ‘mindless empiri-
cism’, evidenced by their reference to Blumer’s ‘admirable article, addressing 
himself to the gap between ungrounded theories and the countless empirical 
studies unguided by any theories’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, fn, p. 14). Blumer’s 
critique was aimed not only at this ‘mindless’ approach, but also at the way 
in which many research projects set out with the objective of producing out-
comes that had already been foreshadowed in earlier work (see Bryant, 2017, 
Chapter 3). Blumer’s way of avoiding these contrasting hazards was through 
recognition of the role of ‘sensitizing concepts’. A sensitizing concept
lacks such specification of attributes or bench marks and consequently it does 
not enable the user to move directly to the instance and its relevant content. 
Instead, it gives the user a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching 
empirical instances. (Blumer, 1954, p. 7, emphasis added)
Sensitizing concepts facilitate some forms of investigation but can and do 
preclude others.
Glaser and Strauss offered a different and starker reaction and 
resolution to Blumer’s criticisms. To avoid the potential for confirma-
tory bias – setting out to find evidence for what you had already decided 
was the case – and also to reject what they saw as the somewhat servile 
and docile deductive model that pervaded US social science, they advo-
cated that doctoral researchers should steer clear of the prevailing and 
‘authoritative’ literature, and so enter the research context with ‘as few 
preconceptions as possible’ (Glaser, 1978, pp. 2–3).
Over the years this admonition has taken on a life of its own, so that 
for many people, including research examiners, journal editors and other 
gate-keepers, GTM inextricably involves researchers ignoring the relevant 
literature at the outset, followed by claims along the lines that they under-
took their work with no preconceptions or at least somehow circumvented 
them. A great deal of effort has been expended in correcting such mis-
conceptions, which I regard as ‘accidents’ rather than as ‘essences’ of the 
method (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 4). The rationale for Glaser and Strauss’s 
position in the 1960s is understandable, but we now need to jettison such 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
64
advice, which in part derives from the shortcomings of a common meta-
phor of cognition that is assumed in their writing, and which remains in 
Glaser’s recent work.
No preconceived research works as GT. But the worldwide use of GT or sup-
posed GT versions has increased our knowledge of the subtleties of requiring 
no preconception or giving the arguments for preconceiving research aspects in 
some ways. I hope to detail many of these subtleties in this book so the reader 
can be aware of what it means to suspend preconceptions in service of emergent 
generating of theory.
Keep in mind that preconceived concepts do not have to be forgotten. They are 
just to be suspended for the GT research so the researcher is open to the emer-
gent. Why let them get in the way? (Glaser, 2012, emphasis added)
Glaser’s ideas emanate from ‘the conduit metaphor’ of communica-
tion (see Reddy, 1979; and Bryant, 2006). This metaphor is so common 
in everyday parlance that it evades all but the most scrupulous atten-
tion – so neither Glaser nor Strauss can be singled out for criticism 
on this point. The assumption is that communication operates as a 
series of conduits – tubes, channels, ducts – along or through which 
information is passed from sender to receiver. Reddy argues that this 
representation of communication is highly misleading, since good 
communication then appears to resemble friction-free, blockage-free 
flow. Consequently, communication problems are characterized as 
blockages, breakdowns, or failures between transmission and reception. 
Hence Glaser’s assertion that preconceived concepts ‘get in the way’, 
implying that effective observation and research is all about clearing a 
path of impediments to the development of understanding and insight.
Glaser also uses the metaphor of ‘suspension’; researchers should 
‘suspend preconceptions’. We may be said to ‘suspend’ judgement if 
we hear differing views about a film or play prior to seeing it for our-
selves, but in such cases the options are fairly clear, whereas ‘suspending 
 
preconceptions’ is a far more complex issue, if indeed it is at all possible. 
How do we know what our preconceptions actually are? Preconceptions, 
by definition, are often deeply ingrained and taken-for-granted, making 
it impossible for anyone to characterize and articulate them as a basis 
then for ‘suspending’ them.


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
65
Strauss and Corbin acknowledged that some of the initial GTM texts 
might have over-played the issue of avoiding existing work, quoting Ian 
Dey’s (1999, p. 251) succinct phrase ‘an open mind is not the same as an 
empty head’. (The phrase is also attributed to Edward Tufte.) But the issue 
goes further than this, and it requires an understanding of how the con-
duit metaphor skews the ways in which people talk about and understand 
cognition. Glaser and Strauss’s writings are symptomatic of the idea of cog-
nition as a process requiring a free-flowing path from source to receiver; 
pre-existing ideas just get in the way. The concomitant assumption is that 
these existing ideas can be turned off like a tap, allowing researchers to 
claim either that they have discounted various issues with which they have 
familiarity, or they are immune to such influences and hold a neutral and 
disinterested position. Unfortunately, as John Maynard Keynes observed 
(1936), ‘Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from 
any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist’. 
Rather than make claims about suspending, avoiding, or evading precon-
ceptions, it is far better for researchers to explicate and acknowledge the 
ideas that they hold, and then let others decide the extent to which these 
influence the process and outcome of the research itself. Those claiming 
immunity from any such influences, or omitting any reference to them, 
may well be those most affected by their preconceptions, precisely because 
they are unaware of them.2
In contrast to the conduit metaphor, Reddy (1979, p. 171) proposed 
what he terms ‘the toolmakers’ paradigm’. The fundamental difference 
between the toolmakers’ paradigm and the conduit metaphor is that for 
the latter successful communication appears to be gained without effort, 
whereas for the former human communication ‘will almost always go 
astray unless real energy is expended’ (p. 184). This observation also applies 
to cognition, where effort is required by all parties to the communica-
tion process, and does not incorporate or even allow any passive form of 
‘reception’. The toolmakers’ paradigm aligns with the interpretative/con-
structivist turn since they share the view that our understanding of reality 
is a participative, co-constructive, precarious, and continuous project.
Blumer’s argument for sensitizing concepts can be understood in this 
context. Sensitizing concepts do not obstruct our studies and insights 
but, on the contrary, afford ‘a general sense of reference and guidance in 
approaching empirical instances’ (1954, p. 7). Many GTM researchers refer 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
66
to specific sensitizing concepts, such as feminism, race and ethnicity, and 
social justice. Some might argue that these concepts have not ‘earned their 
way’ in the manner prescribed by Glaser and Strauss. To some extent such 
suspicions are well founded, particularly if the terms themselves are used in 
an inept and confirmatory manner. Blumer suggested that:
hundreds of our concepts – like culture, institutions, social structure, mores, and 
personality – are not definitive concepts but are sensitizing in nature. They lack 
precise reference and have no bench marks which allow a clean-cut identifica-
tion of a specific instance and of its content. Instead, they rest on a general sense 
of what is relevant. (Blumer, 1954, p. 7)
Sensitizing concepts can be understood as different ‘lenses’ through 
which to view research settings; a lens in this context is another meta-
phor for thinking about cognition. Thus, adding a new lens, or switching 
one lens out for an alternative, will alter the perspective or orientation 
from which the context is viewed, much as in an eye-examination by 
an ophthalmologist. But it is important to take the metaphor further 
and understand that any ‘lens’ can also introduce sources of distortion, 
altered representation, and occlusions. Sensitizing concepts, as enabling 
mechanisms, allow us to develop our understanding in important ways, 
and several chapters in Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) 
demonstrate this, using examples such as feminism, culture, injustice, 
and indigeneity.
In their early GTM texts, particularly Discovery, Glaser and Strauss can 
now be understood to have used the terms ‘data’, ‘theory’, and ‘concept’ 
largely as sensitizing concepts. They are never defined but play an impor-
tant role in establishing the basis for GTM. Sensitizing concepts facilitate 
some forms of investigation but preclude others. In Discovery, the argu-
ment for GTM was clearly and cogently presented, but, using Blumer’s 
terms, the concept of ‘data’ lacked ‘specification … and consequently [did 
not] enable the user to move directly to the instance and its relevant con-
tent’ (Blumer, 1954, p.7). The later critiques of Charmaz and others can 
then be understood as moving from using ‘data’ as a sensitizing concept to 
one where the term becomes subject to detailed and critical examination 
to see if and how it ‘earned its way’. (See below where this is demonstrated 
at greater length regarding ‘theory’.)


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
67
Induction and abduction
The 2007 Handbook offered new and important insights on the Pragmatist 
influence on GTM, and the related concept of abduction. GTM contin-
ues to be labelled an ‘inductive method’, but Strauss was already keen to 
tell people in the 1960s that GTM was an ‘abductive method’. Strauss was 
influenced by Pragmatism throughout his intellectual career, but strangely 
failed to refer to it explicitly, if at all, in his GTM writings; it is largely rel-
egated to the odd footnote (see Bryant, 2009). On the other hand, GTM 
among the German-speaking research community was closely associated 
with Strauss’s Pragmatism, and hence also with the issue of abduction. In 
the 2007 volume, the chapters by Reichertz and Strübing in particular attest 
to this, and the topic is further developed not only by these contributors, 
but in other chapters in Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007a, 
2019). GTM writers now cannot ignore the issue, either needing to explain 
how abduction operates, or to discount it in some manner. For instance, 
Reichertz (CD:13) provides an argument that concludes starkly that 
 
‘[T]he logic of Strauss’s GT thus permits abductive reasoning, counts on 
it, enables it, grants it place. More is not necessary.’ Many texts, however, 
continue to claim simply that GTM is ‘an inductive method’, something 
that has been taken up by generations of students and other researchers in 
a largely unexamined manner. (Abduction is an important and complex 
topic, particularly so for GTM. This section draws on key chapters from both 
Handbooks, also from Bryant (2017, Chapter 13). Readers are advised to go 
to these sources for further explanation and suggestions for further reading.)
The term ‘induction’, and various related terms, only occurs a few 
times in Discovery. In Chapter V, Glaser and Strauss (1967, p. 104) refer to 
grounded theory as ‘the constant comparative method’, and distinguish it 
from ‘analytic induction’ as follows:
Analytic induction has been concerned with generating and proving an integrated, 
limited, precise, universally applicable theory of causes accounting for a specific 
behavior (e.g., drug addiction, embezzlement). … It tests a limited number of 
hypotheses with all available data, consisting of numbers of clearly defined and 
carefully selected cases of phenomena. … The theory is generated by the refor-
mation of hypotheses and redefinition of the phenomena forced by constantly 
confronting the theory with negative cases, cases which do not confirm the 
current formulation.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
68
In contrast to analytic induction, the constant comparative method is concerned with 
generating and plausibly suggesting (but not provisionally testing) many categories, 
properties, and hypotheses about general problems (e.g., the distribution of services 
according to the social value of clients). Some of these properties may be causes, 
as in analytic induction, but unlike analytic induction, others are conditions, 
consequences, dimensions, types, processes, etc. … the constant comparisons 
required by both methods differ in breadth of purpose, extent of comparing, and 
what data and ideas are compared. (emphasis added)
Kelle (CD:3) offers a helpful note on analytic induction: ‘[T]heoretical 
propositions are developed, built and modified through chains of infer-
ences. To obtain a deeper understanding of this process it is important to 
differentiate between different kinds of theoretical statements with regard 
to their scope, source, degree of explicitness and empirical content.’
Hammersley (2004, 2010, 2011) has written extensively on analytic induc-
tion and its comparison with GTM. He traces the former through the work of 
several colleagues and mentors of Strauss, including Becker and Lindesmith, 
the latter with whom Strauss co-authored an enduring standard text on social 
psychology (2009).3 Hammersley argues that Glaser and Strauss were at pains 
to distinguish between GTM and analytic induction. GTM was a method 
that used ‘explicit coding … [to] … serve the function of … generating and 
 
developing theories’. In contrast, analytic induction was
concerned with generating and proving an integrated, limited, precise, univer-
sally applicable theory of causes accounting for a specific behavior (e.g., drug 
addiction, embezzlement). … [I]t tests a limited number of hypotheses with all 
available data, consisting of members of clearly defined and carefully selected 
cases of the phenomena. … the theory is generated by the reformulation of 
hypotheses and redefinition of the phenomena forced by constantly confront-
ing the theory with negative cases, cases which do not confirm the current 
formulation. (Hammersley, 2010, italics in original, bold emphasis added)
So most of the discussion on induction in Discovery actually refers to some-
thing distinct from GTM itself. On the other hand, there is one succinct and 
unambiguous statement that is the source of part of the GTM mantra.
In comparing incidents, the analyst learns to see his categories in terms of both 
their internal development and their changing relations to other categories. For 
example, as the nurse learns more about the patient, her calculations of social 


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
69
loss change; and these recalculations change her social loss stories, her loss 
rationales and her care of the patient.
This is an inductive method of theory development. (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 114, 
emphasis added)
The problems of induction are well documented and widely discussed (see 
Bryant, 2017, Chapters 2 and 13), but more pertinently, when considering 
forms of reasoning, we need to account not only for the logical aspects but 
also for the cognitive ones. Although Glaser’s admonition to avoid ‘immacu-
late conceptualization’ is both pithy and relevant in the context of GTM, it 
ignores the many ways in which researchers develop their insights. Martin 
(CD:11) quotes Gary Shank’s classification of six modes of reasoning:
Shank (1998), for instance, cited six modes that have emerged in the literature, 
from the type of everyday cognition people utilize to solve problems to empiri-
cal research. They are: ‘(a) reasoning to the reason or hunch; (b) reasoning 
to the clue; (c) reasoning to the metaphor or analogy; (d) reasoning to the 
symptom; (e) reasoning to the pattern; (f) reasoning to the explanation’ (Shank, 
1998, pp. 848–849).
The categorization is derived from Shank’s work, based on his refor-
mulation of Peirce’s ‘ten classes of signs’ in the context of his (Shank’s) 
consideration of Peirce’s work on semiotics and abduction.4 In the paper 
co-authored with Cunningham (1996) they move from ‘categoriza-
tion’ to consideration of ‘inference’, asking ‘what can the ten classes tell 
us about how human beings reason and make inferences about their world?’ 
 
(emphasis added). Although they do not spell out the ramifications here, 
elsewhere Shank (1998) has stressed that his aim is to demonstrate that 
abduction is as much a ‘psychological concept’ as a ‘logical and semiotic’ 
one. As Reichertz argues both in the 2007 volume and Current Developments 
(CD:13), it is critical to maintain and defend the understanding of abduc-
tion as both logical and cognitive. He quotes Peirce to the effect that 
abduction ‘takes place “like lightning”, and the thought process “is very 
little hampered by logical rules”’ (emphasis added). Making inferences is an 
embodied cognitive process, encompassing a logical form of reasoning, but 
also involving something along the lines of what Glaser and Strauss termed 
‘theoretical sensitivity’.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
70
Charmaz has characterized abduction as ‘a type of reasoning that 
begins by examining data and after scrutiny of these data, and defining an 
unusual finding, entertains all possible explanations for this data, and then 
forms hypotheses to confirm or disconfirm until the researcher arrives at 
the most plausible interpretation of the observed data’ (Charmaz, 2014a, 
emphasis added). This begs the question ‘plausible for whom?’. Initially 
this will be the researcher(s) themselves, and any advisors or evaluators; 
later the plausibility of the interpretation should be judged more widely, 
although, as Glaser and Strauss argued, a grounded theory, and indeed 
other theories, are often proven to be of ‘great practical use long before the 
theory is tested with great rigor’ (Awareness, 1965b, p. 293).
Explaining the role of abduction in GTM makes the method more 
understandable and plausible. Reichertz has described Peirce’s concept of 
abduction as involving an ‘out-manoeuvring’ of one’s existing knowledge 
and expectations; an alternative metaphor to that of suspending or aban-
doning one’s preconceptions. He also argues that the divergence between 
Glaser and Strauss in their later writings can best be understood as oriented 
around the idea of abduction: Strauss takes it up and uses it to distance his 
idea of the method, not only from deductive methods of investigation but 
also from being simply ‘inductive’. The stress is on generating new ideas 
and concepts. Glaser, on the other hand, adheres to the centrality of induc-
tion and theory emerging from the data.
Reichertz offers a clear and succinct distinction between deduction, 
induction, and abduction. In stark terms, he states that deduction is tau-
tological but ‘truth-conveying’, while qualitative induction is tautological 
but ‘not truth-conveying’. What he refers to as ‘qualitative induction’ is
not a valid but only a probable form of inference, although it does have the 
advantage of being capable of operationalization (albeit with difficulty). 
Qualitative induction is the basis of all scientific procedures that find, in col-
lected data, only new versions of what is already known. (Reichertz, CD:13)
Hence his conclusion that GTM cannot lead to new theoretical insights if 
it is purely and simply inductive.
In contrast to qualitative induction, Reichertz refers to procedures that 
lead to ‘an abductive discovered order’. An outcome that is primarily a 
‘mental construct’ since ‘the search for order is never definitively complete 
and is always undertaken provisionally’. This is bound up with his stress on 


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
71
abduction as primarily and ineluctably a cognitive process. These constructs 
or hypotheses must then be amenable to a ‘multi-stage process of checking’.
Abductive inferencing does not double the amount of data but construes a 
concept, an idea, a theory which makes the action the data represent com-
prehensible and explains it. Research that takes an abductive approach makes 
action comprehensible by indicating the regularities this action is based on, 
making its motives apparent, to an extent far beyond what the acting individu-
als themselves are aware of. (Reichertz, CD:13, original emphasis)
It is important to understand that when Reichertz refers to a multi-stage 
 
process of checking he is not advocating some form of positivist or empiricist 
verification. His primary claim is that any theory has to be comprehensible 
and plausible, again prompting the response ‘comprehensible and plausi-
ble to whom?’, but anchoring the issue in the realm of a Pragmatist view 
of knowledge, not a positivist/empiricist one. Theories are to be justified 
primarily in terms of their ‘usefulness’, and hypotheses judged in terms of 
consistency, coherence, credibility, and rigour. Knowledge claims require 
and rely on cognitive and social foundations, or in Rorty’s stark terms: 
‘Truth is what your contemporaries allow you to get away with’.5
Reichertz’s chapter in 2007 stressed the cognitive nature of abduction. 
It is not something that can be automated, despite the claims of those in 
the AI (artificial intelligence) community who argue otherwise. He noted 
ironically that ‘[T]he great success of abduction, in my opinion, may be 
traced back to two particular features: first to its indefiniteness and second 
to the misjudgment of the achievements of abduction that derive from this’ 
(2007, p. 216, emphasis added). He repeats this in his new chapter (CD:13), 
explaining that abduction has been mis-characterized as a ‘rule-governed 
way to new knowledge’, and taken up by those looking for a logical basis 
for something that might become machine-based.
He also, quite correctly, distinguishes between serendipity and abduc-
tion. Abduction ‘brings a novel idea into the world’, but, unlike serendipity, 
it does not rely on luck. On the other hand, the concept of ‘theoretical sensi-
tivity’ brings the two together much along the lines of Louis Pasteur’s point 
that ‘in the fields of observation chance favours only the prepared mind’. 
(NB: The word ‘only’ is often omitted when people use this aphorism.) These 
aspects can coincide, for instance, in Benoit Mandelbrot’s account of how 
his ideas about ‘fractals’ and ‘roughness’ came about.6


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
72
Mandelbrot wondered how things might have turned out differently had some-
one cleaned the blackboard before he entered the room. He refers to Pasteur’s 
maxim to the effect that chance favors the prepared mind, but adds that ‘I also 
think that my long string of lucky breaks can be credited to my mode of paying 
attention: I look at funny things and never hesitate to ask questions’ (emphasis 
added). This outlook gives encouragement to the sorts of abductive leaps that 
involve ‘pattern recognition’, but it also emphasizes that such insights require a 
basis in prior experience or expertise. (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 16, p. 321)
An abductive understanding of GTM, and more generally an appreciation 
of abduction itself, acquires plausibility and credibility since it also reso-
nates with key writings on the ways in which we understand the world and 
reflect on our experience and knowledge. For instance, Michael Polanyi, 
in Personal Knowledge (1958) and The Tacit Dimension (1966), argued essen-
tially that ‘we can know more than we can tell’. A maxim taken up by 
Donald Schön, who refers to Geoffrey Vickers to the effect that ‘in all our 
ordinary judgments of quality, we “can recognize and describe deviations 
from a norm very much more clearly than we [can] describe the norm 
itself”’ (Schön, 1983, p. 53). This all resonates with the idea quoted above 
from Discovery, that a grounded theory can be practically useful long before 
it receives wider theoretical affirmation.
Taken together this provides the basis for the realization that although 
some aspects of our activities and practices can be described in terms of 
rules and procedures, there are other complexities that cannot. Schön 
(1983) argues that there has to be an understanding that
[W]hen we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the actions 
of everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special way. 
Often, we cannot say what we know. When we try to describe it, we find 
ourselves at a loss, or we produce descriptions that are obviously inappropri-
ate. Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in 
our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing. It seems right to say that our 
knowing is in our action. And similarly, the workaday life of the professional 
practitioner reveals, in its recognitions, judgments and skills, a pattern of 
tacit knowing-in-action. (1983, p. 49, emphasis added)
It is critical to understand that abduction, far from being something 
strange and alien is to a limited extent a process common to all of us. We 
are all proficient and expert in a range of activities that at one time or 
another were very new to us but are now part of our general repertoire; 
for instance, riding a bike, driving a car, playing a musical instrument, or 


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
73
making a cup of tea. Mostly we accomplish these tasks intuitively and 
almost automatically; we do not have to think about each aspect or action. 
But if something unusual occurs, we find ourselves confronted by a level of 
uncertainty that may force us to attend to detailed aspects of our behaviour 
that in the normal course of events remain implicit or taken for granted.
In other words, we become abductive, taking leaps in our reasoning, 
often because to delay would lead to failure or disaster – e.g. if the car we 
are driving starts to skid, or the brakes fail on our bicycle. Schön refers to 
this as ‘reflecting in action’ as opposed to ‘reflecting on action’. The former 
happens quickly and leads immediately to response or action, the latter is 
more considered, and involves thinking about something that happened 
in the past and assessing how it could have been done differently or more 
effectively. Reflecting in action opens up the possibilities of seeing things in 
a new light, casting off the habits and assumptions that usually sustain our 
actions. If this is followed later on by reflecting on these new possibilities, 
it may result in fresh insights and ideas that can be tested more rigorously.
In the context of doing research, the necessity to respond quickly and 
immediately is not normally a requirement. But developing new insights, 
and breaking away from ingrained assumptions and patterns of thinking, 
does not come easily or naturally, particularly if the research objective is to 
test what is already accepted as part of the theoretical canon. This difficulty 
is exacerbated if researchers are expected to serve an apprenticeship that 
involves close study of the classic theories – the received wisdom.
Glaser and Strauss sought to circumvent this problem in part by devel-
oping a method of research that was designed to maximize the chances of 
encountering uncertainty and surprise, thereby encouraging development 
of new conceptual insights and theories. Hence ‘out-manoeuvring’ our 
existing knowledge, as Reichertz contends. Close encounters with research 
contexts and ‘data’ parallel to some extent the wide range of experiences 
that practitioners will encounter in the course of their daily activities. 
Inevitably, some of these will produce surprises, the responses to which may 
well result in innovative insights and reconsideration of people’s received 
understanding of domain knowledge. By intervening in the research setting 
and encouraging participants to think about aspects of their activities and 
environment that are usually taken for granted, GTM elicits features that 
otherwise might go unnoticed. In some cases, this process might become 
evident as the data is being gathered, but it also might only come to light at 
a later stage when the data is being scrutinized and reflected on in memos.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
74
This all provides the basis for a more cogent explanation of the ways in 
which innovative insights arise, and the role of specific methods in facilitat-
ing this. Peirce himself argued that abduction was aided either by ‘fear’ or 
‘musement’. One or other may be beneficial, but they are not sufficient. If 
abductive leaps are to be given a more robust and rigorous basis, something 
further has to be incorporated, very much along the lines of the later stages 
of GTM, particularly theoretical coding and theoretical saturation.
Abduction is now far more clearly and cogently understood to be an 
essential feature of GTM than was the case in 2007. Reichertz (CD:13) sums 
up the position succinctly:
The question whether GT (in the variant of Strauss and the early Strauss and 
Corbin) contains an abductive research logic can therefore be answered with 
a resounding ‘yes’. Fortunately, however, it does not only contain the logic of 
abductive reasoning but also that of qualitative induction. The logic of Strauss’s 
GT thus permits abductive reasoning, counts on it, enables it, grants it place. 
More is not necessary.
Now that the abductive nature of GTM has become more fully 
 
articulated, it can be seen as the leading method for enacting abstraction 
and abduction.
GTM and abduction – some alternative and 
elementary viewpoints
In contrast to Reichertz, Tavory and Timmermans (CD:26) now argue that 
‘abductive analysis’ is distinct from GTM since each approach asks differ-
ent types of question. Their chapter makes a number of important points 
regarding the paucity of work that takes and builds upon an initially sub-
stantive grounded theory and develops a formal one, or develops the key 
conceptualizations in some other manner. But they largely build upon an 
incomplete view of GTM and fail to account for the ways in which the 
method has been developed and enhanced. Some aspects of their critique 
do apply, however, across research methods generally.7
Interestingly, they group abductive analysis with the extended case 
method (ECM), and analytic induction. The former was developed by 
Burawoy (1998) as part of his criticism of Glaser and Strauss’s original state-
ment of GTM.8 Analytic induction has already been referred to since it was 
specifically discussed in Discovery as a contrasting approach to GTM.


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
75
For Tavory and Timmermans, abductive analysis, ECM, and analytic induc-
tion share a concern with the same ‘central question’ and the objective of 
‘explicitly … connecting observations with existing bodies of theory’. They argue 
that this makes them all distinct from GTM. This contention can be criticized on 
several counts. The first is that this ignores the way in which GTM incorporates 
abduction – or abductive analysis – as a technique within GTM; now widely recog-
nized as a method that incorporates and encourages abduction understood as a 
form of cognitive-cum-logical inference. Reichertz (CD:13) states this succinctly: 
‘GT thus permits abductive reasoning, counts on it, enables it, grants it place. 
More is not necessary.’ I would affirm this, stating that GTM enacts abstraction 
and abduction at its core.
Second, Tavory and Timmermans appear to rely on a version of GTM that 
includes several non-essential aspects of the method. For instance, they refer 
to axial coding, which they contrast with ‘abductive analysis’, even though 
the former, introduced by Strauss and Corbin (1990 & 1998), is not an essential 
aspect of GTM and has been roundly criticized by diverse grounded theo-
rists, including, separately, Charmaz and Glaser. Tavory and Timmermans 
also mention in vivo codes, which they argue have ‘been relatively popular in 
grounded theory circles’, but again the GTM literature is replete with caveats 
about reliance on such data in subsequent conceptualization.
The third criticism derives from their identification of the common 
objective shared by abductive analysis, ECM, and analytic induction – i.e. 
‘explicitly … connecting observations with existing bodies of theory’ – 
and their view that this is not part of GTM. They support the GTM-based 
admonition ‘against researchers imposing stock theoretical ideas on their 
research materials’, but then claim that ‘coding without constantly referring 
to theoretical anticipations may have created the opposite problem: a col-
lection of thinly abstracted analyses unmoored in our community of inquiry’ 
(emphasis added). Yet GTM explicitly incorporates engaging with the rel-
evant ‘community of inquiry’ as an aspect of ‘theoretical coding’, aimed at 
weaving ‘the fractured story back together again (Glaser, 1978, p. 72) into 
“an organized whole theory (Glaser, 1998, p. 163)”’ (quoted by Hernandez, 
2009). Recent PhD student accounts (e.g. Bryant, 2017, Chapter 19) illus-
trate this process, demonstrating how these skills can be honed, leading to 
theoretical and conceptual articulations incorporating researchers going to 
and engaging with the literature for support and positioning at appropriate 
stages of their work; something that is often critical at several points in a 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
76
researcher’s stages of analysis. This combination of both theoretical and 
methodological sensitivity is a core aspect of GTM as it has developed in 
the past 50 years.
In a further contrast to GTM, Tavory and Timmermans claim that 
abductive analysis has ‘a distinct realist dimension: not anything goes, the 
researcher cannot wish analytical categories into existence’. Although I 
doubt that they mean to imply that for GTM ‘anything goes’, their argu-
ment might be misunderstood in this sense. More critically, they offer a 
misplaced defence of realism, and so repeat the fallacies of writers such as 
Sartwell (2015), who misconstrue the Pragmatist position of Dewey and, 
more recently, Rorty (see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 17).
It is worth dwelling on Sartwell’s fallacy in order to dispel any misun-
derstanding. Sartwell argues, contra Rorty, that:
recent work in philosophy includes various forms of realism about the world: 
the idea that reality is not the product of consciousness, or of human perceptual 
structures or languages or interpretive communities, but exists independently. 
We don’t make the world, as one might put it; the world makes us. (Sartwell, 
2015, emphasis added?)
In essence, he is accusing Rorty of arguing that ‘reality is the product of 
consciousness’. This is absurd. In fact, it is such poor thinking that ‘it is not 
even wrong’ – a phrase coined by the physicist Wolfgang Pauli when com-
menting on work that was especially ill-conceived. In Contingency, Irony, 
and Solidarity (1989), perhaps his most important book, Rorty explicitly 
argues that:
Truth cannot be out there – cannot exist independently of the human mind – 
because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but 
descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or 
false. The world on its own unaided by the describing activities of humans can-
not. (Rorty, 1989, p. 4, emphasis added)9
Rorty never denied the existence of reality, but he did deny the possibility 
of humans accessing or discussing reality in any non-linguistic fashion.
Tavory and Timmermans correctly view abduction as an important 
technique for generating novel insights, and they seek to offer a useful 
characterization of what is involved. But in so doing they go too far in 
 
distancing it from GTM, which I and many others would argue is poten-
tially one of the most effective methods for facilitating and fostering 
abduction as part of the research process.


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
77
Is abduction elementary?
Many writers on GTM refer to Sherlock Holmes, although not always in 
the same manner. Strübing has noted that when Strauss worked in Chicago 
with Goffman, Davis, Shibutani, Freidson, and Becker, they formed 
themselves into a group called ‘The Chicago School Irregulars’, deliber-
ately evoking the ‘Baker Street Irregulars’ in the Sherlock Holmes stories. 
Strauss’s group was dedicated to ‘studying natural settings, daily life, eve-
ryday worlds, social worlds and urban lifestyles…’ (Lofland, 1980; see also 
Strübing, 2007, p.19). But Strübing now doubts the veracity of this, and 
does not refer to it in his current chapter.
Flick (CD:6), discussing abduction, quotes from Kennedy and Thornberg 
that ‘[L]ike the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, [abductive research-
ers] constantly move back and forth between data and theories, and make 
comparisons and interpretations in searching for patterns and the best possi-
ble explanations (Kennedy & Thornberg, 2018, p. 52)’. In contrast, Thornberg 
and Dunne (CD:10) argue that Glaser and Strauss criticized Merton, because 
‘[L]ike the fictive detective Sherlock Holmes [Merton’s] reasoning necessarily 
leads to the position that data should fit the theory, in contrast to our posi-
tion that the theory should fit the data’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 261). So is 
Sherlock Holmes an example of an expert in abduction or not? I would argue 
that Holmes does employ a specific form of abduction.
Although Conan Doyle and Peirce were contemporaries, they lived in 
different countries and it is highly unlikely that either one was aware of the 
other’s work. If anything, it is more likely that Peirce would have known 
about Sherlock Holmes, than would Conan Doyle have heard about, let 
alone read, any of Peirce’s writings. So it is not surprising that Holmes’ 
logical processes are referred to as ‘deductive’ rather than abductive; 
but abductive they certainly are. Albeit, Conan Doyle describes Holmes’ 
thought processes in a slightly different way to more conventional ideas 
about abduction – i.e. ‘Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever 
remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth’. This draws atten-
tion to the process of eliminating possibilities, then engaging in further 
investigation of what remains, with the aim of clarifying the most plausi-
ble explanation.10 Sherlock Holmes explained this form of reasoning to his 
amanuensis, claiming that ‘it is elementary my dear Watson’.
But for Dr Watson it was far from ‘elementary’. Whenever he tried 
to copy Holmes’ methods he failed miserably. Similarly, with abduction; 
the outcomes of abductive processes can and should have what Charmaz 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
78
terms ‘credibility’ and ‘resonance’ for others apart from the researcher(s) 
themselves, but this is not to imply that anyone can become an adept, 
nor that abduction is some natural talent. It takes determination, prac-
tice, and experience, and GTM offers a well-founded path for developing 
and applying these skills.
Stories, narratives, and fairy-tales
In an earlier article, Tavory and Timmermans (2009) contrasted GTM with 
Burawoy’s ECM, seeing the former as using ‘ethno-narratives’ developed 
from ‘actors in the field’, and ECM as relying on ‘theoretical narratives’. They 
see narrativity as entirely misplaced in sociological research, since it enforces 
closure and finality. ‘The narrative is in essence a fable – seductive exactly 
because it is alien to the very structure of the historical world, supplying it 
with the false coherence and solidity that we crave’ (Tavory & Timmermans, 
2009, p. 249). In their chapter (CD:26), they refer to the way ‘the researcher 
looks for what’s the story in the empirical materials’ (emphasis added). They 
see the ethno-narratives of GTM as ‘a naïve, artificial closure grounded in 
social life and disregarding the researcher’s role in theoretically circumscrib-
ing the events’ (2009, p. 249).
Again, their criticisms have some cogency, but are critically incomplete. 
Imposing a single narrative, with closure and finality, is certainly not an 
effective research strategy. But there is rarely just one version of the narra-
tive; hence the Rashomon effect. The term derives from the film Rashomon, 
in which a murder is described by four witnesses in four entirely contradic-
tory ways. The Simpsons offers a powerful and succinct summation.
Marge:	 Come on, Homer. Japan will be fun! You liked Rashomon.
Homer:	 That’s not how I remember it!11
Narrative does have a place in GTM, but it needs to be understood against 
a context of the Rashomon effect and the role of abduction. Birks and Mills 
(CD:12) discuss the storyline approach, defining it as ‘as an advanced ana-
lytical technique used in grounded theory research for the purpose of both 
integrating and articulating theory’. It allows a grounded theory to be 
‘rendered and articulated’, encompassing the three dimensions of the ‘nar-
rative turn’ – i.e. ‘interaction, continuity and situation, each of which are 
 


GTM FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
79
pertinent for a grounded theory analysis’. This approach is not new to GTM, 
and Charmaz points out that Strauss always emphasized finding the ana-
lytic story in the data, as David Hayes-Bautista, an early graduate of UCSF 
recalled (Charmaz, 2000). Birks and Mills (CD:12) explain that:
[T]he first and most extensive reference to storyline was made by Strauss and 
Corbin in their initial Basics of Qualitative Research text (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). 
In this text, storyline was defined as ‘the conceptualization of the story’ (p. 116) 
as part of the selective coding process. In developing the storyline, these authors 
assert that the researcher moves from descriptive to analytical telling of the story 
evident in the data. Through presenting the storyline as a mechanism for mov-
ing the research from description to conceptualization, Strauss and Corbin (1990) 
make a significant contribution to grounded theory. (emphasis added)
Dey (2007) similarly argues that narrative can be an effective way of bring-
ing the temporal and structural elements to the fore. But this will also 
demand theoretical sensitivity from the researcher(s), who will need to 
employ abduction in moving the narrative from description to conceptu-
alization, in a manner precisely akin to that singled out for commendation 
by Wacquant (see above). Moreover, by understanding and taking account 
of the Rashomon effect, GTM researchers can evade the sort of criticism 
voiced by Burawoy (1991), who argued that Grounded Theorists, in claim-
ing to let the data simply speak for itself, are simply supporting the status 
quo, and leaving things as they are. They can allow and present alterna-
tive narratives, examining each one, then justifying their choice of which 
one(s) to take forward to conceptualization, eliminating the ‘impossible’ 
while developing the ‘most plausible’.
Notes
1	 Dickens, Hard Times, p. 3, online edition available at www.gutenberg.org/
files/786/786-h/786-h.htm.
2	 Charmaz (2014a, 2017b) observes that grounded theory prescriptions to abandon 
or suspend preconceptions address ideas from extant theory and research, not the 
more fundamental preconceptions on which researchers base their taken-for-granted 
identities. She argues that these preconceptions can shape or saturate the researcher’s 
views of the data and subsequent analysis.
3	 An 8th edition appeared in 1999 edited by Lindesmith, Strauss, and Denzin.
4	 Kathy has pointed out that Shank (1987, 1998) has long advocated using abduc-
tion and has an appreciative audience among critical psychologists (see, for 
example, Stainton-Rogers, 2003).


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
80
  5	 This quote is attributed to Rorty, and he almost certainly used it in lectures and 
seminars. The published version is as follows: ‘I can sum up what I have been 
saying about appeals to experience as follows: experience gives us no way to 
drive a wedge between the cultural–political question of what we should talk 
about and the question of what really exists. For what counts as an accurate 
report of experience is a matter of what a community will let you get away with.’ 
(2007, p. 11)
  6	 See www.edge.org/3rd_culture/obrist10/obrist10_index.html
  7	 Tavory and Timmermans, referring to the ways in which debates about ‘theori-
zation and evidence … may have been unnecessarily adversarial’, assert that ‘a 
sub-discipline needs to be quite confident about its place to go after its own’. 
But the contrary would seem to be the case. The compulsion to criticize alterna-
tives usually springs from lack of confidence, and the potential for one’s own 
position to be misconstrued and identified too closely with one or more of the 
alternatives that are then confronted. Glaser and Strauss’s use of various terms 
to distinguish GTM from other approaches derives from this latter, somewhat 
precarious position, rather than the former, more confident one – see below.
  8	 Although many sociologists claim adherence to ECM, particularly in the form of 
Burawoy’s ‘public sociology’, the extent of its use pales against that of GTM.
  9	 Errol Morris (See Chapter 2, p. 56, note 4) is clearly in the same camp as Sartwell, 
http://bostonreview.net/politics/errol-morris-there-such-thing-truth
10	 In my article on Strauss’s failure to mention Pragmatism in his GTM writings I 
referred to ‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’ in which Holmes notes the ‘curious 
incident of the dog in the night-time’ – the curious thing being that the dog did 
nothing in the night-time. See Bryant, 2009.
11	 http://whatculture.com/tv/10-incredibly-subtle-jokes-simpsons-might-missed?page=3


4
GTM PARADOXES
In 2007 (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007b), we discussed some paradoxical aspects 
of GTM, something that is still all too evident in the literature. For instance, 
some writers claim that GTM is easy and comes naturally, but then go on to 
argue that not everyone can conceptualize. In a sense, such contradictory 
statements are understandable and explicable given that GTM is a method 
specifically aimed at novice and inexperienced researchers, providing them 
with guidelines that offer a basis for overcoming any lack of confidence in 
putting forward and developing their own theoretical insights. As such it 
is crucial that obstacles and impediments are dismantled and defused, but 
not disregarded. So encouraging researchers needs to be tempered with an 
understanding that the process of conceptualizing requires skill and exper-
tise, and no one can rely on ‘natural ability’. This is expressed succinctly as 
‘the more I practice the luckier I get’, attributed both to renowned golfers 
Arnold Palmer and Gary Player. The GTM version might be something like: 
‘The more I undertake GTM research, the easier I find it to develop persua-
sive and credible conceptualizations.’ Clearly, this acknowledges the active 
role played by researchers in the process.
GTM and sociology
In addition to the paradoxes and perplexities we noted in 2007 (Bryant & 
Charmaz, 2007a), there is also the issue of the relationship between GTM 
and sociology. Discovery was written as a challenge to the US social science 
orthodoxy of the time. Strauss himself was a key figure in the Chicago 
School, itself something of a maverick academy. Glaser, although influenced 
by Lazarsfeld, was never an established member of Columbia University. All 
of this may explain why the relationship between GTM and sociology is 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
82
complex and peculiar. In discussing Glaser’s Basic Social Processes, Kelle 
(CD:3) argues that: ‘[T]he emergence of theoretical codes or categories from 
the data is dependent on the ability to grasp empirical phenomena in theo-
retical terms, or, in other words, on “theoretical sensitivity”, a competence 
that demands training and background in sociological theory (which Glaser also 
still conceded, see Glaser, 1992, p. 28)’ (emphasis added). Similarly, Morse 
and Clark (CD:7) refer to the ‘sociological primacy’ of GTM, and Tavory 
and Timmermans (CD:26) state that GTM ‘presumes empirical observa-
tions are inherently sociologically relevant’.
In practice, however, many GTM-oriented researchers make little or 
no use of sociological theories. Moreover, within sociology the writ-
ings of Glaser and Strauss, and other GTM resources, have nothing 
like the recognition that they have elsewhere. Martin (CD:11) argues 
that ‘I concur with Gibson and Hartman’s (2014) observation that the 
lack of engagement with sociology hampers grounded theories’ (emphasis 
added). This may, of course, be a result of the ways in which many 
GTM researchers articulate their outcomes against a wide variety of the-
oretical resources that go above and beyond the ones they might have 
expected in the earliest stages of their research.
I would argue that it is precisely the transdisciplinary nature of much 
GTM research that affords the ‘grab’ and ‘fit’ of grounded theories, concep-
tualized against the relevant theoretical context deemed most applicable 
once theoretical coding takes place. In Charmaz’s terms: credibility, origi-
nality, resonance, and usefulness (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a). Other research 
methods may also lead to such outcomes, but GTM specifically advocates 
these aspects as prime objectives and criteria of quality. Again, as Glaser 
and Strauss stated in Awareness, grounded theories are often shown to have 
‘great practical use long before [they are] tested with great rigor’ (Glaser & 
Strauss, 1965b, p. 293).
Clarke (CD:1) offers one perspective on how sociology developed from 
the 1950s, locating GTM against this and going on to argue that Situational 
Analysis (SA) is one component of what she terms ‘the (re)turn to the 
social’. This move has
coalesced around a number of often overlapping or hybrid approaches. In 
qualitative inquiry across the disciplines these currently include: Bourdieusian 
field theory, Foucauldian discourse analysis, Foucauldian dispositif or apparatus, 
actor-network theory (ANT), assemblage theory, rhizomic analytics, and the 


GTM PARADOXES
83
hybrid method of SA. All have earlier roots but have been varyingly renovated 
to take recent developments into fuller account. (NB: Clarke explains all these 
terms in her chapter.)
SA, in particular, ‘relies on the inherent strength of constructivist GT in 
closely attending to context by “turning away from acontextual descrip-
tion” (Charmaz 2006: 271). In fact, in SA, I explicitly drew upon the 
concept of situation instead of context (Clarke 2005: 71–72)’.
Previously I briefly referred to Irwin’s belief that recent developments 
around GTM have demonstrated its important contribution to the ways 
in which sociologists try to link structure and agency. Similarly, Duckles 
et al. (CD:31) draw attention to Charmaz’s (2014a) contention that GTM, 
through its links to Symbolic Interactionism, not only encompasses pro-
cesses and meaning-making at the micro level of interactions, but also 
addresses macro processes of change, emergence, agency, and negotiated 
order. Similarly, Strübing credits Strauss with having ‘steered interactionism 
into the position of a full-fledged empirically-oriented sociology encom-
passing micro, meso, and macro level issues’. This incorporates Strauss’s 
non-GTM writings with GTM itself, particularly his final book Continual 
Permutations of Action (Strauss, 1993). So it is surprising that GTM is often 
held at arm’s length by sociologists, exemplified in the previous discussion 
on Wacquant, albeit that he was writing more than 15 years ago, before 
Charmaz published Constructing Grounded Theory (2006), but well after her 
earlier constructivist GTM writings.
A further curious and noteworthy example is provided by Manuel 
Castells, who refers to his developing a ‘grounded theory of power’ in 
Communication Power (2009, p. 5). The list of references lacks any from 
Glaser, Strauss, or any other GTM text. Later, in his article ‘A sociology 
of power: My intellectual journey’, he refers to ‘the quest for a grounded 
theory of power’, ‘the embrace of grounded theory as a strategy of theory 
building’, and ‘my deliberate option to engage in grounded theory rather 
than in grand theory’ (Castells, 2016, pp. 1, 4, 4). Again, there are no refer-
ences to any GTM literature, and Castells describes his approach as follows: 
‘I would start with theoretical constructs but always use them as research 
tools to be modified and systematized only in terms of their usefulness in 
the process of discovery’ (2016, p. 4). Which is not in any way a helpful, or 
indeed accurate or informed, summary of GTM!


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
84
The examples of Wacquant and Castells are indicative of the perplexing 
relationship between GTM and sociology, and I leave it to others to decide 
how to apportion responsibility. More critically, the GTM community 
need to take it on themselves to remedy the situation, to the benefit of all 
concerned. It would certainly seem to be the case that many GTM-oriented 
researchers – and researchers in general – would benefit from a clearer 
understanding of what is involved in ‘thinking sociologically’. A good place 
to begin would be Zygmunt Bauman’s book of that title (Bauman & May, 
2001). Conversely, sociologists and others in related disciplines with a pau-
city of understanding of GTM, similar to that of the two eminent theorists 
already referred to, would do well to refrain from ill-informed criticism 
and misuse of the GTM label. They should at the very least develop an 
understanding of the method, referring to key GTM sources and reflecting 
on the ways in which GTM might influence their own work and discipline 
in general. As Strübing (CD:2) suggests, Strauss’s concepts of ‘arenas’ and 
‘social worlds’ would be a good starting point.
A strange hostility
Related to all of this is a further and enduring paradox of GTM. Despite its 
obvious popularity and widespread use, often leading to significant devel-
opments in practice, GTM continues to be regarded with suspicion or even 
hostility by many gate-keepers – research evaluators, Institutional Review 
Boards (IRBs) or their equivalent, examiners, editors, and reviewers – partly 
due to the sort of ill-informed views of GTM exemplified above.
There are indeed many examples of ‘poor GTM research’, both in 
terms of the research itself being poorly conceived and carried out, and 
in terms of the ways in which GTM has been used/misused. But this is 
common across all forms of research and all methods. For a variety of 
reasons, what I have termed ‘methodologizing’ often incorporates a form 
of branding, and researchers and evaluators expect research reports to 
indicate the chosen method – or brand – clearly and succinctly. The result 
is that claims by researchers with regard to methods are often specious or 
misleading. In the 1990s Strauss and Corbin (1994) worried about GTM 
becoming ‘fashionable’, anticipating the downside of ‘methodological 
consumerism’ (Crossman & Noma, CD:29), which also resonates with 
Mruck and Mey (CD:23), who refer to the use of GTM as a ‘legitimizing 
label’; although for some it is a de-legitimizing one.


GTM PARADOXES
85
Strauss and Corbin also worried that GTM would become ‘old hat’, but 
that is certainly not the case. Indeed, given the popularity of GTM, the 
number of examples of poor GTM research, and misuse of the legitimiz-
ing label, is hardly surprising, but again a thorough and grounded study 
of methods-in-use – across methods generally – might transform what are 
largely anecdotal claims into more rigorous and credible ones. Researchers 
using GTM, in whatever form or combination, do, however, need to pre-
empt the main criticisms levelled at the method, offering clear statements 
with regard to the rationale for their research, the processes and procedures 
that they have followed or intend to undertake, clearly explaining the ways 
in which their analysis evolves, and providing the basis for their insights 
(Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18, especially Tables 18.2 and 18.3).
Over the years I have given an introductory seminar on GTM with 
the title ‘The Grounded Theory Method: A Model of Good Research 
Practice’. But I begin by examining the all-too-common view of GTM as 
a model of bad practice that seems to allow – if not actually encourage – 
 
inadequacies such as failing to clarify the initial research question, 
 
disregarding the literature, and engaging with the problem domain with-
out a clear strategy. All of which leads to consideration of how GTM relates 
to and sheds light on general issues of research practice, dismantling and 
rebutting the all-too-common misunderstandings upon which this image 
of GTM as bad practice is predicated.
GTM and researching in general
As I noted earlier, Martin (CD:11) refers to Flick (2015), who
observed that many of the challenges that faced qualitative research in the 1980s 
and 1990s, including concerns with rigor and quality, remain. He also summa-
rized a number of emerging concerns internationally. He identified trends such 
as evidence-based research and the rise of big social science projects, with col-
laborators across departments and institutions, as a threat to small, individual 
qualitative studies.
Rather than seeing this as some palpable failing across the whole qualita-
tive endeavour, I believe that continuing concerns with rigour, quality, and 
practical relevance should be understood as inevitable aspects of research 
and the yearning for enhanced knowledge and understanding, based on 
recognition that these are all subject to ambivalence and contingency. 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
86
Those gate-keepers who disparage specific methods – GTM being a com-
mon target – should cast their nets more widely, paying more attention to 
the products of research and less to any idiosyncratic preconceptions about 
particular approaches. Moreover, GTM itself has two key features that are 
often seen as weaknesses, but in fact need to be understood as sources of 
strength incorporating aspects of research that should be understood and 
implemented more generally.
The first is the issue of theoretical saturation, which is widely misun-
derstood and often claimed by researchers with little or no justification. 
All research involves a compromise in deciding when to end a project 
and report on the results. Theoretical saturation provides a clear focus on 
which to base any such decision; something that many other methods fail 
to address. Understood correctly, theoretical saturation requires research-
ers to explain the basis for bringing their data gathering and analysis to 
an end, moving on to report their findings and present their conclusions. 
This form of saturation can be claimed when researcher(s) can justify that 
there is sufficient data to substantiate their model – i.e. that the categories 
in their model are borne out by the data, and that further data drawn from 
their research context adds no further detail to the categories and concepts 
already articulated. But the basis for such claims is widely misunderstood 
and misused, and researchers often assert that investigation of the research 
context has provided ‘no further data’ or ‘no new data’, sometimes refer-
ring to this simply as ‘saturation’ or even ‘data saturation’. This is wildly 
inaccurate and does disservice to GTM.
Glaser and Strauss offered a clear definition of the term in Discovery: 
‘[Theoretical] Saturation means that no additional data are being found 
whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category’ (1967, p. 61, 
emphasis added). This can be incorporated into other research methods as 
part of ‘good practice’. Charmaz correctly notes that theoretical sampling and 
the progression from this to theoretical saturation go well beyond the idea of 
GTM as purely inductive. ‘It involves a form of reasoning, abduction, which 
distinguishes grounded theory’ (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 200, emphasis added).
The other aspect worthy of attention in this context is theoretical coding. 
Kelle (CD:3) defines this as one way that GTM advocates
a non-deductive use of theories and models in the process of empirically 
grounded theory building. Thereby a variety of new and complex concepts 
were proposed like ‘theoretical coding’, ‘coding families’, ‘axial coding’, ‘coding 
paradigm’ and many others.


GTM PARADOXES
87
Many now see Glaser’s coding families, and Strauss and Corbin’s coding 
paradigm as equivalent, offering paths from codes and categories to concise 
and integrated theoretical statements. On the other hand, my experience 
with numerous PhD students indicates that in many cases neither is nec-
essary; indeed, each has drawbacks that can mislead students. Doctoral 
students seem to be able to move to a point where they can combine the 
outcomes of their focused coding with theoretical coding, and relate cat-
egories to one another, indicating ‘possible relationships’ (Charmaz), that 
‘weave the fractured story back together’ (Glaser), cogently presenting their 
findings. This is often accomplished with a return to and engagement with 
the literature once the conceptual model has been developed from the data. 
This constitutes a key component of theoretical coding, and the literature 
deemed relevant to this stage of ‘constant comparison’ is often largely or 
completely different from the literature investigated at the earliest stages of 
the research. This is commonplace for GTM research, and most, if not all, 
PhD students when asked ‘what surprised you in your research?’ are readily 
able to respond with clear aspects of their findings that proved unexpected 
and could not have been predicted at the outset.
As was pointed out earlier, Wacquant, in praising Duneier’s work, 
described it in terms that resonate with the process of theoretical coding, 
even if neither he nor Duneier seem to have understood it as such. Castells 
similarly hints at his use of existing theories, albeit exhibiting limited 
understanding of the process and GTM in general.
This key aspect of GTM is often ignored or misunderstood, leading to 
unfounded criticisms of the method. In 1994, Strauss and Corbin noted 
that in far too many cases researchers were claiming use of GTM but failing 
to accomplish more than a fairly mundane level of coding, certainly not 
moving on to theoretical coding, then generating theoretical statements. 
As a result, they noted that the complaint ‘where is the theory in grounded 
theory’ was invoked in methodological critiques or texts. This invocation 
has not disappeared (see below).
The theory in grounded theory
One apparent enigma of GTM is the paucity of substantive and formal 
grounded theories (SGTs and FGTs) more than 50 years after the method 
and the first grounded theory made an appearance. Several of the chapters 
 
in Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) consider the ways in 
which ‘theory’ is understood, both generally, and specifically in the context 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
88
of GTM. Without wishing to pre-empt these discussions, I take up some of 
these issues below, but note that good theories of any sort are rare and often 
only recognized within limited domains. Moreover, as Glaser and Strauss 
asserted, in line with the Pragmatist roots of GTM, a grounded theory often 
proves to be of ‘great practical use long before the theory is tested with great 
rigor’ (1965b, p. 293). In response to such challenges, I offer Joseph Heller’s 
retort when asked why none of his later books were as good as Catch 22.
Interviewer:	
‘Since Catch 22, you haven’t written anything nearly as good.’
Heller:	
‘No, but then neither has anyone else.’
Momentous grounded theories, such as Awareness, Time, and Status Passage 
(Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, 1968, 1971), and ‘supernormalizing’ (Charmaz) 
are few and far between, but then so too are theories more generally. This 
is not a fault of GTM.
So where is the theory in grounded theory?
The challenging interrogatory is often used by those keen to point to and 
disparage poor examples of GTM, often amounting to no more than a series 
of re-descriptions of some aspects of a research context, presented in the 
form of ‘codes’ with little or no conceptualization. This specific issue has 
been dealt with already, but it is worth reiterating the point that it is not 
hard to find poor uses of any and every method, yet it would be wrong to 
fault a method itself based only on such examples. This specific challenge, 
however, begs the question of what is meant by the term ‘theory’, both for 
GTM as such and more generally.
The meaning of the term theory is itself fraught with ambiguity and 
ambivalence (Bryant, 2009).
For some the term is an accolade, so citations for Nobel prizes mention that the 
winners have made major contributions to one or another theory, or have devel-
oped a new one. In contrast, anyone wishing to disparage something might 
use the term in precisely the opposite sense, hence those arguing in favour of 
Intelligent Design refer to the work of Charles Darwin or the concept of evolu-
tion in general as only a theory. (Bryant, 2017, p. 98)
‘Theory’ is best understood as a sensitizing concept in the early GTM writ-
ings, but since then the term has understandably been the focus of greater 


GTM PARADOXES
89
scrutiny and substantive analysis. Several chapters in Current Developments 
reflect this, offering a range of definitions and discussions on the topic.
Johnson and Walsh (CD:25) note that there are different ways of defin-
ing theory. These range from ‘general, etic (nomothetic) or particular, local, 
emic (idiographic) perspectives’. The differences are largely derived from 
differing positions with regard to epistemology and ontology, so from a
positivist or postpositivist view … a theory could be ‘a system of constructs and 
variables in which the constructs are related to each other by propositions and 
the variables are related to each other by hypotheses’ (Bacharach, 1989, p. 498). 
[For constructivists/interpretivists a] theory could be an ‘approximation’ of a 
complex reality (Weick, 1995).
They refer to Gregor’s definition, which
proposed a broad, all-encompassing definition of a theory as an abstract entity 
that aims ‘to describe, explain, and enhance understanding of the world and, in 
some cases, to provide predictions of what will happen in the future and to give 
a basis for intervention and action’ (Gregor, 2006, p. 616).
Cathy Urquhart (CD:4) also uses Gregor’s definition, noting that ‘Gregor 
also defines the components of all theories as containing a means of rep-
resentation, constructs, statements of relationship, and scope’. Birks and 
Mills (CD:12) define a theory as ‘an explanatory scheme comprising a set 
of concepts related to each other through logical patterns of connectivity’.
Kelle (CD:3) takes a different approach, quoting
a famous metaphor of Hempel, a theory is a network of terms (following our 
terminology we would say ‘categories’) which ‘floats, as it were, above the 
plane of observation and is anchored to it by rules of interpretation’. These rules 
of interpretation link certain points of the network ‘with specific places in the 
plane of observation…: From certain observational data, we may ascend, via an 
interpretive string, to some point in the theoretical network, thence proceed, 
via definitions and hypotheses to other points, from which another interpretive 
string permits a descent to the plane of observation’ (Hempel, 1952, p. 36).
Kelle’s chapter is devoted specifically to this subject, and he offers both a 
general overview of the term, as well as discussing how it relates to GTM, 
arguing that Glaser and Strauss’s understanding of the nature of theories 
was centred on categories.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
90
… the concept of ‘category’ played a crucial role: categories are not only the 
building blocks and basic elements of theories, they are also important tools 
used throughout the whole research process to develop full-fledged theories. 
Theoretical statements (or in other words, ‘hypotheses’) are basically formed by 
connecting categories.
The nature of a theory is then far from simple or obvious and needs to be 
addressed. In Discovery, Glaser and Strauss drew on Merton’s (1949) work, 
in which he argued for ‘theories of the middle range’.
Theories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that 
evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic 
efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities 
of social behaviour, social organization and social change. (Merton, quoted by 
Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 39)
Merton argued that such theories were developed from close scrutiny of the 
data, and developed from studies of specific and constrained contexts. Glaser 
and Strauss adopted this approach in describing both substantive and formal 
grounded theories as theories of the middle range. Kelle (CD:3) argues that 
‘[A]s the scope of a substantive theory is extended towards a formal one, cat-
egory or construct names by necessity become simpler, and more abstract, 
because that construct has to apply to a large number of substantive cases’.
I am not suggesting that anyone using GTM has to engage at great 
length with these debates, but care is needed in the use of the term ‘theory’, 
which should be accompanied by some form of further explanation. Again, 
this is an issue that extends beyond GTM to reporting research findings in 
general, although it is more pertinent to GTM with its inherent claim to be 
a method that can lead to new theories.
This all demonstrates that claims by researchers to have developed new 
theoretical insights need to be made and treated with caution, whether or 
not they have used GTM. Yet, unlike many other methods, GTM clearly 
offers the basis for such claims, albeit with critical caveats relating to scope 
and applicability, for instance, the point that GTs are theories of the mid-
dle range. Here again, an aspect of GTM that has been criticized should be 
seen as clarifying and facilitating good research practice. Other methods 
say little or nothing about these issues.
The relative silence regarding Pragmatism in the context of GTM is 
critical here. The Pragmatist view, derived from Dewey, James and others, 


GTM PARADOXES
91
is that a theory is a tool – to be judged accordingly. Grounded theo-
rists should base their claims on this, whether or not they use the term 
‘theory’, ‘model’, ‘framework’, or any equivalent one. Classic GTs, such 
as Awareness, Time, and Status Passage (Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, 1968, 
1971), and ‘supernormalizing’ (Charmaz) have earned their status as useful 
 
conceptualizations. They are exceptional in the extent of their take-up and 
influence on practice. Other GTs may have had more limited influence, 
but that is not to undermine their derivation and use within specific con-
texts. I have argued elsewhere that Darwin can be seen as a proto-grounded 
 
theorist, and hence the theory of evolution as a highly ‘useful’ grounded 
theory (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 20). Few theories – grounded or otherwise – 
are as conceptually powerful as this.
Duckles et al. (CD:31) build upon the Pragmatist view of theories, 
combining it with Action Research. They encourage researchers to 
examine carefully how theories are constructed and their relationships 
to the research process.
If theory is, as proposed, ‘a grand word for these everyday activities of 
knowing, understanding and sense-making’, then how is it uncovered and 
used to inform methods and practice? They [Dick, Stringer and Huxham 
(2009)] propose that we honor the theories of the communities we work 
with, both to clarify and understand the issues guiding our action research, 
and to strengthen processes of inquiry.
The issue of what is meant by ‘theory’, both in general terms and for GTM 
specifically, is complex. Some chapters in Current Developments cover the 
topic in substantive fashion, others refer to the issue as the basis for discus-
sion of other concerns. In this sense, the term is treated as ‘definitive’ in 
some chapters, and as a ‘sensitizing’ concept in others.
As a conclusion to this brief discussion of the term, the following quote 
from Albert Hirschman seems apposite. Hirschman was a noted, albeit mav-
erick, economist and essayist, his most widely cited work being Exit, Voice 
and Loyalty. In a discussion on the impact of his work he noted that ‘[T]he 
success of a theory consists … in that suddenly everyone begins to reason 
according to new categories’ (1990 [1970], emphasis added). Hirschman was 
not a grounded theorist, but this seems to be a wonderfully succinct state-
ment of one key criterion for judging any claim to theoretical innovation, 
particularly a grounded theory.


5
INDIGENEITY
One aspect of doing research, now the subject of critical scrutiny, is the 
way in which the research process is inevitably implicated with issues of 
power, domination, exploitation, and hegemony, also with cultural and 
political complexities and ramifications.
The 2007 Handbook included a chapter by O’Neil Green et al. (2007) 
which argued for the incorporation of issues of race and ethnicity as part of 
the research process. Various chapters in Current Developments develop this 
recommendation, stressing that researchers need to take account of various 
‘sensitizing concepts’ – e.g. feminism, culture, social injustice, indigeneity, 
domination, hegemony, and emancipation. Some might take exception to 
this in the context of GTM, arguing that it precludes or impedes the process 
of open-minded initiation of research. Thus, Hadley (CD:28) notes that 
there are grounds both for and against the incorporation of emancipatory 
concerns in GTM and research more generally. On the other hand, he also 
refers to
Adorno’s critique of the sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld … a mentor of Glaser, and 
arguably the progenitor of Glaser’s primary philosophical and methodological 
beliefs. From a [critical] perspective, Adorno denounced Lazarsfeld’s preference 
for simply describing ‘life as it is’ as nothing more than ‘a bourgeois sociology 
reinforcing the domination inherent in society’ (Gibson, 2007, p. 438). Similar 
criticisms were levelled against Symbolic Interactionism, an early methodologi-
cal forerunner of Grounded Theory Methodology (Fine, 1993).
Hadley quotes Kincheloe and McLaren, who state that theoretical descrip-
tions ‘are not simply about the world but serve to construct it … language 
in the form of discourses serves as a form of regulation and domination’ 


INDIGENEITY
93
(2000, p. 284). From a constructivist/interpretivist position it is not pos-
sible to claim that data ‘simply speaks for itself’.
Yet Glaser and Strauss were right to maintain that concepts – even 
sensitizing ones – have ‘to earn their way’. This is not required each 
and every time a concept is used as a resource in someone’s research. In 
Discovery, the concepts of ‘data’ and ‘theory’ are not the subject of clear 
and definitive discussion, in Blumer’s terms they ‘lack precise reference 
and have no bench marks which allow a clean-cut identification of a 
specific instance and of its content. Instead, they rest on a general sense of 
what is relevant’ (1954, p. 7). Similarly, Hesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24) 
state that ‘feminism supplies the perspective and the disciplines supply 
the method. The feminist researcher exists at their intersection’. Irwin 
(CD:18) discusses GTM research undertaken in ‘the context of mascu-
linity and violence’, and Ravi Priya (CD:19) echoes this with regards to 
research on ‘suffering and healing’. Other GTM researchers develop their 
work from positions explicitly developed around topics such as ethnicity, 
social deprivation, and other forms of inequality (see below).
Again, GTM can be a source for better research practice in general if 
this leads to the expectation for all research reports to incorporate a brief 
introductory section where researchers clarify any sensitizing concepts 
that informed their work, albeit that such considerations could at best be 
indicative rather than definitive, since others might readily point out other 
aspects that were unacknowledged or tacitly assumed.
Morse and Clark (CD:7) deal with some of the ramifications of all this in 
their chapter on sampling, explaining that seeking to deal with ethnicity, 
for instance, ‘is tricky. You must determine if your sample should be cohe-
sive culturally/ethnically’. Again, there is no once-and-for-all solution, but 
researchers must ensure that, as far as possible, they clearly state and justify 
their orientation and any other related issues/concepts that they decide to 
incorporate within their research approach.
Charmaz has specifically developed GTM as a basis for research in areas 
that touch upon and are even constituted by concerns for social justice (see 
below). Kathy and I were particularly concerned to invite contributions 
to Current Developments from a wide range of contributors, particularly 
from geo-political and linguistic groups not included in the earlier volume, 
although there is still a predominance of Anglophone and German-speaking 
contributors. We were keen for contributors to take account of the ways in 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
94
which research is conducted on a global and international scale – including 
collaborations between researchers from different backgrounds, countries, 
continents, and regions – and also with doctoral students undertaking their 
research and gaining doctoral guidance in universities in foreign countries.
One of the terms that many authors use is indigeneity. Norm Denzin 
(CD:22) centres his discussion around this, making the case and space 
for communities to determine what is and is not acceptable research as 
it ‘encourages self-determination and empowerment’. He coins the term 
‘indigenous grounded theory inquiry’, arguing that it
connects research to struggles for liberation, to struggles which empower, which 
challenge the status quo, rebuild leadership, restore environments, and revital-
ize language, culture, and community (Smith, 2005: 89). ‘Indigenous grounded 
theory research is performative research carried out by indigenous scholars, in and 
for indigenous communities, using the principles of indigenous grounded theory 
inquiry’ (Smith, 2005: 89). This form of inquiry is collaborative and participatory 
and is characterized by the absence of a need to be in control, by a desire to be 
connected to and to be a part of a moral community where a primary goal is the 
compassionate understanding of another’s moral position (Bishop, 1998: 203).
Norm Denzin has been a towering force for good in the world of methods 
for many years. He worked with Lindesmith and Strauss from the 1970s, 
 
co-editing several editions of their key text on social psychology. His early 
work The Research Act (1970) was hailed by many, including Herbert Blumer, 
as a revolutionary text on the topic. Starting in the 1980s, he has co-edited an 
enormous number of key collections on research methods, as well as organ-
izing international conferences and summer schools. Denzin has co-edited 
the Handbook of Qualitative Research, through its many editions (Denzin & 
Lincoln, 1994, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2017), and also a range of other collections, 
including Qualitative Inquiry and Human Rights (2010), Qualitative Inquiry 
and Social Justice (2009), Handbook of Critical Indigenous Inquiry (2008), and 
Performance Ethnography: The Politics and Pedagogies of Culture (2003).
It is therefore with some trepidation that I take issue with aspects of 
his chapter. I concur with Denzin’s sentiments, but believe that the way 
in which he expresses them needs further examination if they are ‘to earn 
their way’. He uses the terms ‘performance’ and ‘performative’ almost as 
synonyms, which is misleading. In so doing, he also fails to give proper 
attention to the latter, which is a critical issue in the context of his argu-
ment and the ways in which research needs to develop a genuinely 


INDIGENEITY
95
cosmopolitan orientation. It may well be that his extended discussions in 
Performance Ethnography resolve this, but the term ‘performativity’ reso-
nates across many disciplines and now has attained a highly specific range 
of meanings and ramifications.
In the extract in the earlier paragraph, he attributes the phrase ‘perform-
ative research’ to Linda Tuhiwai Smith, although it does not actually appear 
in the work cited. It may be that the term, in Denzin’s and Smith’s contexts, 
is a derivation from the concept of ‘performance’, but it then needs to be 
distinguished from the far more widely understood use of ‘performative’.
The most notable and influential use of the word ‘performative’ is in the 
writings of the philosopher J. L. Austin, particularly How to Do Things with 
Words (1962). His work was taken up by John Searle in Speech Acts (1969), 
and more recently by Judith Butler in the context of gender. Butler specifi-
cally distinguishes between performance and performativity as follows:
It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying 
gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that 
we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our 
role-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present 
to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for 
something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and 
walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man 
or being a woman. (Butler, 2013, emphasis added)
If applied to the context of ‘doing research’ this is an important distinc-
tion. Research as an activity cannot be seen as a dispassionate and neutral 
form of investigation, but as constitutive and formative; it simultaneously 
incorporates some features and marginalizes, excludes, or evades others. 
Strauss’s work on identity, particularly Mirrors and Masks (1959), alludes 
precisely to these ideas, albeit expressed in a different vocabulary. To some 
extent they were also present in early GTM, but it is only in recent work, 
such as that by Charmaz, that they have begun to be clearly articulated.
Once research is seen as performative, however, it must be understood 
that, as Butler argues, all research ‘produces a series of effects’. These effects 
are largely beyond the control of researchers. Hence, Butler’s point that 
‘performativity’ has ramifications and dimensions that extend well beyond 
‘role-play’. Moreover, the concept of performativity applies to all forms of 
research, including indigenous research – i.e. there will be ramifications for 
these forms of research, as there are for all other forms, albeit very distinct 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
96
from and all-too-often over-powered and effaced by ‘Western’ ones. This 
is almost certainly what Denzin means in his chapter, but the point needs 
to be put across more clearly and with due regard to the ways in which the 
terms ‘performance’ and ‘performativity’ are now construed.
Denzin presents the ideas of Smith, derived from Decolonizing 
Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (Smith, 2012), which are encap-
sulated in the phrase from the introduction: ‘“Research” is probably one of 
the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary’. She counters the 
predominant Western assumptions on the nature of research and knowledge 
from the position of an indigenous and colonized Ma
¯ori woman, calling 
for the decolonization of methodologies and a new agenda for indigenous 
research, one concerned with ‘a more critical understanding of the underly-
ing assumptions, motivations and values that inform research practices’. I 
fully concur with this, but the concept of ‘indigenous research’ must itself be 
examined to see how it ‘earns its way’.
Denzin (CD:22) treats the concept of ‘indigeneity’, and associated terms 
such as ‘ritual’ and ‘culture’, as given:
The performance of sacred tribal rituals, the telling of oral histories, and the 
performance of sacred identities validates traditional ways of life. The performances 
embody the ritual. They are the ritual. In this sense the performance becomes a 
form of public pedagogy. It uses a performative aesthetic to foreground cultural 
meaning, and to teach these meanings to performers and audience members alike.
This is fine, but it must also be understood that in most, probably all, cul-
tures the performance of rituals and rites is bound up with hierarchies of 
power and inequalities, particularly gender-based ones. They also incor-
porate forms of taboo, phobias, and prejudices; usually in the form of 
differentiating between us/insider and them/outsider, with the latter split 
between the ‘acceptable’ or tolerable, and the undesirable.
Smith points out the ways in which many assumptions around research 
practice in ‘the West’ are bound up with discriminatory and biased views 
and ramifications; all in need of exposure and remedy. But the practices of 
‘others’ need similar scrutiny, even though they are far less influential and 
globally damaging in their current forms.
Denzin develops and extends Smith’s argument, but he risks undermin-
ing its force and significance. For instance, in discussing the importance 
of research giving voice to all participants, he wants researchers to ‘resist 


INDIGENEITY
97
speaking for the other’; but this is an impossibility. Even researchers from 
within an indigenous culture cannot avoid ‘speaking for others’; we must 
not fall prey to the mistake of treating ‘other cultures’, or indeed our ‘own’ 
culture, as homogeneous. After all, in one way or another any researcher 
writing anything with a view to publication is speaking for others. (It 
might be thought that using auto-ethnography partially resolves this, but 
such auto-biographical approaches can often become part of the problem 
rather than a possible solution.)
Focusing on indigeneity should be part of a process of critical scrutiny 
of issues around power relationships, dominance, hegemony, class, colo-
nialism, and post-colonialism. It should also be part of the reflexivity that 
is an essential consideration for all researchers. As a rule of thumb, when 
encountering terms such as ‘we’, ‘our’, or any equivalent terms, it is almost 
always crucial to ask who is included and/or excluded, and what is assumed 
in such generalizations.1
Denzin (CD:22) correctly stresses that ‘[I]ndigenous knowledge sys-
tems are too frequently turned into objects of study, treated as if they were 
instances of quaint folk theory held by the members of a primitive culture’. 
The corollary of this is that the decolonizing project ‘reverses this equation, 
making Western systems of knowledge the object of inquiry’. Denzin won-
ders whether or not this is the basis for ‘a dialogue between different systems/
discourses’. It certainly should be, but not if this leads to sacralizing and sen-
timentalizing ‘other cultures’ and ‘indigeneity’. Denzin (CD:22) states that:
[T]heory, method, and epistemology are aligned in this project, anchored in 
the moral philosophies that are taken for granted in indigenous cultures and 
language communities. A pedagogy of emancipation and empowerment is 
endorsed, a pedagogy that encourages struggles for autonomy, cultural well-
being, cooperation, and collective.
But, unfortunately, this cannot be taken at face value. Emancipation and 
empowerment, together with autonomy and cooperation, are powerful 
sensitizing concepts, but they have to earn their way, and be amenable to 
critical scrutiny.
Denzin treats GTM as a touchstone, embodying the standard for rela-
tively good practice, but to be contrasted with some new form of ‘better 
practice’. In so doing, he sets up GTM versus ethnography:


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
98
Grounded theory is a performance, a set of performative and interpretive prac-
tices and ways of making the world visible. This commitment to visibility is 
anchored in the belief that the world, at some level, is orderly, and patterned. 
The world of social interaction and social experience can be theoretically sam-
pled, saturated, located in situational social world, arena mapped, coded, fitted 
into conceptual categories, diagrammed, placed in conditional and consequen-
tial matrices, and represented in narrative, visual, and historical discourses. These 
discourses, in turn, can be analyzed in terms of social relationships, identities, and 
intersecting arenas and social worlds. (Denzin, CD:22)
This is then contrasted with ethnography:
In contrast, the performance ethnographer is a troublemaker. The practices of 
ethnography are not tools for creating order out of chaos. Instead ethnographies 
are for creating chaos, ways of disrupting the world and its representations. 
Performance ethnographers see disorder in the world, reading orderliness as a 
dramaturgical production. (Denzin, CD:22)
This may be a reasonable characterization of some forms of current eth-
nography, albeit that ethnography, as originally developed in the 18th and 
19th centuries, was intimately associated with conquest, colonialism, and 
‘scientific’ models of racial hierarchies – i.e. what Smith had in mind when 
referring to ‘research’ as one of the ‘dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s 
vocabulary’.
It should also be noted that Glaser and Strauss specifically criticized eth-
nography as one form of research that was incapable of generating theory.
Denzin is also off-target with his other criticisms since GTM writers have 
always stressed that grounded theories are modifiable and embrace contin-
gency, uncertainty, and ambivalence. This is particularly the case for those 
who argue that GTM encompasses constructivist and Pragmatist ideas con-
cerning the provisional and contingent nature of knowledge claims and 
conceptual constructs. Grounded theorists have in many instances proved 
themselves to be effective troublemakers.
I referred earlier to Burawoy’s criticism that, in letting data speak for itself, 
grounded theorists were leaving the world as it is, tacitly supporting the 
status quo. But this is to mistake the potential impact of theoretical descrip-
tions in general, and particularly those emanating from the social actors 
themselves. Recent GTM work has focused on issues around social justice and 
inequality, giving voice to those challenging conventional and hegemonic 


INDIGENEITY
99
discourses. Charmaz leads the way, arguing that GTM, through its lineage 
with Symbolic Interaction and Pragmatism, inherently encompasses issues 
of social justice and critical inquiry, a theme that Duckles et al. (CD:31) 
develop. I am sure Denzin would concur with all of this, so it is unfortunate 
that he sees the need to make the distinction between GTM and perfor-
mance ethnography.
Denzin (CD:22) offers a set of questions for the meta-level of research 
derived from a ‘critical politics of interpretation’. He argues that these 
should be posed by indigenous scholars with regards to ‘any research pro-
ject, including those projects guided by grounded critical theory’. The 
questions, however, will be familiar to anyone applying for a research grant 
from any government or private funding body. Questions regarding own-
ership, priority, personnel, and likely beneficiaries are all now part of the 
standard Western research funding process.
A non-Westernized orientation certainly leads to a different under-
standing of ‘we’ in Denzin’s questions, such as ‘What research do we want 
done?’ and ‘How will we know it is worthwhile?’ But Denzin goes further 
than this, stating that ‘These questions are addressed to indigenous and 
non-indigenous scholars alike. They must be answered in the affirmative; 
that is, indigenists must conduct, own, and benefit from any research that 
is done on or for them.’ Unfortunately, several of the questions cannot 
be answered either affirmatively or negatively – e.g. the two at the start 
of this paragraph. More critically, however, this approach risks compart-
mentalizing research and researchers into indigenists and non-indigenists, 
again committing the error of false attribution of homogeneity; effectively 
implying that non-indigenists cannot participate in the research contexts 
of the former. This is not the basis for the type of dialogue that ought to 
be one vital outcome from more highly developed research awareness con-
texts, which is surely what Denzin is keen to encourage.
Duckles et al. (CD:31) provide a useful corrective in their discussion:
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides an orientation to 
research that ‘emphasizes issues of trust, power, dialogue, community capacity 
building, and collaborative inquiry toward the goal of social change’ (Minkler & 
Wallerstein, 2011, p. 7). Core characteristics of this approach include its focus 
on co-learning and the balance between research and action (Israel et al., 2005) 
as well as creating local knowledge and promoting systems change (Minkler & 
Wallerstein, 2011). (emphasis added)


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
100
Duckles et al. use the term ‘community’, itself the topic of extensive critical 
discussion – e.g. Bauman’s (1971) Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure 
World. But in so doing they make several important points with regards to 
researchers, their methodological assumptions, and the role of all of those 
involved in research practices.
As researchers, we are aware that, at times, we can be drawn toward a tacit meth-
odological and theoretical individualism. This threat partially emerges from the 
university paradigms of research and publishing that often privilege certain notions 
of expertise and singular voices. In addition, we recognize the individualism that 
underlies many Anglo-American cultures. Instead, we work toward explicitly inte-
grating multiple methodologies, adopting diverse theoretical traditions to guide our 
work and embracing abductive reasoning to reach into local ways of understanding. 
Our goal, however, is not to adopt this integration as another singular process, or 
to find and bring exclusive sensitizing concepts to our analysis. Instead, we heed 
Lincoln and Guba’s (2013) caution against developing an ‘epistemological or theo-
retical melting pot in which researchers come to share lenses or standpoints (which 
have primarily been Eurocentric) and instead, to adopt approaches that bring atten-
tion and understanding to the nuances of difference’ (p. 10). (emphasis added)
It is important for researchers to understand that the ‘nuances of differ-
ence’ are common across these approaches, albeit that to date they have 
mostly operated forcefully in only one direction. Crossman and Noma 
(CD:29) take some account of this in their chapter on ‘internationali-
zation’, although in using the concept of a paradigm in referring to ‘a 
researcher’s epistemological and ontological premises’, they introduce the 
problem of incommensurability that was referred to earlier, even if they do 
invoke Denzin and Lincoln’s concept of ‘multiple paradigms interacting in 
dynamic ways with one another’.
Directly countering Denzin, Bainbridge et al. (CD:30) stress that it is 
precisely the grounded theory approach that can ‘work to ameliorate some 
of the critiques that Indigenous people have about conventional research 
processes and their continuing failure to deliver benefits’. Their chapter 
describes six key critiques that ‘Indigenous nations have made of conven-
tional research approaches’.
(1) narrowly-focused, reductionist thinking; (2) a preponderance of deficit-
focused descriptive research that is of generally suboptimal methodological 
quality; (3) issues of power and control; (4) devaluing of Indigenous knowledge 
systems; (5) onerous amounts of research without corresponding impact; and 
(6) context-independent and culturally-insensitive research.


INDIGENEITY
101
Seeking to respond to these critiques offers a useful starting point for con-
sideration of issues around indigeneity and post-colonial dialogue across 
differing perspectives and positions regarding the status of knowledge and 
truth claims. Bainbridge et al. ‘specifically account for how the seemingly 
disparate methodologies of phronetic social sciences and participatory 
action research approaches can be integrated with constructivist grounded 
theory methods to make issues of social justice explicit in the research 
endeavour’. (Phronetic in this context is derived from the classical Greek con-
cept phronesis, which can be understood to mean practical judgement or 
practical wisdom.)
Echoing some of my foregoing critique of Denzin, they argue that:
The very issues that many researchers and others are attempting to resolve for 
Indigenous people are the products of imposing Western systems and knowl-
edge. Paradoxically, proposed solutions often derive from and are implemented 
through the same power dynamics and reductionist thinking that precipitated 
the concerns in the first instance. These impositions both reinforce Western 
authority as the knowers, disparage Indigenous knowledges, embed ethnocentric 
assumptions and practices and enact parochial solutions that further entrench 
social problems and impede cultural survival and flourishing. (Bainbridge et al., 
CD:30, emphasis in the original)
I concur with this, with the caveat that ethnocentrism is a failing and a 
fallacy common across cultures and ethnicities, although emphatically not 
in equal measures or degree, nor in ramifications and consequences. Efforts 
to dismantle and neutralize ethnocentrism must begin with and be focused 
explicitly upon the most destructive and disparaging forms emanating 
from ‘imposing Western systems’.
Current Developments encompasses several discussions of ‘culture’. 
Crossman and Noma (CD:29) note Charmaz’s influence in setting the 
agenda. ‘Charmaz (2014b) has argued that the cultural, economic, historical, 
political and geographic conditions of the United States have determined 
the logic, values, epistemological assumptions and worldview that influ-
ence the kinds of problems investigated and the research questions posed 
within grounded theory’. They point out the irony in Charmaz’s (2014b) 
view that, ‘despite the widespread exportation of grounded theory to study 
phenomena in a variety of cultures, few scholars have explored the cultural 
assumptions that underpin the methodology itself’.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
102
Yet researchers need to avoid assumptions that cultures are hermetic, 
distinct, and homogeneous. Clarke (CD:1) offers a succinct corrective in 
her characterization of the interpretative turn, asserting that ‘Cultures are 
best understood as unevenly changing assemblages of distinctive symbols 
and signifying practices’.
Reichertz (CD:13) enhances this arguing that:
The social order around which humans (often but not always) orient them-
selves in their actions is constantly changing and is, moreover, ‘sub-culturally 
fragmented’ in the sense, that each sub-culture develops its own symbolic and 
social order. The different order(s) therefore possess only a localized validity 
and are continually and, since the advent of the ‘modern’, with increasing 
rapidity being changed by individuals who previously (up to a point) adhered 
to them (Eisenstadt, 2003; Foucault, 2004).
Crossman and Noma (CD:29) explain that ‘little is known about the impli-
cations of globalization and, more specifically, internationalization, for the 
teaching, learning, practice and development of grounded theory’. This 
leads to the issue of doing research in a non-English context, with the expec-
tation that the final output will be written in English. Massimiliano Tarozzi 
(CD:9) discusses this in the context of translation, starting from the position 
that ‘the researcher is a culturally defined subject and analysis is embedded 
in processes of mutual meaning-making’. He looks at the complexities of 
translation in research, not simply confined to GTM. This concerns
(1) using GTM in cultures and countries in which researchers would be using 
the translation, (2) issues arising when international researchers are using the 
original GTM sources in English but conducting their studies in their native 
languages, and (3) presenting research results in English of data collected and 
analyzed in other languages. (Tarozzi, CD:9)
Many of my doctoral students have used GTM, and most of these have 
been non-UK students, many based in countries outside Europe and the 
USA. They have undertaken interviews and other forms of data collection 
in their local language(s), then developed their GTs in English. In most 
cases they translated their data into English, coding from that translation. 
Recently, however, one or two have compared the outcomes of this route 
with an alternative: completing the initial coding in the original language, 
then translating the codes into English. Although the sample is too small to 


INDIGENEITY
103
draw any conclusions regarding any differences in the outcomes, students 
who tried both routes reported no significant differences in the results. 
When using both routes, they did, however, note significant enhance-
ments in their understanding of the complexities of coding, and developed 
a clearer grasp of the process for articulating higher-level abstractions and 
concepts. To this extent, having to gather, code, and analyze data across 
two or more languages offered a distinct advantage, albeit only after signifi-
cant additional effort.
Taking indigeneity, cultural and ethnic difference, translation, ethno-
centricity, power, and dominance into account complicates consideration of 
what is involved in coding, and researchers need to develop an understanding 
of their research actions that takes account of some, if not all, of these. Hadley 
(CD:28) refers to Clarke’s work on Situational Analysis and the influence of 
postmodernism in concluding that ‘definitions about what is real are in a 
constant state of flux, and the methodology will reflect this chaos. Coding is 
deconstructive and similar to postmodern art, in that it is constantly being 
transformed and reinterpreted by each individual.’ This is Hadley’s conclu-
sion, not Clarke’s, and potentially opens the way for the ‘methodological and 
theoretical individualism’ Duckles et al. (CD:31) warn against. As was pointed 
out above, research results, even interim ones that result from early stages of 
coding, need some claims to consistency, coherence, credibility, and rigour. 
I have already used Rorty’s provocative contention that ‘Truth is what your 
contemporaries allow you to get away with’ (See Chapter 3, p. 80, note 5). A 
somewhat bizarre and challenging claim, but one that does clearly involve 
gaining the assent of others, not simply deciding things for oneself.
Note
1	 A joke dating from the 1960s provides an insightful, if ironic, example. The Lone 
Ranger and Tonto are watching a horde of Indian braves bear down on them in 
full battle fury. ‘Looks like we’re in trouble, Tonto,’ says the Lone Ranger to his 
pal. ‘What do you mean “we,” white man?’ Tonto responds… (It is now attributed 
to E. Nelson Bridwell when writing gags for MAD Magazine.) http://pancocojams.
blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/sources-meanings-of-what-do-you-mean.html. For any 
reader perplexed by this reference to The Lone Ranger, I recommend Wikipedia 
and YouTube.


6
STUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
I have remarked upon the paradox that some writers on GTM argue that 
using the method is easy and comes naturally, simultaneously arguing 
that conceptualizing is difficult and something that some may not be able 
to accomplish. Glaser exemplifies this, probably a result of his aim to offer 
guidance and establish confidence in novice users of GTM, and also to 
caution against the idea that ‘anything goes’ when developing concepts 
grounded in the data. It would, however, be better to acknowledge that 
conceptualization is a skill that requires practice and experience, includ-
ing learning from one’s own – and others’ – mistakes. In other words, 
researchers need to develop precisely the theoretical sensitivity that was key 
to GTM from the start. This form of guidance comes more naturally with 
a constructivist view of GTM than from one that implies or openly states 
that the concepts/theories somehow emerge from the data.
Another issue emanates from the protracted discussions regarding the 
status of differing variants of GTM, which complicate the process of any-
one keen to learn about GTM. This is in part what Crossman and Noma 
(CD:29) refer to as the ‘tricky spaces’ that students need to navigate in 
their research. Morse and Clark (CD:7) argue that sampling while trying to 
account for ethnicity is ‘tricky’, and Denzin makes extensive use of Smith’s 
critique of ‘colonialist methods’, including her chapter ‘On Tricky Ground’ 
(Smith, 2005).
This is not a promising basis for novice researchers who are keen to gain 
confidence and develop novel insights and concepts. So, students can be 
forgiven if they discount GTM as a forbidding and obstacle-strewn option 
rather than as a confidence-boosting one. This is not unique to GTM; it 
is another form of criticism that applies generally. Texts on methods are 


STUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
105
never able fully to explain the intricacies in using them in actual projects, 
just as reading books on mountaineering or playing the cello are not going 
to lead in themselves to conquering Everest or performing at Carnegie Hall.
In similar vein, Irwin (CD:18) explains how she felt herself to be a ‘GTM 
pretender’, something she overcame once she encountered Charmaz’s con-
structivist approach, which helped her realize ‘that others were probably 
grappling with the same constraints within the various GTM statements 
that troubled me’. Irwin was sceptical regarding ‘the effort to discover a 
unitary, basic social process encompassing all individuals’ experiences in 
a setting’. She was frustrated in her attempts to use Strauss and Corbin’s 
conditional matrix (Strauss and Corbin, 1990 & 1998), and so was reas-
sured that ‘Charmaz’s (2006, p. xi) “flexible approach” invited skeptical 
researchers like me to “enter the methodological fray” and “messy” 
debates about methods’.
Crossman and Noma (CD:29) argue that discussion of GTM-in-use 
by graduate students is an underdeveloped area in grounded theory pub-
lications. There is, however, a growing literature on GTM-in-use; some 
accounts are available through The Grounded Theory Institute, and my recent 
book includes four verbatim accounts from doctoral students (Bryant, 
2017, Chapter 19). Reading these should be useful for research students 
and others, although there is no substitute for actual experience, learn-
ing from one’s mistakes, successes, and insights. Undertaking a research 
project and learning about different methods are basic requirements for 
developing and honing one’s methodological sensitivity.
I have referred to the uniquely hostile attitude of many academics and 
other gate-keepers with regards to GTM. One consequence is that many 
students are discouraged from learning more about the method and its pos-
sible use in their research. Paradoxically, given the popularity and renown 
of GTM, many academics, with a barely minimal understanding of the 
method, offer to advise students in their GTM-based research. Stern’s con-
cept of ‘minus mentoring’ was discussed earlier. It refers to well-meaning 
advisors with at best only a cursory understanding of the method. Stern 
was an adherent of Glaser’s variant of GTM, and her criticism was aimed 
not only at those professing to know more about GTM than was actually 
the case, but also at those who may well have known a good deal about the 
method, but who, in Stern’s view, had taken a different path from Glaser – 
particularly Strauss’s later work and his collaboration with Corbin.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
106
Those with experience of GTM must ensure that researchers relying on 
them for guidance are fully appraised about the method and its variants 
and nuances. On the other hand, any over-mentoring must also be avoided. 
Mentoring GTM research requires a balance between offering guidance 
and refraining from prompting or influencing the student’s progress from 
coding to analysis. Students should be encouraged to articulate their find-
ings at various stages of their research, and, if possible, to discuss these 
with their peers, even if the latter are not using GTM. Opportunities to 
do so, however, are dependent on there being a suitably large and willing 
community of researchers, either readily at hand or through workshops or 
seminars organized on a wider basis.
Once students have developed some of their analysis, guidance can be 
offered relating to possible ways forward, including directing them to the 
appropriate literature and other sources with which they should engage. Most 
commonly, this occurs once a more developed form of model or theory has 
been established, but it can also take place earlier, as initial coding or secondary 
coding results in a semi-stable set of codes, categories, and/or concepts.
Mentors may, however, differ with regard to the extent to which they 
persuade or influence students to articulate and refine their analyses as 
social processes incorporating gerunds. (The Wikipedia entry on gerunds 
in various languages is a useful starting point to learn more – see https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Gerunds_in_various_languages; 
see 
also 
Bryant, 2017, Introduction to Part Three.)
As was explained earlier, the relationship between GTM and sociology 
is paradoxical, but GTM is best seen as a method that facilitates the devel-
opment of insights into and encapsulations of social processes; hence the 
importance of gerunds, which combine aspects of both a noun and a verb. 
Yet students should not feel obliged to develop their concepts/categories 
as gerunds from the outset, and in many cases they may find that they 
lack the relevant expertise in sociological thinking to conceptualize a social 
process. Some direction may well be appropriate and necessary at this stage, 
although the ability to ‘think sociologically’ (see above, and Bauman & May, 
2001) requires skill and practice, including trial-and-error and subsequent 
reflection leading to enhanced methodological and theoretical sensitivity.
If students and their mentors can find the balance between minus 
mentoring and over-mentoring, there may still be problems in dealing 
with academic gate-keepers – whether in the form of examiners, review 


STUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
107
boards, or evaluators. People in these positions cannot be expected to be fully 
cognizant with every research method, tool, and technique; but if they are 
 
confronted with something that is out of their comfort zone, their assumption 
ought to be that they should refrain from pre-emptive and ill-informed judge-
ments, and defer to and seek assistance from those with relevant expertise. 
This is common practice when, for instance, a research proposal incorpo-
rates complex and sophisticated statistical techniques and digital tools. An 
evaluator with little or no experience with quantitative research will under-
stand that assessment in such cases is best left to others. Unfortunately, the 
converse seems not to apply; those with little or no experience of qualita-
tive research rarely excuse themselves in the same manner. Furthermore, 
GTM is often singled out for criticism, based on the sort of misplaced and 
ill-informed preconceptions and prejudices referred to earlier as ‘a strange 
hostility’. It is one thing to criticize a research proposal for the ways in which 
a method or technique is planned to be used, or a research report – such as 
a PhD thesis – in which its use is explained, but quite another to censure or 
deplore a method or technique itself. I have sought to offer guidance to stu-
dents, mentors, and gate-keepers on these issues (Bryant, 2017, Chapter 18).
Presentation of GTM research
My extensive experience with supervising, mentoring, and examining PhD 
students has demonstrated the different ways in which researchers present 
their findings, often enhancing textual descriptions with visualizations. 
Sometimes these derive directly from one or other form of CAQDAS, but 
many develop their own forms of presentation, sometimes to supplement 
CAQDAS outputs, but mostly as ways of enhancing the cogency of their 
presentation. Students often request examples of previous work using GTM, 
for example, doctoral dissertations or journal articles, as guides for their 
own work. But these can be more distracting than beneficial, and it is far 
better to work out one’s own best form of presentation, albeit guided by any 
institutional conventions. Gorra (CD:15) argues that the current generation 
of students largely expect to use some form of digital technology in their 
research, including one or more forms of visualization. These must never be 
allowed simply to stand on their own; all require textual explanation and 
justification. Konecki’s (CD:17) concept of ‘multi-slice imaginings’ applies 
to all forms of visualization, including those used in doctoral dissertations 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
108
and other research reports. So it is incumbent on researchers to explain and 
contextualize any visualizations included in their presentations.
The presentation of GTM research has changed over the years. Awareness 
and Time were published as research monographs (Glaser & Strauss, 1965b, 
1968), as extended textual accounts of the research context and findings. 
In recent years a wide variety of formats and layouts have been used in 
research journals, PhD theses, and other extended accounts. In most cases, 
authors include details of the codes and the data from which they were 
derived, often using diagrams or other visualizations highlighting the pro-
cesses involved in moving from data to codes. Other visualizations are then 
employed for later levels of analysis, sometimes leading to intricate and 
sophisticated representations of the eventual grounded theory.
Memos are also often incorporated into accounts in the form of verba-
tim extracts in clearly demarcated text boxes. If authors use this strategy, 
they must also ensure that they provide clear explanations and justifica-
tion for the substantive topics indicated in the memos; unadorned memos 
cannot simply stand alone.
Both Glaser and Charmaz refer to ‘theoretical sorting’, in which memos 
are ‘sorted’ and clustered as a key component of preparation for drafting 
the research account. In Constructing Grounded Theory, Charmaz groups 
theoretical sorting, diagramming, and integrating as intertwined processes 
that researchers should undertake ‘in the service of theoretical develop-
ment of their analysis’ (2006, p. 115).
Writers on GTM offer a variety of ways in which research can be pre-
sented, but individual researchers need to develop their own ways of ensuring 
that their presentations have effective impact on their target readership(s). 
Again, this is something that researchers need to develop through practice 
and experimentation, taking account of any specific regulations or institu-
tional guidelines that may apply, but balancing this with consideration of 
the most effective forms of presentation – indicating how the research was 
carried out as well as presenting the findings and conclusions.
GTM and the literature
One aspect that continues to prove troublesome for students and others 
is how to relate to the literature when using GTM. The early admonition 
not to read the literature is best regarded as an historical accident, which 


STUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
109
was understandable in the context of social science in the USA in 1960s, 
but never really defensible for researchers keen to understand how their 
project might result in a ‘contribution to knowledge’. Unfortunately, this 
canard has taken on an extended life of its own, and is resistant to efforts 
aimed at its eradication. It continues to mislead and deceive prospective 
GTM researchers, advisors, and others. The chapters by Martin (CD:11), 
and Thornberg and Dunne (CD:10) offer important clarifications of the 
ways in which literature can and should be used in GTM. These build upon 
previous accounts, such as Covan’s (2007) chapter in the 2007 Handbook.
Thornberg and Dunne (CD:10) make a strong case for GTM researchers 
gaining familiarity with the relevant literature from the start, arguing that 
GTM research is ‘necessary [when] the literature does not provide enough 
theories to cover all aspects or areas of the social life’. Moreover, even if 
existing theories seem immune from this deficiency, ‘extant theories sel-
dom fit or work, nor are relevant or sufficiently understandable to use in 
research which aspires to be sensitive to the empirical field and its par-
ticipants’. This is a useful way of couching the argument, since it replaces 
a proscription with a constructive instruction and positive recommenda-
tion. While noting that Charmaz has described the original admonition as 
‘rhetorical’, Thornberg and Dunne’s chapter describes ‘the place of the lit-
erature review in [the Glaserian, Straussian, constructivist] major versions 
of GTM’. Their general point is that engaging with the literature can be 
accomplished so that researchers relate their work to and integrate it with 
existing theories, but without undermining the data or forcing the analysis.
They distinguish between different forms and phases of using the lit-
erature: initial, ongoing, and final. The initial phase is discussed as part of 
the scoping exercise that provides the basis for further work. Rather than a 
constraint or contamination, this initial literature review should be ‘both 
empowering and enriching, imbuing the researcher with the confidence to 
move forward with the study’.
The second phase is driven by the data and initial analysis: ‘During this 
phase the researcher may seek to identify empirical studies which relate to 
findings (e.g., themes, ideas, hypotheses) emerging from the iterative pro-
cess between data collection and analysis.’ In many cases, this later exercise 
will incorporate literature that was not envisaged as relevant at the outset 
of the study.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
110
The last phase is where
the researcher seeks to contextualize the constructed grounded theory in rela-
tion to established theoretical ideas and identify theoretical reference points 
against which to compare and contrast the data. This review is crucial in terms 
of locating the study within or across disciplines. Indeed, some of the theories 
which strongly resonate with a constructed grounded theory may be new to a 
given field or discipline. (Thornberg & Dunne, CD:10)
Thornberg and Dunne specifically relate use of literature to abduction, 
which they understand as ‘a selective and creative process in which the 
researcher carefully examines which hypothesis explains a particular case 
or segment of data better than any other candidate hypotheses for further 
investigation’. They conclude that literature is ‘a vital resource when con-
ducting abduction in GTM’.
Martin (CD:11) offers a further and important perspective: using litera-
ture as data, specifically in the development of a formal grounded theory. 
She makes the case for ‘four phases’ in which the literature is addressed – 
‘scoping the literature, sampling the literature, bridging the literature, and 
confirming the theory’ – relating each to ‘the various stages of grounded 
theory methodology’.
Don’t call it ‘a literature review’!
Thornberg and Dunne (CD:10), and many others, refer to the ‘literature 
review’ in their discussions, even though they encompass far more than 
the usual meaning of the term – i.e. an initial phase of research aimed at 
positioning the research objectives from the start. My view is that doctoral 
students in particular are best advised to restrict the term to this initial 
stage, referring to later stages as part of their theoretical coding and/or as 
a ‘return to’ or ‘engagement with’ the literature. This will then preclude 
an all-too-common issue whereby well-meaning examiners ask: ‘Why are 
there two literature review chapters in your thesis, an early chapter and a 
later one linked to the findings and conclusions?’
Martin (CD:11) and Thornberg and Dunne (CD:10) offer differing accounts 
of the ways in which the literature can and should be incorporated with GTM, 
and there are other authoritative sources that engage with this issue, for instance, 
Charmaz (2014a, Chapter 11) and Bryant (2017, Chapter 12). Students should 
familiarize themselves with these authoritative sources and clarify their own 


STUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
111
position, referring to one or more in their writing, thus anticipating any such 
queries and criticisms of this type. Taken together, this should provide the basis 
for dispelling the ‘don’t read the literature’ canard, although it may still take 
some time before it finally disappears.
A repertoire of GTM research questions
Given that one of the key characteristics of GTM is that it eschews articu-
lation of distinct and definitive research questions at the outset of any 
research project, it might seem strange that many GTM writers suggest a 
repertoire of initial research questions. In so doing, they acknowledge add-
ing to and in some ways going beyond the generic questions that Glaser 
and Strauss offered as prompts to encourage and evoke wide-ranging 
responses at the initiation stage of a GTM-oriented project:
•	
What is this data about?
•	
What is this data a study of?
•	
What is going on?
•	
What are people doing?
•	
What are people saying?
•	
What do these actions and statements take for granted?1
Charmaz added to this list to include questions sensitizing researchers to differ-
ent participants’ viewpoints, issues of power and control, structure, and context, 
and the ways in which changes come about in the setting under investigation:
•	
From whose point of view is a given process fundamental?
•	
From whose is it marginal?
•	
How do the observed social processes emerge?
•	
How do participants’ actions construct them?
•	
Who exerts control over these processes? Under what conditions?
•	
What meanings do different participants attribute to the process? How 
do they talk about it? What do they emphasize? What do they leave out?
•	
How and when do their meanings and actions concerning the process 
change? (Charmaz, 2006, p. 20)
Hesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24) offer ‘sensitizing questions’ in their 
discussion of a ‘Feminist Grounded Theory Approach’:


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
112
•	
What particular research problems lend themselves to a feminist 
approach to mixed methods?
•	
How does a feminist approach to mixed methods research begin to 
take on a new context of research praxis?
•	
More specifically, how do feminist researchers tend to issues of power, 
authority, reflexivity, ethics, and difference in their mixed methods 
research design?
•	
How do and what are the reasons why feminist researchers deploy mixed 
methods research designs that utilize a grounded theory analysis?
Priya (CD:19) poses further questions, derived from his GTM-oriented 
research centred on suffering and healing:
•	
How does [the] paradigm shift in grounded theory methodology 
towards a Constructivist GT approach open up inquiry into various 
aspects of human and social world?
•	
What does it mean to be reflexive while collecting data and analyzing 
the same?
•	
Do empathy and compassion play a role in the process of data collec-
tion and analysis?
•	
Can the same data be viewed again from a different vantage point that 
might help further our insights into the studied phenomenon?
Hadley (CD:28) builds on both Glaser and Strauss’s, and Charmaz’s sets of 
questions, arguing that the former centre on ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions, the 
latter add ‘why’ as well as what and how questions, which can be framed as 
‘Why is this going on here?’ He stresses that finding the answers will require 
further investigation into the background issues, contexts, and causes.
If there is an indication of recurring problems and social interactions intimately 
linked to power, inequality, gender, class stratification, or related critical concerns, 
further questions are then used to guide later memo-writing and coding:
•	
How is dominance being maintained here?
•	
What strategy is being used to privilege one group’s narrative over 
another?
•	
How are things of value being gained here?
•	
How are things of value being lost here?


STUDENT AND LEARNING ISSUES
113
•	
What tactic is being used to gain an advantage over others here?
•	
What are the marginalizing interactions here?
•	
In what way is the disadvantaged resisting?
•	
How is gender/age/class affecting the dynamics discussed here?
•	
Who has been excluded from the established narrative?
•	
What activities are these ‘invisible ones’ engaging in while the domi-
nant group seeks to carry out their plans?
•	
What are the problems that arise as a result of the social processes of 
dominant and disenfranchised groups?
These are far-reaching and important questions, derived by Hadley in 
his discussion of GTM and Critical Theory. He offers an account of what 
Critical Grounded Theory might be, also taking account of the criticism 
that Critical Grounded Theorists might be ‘forcing informant data into 
preconceived categories’. His additions or enhancements, and those pro-
posed by Hesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24) and Priya (CD:19), need to ‘earn 
their way’ in any specific research project. But it is important that GTM 
researchers understand that they are there for consideration as part of the 
method – whether as sensitizing questions or more directly applicable in 
the research setting itself. These aspects of GTM are particularly important 
in considering GTM and social justice.
One outcome of such suggestions is that GTM researchers, if and when 
challenged to articulate one or more ‘research questions’, now have access to 
a number of resources to which they can refer in preparing their responses, 
perhaps pre-empting such challenges and explicitly stating their ‘sensitizing 
questions’, derived partly from the examples already given, and also from 
the research context itself and their own motivations in undertaking the 
project. (Researcher motivation is an important but largely ignored aspect 
of research practice – see Bryant, 2017, Chapter 8.)
Note
1	 These suggestions can be found in various places in Glaser and Strauss’s writings, 
and are presented together here for convenient reference.


7
GTM, PRAGMATISM AND  
SOCIAL JUSTICE
GTM has been criticized for leaving things as they are and upholding the 
status quo, but there are strong grounds to dispute this. Such censure is based 
on an out-dated and partial understanding of the method; one that particu-
larly fails to take account of the constructivist and Pragmatist aspects that 
are inherent in the method, albeit that they have only become widely articu-
lated and promulgated since the 1990s. Moreover, the constructivist variant 
of GTM, while upholding Glaser and Strauss’s admonition to keep an open 
mind in doing research of any kind, makes it clear that all of us, however 
impartial and unbiased we may try to be and think we are, observe the world 
and make sense of it through a complex bundle of cognitions, perceptions, 
expectations, and assumptions. Since it is impossible to evade or escape these, 
researchers need to recognize and understand this, and proceed accordingly. 
Again, it is worth quoting Keynes’ response to anyone professing themselves 
immune to such influences: ‘Practical men who believe themselves to be 
quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some 
defunct economist.’ The quote continues ‘Madmen in authority, who hear 
voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a 
few years back’ (Keynes, 1936, pp. 383–384).
Many GTM writers recognize and have responded to this issue, as did 
Glaser and Strauss, albeit relegating a key statement qualifying their maxim 
of keeping an open mind to a footnote in Discovery that states that ‘Of course, 
the researcher does not approach reality as a tabula rasa. He [sic] must have 
a perspective that will help him see relevant data and abstract significant 
categories from his scrutiny of the data’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 3).


GTM, PRAGMATISM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
115
The phrase ‘see relevant data’ covers many complex issues which 
may not have been evident in the 1960s but, given that research is now 
understood inescapably to encompass issues of power, domination, and 
hegemony, researchers need constantly to reflect on how their research 
strategies do or do not engage with these issues. Discussion of research 
methods has to embrace this; hence the importance of the chapters in 
Current Developments (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019) concerned with indi-
geneity, critical theory, and feminism, among others, in many cases 
building upon work published in Denzin’s various edited collections 
(see p. 94).
GTM research has always necessitated paying heed to and engaging 
with those involved in the research context. Barry Turner stressed this in 
the 1980s, adding that GTM is an ‘approach to qualitative data [that] pro-
motes the development of theoretical accounts which conform closely to 
the situations being observed, so that the theory is likely to be intelligible to 
and usable by those in the situations observed, and is open to comment and 
correction by them’ (Turner, 1983, pp. 334–335, emphasis added). Which 
does not imply that the researcher(s) and those embroiled in the context 
will reach agreement.
Current admonitions, however, go further than this, urging researchers 
to enter the research arena vigilant and attentive to issues of social justice, 
which Charmaz has defined as encompassing ‘ideas and actions concern-
ing fairness, equity, equality, democratic process, status, and hierarchy, and 
individual and collective rights and obligations’ (Charmaz, 2008b, p. 207). 
In her recent paper, ‘The power of constructivist grounded theory for criti-
cal inquiry’, Charmaz argues that:
[T]he constructivist version of grounded theory befits critical qualitative inquiry. 
… [it] fosters asking probing questions about the data and scrutinizing the 
researcher and the research process. Unlike other versions of grounded theory, 
the constructivist version also locates the research process and product in his-
torical, social, and situational conditions. [It offers] a foundation for bringing 
grounded theory into critical inquiry and enhancing it. (Charmaz, 2017a, p. 34)
Duckles et al. (CD:31) take up Charmaz’s view of critical inquiry as ‘embed-
ded in a transformative paradigm that seeks to expose, oppose, and redress 
forms of oppression, inequality, and injustice’ (Charmaz, 2017a, p. 35), 
 
stressing that Charmaz


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
116
also frames (and encourages us to reframe) these abstract processes of jus-
tice, injustice, power, and privilege as ‘enacted processes, made real through 
actions performed again and again’ (p. 35, italics in original). She proposes 
that CGT [Constructivist GT] provides the framework and tools to keep our 
attention as researchers on the constructed, contested and situated nature of 
these processes.
They argue that this results in part from the influence of Symbolic 
Interactionism on GTM, since for Charmaz ‘… symbolic interactionists 
assume process and explain stability … [offering] an alternative to other social 
scientific perspectives that assume stability and attempt to explain change. 
(Charmaz, 2014a, p. 266)’.
Although not all GTM researchers will concur with or adhere to this, 
Charmaz’s position exemplifies a key characteristic of GTM and a criterion 
for evaluating any Grounded Theory. Developing from her supplementary 
questions (see above), Charmaz articulates and establishes the founda-
tion for an approach to research that regards social processes as precarious 
 
co-constructions, dependent for their continuity on combinations of struc-
ture and agency imbricated with each other and with issues such as power, 
domination, exploitation, and hegemony, also with cultural and political 
complexities. Far from shoring up the status quo, GTM researchers can 
and should be working from an orientation that treats stable and enduring 
social processes as problematic and contested. This draws on and echoes 
the issues raised in the earlier section on indigeneity.
The 2007 volume touched on some of these issues, for instance in the 
chapter by O’Neil Green et al. (2007) on ‘Grounded theory and racial/
ethnic diversity’, but again this is an aspect of GTM that has developed 
significantly in the intervening years. Bainbridge et al. (CD:30) refer to 
‘phronetic GTM’ – i.e. a form of inquiry that centres on phronesis; practical 
and moral wisdom.
Our phronetic grounded theory approach and transformational grounded 
theory contributed a decolonizing variation of grounded theory methods 
and demonstrated its use in the Indigenous Australian and Pacific contexts 
(Bainbridge, McCalman & Whiteside, 2013; Redman-MacLaren & Mills, 2015). 
With the exception of Charmaz (2017a), for instance, few theorists have 
explicitly taken up the proposition and utility of grounded theory as decolonizing 
tool in research. Yet, grounded theory’s pragmatist roots and its commitment to 
social justice suggest that it can be used purposefully in its intent as a decoloniz-
ing method (Charmaz, 2017a). Indeed, grounded theory methods respond to 


GTM, PRAGMATISM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
117
many of the discrete critiques of Western research that Indigenous researchers 
have proffered in recent decades. We contemplate how the utility of grounded 
theory methods can provide a fresh perspective and maximize the value of 
research for Indigenous nations.
They see this as extending constructivist GTM, enabling those working 
from a constructivist position to building upon this enhanced awareness. 
In their work they have been concerned to
reflect on our own work to demonstrate that broadening constructivist grounded 
theory enables it to:
•	
be ethically-situated and embedded in an explicit moral process 
 
philosophy/value position;
•	
be directly relevant to the lives of the people with whom we work;
•	
be culturally-sensitive and responsive to people, their priorities and 
context;
•	
be reflective and action-oriented;
•	
work from the strengths of given situations and Indigenous agency;
•	
be situated as a two-way learning process, explicitly incorporating 
mutual capacity development;
•	
value Indigenous knowledge and centre Indigenous voices and 
 
experiences;
•	
explicitly acknowledge and address power dynamics and discourse;
•	
involve authentic collaboration and trust in the co-creation of 
 
knowledge and action;
•	
integrate Indigenous and Western knowledges;
•	
study and explicate processes, including why, how and for what 
 
purpose;
•	
capture and explicate in detail a ‘big picture’ view of research phenom-
enon that is temporally situated;
•	
explain what works for whom, under what conditions, through what 
mechanisms and with what consequences;
•	
identify points for action, change and intervention.
They also refer to Flyvbjerg’s (2001, p. 57)
five value-rational questions for working in a phronetic framework: (1) Where 
are we going? (2) Who gains and who loses? (3) By which mechanisms of 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
118
power? (4) Is this desirable? (5) What, if anything, should be done? … [Adding 
four more] reflexive, action-oriented questions to generate data: (1) What is 
the situation? (2) What do we want to change? (3) What is already happening? 
 
(4) What’s working, what’s not, and who is missing out? (5) How can we 
improve the situation? (Bainbridge et al., CD:30)
To these can be added the feminist sensitizing questions proposed by 
Hesse-Biber and Flowers (see above and CD:24). The chapters by Denzin 
(CD:22), and Crossman and Noma (CD:29) develop this perspective, 
adding further considerations. Denzin quotes from Smith’s work (see 
above) and includes her list of questions that should be posed by all 
researchers and evaluators.
1.	
What research do we want done?
2.	
Who is it for?
3.	
What difference will it make?
4.	
Who will carry it out?
5.	
How do we want the research done?
6.	
How will we know it is worthwhile?
7.	
Who will own the research?
8.	
Who will benefit? (L. Smith, 2000, p. 239).
The chapters by Bainbridge et al. (CD:30), Denzin (CD:22), Duckles et al. 
(CD:31), and Hadley (CD:28) develop the argument that research in general 
has to drop the pretence of disinterestedness and impartiality. Quantum 
physicists have long argued that there is an ‘observer effect’ when interact-
ing with the physical world; this must be far more pronounced in social 
settings. I have already pointed to the flaws in the adage that GTM research-
ers should avoid all preconceptions, arguing that it is far better to try – as far 
as possible – to articulate one’s assumptions and expectations at the outset, 
leaving it to others to decide the extent to which these influenced the later 
outcomes. This applies across the research domain, not only to GTM, but 
the incorporation of the aspirations and concerns given above indicate that 
GTM is particularly suited as a basis for emancipatory research.
Hadley (CD:28) voices the concerns of those who worry that, for 
instance, Critical Grounded Theorists are ‘forcing informant data into pre-
conceived categories’. Again, it is a case of using sensitizing concepts but 
ensuring that they have ‘earned their way’. The issues and questions listed 
by Duckles et al. (CD:31), and Hesse-Biber and Flowers (CD:24), and others 


GTM, PRAGMATISM AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
119
provide resources for consideration as researchers undertake their inquiries. 
The chapters by Hadley, Duckles et al., and Carter (CS:27) deal specifically 
with the ways in which GTM provides a method of critical inquiry when 
undertaken with a specifically ethical orientation.
Priya (CD:19) similarly makes the case for a form of GTM that starts 
from a rejection of research as value-neutral and detached, instead seeing
research interactions [as] … a site for co-construction that may help bring to the 
fore an in-depth understanding of experiences from the participant’s standpoint 
through a more flexible procedure of negotiations of meanings or interpreta-
tions of shared experience.
In this way, researchers can be aware of, and try to avoid, ‘unknowingly 
[contributing] to legitimizing of social hierarchies that stifle the human 
voice’, instead aiming to recover ‘silenced or marginalized voices (Charmaz, 
2000, 2017a, 2017b)’ (Priya, CD:19).
Duckles et al. (CD:31) refer to Hense and McFerran (2015), who have 
proposed a critical grounded theory approach that consists of ‘iterative 
cycles in praxis, working with tension and doubt, engaging in democratic 
collaborations, and ensuring rigor’. Duckles et al. argue that ‘these tensions 
have the potential to lead to more robust and inclusive research directed at 
meaningful social action and change’. Furthermore, this combination of 
tension and doubt encourages ‘abductive and reflective processes, creating 
strategies and dialogic spaces to reach into local theories and indigenous 
ways of knowing and being’.
They explicitly link Pragmatism, concern with social justice, and GTM, 
quoting Bruce and Bloch (2013), who proposed
four salient features of pragmatism; ‘its emphasis on the practical dimensions of 
inquiry, the pluralistic nature of the tools that are used to study phenomena, the 
participatory role of individuals with different perspectives, and the provisional 
nature of inquiry’ (p. 28). (Duckles et al., CD:31)
Inquiry is then seen as participatory and active, ‘building on Peirce’s belief 
that “the most robust inquiry must involve full participation of all who 
may have knowledge of the situation”’ (Bruce & Bloch, 2013, p. 30).
Stacy Carter (CD:27) offers strong grounds for combining an avowedly 
ethical stance with GTM:


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
120
empirical ethics and value-rich social science can offer three things to grounded 
theory. The first is an additional depth to data collection, retaining openness but 
encouraging the presentation of counterfactuals and elicitation of moral reason-
ing. The second is a new kind of theoretical sensitivity: to normative concepts 
and questions, which will encourage greater attention to values as significant 
components in most social and psychological processes. The final benefit is to 
strengthen the sophisticated approach to the problem of epistemic authority 
already available in pragmatist traditions.
Carter takes issue with those who argue that the descriptive and the 
 
normative – the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ – are distinct. For Carter, they ‘are 
interleaved rather than dichotomous’. This aligns with the view of many 
Pragmatists, particularly Rorty.
Carter also takes on the issue of how GTM researchers should engage 
with existing research and literature, explicitly recognizing the role of 
existing theories and ideas in the generation of grounded theories, then 
extending this beyond the issue of ‘whether existing theory should be 
used in grounded theorizing (as doing so is unavoidable)’, to argue that 
researchers should be clear in discerning ‘which existing theory should be 
used, and how’.
She notes that recent GTM writing, particularly taking its lead from 
Charmaz, has focused on ‘the moral dimensions of social life, the every-
day judgements we make about whether things are right or wrong’. The 
inevitable result of this is that GTM provides a potent method of research 
that necessarily addresses ethical and moral issues. Carter welcomes and 
encourages this, since she is adamant that ‘social research should not only 
describe things or explain how they come to be, but also examine moral 
judgements, and perhaps even make moral prescriptions’.


IN CONCLUSION
The foregoing discussion developed from reading the submissions to the 
new Sage Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory (Bryant & 
 
Charmaz, 2019). These, together with the 2007 Handbook (Bryant & 
Charmaz, 2007a), comprise a rich and challenging set of resources for those 
with an interest in and/or experience of GTM. The 59 chapters across both 
volumes encompass discussion of GTM from a wide range of positions, 
offering extensive material for further reading and encouraging new ideas 
about topics and approaches to qualitative research, with clear implications, 
innovations, and challenges for practice and social action: continuing the 
trend that was set in motion in the 1960s by Glaser and Strauss.
As I read the submitted work, I deliberately used a GTM strategy, study-
ing each chapter in detail, and deriving codes as I did so. In many instances 
I used verbatim extracts, many of which are included above. The section 
headings were also for the most part derived in a similar fashion.
As I explained in the introduction, the original title for this discus-
sion was The Varieties of Grounded Theory Experience, partly in homage to 
William James and the original Pragmatists, particularly Peirce and Dewey, 
but also to underline the ways in which Glaser and Strauss’s original work 
has led to a range of outputs and clarifications that have added consider-
able depth and profundity to qualitative research and research practice in 
general. These ‘varieties’ or variants include the work of Strauss, his later 
collaboration with Corbin, and also Glaser’s individual writings.
The most influential variant, however, stems from the work of Kathy 
Charmaz, dating from the late 1990s, and incorporating her chapter in 
the second edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research (2000) and 
the publication of Constructing Grounded Theory (2006). Neither the 2007 
Handbook nor Current Developments could have been assembled and pro-
duced without her. Without exception all those approached to contribute 
a chapter accepted enthusiastically precisely because the invitation came 


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
122
from Kathy. Most of the new contributors to Current Developments were 
her recommendations, and many of the new topics addressed in Current 
Developments emanate directly from her work, particularly on the subject 
of social justice.
Glaser has always contended, quite correctly, that GTM is itself a grounded 
theory, and as such it can be judged in the terms that Glaser and Strauss them-
selves proposed – i.e. fit, grab, work, and modifiability, to which we must also 
add Charmaz’s criteria of credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness. From 
the evidence of the two Handbooks, and the associated resources on which 
they draw, GTM itself clearly satisfies all these measures. But with the clearly 
understood caveat that GTM now comprises a ‘family’ or ‘constellation’ of ori-
entations and insights that researchers need to approach and appraise drawing 
on their own methodological sensitivity. This latter is a skill that constantly 
requires exercising and conscious reflection, whether one is an early career 
doctoral researcher or a well-seasoned and widely-published one.
This may seem onerous to novice researchers as they contend with the 
plethora of issues that confront anyone entering the field of research and 
research methods. Anyone in such a position should be able to draw upon 
one or more mentors to assist, challenge, and support them. Given the 
earlier discussion of ‘minus mentoring’, however, this may be particularly 
problematic for GTM researchers. It is, therefore, important that GTM texts 
address these issues specifically, with the proviso that differing viewpoints 
are treated in the manner outlined in Rapoport’s rules (see above).
Glaser and Strauss articulated GTM for those new to social science 
research, offering a basis for novice researchers to feel confident in devel-
oping their own conceptualizations and theoretical insights. Yet the 
founding trilogy – Awareness (1965b), Discovery (1967), and Time (1968) – 
did not lend itself readily as a set of introductory texts or primers. Strauss’s 
later work, based on his lectures and seminars, began to address this more 
directly, leading to publication of Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists 
(1987), and the first two editions of Basics of Qualitative Research (Strauss & 
 
Corbin, 1990 & 1998). Since the 1990s, Glaser has similarly sought to 
develop ways in which researchers can be supported and encouraged as 
they apply GTM in their projects.
Since the publication of Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory, there 
has been a welcome flourishing of texts and other resources upon which 
GTM researchers can draw, and I now offer a brief guide to some of these.


APPENDIX A: KEY RESOURCES AND 
RECOMMENDED READING
Kathy Charmaz’s Constructing Grounded Theory (2006, 2014a, and 3rd edition 
 
in preparation) provides the best starting point for learning about and 
understanding GTM, offering an accessible and extended account, and 
providing a resource that readers can constantly return to as their research 
develops. In addition, Awareness and Time provide detailed accounts of the 
two earliest Grounded Theories, and particular attention should be paid to 
the appendices which provide succinct methodological overviews (Glaser & 
 
Strauss, 1965b, 1968). My own book Grounded Theory and Grounded 
Theorizing (Bryant, 2017) provides some example GTs, and guidance for 
those preparing their research for doctoral examination and/or submission 
for possible publication.
Suggestions for further reading on specific topics – 
listed alphabetically
The chapters in the two Handbooks discuss a wealth of resources, to which 
readers should refer. The collections by Wertz et al. (2011) and Morse et al. 
(2009 & 2016) also provide important accounts from a variety of perspectives.
Given the importance of certain issues in the foregoing discussion here 
are some recommendations for initial study of and familiarization with the 
following topics, the selection is necessarily idiosyncratic and limited to 
only a few items; readers should refer to the appropriate chapters in both 
Handbooks for further resources.
Abduction
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in 
Research Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 13: ‘Abduction: 
No longer an alien concept’.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
124
Plutynski, A. (2011). Four problems of abduction. Hopos: The Journal of 
the International Society for the History of Philosophy and Science, 1(2), 
227–248.
Reichertz, J. (2014). Induction, deduction, abduction. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage 
Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 123–136). London: Sage.
Sebeok, Th. & Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1979). ‘You know my method’: A juxtaposi-
tion of Charles S. Peirce and Sherlock Holmes. Semiotica, 26(2/3), 203–250.
Advice for preparation of PhD theses and article submissions
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in 
Research Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 18.
CAQDAS
Friese, Susanne (2016). Qualitative data analysis software: The state of the art. 
Special Issue: Qualitative Research in the Digital Humanities, Bosch, Reinoud 
(Ed.), KWALON, 61, 21(1), 34–45. (See also her chapter).
Hutchisons, Andrew J., Johnston, Lynne H., & Breckon, Jeff D. (2010). Using 
QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: 
An account of a worked example. International Journal of Social Research 
Methodology, 13(4), 283–302.
Silver, Christina & Lewins, Ann (2014). Using Software in Qualitative Research: A 
Step-By-Step Guide. London: Sage.
Woolf, Nickolas H. & Silver, Christina (2018). Qualitative Analysis Using ATLAS.ti/
MAXQDA/NVivo: The Five Level QDA Method. Oxford: Routledge.
Coding and sampling
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapters 5 & 6.
Flick, U. (2014b). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (5th edition). London: 
Sage. Chapter on Sampling.
Morse, Janice M. (2006). Strategies of intraproject sampling. In P. Munhall (Ed.), 
Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective (4th edition, pp. 529–540). Boston, 
MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Morse, J. & Clark, L. (2019). The nuances of theoretical sampling. In A. Bryant & 
 
K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded 
Theory. London: Sage. Chapter 7.
Epistemology and ontology
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2010). How to Research (4th edition). 
Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in 
Research Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 2.


APPENDIX A: KEY RESOURCES AND RECOMMENDED READING
125
Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of Qualitative 
Research (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Part Two.
Guba, Egon G. & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualita-
tive research. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of 
Qualitative Research (pp. 105–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Metaphors of cognition
Bryant, A. (2006). Thinking Informatically: Towards a New Understanding of 
Information, Communication & Technology. New York and Lewiston, Wales: 
Edwin Mellen Press. Chapter 3.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University 
of Chicago Press.
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our 
language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought  
(pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plans and situated actions
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. 
New York: Basic Books.
Suchman, L. (1984). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human – Machine 
Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pragmatism
Malachowski, A. (2013). The Cambridge Companion to Pragmatism (Cambridge 
Companions to Philosophy). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strübing, J. (2019). The Pragmatism of Anselm L. Strauss: Linking theory and 
method handbook. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of 
Current Developments in Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapter 2.
Talisse, R. B. & Aikin, S. F. (2008). Pragmatism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Guides 
for the Perplexed series. London: Continuum.
Student accounts – using GTM
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in 
Research Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 19.
Grounded Theory Institute – various www.groundedtheory.com/
Theoretical coding
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapters 6, 9 & 11.
Charmaz, K. & Thornberg, R. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. 
In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: 
Sage. Chapter 11.


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
126
Theoretical saturation
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in 
Research Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 12.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. London: Sage. Chapter 8.
Theoretical sensitivity
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Thistoll, T., Hooper, V., & Pauleen, D. (2016). Acquiring and developing theo-
retical sensitivity through undertaking a grounded preliminary literature 
review. Quality and Quantity, 50(2), 619–636.
Thinking sociologically
Bauman, Z. & May, T. (2001). Thinking Sociologically. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press.


APPENDIX B: THE SAGE HANDBOOK 
OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS  
IN GROUNDED THEORY –  
LIST OF CHAPTERS
Senior Editor’s Introduction
Editors’ Overview
Part I  THE GROUNDED THEORY METHOD: 50 YEARS ON
Chapter 1:  
Situating Grounded Theory and Situational 
Analysis in Interpretive Qualitative Inquiry
Adele E. Clarke
PART II  THEORIES AND THEORIZING IN GROUNDED THEORY
Chapter 2:  
The Pragmatism of Anselm L. Strauss: Linking 
Theory and Method
Jörg Strübing
Chapter 3:  
The Status of Theories and Models in  
Grounded Theory
Udo Kelle
Chapter 4:  
Grounded Theory’s Best Kept Secret: The Ability to 
Build Theory
Cathy Urquhart


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
128
Chapter 5:	

Deductive Qualitative Analysis and Grounded 
Theory: Sensitizing Concepts and Hypothesis-
Testing
Jane F. Gilgun
PART III  GROUNDED THEORY IN PRACTICE
Chapter 6:	

From Intuition to Reflexive Construction:  
Research Design and Triangulation in  
Grounded Theory Research
Uwe Flick
Chapter 7:	

The Nuances of Grounded Theory Sampling  
and the Pivotal Role of Theoretical  
Sampling
Janice M. Morse & Lauren Clark
Chapter 8:	
Coding for Grounded Theory
	 Linda Liska Belgrave  & Kapriskie Seide
Chapter 9:	

Coding and Translating: Language as a Heuristic 
Apparatus
Massimiliano Tarozzi
Chapter 10:  Literature Review in Grounded Theory
Robert Thornberg & Ciarán Dunne
Chapter 11:  
Using Popular and Academic Literature as Data 
for Formal Grounded Theory
Vivian Martin
Chapter 12:  Rendering Analysis Through Storyline
Melanie Birks & Jane Mills
Chapter 13:  
Abduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded 
Theory – An Updated Review
Jo Reichertz
Chapter 14:  
Grounded Theory Analysis and CAQDAS: A Happy 
Pairing or Remodeling GT to QDA?
Susanne Friese


APPENDIX B: THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
129
Chapter 15:  
Keep your Data Moving: Operationalization of 
Abduction with Technology
Andrea Gorra
Chapter 16:  
Grounded Text Mining Approach: A Synergy 
between Grounded Theory and Text Mining 
Approaches
Mitsuyuki Inaba & Hisako Kakai
Chapter 17:  Visual Images and Grounded Theory Methodology
Krzysztof T. Konecki
Chapter 18:  
Grounded Theory Methods in the Context of 
Masculinity and Violence
Katherine Irwin
Chapter 19:  
Using Constructivist Grounded Theory 
Methodology: Studying Suffering and Healing as 
a Case Example
Kumar Ravi Priya
PART IV  
REFLECTIONS ON USING AND TEACHING  
GROUNDED THEORY
Chapter 20:  
Teaching and Learning Grounded Theory 
Methodology: The Seminar Approach
Judith A. Holton
Chapter 21:  Grounded Description: No No
Barney G. Glaser
PART V  GTM AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH PRACTICE
Chapter 22:  
Grounded Theory and the Politics of 
Interpretation, Redux
Norman K. Denzin
Chapter: 23  
Grounded Theory Methodology and Self-
Reflexivity in the Qualitative Research Process
Katja Mruck & Günter Mey


THE VARIETIES OF GROUNDED THEORY
130
Chapter 24:  
Using a Feminist Grounded Theory Approach in 
Mixed Methods Research
Sharlene Hesse-Biber & Hilary Flowers
Chapter 25:  
Mixed Grounded Theory: Merging Grounded 
Theory with Mixed Methods and Multimethod 
Research
R. Burke Johnson & Isabelle Walsh
Chapter 26:  Abductive Analysis and Grounded Theory
Iddo Tavory & Stefan Timmermans
Chapter 27:  Grounded Theory and Empirical Ethics
Stacy M. Carter
Chapter 28:  Critical Grounded Theory
Gregory Hadley
PART VI  
GT RESEARCHERS AND METHODS IN LOCAL AND 
GLOBAL WORLDS
Chapter 29:  
The Implications of Internationalization for 
Teaching, Learning and Practising Grounded 
Theory
Joanna Crossman & Hiroko Noma
Chapter 30:  
Grounded Theory as Systems Science: Working 
with Indigenous Nations for Social Justice
Roxanne Bainbridge, Janya McCalman, Michelle Redman-
MacLaren, & Mary Whiteside
Chapter 31:  
Community-based Participatory Research and 
Constructivist Grounded Theory: Aligning 
Transformative Research with Local Ways of 
Being and Knowing
Joyce M. Duckles, George Moses, & Robert Moses
Discursive Glossary


REFERENCES
Alexander, J. C. (1985). Neofunctionalism. London: Sage.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. (William James Lectures). 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bacharach, S. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. 
Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.
Bainbridge, R., McCalman, J., & Whiteside, M. (2013). Being, knowing, and 
doing: A phronetic approach to constructing grounded theory with 
Aboriginal Australian partners. Qualitative Health Research, 23(2), 275–288.
Banks, M. (2001). Visual Methods in Social Research. London: Sage.
Bauman, Z. (1971). Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge: 
Polity Press.
Bauman, Z. & May, T. (2001). Thinking Sociologically. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Becker, H. S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. C., & Strauss, A. L. (1961). Boys in White: Student 
Culture in Medical School. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Benoliel, J. Q. (1984). Advancing nursing science: Qualitative approaches. 
Western Journal of Nursing Research, 63(3), 1–8.
Benoliel, J. Q. (1996). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative 
Health Research, 6(3), 406–428.
Bishop, R. (1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: 
A Maori approach to creating knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative 
Studies in Education, 11, 199–219.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological 
Review, 19, 3–10.
Blumer, H. (1969). What is wrong with social theory? In Herbert Blumer 
(1969/1986), Symbolic Interactionism (pp. 140–152). Berkeley, CA: University 
of California Press. Originally published in Vol. XIX in The American 
Sociological Review.
Bruce, B. C. & Bloch, N. (2013). Pragmatism and community inquiry: A case 
study of community-based learning. Education and Culture, 29(1), 27–45.
Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information 
Technology Theory and Application, 4, 25–42.
Bryant, A. (2006). Thinking Informatically: Towards a New Understanding of 
Information, Communication & Technology. New York and Lewiston, Wales: 
Edwin Mellen Press.
Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of 
Anselm Strauss. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social 
Research, 10(3), Article 2, September.


REFERENCES
132
Bryant, A. (2014). Thinking about The Information Age. Informatics, 1, 190–195.
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in 
Research Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryant, A. (2019). Senior Editor’s introduction. The Sage Handbook of Current 
Developments in Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Bryant, A., Black, A., Land, F., & Porra, J. (2013). Information systems history: 
What is history what is IS history What IS history and why even bother with 
history. Journal of Information Technology, 28(1), 1–17.
Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.) (2007a). The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. 
London: Sage.
Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (2007b). Grounded theory research: Method and 
practices, Editors’ Introduction. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage 
Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 1–28). London: Sage.
Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (2007c). Grounded theory in historical perspective: 
An epistemological account. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage 
Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 31–57). London: Sage.
Bryant, A. & Charmaz, K. (Eds.) (2019). The Sage Handbook of Current Developments 
in Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Bryant, A. & Raja, U. (2014). In the realm of Big Data. First Monday, 19(2&3), 
http://firstmonday. org/article/view/4991/3822
Burawoy, M. (1991). The extended case method. In M. Burawoy, A. Burton, 
 A. Ferguson, K. Fox, J. Gamson, N. Gartrell, L. Hurst, C. Kurzman, L. Salzinger, 
 
J. Schiffman & S. Ui (Eds.), Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern 
Metropolis (pp. 271–287). Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Social Theory, 16(1), March.
Butler, J. (2013). Judith Butler on gender as ‘performed’ or ‘performative’. 
Critical Theory, posted 8 November, https://my.vanderbilt.edu/criticaltheory 
fall13/2013/11/judith-butler-on-gender-as-performed-or-performative/
Camus, A. (2000 [1951]). The Rebel. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2016). A sociology of power: My intellectual journey. Annual 
Review of Sociology, 42, 1–19.
Charmaz, K. (1983). Loss of self: A fundamental form of suffering in the chroni-
cally ill. Sociology of Health and Illness, 5(2).
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. 
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd 
edition, pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2008a). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In 
 J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of Constructionist Research  
(pp. 397–412). New York: Guilford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2008b). Grounded theory in the 21st Century: Applications for 
advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), 
Strategies of Quaitatve Inquiry, (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2014a). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd edition). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage.


REFERENCES
133
Charmaz, K. (2014b). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by inter-
national researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084.
Charmaz, K. (2017a). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical 
inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45.
Charmaz, K. (2017b). Special Invited Paper: Continuities, contradictions, 
and critical inquiry in grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative 
Methods, 16(1).
Charmaz, K. & Keller, R. (2016). A personal journey with grounded the-
ory methodology: Kathy Charmaz in conversation with Reiner Keller. 
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(1), 
 
Article 16, January.
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, A. (2007). Grounded theorizing using situational analysis. In A. Bryant & 
K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 363–397). 
London: Sage.
Clarke, A. (2009). From grounded theory to situational analysis: What’s new? Why? 
How? In J. M. Morse, P
. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke 
(Eds.), Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation (pp. 194–235). Walnut 
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Clarke, A. (Ed.) (2015). Situational Analysis in Practice. London: Routledge.
Clarke, A., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2017). Situational Analysis: Grounded 
Theory after the Postmodern Turn (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, A. & Keller, R. (2014). Engaging complexities: Working against sim-
plification as an agenda for qualitative research today. Adele Clarke in 
conversation with Reiner Keller. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: 
Qualitative Social Research, 15(2).
Corbin, J. (2011). Grounded Theory Methodology. Studienbrief der Fern Universität 
Hagen. Available at: https://vu.fernuni-hagen.de/lvuweb/lvu/file/.../33800-
vorschau.pdf
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. L. (1988). Unending Work and Care: Managing Chronic 
Illness at Home. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. L. (1990, 2008 & 2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: 
Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (1st, 3rd & 4th editions). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Covan, E. K. (2007). The discovery of grounded theory in practice: The legacy 
of multiple mentors. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of 
Grounded Theory (pp. 58–93). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological 
Methods. Chicago, London: Aldine
Denzin, N. K. (2003) Performance Ethnography: The Politics and Pedagogies of 
Culture. London: Sage
Denzin, N. K. & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.) (2009). Qualitative Inquiry and Social 
Justice. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press
Denzin, N. K. & Giardina, M. D. (eds.) (2010). Qualitative Inquiry and Human 
Rights. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press


REFERENCES
134
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. & Smith, L. T. (2008) Handbook of Critical Indigenous 
Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1994, 2000, 2001, 2005 & 2017). The 
Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, & 5th editions). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, John (1929). Experience and Nature. Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing.
Dewey, John (1938). Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and 
Winston.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San 
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dey, I. (2007). Grounding categories. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage 
Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 167–190). London: Sage.
Dick, B., Stringer, E., & Huxham, C. (2009). Theory in action. Action Research, 
7(1), 5–12.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (2003). Comparative Civilizations & Multiple Modernities. Leiden: 
Brill.
Fine, G. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance and glorious tri-
umph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61–68.
Flick, U. (2008a). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Flick, U. (2008b). Managing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Flick, U. (Ed.) (2014a). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: 
Sage.
Flick, U. (2014b). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (5th edition). London: Sage.
Flick, U. (2015). Qualitative Inquiry – 2.0 at 20? Developments, trends, and 
challenges for the politics of research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 599–608.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and 
How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (2004). Geschichte der Gouvernementalität. Frankfurt am Main: 
Suhrkamp.
Friese, Susanne (2016). Qualitative data analysis software: The state of the art. 
Special Issue: Qualitative Research in the Digital Humanities, Bosch, Reinoud 
(Ed.), KWALON, 61, 21(1), 34–45.
Gerhardt, U. (1976). Krankenkarriere und Existenzbelastung. Zeitschrift für 
Soziologie, 5(3), 215–236.
Gibson, B. (2007). Accommodating grounded theory. In A. Bryant & 
K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 436–453). 
London: Sage.
Gibson, B. & Hartman, J. (2014). Rediscovering Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Gilgun, J. (1993). Grounded theory and dimensional analysis: An inter-
view with Leonard Schatzman. Available at: https://janegilgun.wordpress.
com/2012/03/06/transcript-of-an-interview-with-leonard-schatzman/
Gilgun, J. F. (1999). Methodological pluralism and qualitative family research. In 
Suzanne K. Steinmetz, Marvin B. Sussman, & Gary W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook 
of Marriage and the Family (2nd edition, pp. 219–261). New York: Plenum.
Gilgun, J. F. (2005). Qualitative research and family psychology. Journal of 
Family Psychology, 19(1), 40–50.


REFERENCES
135
Gilgun, J. F. (2016). Deductive qualitative analysis and the search for black swans. 
Paper presented at the Pre-conference Workshop on Theory Construction and 
Research Methodology, National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, 
MN, November 1.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. 
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, 
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Qualitative 
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3).
Glaser, B. G. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 
/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2) Article 4 – May. [Barney G. Glaser with 
the assistance of Judith Holton]. Available at: www.qualitative-research.net/
index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1315
Glaser, B. G. (2008). Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: 
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2009). Jargonizing: Using the Grounded Theory Vocabulary. Mill 
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2014). Applying grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), June.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1965a). Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strat-
egy underlying qualitative research. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(6), 5–12.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1965b). Awareness of Dying. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, 
IL: Aldine.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1968). Time for Dying. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1971). Status Passage. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Gouldner, A. (1973). Romanticism and Classicism: Deep structures in social sci-
ence. In A. Gouldner, For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today. 
New York: Basic Books. Available at: www.autodidactproject.org/other/
gouldner5.html
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 
30(3), 611–642.
Hammersley, M. (2004). Analytic induction. In Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Alan 
Bryman, & Tim Futing Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science 
Research Methods (pp. 16–18). London: Sage.
Hammersley, M. (2010). A historical and comparative note on the relation-
ship between analytic induction and grounded theorising. Forum Qualitative 
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(42).
Hammersley, M. (2011). On Becker’s studies of marijuana use as an example of 
analytic induction. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 41(4).
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice (2nd 
edition). London: Routledge.
Hempel, C. (1952). Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. 
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.


REFERENCES
136
Hense, C. & McFerran, K. S. (2015). Toward a critical grounded theory. Qualitative 
Research Journal, 16(4), 402–416.
Hernandez, C. A. (2009). Theoretical coding in grounded theory meth-
odology. Grounded Theory Review, 8(3), November. Available at: http://
groundedtheoryreview.com/2009/11/30/theoretical-coding-in-grounded-
theory-methodology/
Hirschman, A. O. (1990 [1970]). Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline 
in Firms, Organizations and States (1990 edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard 
University Press.
Israel, B. A., Eng, E., Schultz, A. J., & Parker, E. A. (2005). Methods in Community-
based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
James, W. (1902). The Varieties of Religious Experience. London: Longmans.
James, W. (2000). Pragmatism and Other Writings. Penguin Classics. 
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kearney, M. (2007). From the sublime to the meticulous. In A. Bryant & 
K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Kelle, U. (2007). The development of categories: Different approaches in 
grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of 
Grounded Theory (pp. 191–213). London: Sage.
Kennedy, B. & Thornberg, R. (2018). Deduction, induction, and abduction. In 
U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (pp. 49–64). 
London: Sage.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. 
London: Macmillan.
Kincheloe, J. & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative 
research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research 
(2nd edition, pp. 279–313). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962 & 1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: 
University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University 
of Chicago Press.
Layder, D. (1993). New Strategies in Social Research: An Introduction and Guide. 
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (2013). The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek, CA: 
Left Coast Press.
Lindesmith, R. & Strauss, A. L. (2009 [1949]). Social Psychology. New York: The 
Dryden Press.
Lofland, J. (1980). Reminiscences of Chicago: The Blumer-Hughes Talk. Urban 
Life, 9, 251–289.
Maines, D., Sugrue, N., & M. Katovich (1983). The sociological import of 
G. H. Mead’s Theory of the Past. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 161–173.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. 
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mead, G. H. (1959 [1932]). The Philosophy of the Present. La Salle, IL: Open Court 
Publishing.


REFERENCES
137
Merton, R. K. (1949). On sociological theories of the middle range. In R. K. Merton, 
Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 39–53). NewYork: Simon & Schuster.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Minkler, M. & Wallerstein, N. (2011). Introduction to community-based partici-
patory research: New issues and emphases. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein 
(Eds.), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to 
Outcomes (pp. 5–23). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, D. E. (1978). Kultur and culture: The case of Theodor W. Adorno and 
Paul F. Lazarsfeld. Social Research, 45(2), Summer.
Morse, J., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009 & 
 2016). Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Walnut Creek, CA: 
Left Coast Press, 2009; London: Routledge, 2016.
Nagel, D. A., Burns, V. F., Tilley, C., & Aubin, D. (2015). When novice researchers 
adopt constructivist grounded theory: Navigating less travelled paradigmatic 
and methodological paths in PhD dissertation work. International Journal of 
Doctoral Studies, 10, 365–383.
O’Neil Green, D., Creswell, J. W., Shope, R. J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). 
Grounded theory and racial/ethnic diversity. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz 
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 472–492). London: Sage.
Parker, R. & Pollock, G. (1981/1995). Old Mistresses: Women, Art and Ideology. 
London: Pandora.
Parsons, T. (1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1986). Philosophical Writings. New York: Dover.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). Reasoning and the Logic of Things. Edited by K. L. Ketner. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. 
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Quint, J. C. (1965). Institutionalized practices of information control. Psychiatry 
Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 28(2).
Quint, J. C. (1967). The Nurse and the Dying Patient. New York: Macmillan.
Ragin, C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ralph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y. (2015). The methodological dyna-
mism of grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 
 
14(4), 1–6.
Reason, P. & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Action Research Handbook (2nd edition). 
London: Sage.
Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our 
language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought  
(pp. 164–201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Redman-MacLaren, M. & Mills, J. (2015). Transformational grounded theory: 
Theory, voice, and action. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(3).
Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery in grounded theory. 
In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory  
(pp. 214–228). London: Sage.


REFERENCES
138
Rorty, R. (1977). Dewey’s metaphysics. In Steven M. Cahn (Ed.), New Studies in 
the Philosophy of John Dewey. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, Relativism and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.
Rorty, R. (1999). Relativism: Finding and making. In R. Rorty, Philosophy and 
Social Hope. London and New York: Penguin.
Rorty, R. (2007). Cultural politics and the question of the existence of God. 
In R. Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers Volume 4. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saldana, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd edition). 
London: Sage.
Sartwell, C. (2015). Philosophy returns to the real world. New York Times, 
Opionator blogs, 13 April. Available at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.
com/2015/04/13/philosophy-returns-to-the-real-world
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. 
New York: Basic Books.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
Shank, G. (1987). Abductive strategies in educational research. American Journal 
of Semiotics, 5(2), 275–290.
Shank, G. (1998). The extraordinary ordinary powers of abductive reasoning. 
Theory & Psychology, 8(6), 841–860.
Shank, G. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Modeling the six modes of Peircean 
abduction for educational purposes. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the Midwest AI and Cognitive Science Conference, Bloomington, IN. 
Online address for MAICS 1996 Proceedings available at: www.cs.indiana.
edu/event/maics96/Proceedings/shank.html
Smith, L. T. (2000). Kupapa Maori research. In Marie Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming 
Indigenous Voice and Vision (pp. 225–247). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Smith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of 
uncertainty. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative 
Research (3rd edition, pp. 85–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples 
(2nd editon). London: Zed Books.
Stainton-Rogers, W. (2003). Social Psychology: Experimental and Critical Approaches. 
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (n.d.). https://plato.stanford.edu. Entries on 
`genealogy’; `Romanticism’; `Fleck’; `emergence’.
Stern, P. N. (2007). On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded 
theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded 
Theory (pp. 114–126). London: Sage.
Stern, P. N. (2012). Jeanne Quint Benoliel. Qualitative Health Research, 22 
(November), 1580–1581.


REFERENCES
139
Strauss, A. L. (1959). Mirrors and Masks: The Search for Identity. Medicine in 
Society Series. London: Martin Robertson & Co.
Strauss, A. L. (1964). Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions. New York: Free 
Press.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual Permutations of Action: Communication and Social 
Order. New York: W. de Gruyter.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1990 & 1998). Basics of Qualitative Research (1st & 2nd 
editions). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. 
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research  
(pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. L., Glaser, B. G., & Quint, J. (1964). The Nonaccountability of 
Terminal Care. Hospitals, 38(January), 73–87.
Strauss, A. L., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Erlich, D., & Sabshin, M. (1963). The 
hospital and its negotiated order. In E. Freidson (Ed.), The Hospital in Modern 
Society (pp. 147–163). New York: Free Press.
Strübing, J. (2007). Anselm Strauss. Constance: UVK.
Suchman, L. (1984). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human–Machine 
Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tavory, I. & Timmermans, S. (2009). Two cases of ethnography: Grounded the-
ory and the extended case method. Ethnography, 10, 243–263.
Turner, B. (1983). The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of 
organizational behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 20(3), 333–348.
Wacquant, L. (2002). Scrutinizing the street: Poverty, morality, and the pitfalls 
of urban ethnography. American Journal of Sociology, 107(6), May.
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing IS. Administrative Science 
Quarterly, 40, 385–390.
Wertz, F. J., Charmaz, K., McMullen, L. M., Josselson, R., Anderson, 
R., & McSpadden, E. (2011). Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: 
Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative 
Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. New York: Guilford Press.
Wiener, C. (2007). Making teams work in conducting ground theory. In A. Bryant 
& K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 293–310). 
London: Sage.
Wittgenstein, L. (n.d.). Aphorisms 66 and 67. Philosophical Investigations. 
Available at: http://users.rcn.com/athbone/lw65-69c.htm
Wittgenstein, L. (2001 [1953]). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.


abduction 8, 16, 48, 60, 63, 67, 70–78
distinct from GTM 74, 80n7
as ‘elementary’ 77–8
realist dimension 76
accidents and essences 30
acronyms, use of 35
action research (AR) 6, 101
Adorno, T. 17
American Behavioural Scientist 20–21
analytic induction 75
Atlas.ti 32, 52
Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with 
Words 95
axial coding 75
Bainbridge, R. et al 100, 101, 116, 118
basic social processes 82, 105
Bauman, Z. 84
Becker, H. 15
Becker, H. et al 39–40
Belgrave, L. and Seide, K. 33
Biernacki, P. 14
Big Data 38, 53–4
Birks, M. and Mills, J. 78, 79, 89
Blumer, H. 63, 65–6
Bruce, B.C. and Bloch, N. 119
Bryant, A. 26
Grounded Theory and Grounded 
Theorizing 13, 44–5, 59, 88
‘Grounded Theory Method, The’ 
(seminar) 85
Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K.:
SAGE Handbook of Current Developments 
in Grounded Theory 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 
30, 35, 37, 42, 46, 49, 50, 66, 67, 
69, 87–8, 89, 91, 92, 93–4, 101, 
115, 121, 122, 127–30
list of chapters 127–30
SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory 1, 
9, 13, 18, 30, 35, 41, 46, 48, 67, 
81, 92, 109, 121, 122, 123
Bryant, A. and Raja, U. 38, 54
Burawoy, M. 17, 18, 78, 79, 98
Butler, J. 95
Camus, Albert 50
CAQDAS (computer-aided/assisted 
qualitative data analysis) 50–53, 107
Carter, S. 119–20
Castells, M.: Communication Power 83, 84
categories 36, 37, 89–90
central text, lack of 43–5
Charmaz, K.:
abduction 8–9, 70, 75, 77–8, 86
CAQDAS 52
categorizing 37
coding 34, 36
conceptualizing 47
Constructing Grounded Theory (2007) 4, 
13, 25, 35, 83, 108, 121, 122, 123
constructivist GT 16, 25, 26, 58, 
105, 115
critical inquiry 115
emergence 62
epistemology 58, 59
GTM as ‘family of methods’ 5
influence of USA on research 
13–14, 101
interpretive turn 24
literature 109, 110–111, 112, 115
preconceptions 79n2
on Quint 7
research questions 111, 112
social justice 18, 93, 98, 101,  
115–16, 119
stories 79
INDEX


INDEX
141
supernormalizing 88, 91
Symbolic Interactionism 83, 99
theoretical sorting 108
theory/theorizing 82
Chicago School 8, 15, 16, 40, 81
Clarke, A. 8, 14, 20, 24, 33, 34, 55, 102
Situational Analysis 13, 26, 82–3, 103
‘classic’ GT 27
coding-cum-analysis-cum-memoing 49
coding/codes 32–4
analytic and descriptive 36
axial coding 75
CAQDAS coding 32, 36, 38
and categories 36
coding families 46, 87
coding paradigm 46–7, 87
and concepts 36
definitions 32
grouping 36
and labelling 34
in other languages 102–3
theoretical coding 86–7, 110
variations of terminology 36
collaboration 41–3
communication 64
community 100
community-based participatory 
research 99–100
computers see CAQDAS (computer-
aided/assisted qualitative data 
analysis)
concepts/conceptualizing 36, 37, 47, 93
need for skill and expertise 81
conduit metaphor 64
constant comparison 33
constructivism 16, 25, 27, 98, 114
enhanced awareness in constructivist 
work 117
context of research 115
Corbin, J. 13, 14, 19
interpretative methods 32
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. 60
Basics of Qualitative Research (1990, 
2008, 2015) 19
conceptualization 37
Unending Work and Care: Managing 
Chronic Illness at Home (1988) 19
core categories 36
core characteristics 49–50
creativity 23
criteria 50
critical commentaries 12
Critical Grounded Theory 113, 119
critical qualitative inquiry 115
Crossman, J. and Noma, H. 13, 14, 24, 
35, 42–3, 84, 100, 101, 102, 104, 
105, 118
cultures 24, 96
homogeneity of 97, 99, 102
influences on research 13–14
‘other cultures’ 96–7
Darwin, Charles 23, 91
data speaking for itself 17, 79, 98
decolonizing 96, 97
deduction 70
Denzin, N.K. 31, 94–5, 96, 97–8, 99, 118
Performance Ethnography 94, 95
Research Act, The 94
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S.: 
Handbook of Qualitative Research 
46, 58, 121
descriptive and normative 120
Dewey, John 16, 17, 76, 121
Dey, I. 65, 79
dialogue 24
Dickens, Charles 57
discovery 23, 25
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan 77
Duckles, J. et al 6, 18, 83, 91, 99–100, 
103, 115, 118, 119
collaboration 42
Duneier 59, 87
Einstein, Albert 23
emancipation 16, 92, 97, 118
see also social justice
emergence 9, 61, 62–3
emergent design 35
epistemology 57–60
avoidance 58
evasion 58
indifference 58
metaphors 60–66
essences and accidents of GTM 13
ethical stance 119–20


INDEX
142
ethnocentrism 101
ethnography 40, 98
evaluation of GT 116
family divergence 45–9
‘family of methods’ 5–7
family resemblances 5–6
feminism 40, 66, 93
research questions 111–12, 118
field methods 25
Fleck, L. 44
Flick, U. 39, 41, 42, 77, 85
Flyvbjerg, B. 117
Foucault, M. 18, 102
Friese, S. 32, 36, 51–2
gender 95
see also feminism
Gerhardt, U. 20–21
German translations 20–21
Germany, GTM in 20
gerunds 106
Gilgun, J. 25, 48
Glaser, B. 13, 14, 16, 75, 81, 122
‘all is data’ 54
Basic Social Processes 82
Basics of Grounded Theory 45
CAQDAS 51
computer use 51
conceptualizing 36, 104
conduit metaphor 64
‘counterfeit’ GTM 43
disagreement with Strauss 45–6, 47
Doing Quantitative Grounded Theory 41
history of GTM 19–20
induction 70
novice users of GTM 104
preconceived concepts 64
quantitative data 41
research supervision 23
suspension 64
Theoretical Sensitivity 19, 46, 61–2
theoretical sorting 108
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A.
Awareness of Dying 6, 8, 15, 21, 22, 
33, 37, 82, 108, 122
categories 89–90
coding 32, 34, 87
cognition 65
collaboration and influence 7–8, 19, 
21–2, 26, 42, 43, 46, 57, 82, 121
concepts 93
constant comparison 67
Discovery 9, 11, 14, 21, 25, 32–3, 44, 
50, 61, 66, 67, 74, 81, 86, 90, 93, 
114, 122
‘Discovery of Substantive Theory’ 
20–21
encountering uncertainty 73
epistemology 58
ethnography 98
games 5–6
in Germany 20
GTM: distinction from other 
methods 63
induction 68–9
literature 63–4, 114
methodology 57
open mind 114
research prompts 111
sensitizing concepts 65–6, 93
‘slices of data’ 41, 55
Status Passage 21, 22, 91
theoretical saturation 86
theoretical sensitivity 61–2, 69
theory 51, 70, 77, 88–9
Time for Dying 6, 8, 21, 22, 33, 37, 
108, 122
translations into German 20–21
Goffman, E. 15, 77
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life 21
Gorra, A. 52, 53, 107
Gouldner, A. 15–17, 18, 23, 28n8
Gregor, S. 89
Grounded Theory Institute 13, 105
Grounded Theory Review 19–20
GTxA 38, 54
Hadley, G. 17, 26, 27–8, 92, 103, 
112–13, 118
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. 42, 67
Hense and McFerran 119
Hesse-Biber, S. and Flowers, H. 40, 93, 
111–12, 118
Hirschman, A.: Exit, Voice and Loyalty 91
history of GTM 6–28


INDEX
143
Holmes, Sherlock 77
Holton, J. 11
Hopf, C. and Weingarten, E.: 
Qualitative Sozialforschung 21
hypotheses 23
identity 95
images 55
imagination 16, 23
Inaba, M. and Kakai, H. 38, 54
indigeneity 94, 96–7, 99–101
indigenous nations 100
indigenous researchers 117
induction 48, 63, 67–9
inductively oriented GT 27
interpretation:
cultural influences 24
not universal 24
interpretivism 25
Irwin, K. 31, 83, 93, 105
James, William 16
Johnson, R.B. and Walsh, I. 30, 38, 40, 
41, 89
Kansas Medical School 15
Kelle, U. 9, 20–21, 46–7, 61–2, 68, 82, 
86, 89, 90
Keynes, John Maynard 65, 114
Kincheloe, J. and McLaren, P. 17–18, 92
knowledge 72, 98
Konecki, K. 55, 107
Kuhn, T. 43, 57
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M.: Metaphors 
we live by 61
Layder, D. 17, 18
Lazarsfeld, P. 16–17, 17
Lewin, K. 6
Lincoln, Y.S.: Handbook of Qualitative 
Research 46
Lindesmith, R. 68, 94
literature 63, 108–111
phases of use:
initial 109
second phase 109
last phase 110
resistance to 108–9, 111
reviews 110–111
uses 50, 109, 120
Lorentz 23
McCarthy, M. 25
Mandelbrot, B. 71–2
Martin, V. 82, 109, 110 MAXQDA 32, 52
Mead, G.H. 16, 17
medical training 15
memos 49, 108
mentors 23–4
Merton, R.K. 8, 9, 49, 77, 90
metaphors 60–66
method-output distinction 30
methodological sensitivity 25, 40, 
52–3, 76, 105
methods/methodology 9, 10–11, 38–41, 
44, 74
cultural assumptions of 101
decolonizing 96
methods/theorizing distinction 31
Mey, G. 13
minus mentoring 105, 122
mixed methods 40
Morse et al 13
Morse, J and Clark, L. 34–5, 82, 
93, 104
Moses, George 6
Moses, Robert 6
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 23
Mruck, K. 13
Mruck, K. and Mey, G. 42, 84
Nagel, D.A. et al 11
narrative 78–9
Nietzsche 61
NVivo 32, 52
objectivism 16
observers as participants 24
Olesen, V. 14
O’Neil Green, D. et al 92, 116–17
openness 40, 114
to serendipity 50
outcome 30
Parsons, T. 8, 9
participatory action research 101


INDEX
144
Peirce, C.S. 16, 69, 77, 121
‘performance’ and ‘performative’ 94–5, 
96, 98
phronetic GTM 116, 117–18
Polanyi, M. 72
Personal Knowledge 72
Tacit Dimension, The 72
positivism 15–16, 27
postmodern, situative GT 27
power 83, 92, 96
and emancipation 97
practice, need for 81
Pragmatism 16, 17, 27, 50, 67, 80n11, 
90–91, 98, 99
and social justice 119
preconceptions 65, 118
prescriptive positivistic GT 27
presentation of research 107–8
visualization 107–8
Priya, R. 93, 112
QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis) 51
qualitative analysis of content 27
quantitative data 41
quantitative and qualitative inquiry 34–5
questions for research 99
Quint, J.C. 6, 7, 13, 15, 18, 19, 28n1
‘Institutionalized practices of 
information control’ 7
Nurse and the Dying Patient, The 7
race and ethnicity 92, 98
Ragin, C. 39
Rapoport: four rules 11, 12
Rashomon effect 78, 79
reality, perception of 24, 76
reasoning, modes of 69
rebels, metaphysical and historical 50
Reddy, M. 64, 65
reflexivity 97
Reichertz, J. 21, 43, 44, 48, 67, 69, 
70–71, 73, 74, 75, 102
five varieties of GTM 26–7
research:
as activity 95
as performative 95, 96
process 22–3, 42
‘speaking for the other’ 96–7
research design 10, 39, 42
research questions 85, 99, 111–13
sensitizing questions 111–12
ritual 96
romanticism 15–16, 17
Rorty, R. 25, 59, 76, 80n5
Contingency, Irony and Solidarity 76
sampling 34–5
and Big Data 53
and concept of adequacy 35
and ethnicity 104
purposive/convenience 49
in quantitative and qualitative 
inquiry 34–5
as situated action 35
Sartwell, C. 76
Schatzman, L. 25, 57
Schön, D. 72, 73
scientism 16
Searle, J. Speech Acts 95
sensitizing concepts 63, 65–6, 92
serendipity 50, 71
Shakespeare, William 23
Shank, G. 69, 79n4
Simpsons, The 78
Situational Analysis 13, 26, 82–3, 103
‘slices of data’ 41, 55
Smith, L.T. 95, 96, 98, 104, 118
Decolonizing Methodologies 96
social justice 98–9, 101, 113, 115–20
sociology and GTM 59, 81–4, 106
Soeffner, H.G. 20, 21
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 18, 
28 n8, 44, 56 n9, 62
Stern, P. 7, 14, 23, 105
stories 78–9
Strauss, A. 7, 14, 15–19, 25, 26, 47–8, 
52, 84, 121
abduction 67
Boys in White 15, 39
Chicago School 77, 81
Continual Permutations of Action 83
German translations 20–21
interactionism 83
Mirrors and Masks 21, 95
mixed methods 40
Psychiatric Ideologies and Institutions 15


INDEX
145
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists 
(1987) 8
stories 79
team work 22
theory 31, 51
see also Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.; 
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 26, 34, 47–8, 
87, 105
Basics of Qualitative Research (1990, 
1998) 8, 11, 27, 45, 79
CAQDAS 51
coding 32, 87
coding paradigm 46, 47, 87
description and analysis 60
Handbook of Qualitative Research, The 
(1994) 12, 20, 46
literature 65
‘methodological consumerism’ 
43, 84
stories 79
theory 37
see also Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.
Strübing, J. 17, 21, 30–31, 39, 67, 77, 
83, 84
students of GTM 104–113
guidance 106
mentoring 23–4, 105, 106–7
supervisors 23–4, 105
suspension of preconceptions 64
suspicion of/hostility to GTM 84, 105
Symbolic Interactionism 17, 83, 99, 116
Tavory, I. and Timmermans, S. 74, 75, 
76, 78, 80n7
team work 22
terminology 35–6
text mining 38
theoretical coding 86–7, 110
theoretical saturation 49, 86
theoretical sensitivity 54, 61–2, 69, 
82, 104
theories/theorizing 26, 70, 87–91
and Big Data 54
formal and substantive theories 49
meaning of theory 88–90
Pragmatic view 90–91
thinking sociologically 84
Thornberg, R. and Dunne, C. 31, 77, 
109–110
Tolstoy, Anna Karenina 5
toolmakers paradigm 65
translated data 102
triangulation 41
truth 76, 103
University of California San Francisco 
(UCSF) 8, 11, 14, 19, 25
Urquhart, C. 89
Vickers, G. 72
visualization of research 
 output 107–8
Wacquant, L. 59, 60, 84
Wallace, Alfred Russell 23
Wiener, C. 14, 22
Wittgenstein, L.: Philosophical 
Investigations 5–6
Wright, Eric 59


















 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advancing Grounded Theory 
with Mixed Methods 
This groundbreaking book introduces an innovative new perspective on mixed method 
grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) by conceptualizing it holistically as a distinct, 
qualitatively driven methodology that appreciates the integrity of each of the methods it 
embraces. This practical and accessible text advocates for using MM-GTM in a way that 
promote meaningful interaction between qualitative and quantitative data during analysis. Its 
principal contribution is to provide a set of research tools to develop or refine a multi-faceted 
analytical framework in applied fields in the social and behavioral sciences, including nursing. 
Used as either a resource or a textbook in a survey course about research methods, the text 
references dozens of examples about how a dialectical exchange between different sources 
of data can be built into core grounded theory procedures, including theoretical sampling, 
coding, case-based memoing, and integrated visual displays. With a whole chapter devoted 
to reporting, the book also considers the way that indexes of quality that extend beyond 
methodological transparency can be used to evaluate research that partners mixed methods 
with grounded theory and other qualitative methods. 
Featuring student-friendly pedagogy throughout, including self-assessment questions, 
a glossary, and a framework that summarizes key points, this text is an essential read for 
all research methods students or early career researchers ambitious to develop a theoretical 
perspective with qualitative, mixed methods, or evaluation. 
Elizabeth G. Creamer is professor emerita of educational research and evaluation in the 
School of Education in the Virginia T
ech College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences. She is 
the author, co-author, or editor of more than more than 7 books, and nearly 200 peer-reviewed 
journal articles, book chapters, and reviews. Her most recent book is An Introduction to Fully 
Integrated Mixed Methods Research (SAGE, 2018). 




Advancing Grounded 
Theory with Mixed 
Methods 
Elizabeth G. Creamer 


First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New Y
ork, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Elizabeth G. Creamer
The right of Elizabeth G. Creamer to be identified as author of this work has been asserted 
by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 
1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any 
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, 
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, 
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, 
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-17479-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-17480-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-05700-7 (ebk)


Dedication 
This book is dedicated to my older sister, born Linda Lee Greene, who died of leukemia just 
a few weeks before the COVID outbreak was officially acknowledged in the United States. 
She was an indefatigable champion of my turn to textbook writing and the audience of 
emerging scholars across the world it addresses. 




Abbreviated table of 
contents 
Preface 
 
xvii 
1 
Definitions 
 
1 
2 
Variety 
26 
3 
Process 
46 
4 
Visualization 
 
72 
5 
Dissonance 
93 
6 
Reporting 
 
119 
Appendices 
 
147 
Index 
 
168 




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annotated table of contents 
1 
Establishing language and purpose 
1 
This chapter builds an argument for the creative potential of partnering mixed methods with 
grounded theory for purposes of advancing analytical insight and developing an explanatory frame-
work. It MM-GTM as a distinct methodology and creates a platform for dialog across disciplines 
by introducing key terminology. 
2 
Varied approaches to using mixed methods with theoretical 
frameworks 
26 
The chapter provides a glimpse of the range of ways that mixed methods has been paired with 
grounded theory and how it can serve as an integrative framework at the onset of a study, offer 
interpretive insight as a study is underway, and/or stand as its principal outcome. 
3 
Mixed methods and the process of theorizing 
46 
This chapter is about the procedures that advance theorizing, including how qualitative and quanti-
tative data can be integrated through theoretical coding, analytical memo writing, case-based analysis, 
and theoretical sampling. 
4 
Advancing theoretical reasoning with visualizations 
72 
This chapter considers the ways that in empirical research, visual displays represent ideas at the same 
time they generate them. The chapter introduces creative approaches to integrating different sources 
of data in visual displays to advance theoretical reasoning. These include mapping, timelining, and 
variations of cluster mapping. 
5 
Leveraging dissonance to advance theoretical reasoning 
93 
The opportunity to engage dissonance and incongruities in the results emerging from different meth-
ods is a unique benefit of a mixed methods approach. When pursued systematically, these often 
generate original insight. 


 
 
x 
ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS 
6 
119
Highlighting quality through reporting 
A specific research design or method is no guarantee that a study is scientific or that the results are 
credible or useful. This chapter considers different strategies that can be used to gauge the quality 
of MM-GTM research, including in the ways that research procedures or a final theoretical frame-
work can be visualized effectively in a table or figure. A list of indicators of quality is discussed that 
extends beyond a singular reliance on transparency about research methods during reporting. 


Detailed contents 
List of tables, figures, and boxes 
 
xiii 
Preface 
xvii 
Purpose 
 
xviii 
Goals 
xviii 
Audience 
 
xix 
The author’s qualifications and positionality 
 
xx 
Pedagogical features 
 
xxi 
1 
Establishing language and purpose 
 
1 
Introduction 
 
1 
Various ways of defining theory and its purpose 
 
3 
Conceptualizing MM-GTM as a methodology 
 
14 
Distinguishing exemplars of an integrated approach to MM-GTM 
 
20 
Conclusions 
 
23 
2 
Varied approaches to using mixed methods with  
theoretical frameworks 
 
26 
Introduction 
 
26 
Implications of the word “design” 
 
28 
Methodological adaptability of grounded theory 
 
33 
Consulting the literature throughout the research process 
 
34 
Demonstrating variability in MM-GTM with a group of exemplars 
 
35 
Conclusions 
 
42 
3 
Mixed methods and the process of theorizing 
 
46 
Introduction 
 
46 
Integrated analysis using abduction 
 
48 
Introducing examples in this chapter 
51 
Singling out core grounded theory procedures 
 
54 


xii 
DETAILED CONTENTS 
Theoretical coding 
 
58 
Mixed analysis through integrated case-based memos 
 
62 
Theoretical sampling 
 
65 
Conclusions 
 
69 
4 
Advancing theoretical reasoning with visualizations 
72 
Introduction 
 
72 
Joint and integrative visual displays 
 
74 
Different types of integrative displays 
 
77 
Exploring examples of mixed methods used with a visual display to generate analytical insight 
 
78 
Timelining as a visualization strategy that enables integration of different types of data 
 
81 
Conclusions 
 
89 
5 
Leveraging dissonance to advance theoretical reasoning 
 
93 
Introduction 
 
93 
Different perspectives about the centrality of dissonance to the research process 
96 
Potential sources of dissonance that emerge over the life of a research project 
 
98 
Designing for dissonance 
 
101 
The chapter exemplars 
 
102 
Exploring dissonance with a case-based approach in MM-GTM 
105 
Warranting inferences through visual displays 
 
113 
Conclusions 
 
116 
6 
Highlighting quality through reporting 
 
119 
Introduction 
 
119 
Considering the variety evident in the chapter exemplars 
 
121 
Articulating a methodological rationale for MM-GTM 
 
123 
Visualizing a theoretical model developed with MM-GTM 
 
125 
Wrestling with ways to gauge quality in MM-GTM 
 
130 
Challenges faced by investigators using MM-GTM 
136 
Conclusions 
 
139 
Glossary 
 
143 
Appendices 
147 
Appendix A: List of exemplars by chapter 
 
149 
Appendix B: List of examples of MM-GTM 
 
151 
Appendix C: Summary by chapter and cross-cutting theme 
 
153 
References 
 
156 
Index 
168 


Tables, figures, and boxes 
TABLES 
1.1 Overview of Steps in the Process of Analyzing Multiple Sources of Data in  
MM-GTM Through an Abductive Process 
 
18 
1.2 List of Chapter Exemplars, Field, and Distinguishing Features 
 
22 
1.3 Linking Key Points from Chapter 1 with the Cross-Cutting Themes 
 
24 
2.1 Example Developed from Evans et al. (2011): Framing Multi-Dimensional  
Research Questions in Ways that Promote Integration 
 
33 
2.2 Contribution of the Literature to Theoretical Reasoning Throughout the  
Research Process 
 
35 
2.3 Innovative Features of the Three Exemplars of MM-GT from Chapter 2 
 
36 
2.4 Core Elements of a Formal Grounded Theory, Their Definition, and Key  
Components of the Catallo et al. Grounded Theory Model to Explain the  
Intimate Abuse Disclosure 
 
40 
2.5 Linking Chapter 2 to Cross-Cutting Themes 
44 
3.1 Innovative Features of the Four Examples of MM-GTM from Chapter 3 
 
52 
3.2 Illustrative Example of a Data Display from Multiple Sources of Data 
 
54 
3.3 Core Grounded Theory Procedures and Definitions 
 
55 
3.4 Priority Awarded to Core Grounded Theory Procedures by Schools  
of Thought 
56 
3.5 Frequency of the Use of Core Grounded Theory Procedures in an Analysis  
from a Systematic Review of 64 MM-GT Articles by Guetterman et al. (2017) 
 
56 
3.6 Illustrating Causal Pathways in the Grounded Theory Model Produced by  
Bussing et al. (2012) 
 
61 
3.7 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 3 to Cross-Cutting Themes 
 
70 
4.1 Purposes of Integrative Visual Displays in MM-GTM, by Phase 
 
76 
4.2 Definitions of Different T
ypes of Visual Displays in MM-GTM 
 
77 
4.3 Examples of Visual Displays, by Field, T
ype, Purpose, and Stage of the  
Research Process 
 
78 


TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 
xiv 
4.4 Davis and Baulch’s (2011) Visual Depiction of Common Life Trajectories 
 
84 
4.5 Illustrative Joint Display Linking Qualitative and Quantitative Data from the  
Data Matrix from the Forest Example 
 
88 
4.6 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 4 to Cross-Cutting Themes 
 
90 
5.1 Varying Points of View about Exceptions, Dissonance, and the Need for  
Verification in Grounded Theory and the Implications for Mixed Method  
Designs, by School of Thought 
 
98 
5.2 Procedures that Leverage Dissonance in Ways that Advance Theoretical  
Reasoning 
 
101 
5.3 Innovative Features of the Chapter Exemplars 
 
102 
5.4 Example of Data for a Case-Based Analysis with Visual Components 
 
106 
5.5 Shell of a Concordance Table Illustrating a Way to Document Strength  
of Support Across Cases 
 
114 
5.6 Excerpt from a Joint Display from Castro et al. (2010) that Reveals a  
Clear Pattern 
 
115 
5.7 Documenting the Systematic T
esting of Alternative Explanations from  
the Hypothetical Collaborative Space Study 
 
116 
5.8 Additions from Chapter 5 to the Architecture of the Cross-Cutting Themes 
 
117 
6.1 Documenting the Contribution of Selected Theoretical Propositions from  
a Grounded Theory Model: A Hypothetical Example 
 
136 
FIGURES 
1.1 Final Composite Model from Kawamura et al. (2009) 
 
13 
1.2 The Link Between Mixed Methods, Grounded Theory Methods, and  
Theory Building 
 
15 
1.3 Overlap Between the Analytic Logic and Procedures of Grounded Theory  
and Mixed Methods 
20 
2.1 Framing a Research Problem in a Multi-Dimensional Way 
 
30 
2.2 A Multi-Level Conceptual Model from Evans et al. (2011, p. 280) 
 
32 
3.1 An Inductive–Deductive–Abductive Analytical Cycle: Integrative MMR-GTM 
 
50 
3.2 Conceptual Model from Bussing et al. (2012) 
 
60 
3.3 A Facsimile of the Timeline Completed by Participants in the Study About  
War-Related Trauma 
 
69 
4.1 Example of a Case-Based Timeline 
 
83 
4.2 Generating Analytical Insight from a Matrix-Mapping Activity 
 
86 
4.3 Procedural Diagram of the Design of Matrix-Mapping Activity 
 
87 
5.1 Potential Sources of Dissonance in a MM-GTM Study 
 
100 
5.2 Embodying a Stair-Step Process to Develop Theory from a Mixed Method  
Case-Based Analysis 
 
110 
6.1 A Final Composite Grounded Theory Model from Shim et al. (2017) 
 
129 
6.2 Wesely’s (2010) Procedural Diagram Showing in Interactive Design 
 
133 


TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 
xv 
BOXES 
1.1 Kawamura et al.’s (2009) Study of the Impact of a Health Intervention 
 
11 
2.1 Evans et al.’s (2009, 2011) Adaptation of a Life Course Perspective 
 
37 
2.2 Catallo et al.’s (2013) Use of MM-GTM to Understand Paradox in a Randomized  
Control Trial 
 
39 
2.3 Westhues et al.’s (2008) Study About Mental Health Services for Immigrant  
Populations in Canada 
 
41 
3.1 Jone’s and Kafetsios’s (2005) Study About War-Related Childhood Trauma 
 
67 
5.1 Exploring Group Differences in a Study About the Implementation of  
Management Software by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) 
 
104 
5.2 Using Mixed Method Case Studies to Theorize Public Space in London by  
Carmona (2015) 
 
107 
5.3 An Exploration of the Link Between Motivation and Persistence in a  
Language Immersion Program by Wesely (2010) 
 
112 
6.1 Shim et al.’s (2017) MM-GTM Study About a Health Intervention 
 
127 




 
 
Preface 
Leading experts in the development of grounded theory have long expressed support for the 
potential to consider multiple sources of data in service of using a qualitative approach to 
develop or refine an explanatory framework. Those endorsing the idea of utilizing quantitative 
data along with qualitative data in grounded theory have not considered the impact this could 
have on research procedures like theoretical sampling. Despite this long-standing endorsement 
of the benefits of collecting both qualitative and quantitative data and evidence that this has 
been done with some frequency in practice, no one to date has dedicated the type of attention 
that is needed to create an intellectual framework for how mixed methods and grounded theory 
can be paired in ways that respect the integrity of each. 
Both mixed methods and grounded theory have proven themselves to be methodolo-
gies that are adaptable to diverse circumstances and philosophical paradigms (Sebastian, 2019; 
Urquhart, 2013). This groundbreaking book introduces an innovative perspective on mixed 
method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) by conceptualizing it holistically as a 
distinct, qualitatively robust method and methodology that retains the integrity each of the 
methodologies it embraces. The methodology builds on the multiple areas of overlap between 
the methodological assumptions of grounded theory and mixed methods, while at the same 
time recognizing that each has a unique contribution to make. MM-GTM takes advantage of 
the strengths of each method. The methodological framework presented is not positioned as a 
critique of grounded theory, but an expansion of the ways it can be used in conjunction with 
different types of data. 
Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods illustrates ways that the interest in diverse 
perspectives embedded in a dialectical logic that includes abduction can reframe core grounded 
theory procedures, like coding and theoretical sampling, as mixed method procedures. This 
approach disrupts the notion that using mixed methods with grounded theory is accom-
plished simply by the addition of quantitative data or analytical procedures. It also contests the 
assumption that the main reason for pairing mixed methods with grounded theory is to add a 
quantitative stage whose purpose is to confirm the qualitative findings. Instead, it proposes a 
methodological framework that maintains the integrity of both the method and methodology 
of grounded theory, while demonstrating ways they can be used in tandem with other methods 
to generate new analytical and theoretical insight that is useful in applied fields. 
Academic fields differ in the priority awarded to research that has a theoretical foundation. 
It is mandatory for research in some fields, like experimental psychology, where an investigator 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
xviii PREFACE 
is expected to deploy a formal theory that has demonstrated reliability in multiple settings. 
The role of an off-the-shelf theory as an indicator of quality is less apparent in fields that have 
a distinctly applied focus, including nursing and education where grounded theory has been 
used most widely. In those settings, a theoretical framework is sometimes consulted later in the 
research process to explain unexpected findings. A methodologist well known in the community 
of nursing scholars and among mixed methodologists, Margarite Sandelowski (1993) maintains, 
stated or not, theoretical understanding is always implicit in the way a problem is conceived. 
The framework I present in this book develops the idea of MM-GTM as both a method 
and a methodology. It foregrounds an iterative and interactive approach to data analysis by 
overlaying an abductive logic where a back and forth exchange between different types of data 
is embedded in the core set of grounded theory procedures. 
PURPOSE 
The aim of this practical text is to serve as both a resource and an instructional tool to advance 
the use of qualitative and mixed method procedures in the development and refinement of 
evidence-based explanatory frameworks in education, health sciences, and other applied fields. 
I use the expression “explanatory framework” as an umbrella term that includes a grounded 
theory, a conceptual framework developed from the literature, and a theoretical framework 
that is developed through the systematic empirical procedures. I build on the argument that 
“Qualitative research can be prominent in mixed methods research rather than compromised 
by it” (Creswell, Shope, Plano Clark, & Green, 2006, p. 1). 
This text opens the door to a conversation between qualitative and mixed methods research 
by presenting MM-GTM as a type of integration at the methodological level where both meth-
ods make a substantive contribution to explanatory insight. This book is not the resource to 
consult for a detailed dissection of differences between the ways that the founders, Glaser and 
Strauss, approached grounded theory. Nor does it provide a painstaking historical review about 
the ways their thinking evolved over time that already has been well-documented. Although I 
take pains to recognize that there are differences between grounded theory approached with a 
post-positivist, pragmatist, constructivist, interpretive, or postmodern framework on such issues 
as the role of literature, I do this principally to emphasize the dynamism of the methodology 
and the ways it has been adapted in practice. 
GOALS 
This book aims to arm an investigator new to mixed methods and/or grounded theory with 
the practical tools necessary to execute MM-GTM, without the suggestion that it uses a “cook-
book” or “one-size-fits-all” approach. Each chapter has a one- or two-word title that zeroes in 
on its purpose. The topics addressed in each chapter are listed as follows. 
1 
Chapter 1: Definitions. This chapter builds an argument for the creative potential of 
partnering mixed methods with grounded theory for purposes of advancing analytical 


 
 
 
 
 
 
PREFACE 
xix 
insight and developing an explanatory framework. It presents MM-GTM as a distinct 
methodology and creates a platform for dialog across disciplines by introducing key 
terminology. 
2 
Chapter 2: Variety. This chapter provides a glimpse of the range of ways that mixed 
methods has been paired with grounded theory and how it can serve as an integrative 
framework at the onset of a study, offer interpretive insight as a study is underway, and/or 
stand as its principal outcome. 
3 
Chapter 3: Process. This chapter is about the procedures that advance theorizing, 
including how qualitative and quantitative data can be integrated through theoretical cod-
ing, analytical memo writing, case-based analysis, and theoretical sampling. 
4 
Chapter 4: Visual Displays. This chapter considers ways that in empirical research, 
visual displays represent ideas at the same time they generate them. The chapter introduces 
creative approaches to integrating different sources of data in visual displays to advance the-
oretical reasoning. These include mapping, timelining, and variations of cluster mapping. 
5 
Chapter 5: Dissonance. This chapter explores how the opportunity to engage disso-
nance and incongruities in the results emerging from different methods is a unique benefit 
of a mixed methods approach. When pursued systematically, these are often generate origi-
nal insight. 
6 
Chapter 6: Reporting. This chapter considers different strategies that can be used to 
gauge the quality of MM-GTM research, including in the ways that research procedures 
or a final theoretical framework can be visualized effectively in a table or figure. A list of 
indicators of quality is discussed that extend beyond a singular reliance on transparency 
about research methods during reporting. 
AUDIENCE 
Grounded theory has become a dominant data-analytic technique in a wide variety of academic 
disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, social work, education, information, manage-
ment, nursing, and other fields related to health (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). In addition 
to this list, the book is a resource for early career researchers across the world in other applied 
fields, including child development, counseling, criminology, business and management, 
human geography, gerontology, and instructional technology. A set of exemplars is featured 
that were produced by researchers in diverse fields. The fact that the selection includes several 
exemplars that were launched during doctoral research is meant to underscore that combining 
mixed methods and grounded theory is not an inordinately ambitious goal for a doctoral stu-
dent. Added to that is the conviction that building or refining a theoretical framework is critical 
to the skill set of novice researchers with an ambition to publish. 
The textbook will advance the skills of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in 
a research methods course in qualitative, mixed methods, or evaluation. Its most likely home 
is a course about qualitative research methods where it would serve as an effective companion 
to classic texts about qualitative research by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) or Patton (2002) that 
introduce students to a generic set of qualitative analytical procedures. Advancing Grounded The-
ory with Mixed Methods is compatible for pairing with books about grounded theory, including 


PREFACE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
xx 
those by Corbin and Strauss (2008) and Charmaz (2006, 2014a). In an evaluation course, this 
text could be used to guide a content analysis designed to construct a contextually nuanced 
conceptual framework to guide data collection and analysis. The text will extend a mixed 
methods research course designed to provide students the skills necessary to write an effective 
grant proposal. The insight offered by the text could be leveraged by an assignment to build 
and refine a conceptual framework from the literature and, subsequently, to use it as a guide for 
developing an interview or observation protocol. 
THE AUTHOR’S QUALIFICATIONS AND POSITIONALITY 
My qualifications for authoring this textbook are related to my experience as a researcher, 
teacher, and writer. For the majority of my career, my research. I taught doctoral level 
methods courses in both qualitative research and mixed methods research at a research uni-
versity in the United States for over 20 years. An experience developing the modules for 
my first online course in mixed method research approaches provided a springboard for the 
publication of my 2018 textbook, An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research. 
In that book, I introduced a framework that reflects a conviction of the power of embed-
ding the intention to integrate data sources throughout all phases of the research process 
and the phrase coined by Jennifer Greene in 2007, a mixed method way of thinking. I join 
her and another esteemed colleague, Pat Bazeley (2018a), to emphasize the potential gain 
to conceptual and theoretical insight when different sources of data are integrated during 
analysis. 
The analytical procedures I propose in this textbook reflect my affinity for the ground-
breaking work of Kathy Charmaz (2014a) and her constructivist approach to grounded theory. 
With the foundational view that knowledge is constructed, rather than discovered, and the 
acknowledgment that more than one empirically grounded interpretation is not only pos-
sible but likely, I find that the constructivist paradigm is closer to my own views about the 
nature of knowledge and how it is constructed than other approaches to grounded theory. I 
join Charmaz in avoiding discussions of causality that are associated with a realist perspective. 
I waiver from Charmaz’s constructivist approach in that I am not a relativist. I am more com-
pelled than Charmaz was to pursue differences between the perspectives of participants, not 
for purposes of reconciling them, but to get a better glimpse at the social forces that might lie 
underneath. 
This textbook is aimed at an international audience. The framing of mixed methods in 
this textbook is influenced by writers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and from 
the growing group of researchers interested in mixed methods that I have met from Australia, 
China, Europe, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South America. My approach to 
mixed methods reflects an offshoot of constructivism referred to as dialectical pluralism (John-
son, 2012; Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). The principal reason for this is my fascination 
with the contribution of dissonance, incongruities, and contradiction between results from the 
analysis of different types and sources of data to explanatory insight (Creamer & Edwards, 2019). 


PREFACE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
xxi 
My interest in polyvocality in the representation of authors’ voices (Creamer, 2011), resistance 
to formulaic approaches, and awe about research in the face of so much complexity inches 
my views closer to the postmodern camp. I am persuaded that there is much to be gained by 
designing a research project to purposefully leverage different viewpoints and perspectives. I 
present MM-GTM in a practical way, but not in a way that suggests it is a recipe or rule book 
that should be slavishly followed, but as a platform, like a diving board, for the generation 
of innovative new perspectives, methods, and methodological combinations. The perspective 
underscores the important role that creativity, persistence, and intense curiosity can play in 
producing research that impacts practice. 
Most MM-GTM is complex and likely to unfold across multiple phases and in ways that 
are not entirely predictable (Johnson & Walsh, 2019). Joining Mertens (2015) in prioritizing the 
complexity of mixed method research, as Canadian scholar Cheryl Poth does (2018a, 2018b), 
introduces tensions with the naming systems associated with mixed method and with research 
conducted in two phases with distinct qualitative and quantitative strands. A scholar from the 
United Kingdom Nigel Fielding made a similar observation, writing: “Following textbook 
prescriptions laying down approved research designs may be a necessary rite of passage, but the 
benefits of mixing methods flow from creative innovation and conceptualizing rather than a 
pragmatic approach” (2012, p. 126). 
I depart from many of my US-based colleagues and the preoccupation with classifying and 
naming study mixed methods designs based on the timing and sequence of data collection and 
analysis. The complexity of the research designs evident in practice and the fact that no two stud-
ies are alike is one explanation for why I cannot center research design in the discussion of mixed 
methods that appears in this text. The increasing frequency of practice that foregoes data collec-
tion by using existing databases also negates the usefulness of defining research design by the tim-
ing of data collection and analysis. I do not categorize the studies I incorporate in this text with 
the common terminology used in mixed methods about basic designs, believing it would be 
too cumbersome and potentially alienating for the cross-disciplinary audience that is my target. 
PEDAGOGICAL FEATURES 
Several features incorporated in this textbook are designed to facilitate instruction and ease the 
process for the reader to distill key points. These are: 
• 
The text has an architecture or infrastructure that is built around a set of three cross-cutting 
themes. The link between the discussion and each of the cross-cutting themes is summa-
rized in each chapter. Appendix C provides a comprehensive table that identifies key points 
from each chapter, organized by cross-cutting theme. 
• 
Key features of the design of each of the chapter exemplars are summarized in a text box. 
• 
Quotes from methodological leaders in mixed methods and/or qualitative research are set 
aside in the text. Reading these before launching into the full chapter is one way to get a 
handle on the key arguments presented in each chapter. 
• 
A set of self-assessment review questions appear at the end of each chapter. 


PREFACE 
 
 
 
xxii 
• 
Suggestions for supplemental activities are listed at the end of each chapter. 
• 
Key terms that are used across chapters are listed in a glossary of terms. Each glossary term 
is highlighted in bold in the text the first time it is used with an accompanying definition 
in italics. 
• 
There are two appendices for those looking for more examples. Citation information 
about each of the exemplars I singled out in the text is listed in Appendix A. A list of addi-
tional reputable examples of MM-GTM appears in Appendix B. 


 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1 
Establishing language 
and purpose 
This chapter builds an argument for the creative potential of partnering mixed methods with grounded 
theory for purposes of advancing analytical insight and developing an explanatory framework. It MM-
GTM as a distinct methodology and creates a platform for dialog across disciplines by introducing key 
terminology. 
TERMS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER 
• 
Abduction 
• 
Analytic density 
• 
Conceptual framework 
• 
Constant comparative method 
• 
Fully integrated mixed methods research (FIMMR) 
• 
Fully integrated mixed method grounded theory methodology (FIMM-GTM) 
• 
Grounded theory 
• 
Mixed method research 
• 
Mixed method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) 
• 
Multi-method research 
• 
Theory 
INTRODUCTION 
Since it first began to ferment as a movement with its own set of methodological gurus, mixed 
method approaches have continually demonstrated adaptability to diverse problems and disci-
plinary contexts. Its astonishingly broad cross-disciplinary appeal may be unique in that there are 
thousands of examples of empirical publications and an expansive body of methodological litera-
ture supporting the creativity and ingenuity in which it has been applied in practice. Emerging 
at the same time as the movement toward interdisciplinary team-centered research, the span 
of the usefulness of approaches that combine methods in practice can be seen by the applica-
tion of mixed methods to study topics as diverse as poverty in Bangladesh, climate change in 


 
2 
DEFINITIONS 
Siberia, police practices in Canada, managing the growth in urban locations, and safe drinking 
water in rural Aboriginal communities. One reason for the adaptability of mixed methods is 
that it shares, along with multi-method research, the bedrock assumption of the contribution 
to quality of consulting multiple sources of data that is an ontological assumption endorsed by 
virtually all social and behavioral researchers. What distinguishes mixed method from multi-
method research is the priority awarded to integrating information from multiple sources of 
data. Multi-method research incorporates multiple sources of data and/or methods but does not integrate 
them in a substantive way. 
At the core of the logic of mixed methods is a commitment to the purposeful engage-
ment of diverse sources of data, analytical procedures, methods, and perspectives in pursuit of 
greater understanding of the complex interplay between individual and social phenomenon 
and the natural environment. The most common form of mixing is at the methodological level 
(Sandelowski, 2014). Its wide adoption across fields of inquiry invites the kind of cross-method 
conversations that are evident in integrated methodological approaches, like mixed methods 
approaches to grounded theory (Creamer, 2018a), case study (Cook & Kamalodeen, 2020; 
Guetterman & Fetters, 2018), participatory action research (Ivankova, 2015; Ivankova & 
Wingo, 2018), and visual methods (Shannon-Baker & Edwards, 2018). Such partnering chal-
lenges us to reconsider the long-standing notion that in today’s rapidly changing world that a 
researcher can afford to narrowly identify his or her expertise as either qualitative or quantita-
tive. Addressing multi-dimensional topics like those related to poverty, health inequality, immi-
gration, violence, or sustainability requires expertise in a variety of domains. Every researcher 
needs the skills to be adept at using more than one method to contribute to cutting-edge 
research. 
In the social sciences, we are better scholars, more able to contribute to social inquiry at 
large, if we develop expertise in a variety of approaches. 
(Pearce, 2015, p. 54) 
There are many different ways to build a theoretical component in a research study, includ-
ing by integrating findings from multiple sources of data to build and test a grounded theory or 
to refine or debunk a long-standing one that has been validated in other settings. Approaches 
vary as a researcher might initiate a study with a theoretical orientation, find themselves in a 
position to see the merits in more than one theoretical orientation, or unexpectedly find the 
need to reach out to the literature to find an explanation for a paradoxical finding. Each of these 
different approaches to theory construction or refinement underscores a commitment to the 
contribution to quality of diverse research practices and approaches. 
Purpose and contribution 
The text offers insight about the research methods and methodology of designing and doing 
research that integrates a mixed methods and grounded theory. The purpose of this text is to 
provide an instructional tool that advances the use of qualitative and mixed method procedures 
in the development and refinement of evidence-based explanatory models in education, health 
sciences, management, information, and other applied fields in the human and behavioral 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
DEFINITIONS 
sciences. The text will fit well in a graduate level research method training course or seminar 
that begins with a review of grounded theory methods and then shifts to how these can be 
extended through mixed methods. 
One of the aims of this chapter is to open the door for ongoing, cross-disciplinary dialog 
between qualitative and mixed methods researchers by presenting mixed method grounded 
theory methodology (MM-GTM) as a type of integrated methodology. A methodology is a 
specialized type of theory that provides a logic that links procedures. An integrated methodol-
ogy links one or more methods that are epistemologically compatible. The methodology is not 
presented as a critique of grounded theory, but as an expansion of the ways it can be used in 
research in the social and human sciences. 
The first chapter introduces some of the key terminology and many of the key themes 
that will be developed throughout the subsequent five chapters. It builds an argument for 
MM-GTM as an integrated methodology. The cross-cutting themes weave in and out of every 
chapter, re-surfacing in each to be further developed and elaborated. 
Three principal ideas are at the center of this chapter: 
1 
The methodological literature, if not necessarily what is evident in practice, has narrowly 
framed the use of mixed methods with grounded theory in ways that preserve the distinc-
tions between the qualitative and quantitative strands where one phase devoted to devel-
oping theory using grounded theory methods and a second that is used to refine or test it 
using quantitative methods. 
2 
A MM-GTM approach can also be used to develop or refine an explanatory framework 
in ways that embed the logic of mixed method in grounded theory analytical procedures. 
3 
Unexpected findings that emerge from comparing and integrating different sources of data 
are a major source of innovation and theoretical insights. 
Organization of the chapter 
The chapter begins by introducing different terms associated with both grounded theory and 
mixed methods, including by making a distinction between a theoretical (explanatory) and a con-
ceptual framework and between mixed method and multi-method research. It then moves to 
pointing to evidence of the prevalence of MM-GTM. The next section singles out an exemplar of 
fully integrated MM-GTM in a way that recognizes its complexity. Next, we consider MM-GTM 
as a distinct methodology that embeds an abductive logic and a back-and-forth exchange between 
data from different sources in the constant comparative method and to the analytical procedures like 
theoretical sampling so central to grounded theory. The use of examples and exemplars is discussed 
next, with an explanation of the distinction I make between the two. The chapter concludes by 
linking the key themes from this chapter to the wider set of cross-cutting themes. 
VARIOUS WAYS OF DEFINING THEORY AND ITS PURPOSE 
Theory construction is at the heart of the scientific process (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010) and 
evidence-based practice. A methodologist well known in the community of nursing scholars 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
DEFINITIONS 
and among mixed methodologists, Margarite Sandelowski (1993) maintains, stated or not, 
theoretical understanding is always implicit in the way a problem is conceived. Understood in 
everyday conversation as a hunch or supposition (Weick, 1995), a theory can be viewed simply 
as an explanation for the way things work (Collins & Stockton, 2018). In the context of empiri-
cal research, a theory is a cohesive explanatory framework generated through a systematic set of empirical 
procedures. In empirical research where theory is constructed from data, a theoretical framework 
offers an explanation for a complex phenomenon without erasing the variability in the way it is 
experienced. Expanding on the relationship between theory and the way research is executed, 
Agerfalk (2014) wrote: “Theories help to organize our thoughts, explain phenomena, ensure 
consistent explanations, improve our predictions, and inform design” (p. 594). 
In the context of the social and human sciences, the type of theory produced through 
MM-GTM is not an abstraction with limited practical utility. A theory can provide an explana-
tion or multiple explanations not only about what is happening in a setting, but also why and 
how that might be the case. Its practical utility to evidence-based policy and practices lies in 
offering a better understanding of the “why” and “how” of observed effects (Burch & Henrich, 
2017). This kind of reasoning is essential to justify an intervention designed to improve learn-
ing, health, or well-being. Without a theoretical basis, an intervention is an expensive version 
of trial and error (Eccles, Grimshaw, Walker, Johnston,& Pitts, 2005). Using multiple methods 
and multiple frameworks creates the best context for generating novel ideas and new insight 
(Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010). 
Theories help to organize our thoughts, explain phenomena, ensure consistent explana-
tions, improve our predictions, and inform design. 
(Agerfalk, 2014, p. 594) 
No matter how well substantiated, many widely cited theories about human behavior, such 
as those about learning or motivation or rational choice, are shaped by the socio-cultural climate 
at the time they were first conceived and validated. They can be a poor fit to guide investigations 
of dynamic environments like schools, hospitals, or for-profit or not-for-profit organization and 
the diverse clientele they serve. In a multi-cultural society, for example, it seems antiquated to 
assume a perspective developed in the 1950s that an immigrant’s acculturation to a new society 
requires the abandonment of one’s home culture, foods, and holiday practices. We can yearn for 
the seeming certainty offered by a well-established theory and validated instruments, but one 
of the principal conclusions drawn by researchers struggling to explain dissonance between the 
results suggested by their qualitative and quantitative data is that the phenomenon they studied 
were far more complex and multi-faceted than initially conceived (Creamer, 2018c). 
Grounded theory 
There are multiple prominent schools of thought about grounded theory and what constitutes its 
core principles. The method, according to Charmaz and Thornberg (2020), is often mistakingly 
treated as a “mechanical application of procedures” (p. 7). Grounded theory is first and foremost 
a methodology that provides a comprehensive approach to generate a theoretical framework inductively from 
data. “The very purpose of grounded theory research is to produce theory,” Sandelowski maintains 


 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
DEFINITIONS 
(1993, p. 214). The aim of grounded theory is to develop an abstract explanation, not predic-
tion (Charmaz, 2017a). Although approached in many different ways, grounded theory is con-
ventionally conceived as a systematic inductive or emergent approach to understand basic social 
psychological processes and the ways individuals, groups, or organizations change over time 
(Benoliel, 1996). According to Glaser, grounded theory is “the systematic generation of theory 
from data that has itself been systematically obtained” (1978a, p. 2). Although arguably in can 
never be entirely so, an inductive or emergent approach is used both to build and refine theory. 
Grounded theory makes the critical distinction between the process of discovery associated 
with an inductive mindset and theory generation and the confirmatory mindset and deductive 
reasoning associated with hypotheses testing. Theory building, not verification, is the aim of 
grounded theory (Urquhart, Lehmann, & Myers 2010). 
The very purpose of grounded theory research is to produce theory. 
(Sandelowski, 1993, p. 214) 
Although it is not something most grounded theorists write about, a conceptual frame-
work is one of many variants of the way that theorizing can be approached in a research study. 
This type of explanatory framework is a critical step in the process of constructing the design 
of a study because it can provide a logical coherence that links across of phases of the research 
process (Creswell & Plano, 2011; Maxwell & Loomis, 2003). A conceptual framework offers a tenta-
tive explanatory framework that is based on a synthesis of related literature and what is known in a practical 
way about a phenomenon. It is assembled by the researcher to map how all the literature works 
together in a study (Collins & Stockton, 2018). It reflects assumptions about the phenomenon 
being studied (Maxwell, 2012). A conceptual framework often integrates more than one theo-
retical perspective. Conflicting explanations evident in the literature can offer a convenient and 
elegant way to frame the need for a study. 
Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a theoretical (analytical or explana-
tory framework) and a conceptual framework differ in the source on which they are based. A 
theoretical framework is empirical; it emerges from a systematic and, hopefully, through analy-
sis of data. Although this point is controversial among grounded theory experts, a conceptual 
framework is structured through preliminary engagement with the literature. Likely to undergo 
many revisions over the course of a study, a conceptual framework serves multiple functions. 
These include (a) to identify a tentative set of core constructs, (b) to structure data collection 
instruments, and (c) to create a tentative, initial coding scheme. Viewing it as tentative and 
eminently revisable is one way to avoid “forcing” it on the interpretation of the data. It is help-
ful to maintain a stance where, as Gorard characterizes it, theory is always partial, tentative, and 
waiting to be replaced by a better explanation (Gorard, 2004). 
The role of preconceptions and the literature at the onset of a grounded theory study 
remains a hotly contested one among grounded theory practitioners, as does the discussion 
about how much the literature can be engaged at the onset of a study without unduly biasing the 
researcher. I address both are issues in Chapter 2. The invitation and the challenge in grounded 
theory is to maintain the type of exploratory stance that invites discovery and new insight. 
One of the methodological drives of grounded theory is as a data-driven way to under-
stand basic social-psychological processes that involve change over time (Benoliel, 1996). 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
DEFINITIONS 
Social-psychological processes are temporal in that they involve change over time. Charmaz 
describes a temporal process as having “clear beginnings and endings, and benchmarks in between” 
(2006, p. 10). This temporality is linked to a process that leads to change (Charmaz, 2006). 
Glaser (1978a) observed that research about basic social-psychological process can be based 
on the individual as the unit of analysis. A study about the development of identity as a scientist, 
engineer, or medical practitioner, for example, uses the individual as the unit of analysis. On the 
other hand, a study of teams might use the group as the unit of analysis. Understanding underly-
ing processes that shape a phenomenon is not simply about validating knowledge but developing 
explanations that point to connections and relationships that have not been observed before (Van 
Maanen, Sorensen, & Mitchell, 2007). It requires knowledge of interactions within a context 
(Irwin, 2008) and considering those contexts as multiple and multi-faceted (Charmaz, 2017a). 
Attending to social processes can offset the tendency in qualitative research, particularly in the 
Western world, to frame our questions and analysis at the level of the individual (Charmaz, 2017a). 
The potential to think theoretically about a phenomenon is vastly expanded when we step back 
from a singular focus on individual experiences, to one that considers these in terms of multiple, 
intersecting contextual influences. This might be how relationships, familial units, neighborhoods, 
communities, organizations, and culture can influence individual perceptions and experience. 
Examples of social-psychological process that might be the basis of a MM-GTM study are 
nearly endless. Some examples of social-psychological processes appear in the following: 
• 
Recovering from trauma 
• 
Becoming environmentally conscious 
• 
Re-acclimating after immersion in another culture 
• 
Withdrawing from an abusive relationship 
• 
Developing inclusive leadership practices 
• 
Navigating infertility 
• 
Learning a new technology 
• 
Living single 
• 
Embracing spirituality 
• 
Seeking help to enhance well-being 
• 
Evolving personal, sexual, or professional identity 
• 
Developing complex reasoning skills 
• 
Navigating a new culture 
• 
Developing corporate culture in an open building environment 
• 
Adapting to a new technological innovation 
Change rarely occurs in a linear or predictable way (Mason, 2006). Individuals, groups, or 
organizations are likely to vary in the paths they travel to accomplish change. 
Mixed methods and grounded theory 
A number of leading figures in the development of grounded theory as a methodology have 
pointed to, but not pursued, the potential that is inherent in either a multi-method or a mixed 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
DEFINITIONS 
methods approach to develop an explanatory framework. Most of these figures have framed 
their endorsement in terms of the value of the multiple sources of data, including using quan-
titative data, in grounded theory procedures. Glaser (1978a), for example, famously argued 
“all is data” when he extolled the value of taking advantage of a full range of different types 
and sources of data. This vantage point is also evident in a statement by Holton and Walsh 
(2017) who endorsed the inclusion of quantitative data in grounded theory, without pursuing 
it further by suggesting ways that might be accomplished. Authors of a textbook about classic 
grounded theory, Holton and Walsh noted: “For grounded theorists, using both qualitative 
and quantitative data opens a vast realm of additional empirical possibilities for generating 
theory” (2017, p. 11). 
Others have made a more obvert connection between mixed methods and grounded 
theory by suggesting it can involve not only different sources of qualitative and quantitative 
data, but also analytical procedures. This viewpoint is evident, for example, in a statement 
by Kathy Charmaz, an influential spokesperson for a constructivist approach to grounded 
theory, when she wrote but did not further pursue the idea that “an emerging grounded 
theory can indicate needing more than one type of data and can incorporate more than 
one type of analysis” (2014a, p. 323). Isabelle Walsh offered an expansive point of view of 
the way integration can occur that goes beyond just data. She wrote: “A [grounded theory] 
may thus be generated using qualitative and/or quantitative data, methods, and techniques” 
(2015, p. 536). 
The contribution of dissonance, ambiguity, and paradox is so central to my view of 
mixed methods and what Jennifer Greene (2007) refers to as a “mixed method way of 
thinking” that it is explicitly referenced in my working definition of mixed method 
research: 
A systematic approach to data collection and analysis that combines different sources of 
data and quantitative and qualitative analytical procedures with the intention to engage 
multiple perspectives in order to more fully understand complex social phenomenon. 
Dissonance between the results supported by analyses of diferent or integrated sources of data 
often can be the frst clear indication that a phenomenon is more complex and multi-faceted 
than initially conceived (Creamer, 2018c). 
Mixed method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM) is a methodology that 
embeds a dialectical logic in the constant comparative method and grounded theory procedures to develop a 
mid-level theoretical framework or to elaborate an existing one. MM-GTM studies that demonstrate 
more than a cursory familiarity with grounded theory as a method and methodology often 
award more priority to the qualitative research methods than to mixed methods. In the nota-
tion system that serves as a shorthand among methodologists with expertise in mixed methods, 
the double capitalizing is intended to communicate an equal partnership where neither mixed 
methods nor grounded theory is demoted to a secondary position during data collection and 
analysis. The fact the mixed methods appears first in this abbreviation is more a reflection of 
my own interests and expertise than it is a statement that one methodology is more important 
than the other. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
DEFINITIONS 
Fully integrated mixed method research 
Fully integrated mixed method research (FIMMR) is an approach to mixed methods research 
where integration of qualitative and quantitative data and/or analytical procedures is embedded throughout 
the research process; from the formulation of research questions, to data collection and sampling, during 
analysis, and during the process of drawing of conclusions (Burch & Heinrich, 2017; Creamer, 2018a; 
Nastasi, Hitchcock, & Brown, 2010; Tashakkori, 2003). As compared to an equal priority 
mixed method design where the strands are compartmentalized but no one method is subordi-
nated, results that emerge from integrated analytical procedures, it is best described as reflecting 
a mixed priority (Creamer, 2018a). 
FIMMR was first described as the “most advanced, and most dynamic of all mixed 
model designs” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 689). Contemporary views of this design 
frame it as one that is highly compatible with research launched with the purpose to better 
understand the complex interplay between micro- (i.e., individual) and macro- (i.e., his-
torical, political, organizational, interactional) that is so characteristic of multi-level mixed 
methods research (Creamer, 2018a). The word “dynamic” reflects how fully integrated 
research often has to adapt not only to changes in the research environment or among a 
research team, but also to the unexpected detours introduced when data and methods are 
thoroughly integrated. 
Fully integrated mixed method grounded theory methodology (FIMM-GTM) 
uses grounded theory procedures and strategies to integrate different sources of data through-
out the research process, including during data analyses, to produce and sometimes to test a 
theoretical framework. 
Indications of the prevalence of MM-GTM 
Guetterman, Babchuck, Howell Smith, and Stevens (2017) were the first set of authors to 
offer some indication of the prevalence of MM-GTM. They located 61 MM-GTM articles 
using conventional search terms and the procedures of a systematic review. Their search pro-
cedures pulled in articles that included the use both the words “qualitative” and “quantita-
tive” in the title or abstract but did not necessarily incorporate a reference to either mixed 
method or multi-method. It is possible that the search terms may have contributed to the 
disappointing results that emerged from their cataloging of the features of these studies. Only 
about one-third of the publications provided any evidence of employing or producing a theo-
retical framework. Most fell far short of using the full complement of grounded theory pro-
cedures. These authors were no doubt disappointed to conclude: “Researcher employing 
grounded theory in mixed methods research rarely drew upon all or even most of the features 
of grounded theory” (p. 10). 
A count of the appearance of in doctoral dissertations offers a second indicator of the 
prevalence of MM-GTM. Howell Smith et al. (2019) executed a systematic search of doctoral 
dissertations where the words “grounded theory” and “mixed methods” appeared anywhere 
in the text. Their electronic search revealed that mixed methods and grounded theory have 
been paired in doctoral research for quite some time. They located 482 dissertations, with an 
average of 48 dissertations appearing between 2011 and 2017. The number of dissertations 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
DEFINITIONS 
increased steadily from 2001 through 2016, followed by a decline in number in 2016 
and 2017. Now readily accessible through online repositories, doctoral dissertations are 
likely the best prognosticator that the idea of pairing mixed methods with grounded 
theory. 
A “classic” approach to MM-GTM 
Well known among the community of scholars who have built an argument for the epistemo-
logical foundations of mixed methods in dialectical pluralism, R. Burke Johnson joined two 
other colleagues to introduce the idea that MM-GTM is a distinct methodological approach 
(see Johnson, McGowan, & Turner, 2010). Johnson et al. coined the expression mixed method 
grounded theory (MM-GT). They pointed to a way that mixed methods can leverage the idea 
first articulated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) that grounded theories can be constructed from 
both qualitative and quantitative data. 
Facing a climate when there were still heated debates about the compatibility between 
qualitative and quantitative methods, Johnson et al. (2010) conceptualized MM-GTM in 
ways I do not. They framed it as mixing two dramatically different sets of philosophi-
cal assumptions about how knowledge is constructed. They argued that “MM-GTM as 
articulated here offers a creative and dynamic combination of objectivist and constructiv-
ist grounded theory” (p. 74). Objectivist believe in a singular reality that can be captured 
objectively, while constructivists highlight that reality is often multiple and everyone expe-
riences it in different ways. Johnson et al. (2010) positioned MM-GTM as an opportu-
nity to fuse the “conflicting demands” (p. 72) of generating nomothetic (i.e., law-like, 
generalizable) knowledge with particularistic, local, and contextual ideographic knowl-
edge. The separation that is maintained between the qualitative and quantitative phases in 
this approach to MM-GTM makes it possible to accommodate two different paradigmatic 
perspectives. 
Johnson et al. (2010) offered a view of MM-GTM that clearly differentiates the purpose 
and methods used in the qualitative and quantitative strands of a study. Greene (2007) refers to 
this type of approach as a component design. This conceptualization matches the foundational 
categorization of mixed methods designs as primarily either concurrent (data collection and 
analysis occur separately) or sequential (one phase precedes, and is dependent, on another). 
Johnson et al. (2010) prioritized triangulation, rather than analytical insight, as the principal 
reason for using mixed methods. 
The logic of component design is evident in the way that Johnson et al. (2010) distin-
guished different purposes for the qualitative and quantitative strands of a study. This same logic, 
cast at the project rather than study level, is evident in the impressive body of work produced 
by Judith Wuest about a two-decade-long project to develop a theory about family caregiving 
that used MM-GTM (Wuest & Hodgins, 2011). The qualitative and quantitative phases served 
a distinct purpose. The initial phase was a qualitative one. It used grounded theory procedures 
to identify a core construct and to pose hypotheses about the relationships between constructs 
for the purpose of developing a theoretical framework. A quantitative phase followed the initial 
qualitative one. Its role was statistically to test the reliability of the constructs and the signifi-
cance of the paths that linked them. 


10 
DEFINITIONS 
Johnson et al. (2010) viewed MM-GTM in a complementary way in that qualitative and 
quantitative data are collected about different constructs and for different purposes. Qualita-
tive analysis, for example, can provide an indication of an underlying causal mechanism while 
quantitative data more readily identifies both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes. Emerg-
ing so recently after the emergence of mixed methods as a distinct methodology in the late 
1980s, the timeframe Johnson and colleagues were operating in may have made it difficult for 
them to envision the possibility that qualitative and quantitative data could be collected about 
the same constructs. 
The logic of a classic approach to MM-GTM introduced by Johnson et al. (2010) extends 
to one its first formal manifestations in reporting that emerged from a dissertation completed 
by Minjung Shim (Shim et al., 2017) that is discussed in greater detail in the final chapter. R. 
B. Johnson was a member of the doctoral committee. The committee also contained a mem-
ber widely recognized for her expertise in grounded theory. Shim described her research as 
employing a multi-phase mixed methods research design. Shim declared that the purpose of her 
research was to build and confirm a grounded theory model. In reality, like virtually all MM-
GTM research with this aim, she achieved more than a single purpose. She confirmed parts 
of the preliminary model developed from the literature and interviews, while simultaneously 
elaborating it by removing and adding constructs and hypothesized paths that linked them. 
Prioritizing the role of mixed methods in building explanatory power 
A number of methodologists writing about mixed methods have prioritized the purposes it can 
serve in MM-GTM in ways that extend beyond the classic purpose identified by Johnson et al. 
(2010) in the first discussion about it to appear in print. Members of this group have showcased 
the potential contribution of mixed methods in a way that is compatible to the purpose of 
grounded theory to assist with the process of theorizing. Writing from the field of information 
systems, Isabelle Walsh (2015), for example, highlights the role of integrating different types of 
data for purposes above and beyond triangulation: “The purpose is not to test or correct what 
has been found previously, but to extend understanding of the phenomenon under scrutiny and 
the scope of the emerging theory” (2015, p. 550). 
One of the most compelling arguments for the use of mixed methods is the potential 
to promote sophisticated analytical conceptualizations (Fielding, 2009, 2012). Fielding (2012) 
maintains the “radical potential” of mixed methods is not in terms of confirmation and a search 
for the “right answer” but “to build prismatic understanding of social phenomenon and the 
potential to promote analytical density” meaning the potential for “sophisticated analytical con-
ceptualization” (p. 125). Fielding advocates for recognizing the value-added of mixed methods 
in creating inferences or a conceptual explanation with greater analytic density or conceptual 
richness (2009). Analytic density refers to the potential to build the type of multi-dimensional 
conceptual understanding of social phenomenon that is essential to the iterative process of 
building knowledge in a scientific way (Fielding, 2012). Associated with validity, analytical density 
refers to envisioning constructs in a multi-dimensional way or to developing or elaborating an explanatory 
framework in a way that adds conceptual nuance or richness. Analytic density can be achieved by 
strategies that integrate findings from different methods in ways that create the opportunity 
to discern patterns, detect relationships between constructs, identify conditions that influence 


 
 
 
DEFINITIONS 
11 
the outcome, and that recognize the multi-dimensionality of core constructs (Creamer, 2021). 
The opposite of analytical density, according to Fielding (2009), is the type of tunnel vision 
that leads an investigator to refuse to engage a hypothesis or theoretical proposition because it 
is incompatible with his or her preconceptions. 
The radical potential of mixed methods is not in terms of confirmation but to build pris-
matic understanding of phenomenon and the potential to promote analytical density. 
(Fielding, 2012, p. 125) 
Similarly, in writing about the link between thinking of research problems in a multi-dimen-
sional way, Jennifer Mason (2006), a sociologist, mounted an argument for putting explanation 
at the center of our social research inquiry. She wrote: “Placing explanation at the center of 
enquiry refects an interest in the complexities of how and why things change and work as they 
do in certain contexts and circumstances” (Mason, 2006, p. 19). 
An exemplar of MM-GTM 
Research driven by the purpose of integrating mixed methods with grounded theory to develop 
a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding is evident in the research Kawamura under-
took for her dissertation, under the supervision of a leader in the mixed methods world, Nataliya 
Ivankova (i.e., Kawamura, Ivankova, Kohler, & Purumean-Chaney, 2009). From the field of 
public health, her dissertation produced results that suggested that a sense of identification with 
a popular media figure can promote behavioral change among patients with hypertension. The 
fixing drive of a conventional parallel/concurrent mixed methods design accounts for why 
these authors chose to postpone integration of the results of the qualitative and quantitative data 
until the penultimate point of bringing the results together at the inference stage. 
Box 1.1 summarizes key features of the Kawamura et al. (2009), including its purpose, the 
way it was designed, how integration was achieved, strategies used to navigate dissonance, and 
the theory produced. 
BOX 1.1 
Kawamura et al.’s (2009) Study of the Impact of a Health Intervention 
Purpose: Kawamura et al. (2009) achieved a good deal more than they set out 
to in this complex multi-layered study from the field of public health that was 
framed to develop an integrated grounded theory model using mixed methods 
to explore how a sense of identification with a media figure in radio program 
might impact levels of activity among patients with cardiovascular disease. 
Design: Referred to as a concurrent or parallel mixed method design because 
the qualitative and quantitative data were collected, analyzed, and reported 


 
 
 
12 
DEFINITIONS 
separately. The instruments were designed to expand understanding of a con-
ceptual model developed from the literature. The sample of participants for both 
strands overlapped. 
Integration: Integration occurred at the final inference stage when the theo-
retical framework developed from quantitative analysis and the grounded theory 
produced from the qualitative phase. The interweaving of qualitative and quan-
titative constructs produced a composite grounded theory model with a more 
multi-faceted set of positive and negative consequences of the program than 
was initially conceived. It also identified a set of mediating factors that influ-
enced the process. 
Unexpected findings: Because integration did not occur until the final stage of 
drawing the composite model, inconsistencies between findings from the quali-
tative and quantitative strands were not pursued. 
Theory produced: These authors developed a final composite model that has 
all the components of classic grounded theory. At the center of the model is 
a three-stage temporal sequence that begins with identified similarity with the 
media figure, moves to emotional involvement, and advances to gains in motiva-
tion, attitude, and practice. The composite model is unique because proposed 
paths (relationships between constructs) were generated from both the qualita-
tive and quantitative analysis. Some constructs and paths in the model were 
derived from both qualitative and quantitative sources. 
The authors use language about the value-added of a mixed methods approach to the 
development of a grounded theory that highlights its link to complexity. The authors observe: 
Neither a quantitative nor a qualitative study by itself would explain the degree and com-
plexity of [parasocial] impact on physical activity and self-efficacy and practices in the 
context of this study. Integrating the two models developed from the analysis of quantita-
tive and qualitative study strands provided both the level of detail and comprehensiveness 
needed to understand this complex social phenomenon and its roles in promoting health 
behavior among its participants. 
(Kawamura et al., 2009, p. 100) 
The reference to “comprehensiveness” points to the complementarity rationale for using mixed 
methods where the principal outcome is to produce a more comprehensive, multi-layered, and 
nuanced explanation. 
The composite model produced by Kawamura et al. (2009) is essentially a multi-layered, 
holistic meta-inference that combines qualitatively and quantitatively derived constructs and 
paths. An innovative feature of this article is the way the theoretical framework is visualized. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFINITIONS 
13 
FIGURE 1.1 Final Composite Model from Kawamura et al. (2009) 
Graphics that depict interrelationships (paths) between constructs derived from both qualitative 
and quantitative procedures is another innovative feature of this visualization. Different shad-
ing techniques are used to identify qualitatively and quantitatively derived outcomes, paths, and 
mediating factors. Although it only applies in one case, a different box shape designates constructs 
in the model that are supported by both qualitative and quantitative data. The uses of different 
types of visual symbols and its acknowledgment of both convergence and divergence are the two 
principal reasons I reproduce their Figure 4 here with copyright permission as Figure 1.1. 
The fact that qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed separately (a 
concurrent, parallel design) accounts Kawamura et al.’s (2009) approach to navigating the incon-
sistencies between qualitative and quantitative findings that emerged once they were considered 
together as an integrated whole. The authors commented on the inconsistencies, which were 
substantial, but reported no steps to reconcile them. Labeling their findings as contradictory, 
Kawamura et al. observed: “Four of the five features [of the model] were identified as contra-
dictory across the findings of the qualitative and quantitative analysis” (p. 96). Framing that the 
results of the quantitative and qualitatively derived grounded theory models as complementary 
by virtue of addressing different research questions, these authors sidestepped further analysis 
but chose to embellish their initial conceptual model with some additional constructs that 
emerged over the course of the analyses. 
MM-GTM as an invitation to leverage dissonance and paradox 
A process that is deliberate about engaging the dissonance and paradox often introduced by 
diverse viewpoints among collaborators or between findings from different analytical procedures 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14 
DEFINITIONS 
is the hinge that links mixed methods, grounded theory, and complexity. Rather than being 
framed as a problem or a by-product that signals a weakness in the methods, dissonance, and the 
uncertainty associated with it is prized in a dialectical perspective for its potential to generate 
innovative insight. The potential for dissonance and the contribution of a dialectical stance to 
innovative insight is a theme that connects this and my first textbook (Creamer, 2018a). Jen-
nifer Greene, an influential figure in the formalization of mixed methods as a methodology, is 
often quoted for her description of a dialectical stance. She writes, a dialectical stance “seeks 
not so much convergence as insight . . . the generation of important understanding through the 
juxtaposition of different lenses, perspectives, and stances” (Greene, 2005, p. 208). Dissonance is 
not an apologetic footnote to research in mixed methods: it is a player at the center of the stage. 
A mixed method way of thinking actively engages with difference and diversity. 
(Greene, 2005, p. 208) 
The role of seemingly stark diferences between preliminary fndings emerging from qualita-
tive and quantitative analytical procedures and the contribution of unexpected sources of data 
is evident in two of the exemplars I feature in this textbook. As she navigated the complexities 
of her dissertation research, fndings that countered the intent of her randomized control study 
(RCT) led Christina Catallo to take an unexpected detour. She diagrammed an individual 
change map for each participant to pinpoint the key decision points of a group of women who 
scored high on a survey about intimate partner violence, but nevertheless chose not to disclose 
it to emergency room personnel (i.e., Catallo, Jack, Ciliska, & MacMillan, 2013). Catallo et al.’s 
research is discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. 
Although mixed methods and grounded theory have been paired productively and innova-
tive ways for quite some time, particularly in applied fields like education and nursing, a philo-
sophical foundation for this argument has not previously been developed. I explore this task in 
some detail in the next section of the chapter. 
CONCEPTUALIZING MM-GTM AS A METHODOLOGY 
Both mixed methods and grounded theory have been characterized as methodologies that 
are adaptable to diverse circumstances and priorities. Innovative applications of each continue 
to emerge. Highlighting the ways researchers adapt grounded theory to diverse circum-
stances, Seidel and Urquhart (2013, p. 237) observed: “Grounded theory method (GTM) is 
an evolving method that is subject to idiosyncratic interpretation and flexible deployment.” 
Reiterating the idiosyncratic way grounded theory has been deployed, Morse and Niehaus 
(2009) maintain that “All types of grounded theory are individual methods in their own 
right” (Morse & Niehaus, 2009, p. 95). The way an investigator deploys a methodology is an 
expression of his or her ontological and epistemological perspective and the wider social and 
intellection strains of thought that influence a time period (Ralph, Birks, & Chapman, 2015). 
There are multiple areas of the overlap between the methodological assumptions of 
grounded theory and mixed methods. The areas where there is an overlap in the method-
ological assumptions provide the groundwork for the argument of MM-GTM as a distinct 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFINITIONS 
15 
• Utilized mostly 
in applied fields 
• Aim to contribute 
to analytic density 
• Considers
 multi-level 
sociocultural
 context 
• Adaptive 
Design 
• Iterative 
Component 
• Sensitizing 
Concept 
• Constant 
Comparative 
Method 
• Theoretical 
Samping 
• Abduction 
• Adaptible to 
Diverse 
Paradigms 
Contextual 
Issues 
Research 
Design 
Analytic 
Procedures 
Analytic 
Logic 
FIGURE 1.2 The Link Between Mixed Methods, Grounded Theory Methods, and Theory 
Building 
methodology if not a meta-methodology. As a distinct methodology, MM-GTM has own 
rationale for linking a set of core procedures and using them in a systematic way. 
Principal areas of methodological compatibility between mixed methods and grounded 
theory include the following: 
1 
The aim is to develop analytic density. 
2 
Adaptable to diverse philosophical positions and paradigms. 
3 
Both adapts and generates complexity. 
4 
An iterative approach to both data collection and analysis. 
5 
Abduction as one of the analytical logics that can be used with the constant comparative 
method and theoretical sampling. 
6 
Abduction powers theoretical sampling. 
Figure 1.2 summarizes key areas of overlap between the methodological framework of 
grounded theory and mixed methods. Four areas are highlighted: contextual issues, research 
design, analytic logic, and analytic procedures. The contextual overlap between grounded the-
ory and mixed methods includes (a) an emphasis on developing analytical density, (b) that both 
methods are used most frequently in applied fields, (c) compatibility with diverse philosophi-
cal paradigms, and (d) that research questions are constructed in a multi-dimensional way that 
recognizes a multi-layered social-cultural context. 
A second area of overlap shown in Figure 1.2 relates to an adaptive design (Poth, 2020) 
that both recognizes and generates complexity. An iterative component fueled by the constant 
comparative method is a second feature of the design. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 
DEFINITIONS 
The analytic logic recognized in Figure 1.2 highlights abduction as part of both the con-
stant comparative method and theoretical sampling. The final section of Figure 1.2 recognizes 
analytical procedures that can accommodate many types of approaches, including mixed meth-
ods. This applies to theoretical sampling, developing a coding system, and the role of the lit-
erature and other theories in serving as sensitizing concepts and to explain unexpected findings 
that emerge during the coding process. 
The methodological assumptions of most approaches to grounded theory and mixed 
methods might seem to differ in terms of the appreciation for the contribution of dissonance 
to generating theoretical insight. This is related to the role of verification and the treatment 
of exceptions. Very little space is awarded to these topics in most textbooks about grounded 
theory. The act of engaging or integrating findings from different sources of data that occurs in 
mixed methods allows for confirmation, but at the same time recognizes the disconnects that 
generate topics for further exploration. 
We further explore some of the major areas of overlap between mixed methods and 
grounded theory in the next section. 
Compatibility with multiple paradigms 
A fourth way that the methodological grounding of mixed methods and grounded theory is 
compatible is that both have proven accommodating of diverse perspectives. Both grounded 
theory and mixed methods have been adapted by investigators operating from diverse epistemo-
logical paradigms. Urquhart made this point by observing, for example, that grounded theory 
can be “appropriated by researchers with different assumptions about knowledge and how it can 
be obtained” (2013, p. 36). Grounded theory has been approached from diverse paradigmatic 
perspectives that include post-positivism, interpretivism, constructivism, postmodernism, criti-
cal inquiry (Mills, Bonner, & Francis, 2006; Sebastian, 2019), and pragmatism (Morgan, 2014). 
Morgan has taken the controversial position that a pragmatic approach guides most social sci-
ence research methodology, including mixed methods (2013, 2014) and grounded theory (2020). 
Without overlooking its link to a pragmatic grounding, others writing about mixed methods affili-
ate with the lens of dialectical pluralism as a guide for investigators committed to the exploration of 
diverse perspectives (e.g., Johnson, 2012) or a commitment to social justice that is associated with 
a transformative research agenda. Researchers joining interdisciplinary endeavors are likely to need 
competencies in more than one method and to recognize the legitimacy of more than one paradigm. 
The iterative exchange embedded in the constant comparative method 
One of the principal arguments for the compatibility between the mixed methods and grounded 
theory derives from an endorsement voiced by the founders of grounded theory, now more 
than 50 years ago. The constant comparative method is an approach to analysis convention-
ally framed to mean that data analysis and data collection co-occur. It is an analytical strategy where 
data, and eventually emerging constructs and themes, are continuously compared and contrasted as data 
collection and analysis unfolds. Whether you are in the field, collecting data or using a secondary 
data set, analysis begins as the first unit of data is encountered. 
Walsh (2014) used language that suggests a link between mixed methods and the constant 
comparative method. “Data are continuously compared to previously collected and analyzed 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFINITIONS 
17 
data, looking for similarities and differences to help toward conceptualizing and theory building,” 
Walsh wrote (2014). She added: “The use of mixed methods can feed into the cycles of induc-
tive analysis and constant comparison required by the grounded theory method” (2014 p. 13). 
In a study with a strong mixed methods orientation, Gasson and Waters (2013) also referred to 
the analytical process they employed in ways that link mixed methods, grounded theory, and 
the constant comparative method: “Qualitative and quantitative analyses where embedded, and 
our results emerged through constant iterations between qualitative and quantitative data as they 
were collected and thru the analyses of all our data as one set” (p. 154), they noted. 
MM-GTM is adaptable for use with an existing data set. This could be the case, for exam-
ple, with a study involving social media posts or a body of documents like case notes or memos, 
where analysis could be launched with a small a subset of the data. In this scenario, theoretical 
sampling might involve dipping back into a data set to target the selection of cases to further 
elaborate the properties of a core construct. 
Linking the constant comparative method to an abductive logic 
Other authors have pointed to the same type of iterative cycle during analysis that Walsh 
(2014) linked to the constant comparative method but identify it as an approach to analysis that 
has roots in American pragmatism. It is referred to as abduction. Abduction is one of three 
approaches to reasoning that include induction (generalizing from the specific to the general) 
and deduction (generalizing from the general to the specific) (Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feld-
man, 2008). Understood in a generic way, it is the process of generating multiple possible explanations for 
an unexpected or surprising finding (Charmaz, 2019; Locke et al., 2008), treating these as tentative 
hypotheses or theoretical propositions. Abduction is recognized as analytic induction in some 
approaches to grounded theory (Suddaby, 2006). Because it involves engagement with prior 
knowledge it is not compatible with Glaserian or classic grounded theory (Morgan, 2020). The 
act of abduction is akin to a detective generating multiple possible explanations for something 
that might seem subtly off kilter in a crime scene. Obtaining additional data to rule out com-
peting hypotheses is linked to internal validity (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). 
In an article provocatively titled “What Grounded Theory is Not,” Roy Suddaby of the Uni-
versity of Alberta in Canada characterized abduction in a way that directly links it to the constant 
comparative method. Suddaby, writing from the field of management, characterizes abduction 
as “a process by which a researcher moves between induction and deduction while practicing 
the constant comparative method” (2006, p. 639). Although the line between the two is not 
hard and fast, induction is considered exploratory and has long been associated with a qualitative 
approach. It is the line of reasoning so central to grounded theory that begins with observations 
about data and moves to more abstract generalizations. Deduction, on the other hand, is most 
frequently associated with hypotheses or theory testing and quantitative approaches. It is the 
process of testing how well a generalization fits data. Grounded theory requires the interplay 
between induction and deduction (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Because it involves the process of 
generating multiple possible explanations, particularly when those are heterogeneous, it is argued 
that abduction is the only approach to reasoning that can lead to original insight and introduce 
new conceptual views of a phenomenon (Locke et al., 2008; Weick, 1989). 
An abductive approach to analysis introduces a level of complexity by introducing doubt 
and uncertainty during the research process. In making a case for its centrality to original 


 
 
18 
DEFINITIONS 
insight, Locke et al. (2008) highlight the pivotal role that doubt or uncertainty play in the pro-
cess of theorizing. Doubt can initiate an inquiry, as when a researcher finds competing expla-
nations for a phenomenon, none of which resonates with her experience. Locke et al. vividly 
capture the process that might ensue when preliminary analysis yields dissonance in that the 
results are completely at odds with what was anticipated: 
Doubt is the engine of abduction. The living state of doubt drives and energizes us to 
generate possibilities, try them out, modify, transform, or abandon them, try again, and so 
on, until new concepts or patters are generated that productively satisfy our doubt. From 
this perspective, doubt is essential, not aberrant, part of the research process: The question 
is not whether, but how to engage doubt [emphasis theirs]. 
(p. 908) 
These authors highlight the inventiveness that is required to work your way through these kinds 
of “empirical conundrums.” 
An abductive process is particularly useful in light of unexpected research findings (Tim-
mermans & Tavory, 2012). It is probably very compatible with a team setting where collabora-
tors work in a very interactive style and feel free to bat about very different ideas about how 
to explain paradoxical findings. In an abductive approach, intriguing findings can generate a 
very tentative hypothesis (if–then types of statements generally referred to as propositions in 
grounded theory research) that are weighed deductively, and then further excavated by addi-
tional data analyses and often data collection. 
Table 1.1 provides an overview of the steps in an analytical process for MM-GTM that is 
iterative and includes an inductive, deductive, and abductive logic during analysis. The table 
highlights integration by adding a center column that is absent from more conventional depic-
tions of the research process in mixed methods research. 
TABLE 1.1 Overview of Steps in the Process of Analyzing Multiple Sources of Data in 
MM-GTM Through an Abductive Process* 
Steps 
Qualitatively 
Integration 
Quantitatively 
Analyzed Data 
Analyzed Data 
Step 1 
Initial analysis 
Initial analysis 
Step 2 
Preliminary inferences 
compared with a 
combination of induction and 
deduction; some confirmed. 
Step 3 
Alternative explanations 

generated. 

Step 4 
Revisit initial analysis; new 
Revisit initial analysis; 

analysis; additional data 
new analysis; additional 
sought. 
data sought. 
Step 5 
Compare new round of 

tentative inferences; draft or 
refine a theoretical model. 
* To be read from the top down. 


DEFINITIONS 
19 
Table 1.1 depicts an analytical process that begins with the separate analysis of qualita-
tive and quantitative data that can occur in concurrently or sequentially. Then it shifts to a 
more integrated approach where there is a type of cycling between induction and deduction 
to generate hypotheses and then to move on to explore them further through additional data 
collection and analysis (Thomas, 2010). Rather than the view emerging from the first and sec-
ond generation of methodological textbooks about mixed methods that frame inferences and 
meta-inferences as only occurring at the final stage of the analytical process, Table 1.1 depicts a 
process where interpretation and inferences are drawn throughout the research process. 
The type of active dialog depicted in Table 1.1 between findings emerging from different 
sources of data requires both creativity and insight into its potential implications that can only 
come from being embedded in the literature. One who argues that regardless of paradigm all 
research involves interpretation, Bazeley writes: “Researchers move routinely between deduc-
tive and inductive thinking about their topic as they consider what is known and puzzle about 
what they are finding out in an iterative cycle of developing and testing ideas from and with 
data” (2018b, pp. 335–336). I explore the process of abduction further in Chapter 3 about how 
a mixed methods approach can be embedded in grounded theory procedures. 
The link to complexity 
The complex nature of individual actions and interactions within multi-layered socio-cultural 
context is a third rationale for the compatibility between mixed methods and grounded theory 
(Guetterman et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2010). “We believe that the human world is especially 
rich and complex, and that MM-GTM can offer an important method for understanding com-
plexity,” Johnson et al. observed (2010, p. 72). Complexity requires a dynamic research design 
that can accommodate changes in the research environment and navigate empirical findings 
that do not always cohere in expected ways (Poth, 2018a). A telltale sign of complexity is when 
researchers end an investigation realizing that the phenomenon they studied is far more com-
plex than they initially understood. 
Mixed methods research projects almost always involve complex study designs (Saint 
Arnault & Fetters, 2011). There are multiple signals that a research design is complex. Three 
signatures of a complex research design include: (a) when the core construct is multi-dimen-
sional and framed as embedded in a socio-cultural context, (b) data are collected from multiple 
levels of an organization, or (c) when participants are distributed across geographically diverse 
settings (Poth, 2018b). In a school setting, for example, this might include teachers, parents, 
students, and administrators in multiple different settings. Diversity among collaborators is 
another dimension of complexity (Poth, 2018b). Saturation of the properties of all categories 
can be an elusive standard to achieve in a complex research design. 
Contributions of each method 
That both mixed methods and grounded theory make a distinct contribution is an additional 
dimension of the argument for distinguishing MM-GTM as a distinct methodology. For 
grounded theory, this includes assurances that there will be a genuine exploratory or inductive 
phase that resists the logic of hypotheses testing. An additional contribution is that it offers a 


 
 
 
 
 
 
20 
DEFINITIONS 
Value-Added of GT 
Set of Analytical 
Procedures 
Ensure there is a Strong 
Exploratory Component 
Value-Added 
of MMR 
Incentive to use 
multiple types of 
data. 
Attention to exceptions, 
verfication, & 
dissonance. 
Diverse approaches 
to sampling. 
FIGURE 1.3 Overlap Between the Analytic Logic and Procedures of Grounded Theory 
and Mixed Methods 
set of procedures for data collection and analysis that are absent from mixed methods. Both of these 
can offset an inclination to downplay the qualitative portion of MM-GTM. The unique contribu-
tion of mixed methods includes a push to be inclusive of different types of data, a logic that justifies 
attention to dissonance, and more options for sampling, verification, and weighing exceptions. 
Figure 1.3 uses a Venn diagram to depict the unique contributions of grounded theory and 
of mixed methods as research methods used in a MM-GTM project. 
The topics of verification or confirmation and the treatment of exceptions are two areas 
where it is possible to pinpoint what can be gained through the pairing of mixed methods and 
grounded theory. Leading voices in the different approaches to grounded theory, including its 
founders, do not award much attention to procedures that contribute to verification, seeing 
the purpose of grounded theory as developing theory rather than verifying it (Dey, 1999). The 
same ambivalence extends to exceptions and outliers. Charmaz acknowledges the role of con-
firming hunches and promising leads but resists the idea of systematic attempts at verification in 
grounded theory (Morgan, 2020). There is little justification for verification in constructivism 
because all truth claims are equally valid (Bryant, 2009). Similarly, dissonance is only prioritized 
as a source of original insight in postmodern approaches to grounded theory (Apramian, Cris-
tancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017). 
DISTINGUISHING EXEMPLARS OF AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO 
MM-GTM 
For me, insight about the ways mixed methods is used in practice has been propelled less 
by a prescription derived from a textbook, but from attention to dissecting how it has been 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFINITIONS 
21 
reported in empirical publications. When it is driven by curiosity and the quest to find 
innovative examples, the scope of the search for exemplars profits by a purposeful strategy 
to expand the reach of the mainstream journals, like the Journal of Mixed Method Research or 
the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, which have made such an impact on 
the field. These are by no means the only sources of creative examples of mixed methods 
research. Appearance of good examples in a wide range of disciplinary venues that extend 
beyond those in health sciences and education attest not only to the breadth of the use of 
mixed approaches and its acceptance in many publication venues, but also can be seen as one 
way that mixed methods promotes conversations that cross disciplines. I have been very pur-
poseful in my selection of examples and exemplars in this text to present an expansive view 
of the way that mixed methods and grounded theory methods have been combined to com-
municate its wide use across multiple disciplinary venues. For the sake of simplicity, I refer 
to them all as MM-GTM even though it would be more accurate to describe the examples 
as MM-GT. 
My own search to locate every possible article I could lay my hands on that include the 
terms “grounded theory” and “mixed methods” in the title or abstract, has brought me to a 
more positive impression than Guetterman et al. (2017) were able to extract from their catalog-
ing of the way grounded theory procedures was implemented. On scrutiny, I set aside most of 
the examples they located through a systematic review as reflecting a simple QUAL + QUAN 
combination logic. This means they had a qualitative phase and a quantitative phase, but the 
two were not integrated in a meaningful way. This is the reason there is little overlap between 
the articles this group located through their systematic search procedures and the articles I use 
as examples and exemplars in this text. 
I ultimately selected nine articles to feature as exemplars of MM-GTM from about 50 
articles I studied with considerable intensity. I consulted more than one article about an exem-
plar when it was possible with the conviction derived from an earlier study that this approach 
not only yields more data but also provides a more accurate way to gauge integration and the 
use of a theoretical framework (i.e., Creamer, Guetterman, Govia, & Fetters, 2020). A sum-
mary of each of the exemplars is set aside in each chapter in a text box. A list of these appears 
in Appendix A. All of the exemplars I selected refer to use mixed methods to develop and/or 
to refine a theoretical or conceptual framework. Each appeared in the form of a peer-reviewed 
journal article. Each has a rigorous qualitative phase where qualitative data and analytical pro-
cedures are not used simply to add color and human interest to reporting, but for purposes of 
expanding and enriching explanatory insight. 
Qualities of the exemplars include the following: 
1 
Adequate documentation of research methods. 
2 
A reference list that reflects more than a passing acquaintance with the methodological 
literature of both traditions. The most methodologically rigorous of these articles reflects 
knowledge of both mixed and grounded theory methods. 
3 
Often, an unusual visual. 
Table 1.2 provides a list of the exemplars of MM-GTM and identifies the chapter where 
they are featured. All of these are FIMM-GTM. Table 1.2 lists the articles, their academic field, 


 
 
 
 
 
22 
DEFINITIONS 
TABLE 1.2 List of Chapter Exemplars*, Field, and Distinguishing Features 
Exemplar 
Field 
Lead 
Disciplinary or 
Distinguishing Features 
Author 
Methodological 
Country 
Journal 
Chapter 1: 
Public Health 
Japan 
Disciplinary 
Developed a formal 
Kawamura et al. 
grounded theory with 
(2009) 
a visualization that 
distinguished between 
qualitative and quantitative 
findings. Built on a 
conceptual model from the 
literature. 
Chapter 2: Evans, 
Public Health 
United 
Methodological 
Framed by event analysis. 
Coon, and Ume 
States 
Used grounded theory 
(2011) 
procedures with a visual 
display. 
Chapter 2: Catallo, 
Nursing 
United 
Disciplinary 
Developed a grounded 
Ciliska, and 
States 
theory to explain 
MacMillan (2012) 
counterintuitive findings. 
Developed a visual display 
to trace each participant’s 
decision-making trajectory. 
Chapter 2: 
Nursing 
Canada 
Methodological 
Teamed MM-GT with 
Westhues et al. 
participatory action research. 
(2008) 
Chapter 3: Jones & 
Child 
United 
Disciplinary 
Used grounded theory 
Kafetsios (2005). 
Psychology 
Kingdom 
procedures, including a 
visualization, to elaborate 
an existing theory about 
the relationship between 
exposure to violence and 
trauma. 
Chapter 5: 
Urban 
United 
Disciplinary 
Integrated visual, 
Carmona (2015) 
Planning 
Kingdom 
quantitative, and qualitative 
data for a case-based 
analysis of specific public 
spaces. 
Chapter 5: Kaplan 
Management 
United 
Disciplinary 
Elaborated an existing 
& Duchon (1988) 
States 
theory with grounded theory 
procedures and analyzed 
group differences to explain 
dissonant findings. 
Chapter 5: 
Education 
United 
Methodological 
Wesely (2010) 
States 
Chapter 6: 
Health 
United 
Disciplinary 
Presented theoretical 
Shim et al. (2017) 
States 
framework using the 
paradigm model proposed 
by Strauss & Corbin (1998). 
* Only one article is listed in this table. Some chapter exemplars (e.g., Catallo & Shim) generated more than one 
publication. 


 
DEFINITIONS 
23 
country of affiliation of the lead author, if they appeared in a disciplinary or methodological 
journal, and identifies distinguishing features. 
I distinguish an article as an example, rather than exemplar, because it illustrates a point or 
shows an unusual approach particularly to integration but otherwise is not distinguished. This 
is the case, for example, in Chapter 4 that explores some innovative examples of how visuals 
can contribute theoretical insight but otherwise are not exemplary as MM-GTM. Unlike the 
exemplars, examples generally underplay meaningful integration. I attribute this to unfamiliar-
ity with the mixed methods literature. The multi-method label is a better descriptor for some of 
these because they reflect the combination logic I have already referred to. These self-identify as 
having a qualitative and a quantitative phase but documented few if any steps to integrate them. 
Appendix B provides a selected list of examples of articles that voiced an intent to combine 
mixed methods and grounded theory. This is not an exhaustive list of articles, but one that I 
have screened for quality. The list by and large is restricted to examples that mention “grounded 
theory” and “mixed methods” in the title or abstract. It also includes a few that do not refer 
to “mixed methods” but that make it clear in the abstract that analysis was conducted of both 
qualitative and quantitative data. Additional examples where mixed methods and grounded 
theory were combined are identified in chapters by Johnson and Walsh (2019) and Hesse-Biber 
and Flowers (2019) appearing in the most recent edition of the SAGE Handbook of Developments 
in Grounded Theory (Bryant & Charmaz, 2019). Both of these chapters include examples that I 
am not comfortable with characterizing as MM-GTM label because it is not one the authors 
acknowledge. 
CONCLUSIONS 
There are many different paradigmatic and methodological approaches to grounded theory, 
just as there are to mixed methods. Both share the methodological resilience to be adaptable 
to many other research approaches and philosophical paradigms. Fifty years from its initial 
conceptualization in 1967 and the publication of the book that opened the door to qualitative 
research, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, grounded theory has been around long enough as 
a methodology that different schools of thought, often led by former students of either Glaser 
or Strauss, have emerged. First evident as a distinct movement, according to one of its most 
iconic figures, John Creswell, emerging in the 1990s in the midst of what is referred to as the 
paradigm wars, there is certainly great diversity of views about it but distinct schools of thought 
about mixed methods have yet to coalesce. The different perspectives in the prominence they 
award to the role of design, purpose, paradigm, and the centrality of mixing to understanding 
its logic. I have not set out in this textbook to erase the differences in perspectives to either 
logic of inquiry, nor to corral those differences by cataloging them or trying to reduce them to 
a narrow typology of types. Instead, my goal is to put that diversity center stage with the belief 
it can provide a springboard for creative and new applications that integrate methods. 
As venerable and durable tradition as it has proven to be, grounded theory is not the only 
qualitative approach that can be used to develop theory (Maxwell, 2012). The next chapter 
widens the scope of our inquiry by considering the variety of ways that mixed methods have 
been used in tandem with theory testing and building, including by pairing with a case-based 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24 
DEFINITIONS 
approach and life history analysis. I argue that conceiving a core construct in a multi-dimensional 
way is the key to thinking in an integrated way. There are a number of quantitative procedures 
that are highly effective in developing and refining theory, but it is beyond my interest, exper-
tise, and the scope of this text to pursue these. 
Cross-cutting themes 
A family of cross-cutting themes weaves in and out of each of the chapters, with each chapter gradu-
ally adding another layer to our understanding about each one. The themes can be conceptualized 
in three clusters. T
wo of the cross-cutting themes are related to an integrated approach to research 
that involves the collection and analysis of data from multiple sources to build or refine an explana-
tory, conceptual, or theoretical framework. The second cluster challenges the restrictiveness of a 
framing of MM-GTM that underscores the purpose of triangulation or confirmation and, instead, 
highlights its use to expand the breadth, depth, and nuance in an explanation. The third cluster deals 
with themes related to complexity and dissonance and their contribution to explanatory power. A 
meta-summary of the contribution of each chapter to the cross-cutting appears in Appendix C. 
Table 1.3 helps the reader extract key takeaways from this chapter and to begin to build a 
wider architecture that provides a link between the key takeaways and the cross-cutting themes. 
Methodological advances about our understanding of mixed methods approaches have always 
been driven by the way it has been adapted in real-world examples (Greene, 2008). The extent 
TABLE 1.3 Linking Key Points from Chapter 1 with the Cross-Cutting Themes 
Cluster 
Major Themes that Cross 
Chapter 1 – Key Points 
Chapters 
Integrated 
Approaches to 
Mixed Methods 
Research 
Mixed Methods and 
Grounded Theory 
Integrated mixed methods 
approaches engage 
qualitative and quantitative 
data in many phases of 
the research process, but 
particularly during analysis. 
 MM-GT is a methodology 
that embeds the logic 
of mixed methods in the 
constant comparative 
method and grounded 
theory procedures. 
Integrated research uses strategies that 
intentionally leverage interdependence 
between their sources of data, 
methods, or approaches. 
The most effective way to become an 
integrated researcher is to have some 
competence in multiple methods, 
including mixed methods. 
Fully integrated mixed methods 
research (FIMMR) integrates qualitative 
and quantitative data and analytical 
procedures in substantive ways 
throughout the research process. 
Integration generally serves multiple 
purposes in this type of study. 
Conventional perspectives maintain 
the independence of the stands and 
the view of the purpose of MM-GTM to 
build theory with qualitative procedures 
and test it with quantitative ones. 
In MM-GT, the constant comparative 
method can be applied to quantitative, 
qualitative, and mixed data. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFINITIONS 
25 
Cluster 
Major Themes that Cross 
Chapter 1 – Key Points 
Chapters 
Complexity and 
Dissonance 
The link between mixed 
methods and complexity. 
A dynamic design is needed to 
adapt to rapidly changing research 
environments, unexpected results, and 
to negotiate the different perspectives 
team members bring to research 
initiatives. 
The contribution of 
paradox and dissonance to 
explanatory power. 
A process that is deliberate about 
engaging the dissonance and paradox 
often introduced by abduction is the 
lynchpin that reaches across mixed 
methods, grounded theory, and 
complexity. 
of inter-method mixing emerging from practice, such as evident in the dozens of examples of 
MM-GTM I uncovered in peer-reviewed journals, provides evidence that researchers adapt 
methods in creative and often unexpected ways in the face of the roadblocks and challenges 
they face as they pursue complex, real-world problems. The type of complexity this introduces 
pressures us to reconsider our notion of what it means to develop expertise. T
o call someone 
a mixed methods researcher is misleading as all but a few people who contribute to the meth-
odological literature also tend to write about their experience with other methods as well. 
Methodological innovation requires both content expertise and knowledge of multiple difer-
ent research approaches. 
REVIEW QUESTIONS 
1 
What distinguishes a conceptual framework, an explanatory framework, and a theoretical 
framework? 
2 
What is a mixed methods approach to the constant comparative method? 
3 
What is an integrated mixed methods approach to theory development and how does it 
vary from the way it was first conceived in the literature? 
4 
In what ways can complexity influence the design and execution of a study? 
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES 
1 
To identify some of the challenges of using grounded theory in a doctoral dissertation, read 
the self-reflective account by Nelson (2017). 
2 
IIQM/Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA) Archived Webi-
nar: Mixed Method Approaches to Developing Grounded Theory, March 13, 2018. Link: 
www.ualberta.ca/international-institute-for-qualitative-methodology/webinars/ 
mixed-methods-webinar/archived-webinars 


 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2 
Varied approaches to 
using mixed methods with 
theoretical frameworks 
The chapter provides a glimpse of the range of ways that mixed methods has been paired with grounded theory 
and how it can serve as an integrative framework at the onset of a study, offer interpretive insight as a study 
is underway, and/or stand as its principal outcome. 
TERMS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER 
• 
Formal or classic grounded theory 
• 
Design 
• 
Methodological dynamism 
INTRODUCTION 
Mixed methods research has been widely criticized, including by some of its strongest propo-
nents, for being “method-centric” in its preoccupation with procedures at the expense of both 
theory and methodology. Uwe Flick, a German author writing about the myths and mantras 
about mixed methods research, makes this argument when she notes that there is “too much 
focus on methods instead of theoretical and methodological issues” (2017, p. 46). Sharlene 
Hesse-Biber, long writing from a feminist standpoint, links the tendency to downplay the 
integrative functions a theoretical or methodological framework with the pragmatist episte-
mological framework and the interpretation that it reflects an “anything goes” with research 
methods. Variously framed as a methodology or a paradigm, the critical or transformative 
perspective, Hesse-Biber contends “provides the theoretical perspective that links research 
problems and approach with a particular method or methods of data collection and analysis” 
(2018, p. 550). 
As we will see in this chapter, both a methodology, like grounded theory, and an explana-
tory framework or model can serve as an integrative structure that links the purpose, conceptu-
alization of the core construct, research questions, literature review, data collection procedures, 
analysis, interpretation, and reporting. This is what can be characterized as the design of study. 
A design is a map or a plan about how an empirical study is executed. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
VARIETY 
27 
Studies motivated to build theory are more likely to integrate than other types of studies 
(Boeije, Slagt, & van Wesel, 2013; Evans, Coon, & Ume, 2011) because they provide the 
framework to identify core constructs, pose links between them, and provide the structure for 
data collection and analysis (Evans et al., 2011). In a study designed to test, explore, or develop 
an explanatory framework, both theory and methodology can serve as a map “for combin-
ing the what with the why to gain a multi-dimensional understanding of causal mechanisms” 
(Evans et al., 2011, p. 278). It can shift the thinking about a research problem in terms of a set of 
variables, or the relationship between a handful of variables to the kind of holistic multi-layered 
reasoning that generates explanatory power and, in some cases, generalizability. 
Purpose, objectives, and contribution 
The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the creative and varied ways that mixed meth-
ods and grounded theory have been partnered, including through their use with two other 
methodologies – the life course perspective and participatory action research. The discussion 
continues to center on examples that manage to combine inductive, deductive, and abductive 
approaches to analysis for purposes of developing theory. By theory I mean an explanatory or 
conceptual framework, as opposed to a methodological framework. My interest in this discus-
sion is not to provide a recipe for approaching MM-GTM or in any way to attempt to routin-
ize the procedures associated with it. This is evident in my selection of three examples, which 
by and large do not completely adhere to a foundational or purist views of grounded theory 
aligned with one of its founders. It is my goal to underscore that a researcher has a wide variety 
of tools at his or her disposal that can be adapted to his or her own perspectives, values, and 
those that emerge in the research setting over the life of a single study or multiple inter-related 
study that constitutes a research program or project. Options about other strategies that can 
be used to pursue the process of developing a theoretical framework using grounded theory 
procedures is the topic of Chapter 3. 
The principal ideas at the center of this chapter are: 
1 
MM-GTM has informed research in a wide variety of different ways. It is its adaptability 
and variety that sustains its continued dynamism and usefulness. 
2 
Conceptualizing a problem and research questions in a multi-dimensional way can serve as 
the foundation for thinking theoretically and developing an integrated approach to mixed 
methods. 
3 
Launching a project with a conceptual framework sketched or diagrammed during the 
process of consulting a cross-disciplinary body of literature facilitates integration across 
research phases. 
Organization of the chapter 
The chapter begins by considering the word “design” and the implications it carries of con-
ceiving of a research project as an integrated systematic whole where both a methodology, 
like grounded theory, or a theoretical framework can provide a guide to link the phases of the 
research process from initial framing of research questions, to sampling plan, data collection, 


 
 
28 
VARIETY 
analysis and drawing conclusions in a systematic and coherent way. It shifts next to high-
lighting the advantages to theoretical insight offered by thinking of a core phenomenon in a 
multi-dimensional way. The heart of the chapter is in the section that uses three exemplars to 
underscore the variety of ways that MM-GTM has been used at different phases in the research 
process, from a driver of design, to serving an interpretive role during analysis, and in a more 
conventional sense as the outcome of a study. 
First, we consider what is meant by the word “design” and how it is linked to quality. 
IMPLICATIONS OF THE WORD “DESIGN” 
Among researchers using mixed methods it is common to hear the term “design” used to refer 
to a core set of basic designs advanced by Creswell and Plano (2011). This equates the word 
“design” with the timing of data collection and analysis. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative 
data conducted in a parallel manner referred to as a concurrent design and when linked to each 
other but timed at different points referred to as a sequential design. This approach has been 
criticized for awarding more attention to procedures than to purpose as the principal driver 
of research design and for promoting the idea that the procedures set in place during planning 
phase of a study comes to fruition exactly as planned. A more expansive view is that the word 
“design” to carry a dual meaning. It implies both thoughtful planning and ongoing adaptability 
(Hunter & Brewer, 2015). The implications of research design are related to issues of quality 
because it helps builds consistency across phases of the research process. 
Many conceive the word “design” in broader ways, but also see it as a kind of map or plan 
about how an empirical study is executed. In this way, to design a research study means to con-
ceive of it as a logically coherent whole that begins with a clearly articulated research purpose 
that is subject to ongoing refinement and revision. When carefully worded, purpose can serve 
as road map to guide the construction or selection of data collection instruments, the sampling 
plans, and data analysis. It is the first place to turn in situations where events take an unexpected 
turn, or findings emerge that are far outside what the literature led one to expect. 
Methodologists often mean different things when they use the words “theory” or “design.” 
Reflecting a deep commitment to a feminist perspective, for example, Sharlene Hesse-Biber 
(2018) refers to the transformative/emancipatory/critical paradigm as a theory because it influ-
ences aspects of the research methods, including the type of relationships established with 
participants, an expectation for reflexivity, and an approach to data analysis that is respectful 
of diverse points of view. We have already considered how a conceptual framework developed 
from the literature can play a similar organizational role, just as a grounded theory developed 
using a qualitative constant comparative approach developed in one phase of a research project 
can serve as the basis for further analysis and/or testing in a later phase. Although our focus is 
on theory as an explanatory framework, any coherent framework or methodology that serves 
to connect content and method could be called a theory. 
Kathy Charmaz, a US scholar from California internationally recognized for her role in 
articulating the foundation for a constructivist approach to grounded theory, maintained that 
although their approach can be criticized for being positivist (i.e., there’s one truth and there 
is an accurate way to measure it), Glaser and Strauss’ original 1967 book was paradigm shifting 


VARIETY 
29 
in that it tamped down the expectation for “grand theories.” These are assumed to be like the 
laws of nature in that they are invariant over time and place. Charmaz wrote that by providing a 
systematic set of procedures, Glaser and Strauss “democratized theory construction and made it 
within the realm of the working researcher” (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 1076). The idea of generating 
theory is less intimidating when it is thought to be a method that uses an inductive approach to 
generate a set of categories and then to spell out ways they may be linked (Timonen, Foley, & 
Conlon, 2018). 
The first step toward thinking theoretically about a research problem is to expand the 
way the core phenomenon is conceived. That includes considering the core phenomenon 
in a multi-dimensional way that frames research questions that extend across levels of analysis 
(Weisner, 2016). An advantage of this multi-layered approach to data collection is the poten-
tial to examine individual attitudes and behaviors as it is embedded in larger social systems 
(Malagon, Huber, & Velez, 2009). Although this is not the stance taken by practitioners of a 
classic approach to grounded theory, this type of framing of a core construct requires engaging 
a cross-disciplinary body of literature. 
Conceptualizing a research problem in a multi-dimensional way 
Kathy Charmaz continued to build her ideas about grounded theory as both a method and 
methodology by taking in account of cultures which are increasingly multiple, mobile, and 
dynamic (2014a, 2017b). Weighing it in light of research involving indigenous groups, Charmaz 
observed that much Anglo-North American inquiry is driven by a preoccupation with indi-
vidualism with individual views, perceptions, and actions, and analyzed as if these occur in a 
vacuum without the influence of friends, social and professional groups, wider communities or 
neighborhoods, or social, organizational, and economic forces. She described how researchers 
working with participants from indigenous communities have to consider collective and com-
munal ways of knowing that are embedded in the family, other kinship patterns, and the local 
community. 
Not only do we gather data from individuals, but also our analysis often remains at the 
level of individualism. 
(Charmaz, 2017b, p. 37) 
One of the characteristics of grounded theory is how it situates a social phenomenon in 
a multi-layered social contexts (Charmaz, 2014, 2017b). Context is multi-faceted and oper-
ates at a variety of levels and in ways that are not always consistent or coherent (Pearce, 2015). 
Conceiving individual attitudes and actions as nested within micro-, meso-, and macro-levels 
of social structures enhances the capacity for theorizing (Irwin, 2008; Mason, 2006). Micro-
level constructs relate to individuals’ beliefs, attitudes, interactions, motivations, and aptitudes. 
Meso-level constructs reflect how individual perceptions or actions might more fully be under-
stood within the broader context of instrumental relationships within groups, communities, or 
an organization (Irwin, 2008). Macro-level constructs reflect an even wider social context and 
could include recognition cultural factors, as well as how current socio-political events impact 
experiences. 


30
VARIETY
Figure 2.1 supplies a template to expand the conceptualization of a core construct in 
a multi-dimensional way by weighing individual perceptions and behavior within multiple 
broader contexts. A multi-dimensional or multi-level way of framing research problems differs 
from what might be referred to as a bi-dimensional approach that weighs the impact of one 
variable on another.
Figure 2.1 is not constructed with data that are specific to a single research topic. Dur-
ing the process of defining a research problem, the template might help you to think about a 
core construct as embedded within a constellation of other constructs that are embedded in a 
wider social, cultural, and political context. This type of multi-dimensional framework can be 
informed by Adele Clark’s ideas about situational analysis in grounded theory (e.g., Clarke & 
Friese, 2007; Clarke, 2005).
How we connect or integrate evidence is less a procedural matter than a theoretical one 
because it reflects wittingly or not assumptions about how change occurs (Irwin, 2008). A theoreti-
cal orientation, rather than simply a descriptive one, can be further enhanced by pursuing questions 
about the interconnections between the constructs. Writing within the context of nursing and 
research, involving interventions, Marguerite Sandelowski makes the same argument: “Theory is 
always implicit in the problems that is presented, in the literature reviewed, and most importantly, 
of the method itself” (1993, p. 215). Theoretical reasoning includes considering not only what 
might be the interconnections, but also about how and why these might be interconnected.
Embedding multi-dimensionality in research questions
A central reason for the dynamic potential possible when a mixed methods approach is used 
with theory development and refinement is that multi-dimensional thinking is embedded in 
the logic. A writer with expertise in complexity theory highlights a role of mixed methods 
FIGURE 2.1 Framing a Research Problem in a Multi-Dimensional Way


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VARIETY 
31 
that is central to theoretical thinking, arguing that mixed methods approaches are a “fertile 
breeding ground” for “research that collects and analyzes data at different levels of granularity 
(individual, groups, society)” (Koopmans, 2017, p. 17). Framing research questions that link 
micro- and macro-levels of social experience, including about underlying social processes, nec-
essarily involves different sources and kinds of evidence (Irwin, 2008). 
Arguing for the benefits of multi-method and mixed method research, a feminist sociolo-
gist writing about inequality, Sarah Irwin, maintains that a single source of data offers only 
one level or dimension of evidence, and can be not only partial but possibly distorting (Irwin, 
2008). This would have been the case, for example, if the exemplar discussed in the next section 
of the chapter restricted its scope with the individualistic assumption that a single individual, 
not a wider network of family and community members, contributed to elder care. 
An exemplar that models multi-dimensional theorizing 
Exploring how the process of caregiving can be embedded and contingent on a cultural con-
text is part of the framework nursing educator, Bronwynne Evans and a set of collaborators in 
the health sciences bought to a mixed methods study about caregiving pairs among Mexican 
American immigrants (i.e., Evans, Crogan, Belyea, & Coon, 2009; Evans et al., 2011). They 
describe how the life-course framework provided a map that facilitated integration and analysis. 
They write, the framework provides a map “for combining what with why to gain a multidi-
mensional understanding of causal mechanisms” (p. 278) (italics theirs). 
Evans et al. (2011) include two explanatory visualizations in their mixed method article 
that also were reported earlier in an article about the qualitative phase of the project (2009). The 
first visualization is a conceptual framework that served as a guide for the design of their study. 
It frames the literature within key constructs in the life course perspective. A second visualiza-
tion shows how the initial visualization was refined over the course of the study. Figure 2.2 is 
reproduced with copyright permission from the Evans et al. (2011) article. It captures a multi-
dimensional way of conceptualizing a research problem. It is the first of two figures they include 
in the article. 
Several elements about this visualization are of note. The processes associated with care-
giving over a 15-month period are depicted both across the bottom and linked to the timing 
of life events and adaptive strategies at the top of the figure. Three levels of constructs are 
depicted at the center of the figure. “Burden and gain” are both individualistic constructs in 
that they are associated with the caregiver. Cultural influences are associated with family and 
Mexican American culture. Contextual influences are conceived the most broadly. In the 
final model, these are narrowly conceived as demographic characteristics (education, social 
economic status, age, and gender) but could have been conceived more broadly to include, 
for example, characteristics of the home setting that would accommodate the elderly and/or 
access to care locally. 
Research questions can be worded in ways that reflect that type of multi-dimensionality 
that is evident in the conceptual model of the caregiving process proposed by Evans et al. 
(2011). In mixed methods, research questions are often identified in ways that show the link 
between the questions and either a qualitative or quantitative source of data, with additional 
questions making clear how the two will be integrated during analysis. 


 
 
 
32 
VARIETY 
FIGURE 2.2 A Multi-Level Conceptual Model from Evans et al. (2011, p. 280) 
Table 2.1 provides an example about how research questions in the Evans et al. (2011) 
could be worded to make explicit not only how each is linked to a source of data but also how 
they were or could be integrated. 
The first question is purely a descriptive one, written in anticipation of reporting on the 
results from a quantitative questionnaire. The second and third questions each point to the 
type of integration that is possible from case-based profiles that were created to synthesize both 
qualitative and quantitative data about each of the caregiving units. The word “strain” appears 
in bold to highlight the kind of link across research questions that can facilitate integration of 
findings from different sources of data. 
The research questions posed in Table 2.1 are written in a way that suggests that qualitative 
data are associated with some constructs and quantitative data associated with others. While this 
is the most common approach, it is entirely possible that both qualitative and quantitative data 
could be collected about some of the same constructs. In this study, for example, additional 
qualitative data could have been collected to more fully contextualize the construct “level of 
strain.” We will be exploring this example in greater detail in the next section, which addresses 
the variety or “methodological dynamism” (Ralph, Birks, & Chapman, 2015) in the ways 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VARIETY 
33 
TABLE 2.1 Example Developed from Evans et al. (2011): Framing Multi-Dimensional 
Research Questions in Ways that Promote Integration 
Source of Data 
Integration 
Research Question 
QUANT Measure 
What level of strain do participants 
report? 
QUAL from 
Linked through case-
What cultural, familial, and contextual 
Participants’ 
based analyses 
influences are associated level of 
Drawings 
strain? 
QUAL 
Linked through case-
What are the physical and emotional 
– Interviews 
based analyses 
consequences of strain? 
grounded theory has been used when paired with mixed methods, as well as with a feminist 
theoretical grounding (Kushner & Morrow, 2003; Wuest, 1995). 
METHODOLOGICAL ADAPTABILITY OF GROUNDED THEORY 
Although there is an ample list of prominent methodologists writing about grounded theory that 
would very likely breathe fire about this view, others have written in ways that recognize what 
could be described as methodological dynamism in its practice. This is a term that has been 
used broadly to describe how methods evolve and remain viable over time (Ralph et al., 2015). Versed 
in a variety of perspectives about grounded theory methods, Seidel and Urquhart (2013) and 
Urquhart, Lehman, and Myers (2010), are committed to its core logic while recognizing its adapt-
ability to a variety of paradigmatic and theoretical positions. “Grounded theory method (GTM) is 
an evolving method that is subject to idiosyncratic interpretation and flexible deployment,” Seidel 
and Urquhart write (2013, p. 237). Making an observation that applies equally to mixed methods 
research, Dey (2004) points to the variability in the ways grounded theory methods are used. It is 
not a single, unified methodology. He writes, “There is no such thing as ‘grounded theory’ if we 
mean by that a single, unified methodology, tightly defined and clearly specified” (p. 80). 
Grounded theory method (GTM) is an evolving method that is subject to idiosyncratic 
interpretation and flexible deployment. 
(Seidel & Urquhart, 2013, p. 237) 
Evidence of the adaptability of grounded theory includes the gradual shift away from its 
initial grounding in an objectivist or modernist viewpoint to one that embraces the construc-
tivist orientation (Charmaz, 2006, 2014a). This extends to feminist and indigenous research 
and other types of critical qualitative inquiry that aims to advance the goal of social justice by 
studying issues of power and privilege (Charmaz, 2017b). The adaptability grounded theory 
can also be seen in the ways it has proven amenable to multi-method triangulation that com-
bines qualitative and quantitative methods (Kushner & Morrow, 2003). 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34 
VARIETY 
CONSULTING THE LITERATURE THROUGHOUT THE RESEARCH 
PROCESS 
The role of the literature and the timing of its use is another topic where there is evidence 
of methodological dynamism in grounded theory and its adaptability to varied approaches. 
Founders of the movement, particularly Barney Glaser and proponents of his stance, position 
engagement with the literature as something that should be postponed until core constructs 
have emerged. Holton (2008) joins Glaser by insisting that engaging the literature prior to the 
establishment of the core category can inhibit theoretical sensitivity and block the potential to 
recognize a new core category that has not been prominent in the literature. 
The requirement that no literature be consulted during the process of conceptualizing a 
grounded theory study is one of the major reasons it is avoided (Urquhart, 2007). Subsequent 
generations of scholars and who approach grounded theory with a constructivist lens quarrel 
with the practicality of the purist position that the literature is something to be avoided until 
the later stages of a project when core constructs have begun to emerge. The idea that it is 
possible to ignore the literature as pen is put to paper to describe the need and potential con-
tribution of a study is not a practical one (Dunne, 2011). The perception that when using a 
grounded theory, it is mandatory to abstain from reading the literature, is no doubt one reason 
why many an advisor might look askance at the idea of using grounded theory in a doctoral 
dissertation. 
Grounded theory is not an excuse to ignore the literature. 
(Suddaby, 2006, p. 635) 
A whole chorus of qualitatively minded methodologist has called the notion naïve that a 
researcher can enter a research project with a blank mind. Charmaz (2014a) is among those 
who argues that it is often neither practical nor conceptually productive to ignore the literature. 
She writes “Despite continued injunctions to forgo the literature until after completing the 
analyses, not all grounded theorists find delaying the literature review to be possible, practical, 
or conceptually useful” (Charmaz, 2014b, p. 1080). “The idea any research undertakes a study 
without some level of prior knowledge is simply unrealistic,” Dunne observes (2011, p. 117). 
The idea of a researcher as a blank slate may leave him or her prone to all manner of prejudices 
and preconceptions (Dey, 1993). It is inherently contradictory to insist that the use of grounded 
theory is warranted because a topic has not been studied without engagement in the literature 
to document that claim (McGhee, Marland, & Atkinson, 2007). 
My position is that in scholarly research, including in a study using grounded theory 
methods, a researcher should thoroughly and thoughtfully engage with a wide body of litera-
ture throughout all phases of the research process. A researcher from Sweden who writes about 
grounded theory from a constructivist position, Robert Thornberg (2012), refers to “informed 
grounded theory” where both the product and the process of grounded theory is informed by 
an iterative engagement with the literature and theoretical frameworks throughout the research 
process. He writes that by applying the principle of an ongoing engagement with the literature: 
It is a highly interactive process in which the researcher’s coding and questions take 
him or her to some of the literature, which in turn sends him or her back to the 


 
 
 
VARIETY 
35 
TABLE 2.2 Contribution of the Literature to Theoretical Reasoning Throughout the 
Research Process 
Phase 
Contribution of the Literature 
During Planning 
Solidify need; develop sensitizing concept: single out key 
constructs and relationships; locate potential instruments; identify 
competing explanations. 
During Data Collection 
Input about sampling strategy and types of additional data, if any 
required. 
During Analysis 
Generate explanations for unexpected findings; provide context 
for the significance of findings, including those that seem 
counterintuitive; challenge emerging findings, flesh out the 
properties of emerging constructs; suggest or support emerging 
themes; contribute to the decision about what to highlight; indicate 
promising avenues for future research. 
During the Process of 
Clarify contribution; fine tune language that emerged from the 
Pulling Together Results 
coding process to provide links to the way terms are used in the 
literature; support an argument that findings challenge elements 
of existing theory; refine audience for work and identify potential 
publishing venues. 
empirical field and to his or her tentative codes and concepts with new lenses and 
questions. 
(p. 252) 
Table 2.2 summarizes some of the ways that engagement with the literature and theoretical 
frameworks can contribute to theoretical reasoning throughout the research process. Although 
many of the items listed probably cross phases, the list points to contributions during planning, 
data collection, analysis, and during the process of pulling things together for reporting. 
The position suggested by Table 2.2 is more closely aligned with a constructivist view of 
grounded theory, than with the one advanced by its founders. Wide reading of the literature 
and other theories, including outside of one’s original disciplinary or empirical domain, is 
instrumental to offsetting a confirmatory mindset. 
DEMONSTRATING VARIABILITY IN MM-GTM WITH A GROUP OF 
EXEMPLARS 
The variety of ways that grounded theory procedures can be accomplished through the analysis 
and integration of qualitative and quantitative data to generate a multi-level grounded theory 
with a social process at the center is evident in three case examples of MM-GTM highlighted 
in the next section. Without denying the likelihood that theory plays more than one role and 
at more than one phase of the research process, the section is organized by the three points of 
entry of theory in the research process identified by Sandelowski (1993). Theory is used from 
the onset in the first exemplar by Evans et al. (2011) about caregiving among Mexican Ameri-
can immigrant families. In this case, the life-course perspective served an integrative function 


 
 
 
 
36 
VARIETY 
throughout the framing, design, and execution of the project. The second exemplar comes for 
the field of nursing and was one of the publications that emerged from Christina Catallo’s dis-
sertation (i.e., Catallo, Jack, Ciliska, & MacMillan, 2013). After a preliminary round of analy-
sis that integrated qualitative and quantitative findings, Catallo generated a formal grounded 
theory to explain paradoxical findings. The references lists supplied by both the first and second 
exemplar show a refreshing amount of familiarity with diverse perspectives about mixed meth-
ods. The third exemplar illustrates the use of MM-GTM for the classic purpose of generating 
a theoretical framework as an outcome. The final example by Westhues et al. (2008) produced 
an integrative grounded theory from a mixed methods community-based participatory action 
project (CBPR). CBPR is used widely in health sciences, for example, to explore health dis-
parities. The commitment to address inequities in the health care system and to do so by engag-
ing stakeholders as co-constructors of knowledge carried with it from the onset the expectation 
of diverse points of views. 
Each of the exemplars featured in this chapter and their innovative features are summarized 
in Table 2.3. 
The exemplars are described in greater detail in the next sections. 
Exemplar 1: using theory to frame and advance the design of a study 
Some consider the idea of launching a project by explicitly grounding it in an existing theo-
retical framework as inimical to the inductive drive that some consider as essential to the logic 
of grounded theory. Evans et al.’s (2009, 2011) framed a study about caregiving of the elderly 
among Mexican American families within the life course perspective. These authors demon-
strate that new dimensions of theory, including new theoretical constructs, can emerge when 
a study has a theoretical drive that is inductive (and/or abductive) even when it is framed by a 
pre-existing theoretical perspective. Another way that this exemplar is unusual is that it shows 
unusually strong grounding in the methodological literature about mixed methods and qualita-
tive methods. 
TABLE 2.3 Innovative Features of the Three Exemplars of MM-GT from Chapter 2 
Example 
Section in Chapter 
Innovative Feature 
Evans et al. (2009, 2011) 
Demonstrating Variability in 
the Ways Mixed Methods 
are Used with GT 
Used an existing theory to frame 
and advance the design of a 
research method. 
Catallo et al. (2013) 
Demonstrating Variability in 
the Ways Mixed Methods 
are Used with GT 
Developed a grounded theory to 
explain counterintuitive findings. 
Westhues et al. (2008) 
Demonstrating Variability in 
the Ways Mixed Methods 
are Used with GT 
Used MM-GTM with a thoroughly 
interactive, community-based 
participatory action research 
project. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VARIETY 
37 
The life course perspective derives, like event analysis, from sociology. Major constructs in 
the life course perspective includes transitions and adaptive strategies. Its focus is on major life 
transitions. It can be used to study social interactions and events (Happ, Dabbs, Tate, Hricik, 
& Erlen, 2006). It shares some parallel with core methodological concerns in grounded the-
ory. This includes an interest in a time-ordered social process which in this case involved 
the caregiving trajectory. In grounded theory, attention to process involves considering how 
something occurs and under what conditions or circumstances. This is associated with a logic 
of causality that resides in process theory that deals with events, what influences them, and 
what connects them (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). Although this is not something Evans et al. 
consider, the parallel between the life course perspective and grounded theory methodology is 
also evident in an analytical interest in cultural and contextual circumstances, the physical and 
emotional consequences to the caregiver, and the strategies they used to adapt to the strain. 
Box 2.1 summarizes key aspects of the theory driven mixed methods study by Evans et al. 
(2009, 2011) that adapted the life course perspective to explore the experiences of how Mexi-
can American immigrants managed the process of caregiving when nursing home options were 
not realistic. It identifies the design of the study by summarizing the purpose, the way the data 
were collected, and how integration occurs. 
BOX 2.1 
Evans et al.’s (2009, 2011) Adaptation of a Life Course Perspective 
Purpose: This longitudinal, qualitative dominant mixed methods study adapted 
the life course perspective from the discipline of sociology to explore caregiving 
among 110 Mexican American pairs over 15 months. Transitions, turning points, 
and adaptive strategies are examined in this framework. 
Design: Interview data and participant drawn timelines provided the qualitative 
data, while the quantitative data about key concepts, including caregiver bur-
den/strain, were collected using questionnaires. 
Integration: Integration is enhanced in the study by a case-based approach 
to analysis that combined qualitative and quantitative data in a narrative about 
each caregiving unit. It was also achieved through quantifying some elements of 
the participant produced life course drawings. 
Unexpected findings: This example illustrates that new dimensions of theory 
can emerge even when a study is designed to apply a pre-existing theoreti-
cal framework. By identifying themes that emerged from the combination of a 
deductive and inductive approach to coding, these authors identified collective 
caregiving as a theoretical construct that is new to the literature. 
Theory produced: The article includes two multi-dimensional visualizations of 
the research problem. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
38 
VARIETY 
The box also summarizes the contribution of unexpected fndings to new insight about the 
caregiving process that normally considers it primarily as one caregiver and one patient, rather 
than a process embedded in the wider social unit of the family. 
In their qualitative article (2009), Evans et al. point to a case-oriented approach as 
a core component of their study, writing: “The core component of the study is case-
oriented approach, which is an intensive, inductively driven study of cases with an eye 
toward configuration of similarities and differences” (2009, p. 282). In mixed methods, 
case-based analysis provides an effective way to link qualitative and quantitative data in a 
narrative or visualization (Bazeley, 2018a). Regardless if the case consists of multiple points 
of data about an individual, a dyad or family unit, a classroom, an event, or physical loca-
tion, a case with integration embedded in it can serve as the principal unit of analysis. In 
the caregiving study (i.e., Evans et al., 2011), data from interviews, a quantitative survey, 
and data quantified from life course drawings were integrated in a case narrative for each 
of 110 caregiving units. 
The case-based narratives of each caregiving unit were the principal source of data used 
to answer the research questions. With a mixed methods approach, a case-based approach to 
analysis differs from a case study in several important ways. These include that (a) they are an 
intermediary step in the analysis, (b) they integrate multiple sources of data, and (c) they are 
based on a sample size that exceeds what one would normally find in case study research where 
an N = 1 is sometimes satisfactory. 
In the Evan et al.’s (2011) caregiving study, the case narratives served a formative pur-
pose in that they were used as the basis of further analysis. They were used formatively in a 
new round of coding to generate working hypotheses for further testing in subsequent phases. 
The life course perspective also influenced how qualitative data from the life history timelines 
were quantified. “The quantitizing process also was guided by the theoretical framework as 
we looked across constructs to identify important comparisons,” the authors note (Evans et al., 
2011, p. 286). Generalizations drawn from the cross-case comparison were used formatively to 
generate testable propositions. 
Exemplar 2: developing a grounded theory to explore 
counterintuitive findings 
A researcher in nursing, Christina Catallo, carved out a dissertation using MM-GTM within 
the context of team-based project intended to test the efficacy of a randomized control trial 
(RCT) designed to increase women’s comfort in disclosing partner abuse to emergency room 
personnel. Catallo et al. produced several articles about this project. A 2012 article concentrates 
on the qualitative phase when the grounded theory was developed, while the second, 2013 
article explicitly frames the study as using both grounded theory and mixed methods (i.e., 
Catallo et al., 2013). 
Box 2.2 summarizes key aspects of the Catallo, Ciliska, and MacMillan (2012, 2013) use 
of MM-GTM in a randomized controlled trial. It summarizes its purpose, design, and the ways 
integration occurred, as well as identified the role unexpected findings play, and the type of 
theory produced. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VARIETY 
39 
BOX 2.2 
Catallo et al.’s (2013) Use of MM-GTM to Understand Paradox in a 
Randomized Control Trial 
Purpose: The complementary rationale is explicit in the purpose Catallo and 
her colleagues identified for the phase of their research project reported in 
this feminist, MM-GTM research. They wanted to gain a more comprehensive 
analysis of abused women’s decision-making regarding disclosure of partner 
violence. 
Design: Following an initial phase of quantitative data collection, the authors 
turned to a qualitative interview to gain more context about the disclosure pro-
cess. The authors used an embedded sample in that quantitative data about the 
type and intensity of violence that was used to select a sample of participants to 
interview. 
Integration: Integration of qualitative and quantitative data occurred in the 
second and third phase of the research process where Catallo executed a 
type of case-based analysis by drawing a change map for each interview 
participant that contextualized key transition points in her journey toward 
disclosure. 
Unexpected findings: After executing the first phase of randomized con-
trol trial, the authors unexpectedly turned to MM-GTM to pursue the coun-
ter intuitive finding that women who reported the most violence on the 
quantitative measure were the least likely to disclose it to emergency room 
personnel. 
Theory produced: For her dissertation, Catallo integrated qualitative and quan-
titative data to produce a formal grounded theory that is visualized in a figure. 
The model is multi-level in that it identifies constructs associated with the indi-
vidual (antecedents) and those associated with context, including conditions 
that promote the disclosure process and its outcomes. Transitions in the disclo-
sure process are depicted at the center of the model. 
After executing the first phase of a randomized control trial, Catallo et  al. found 
themselves in the unexpected position of turning to MM-GTM to more fully understand 
the counter intuitive finding that women who reported the most violence on a quantita-
tive measure administered in the first phase, were the lease likely to disclose in the emer-
gency room setting. To explore these paradoxical findings, Catallo et al. used a type of 
case-based analysis where the unit of analysis was an individual and their journey through 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
40 
VARIETY 
the process of disclosure. They drew what they referred to as “concept maps” or “change 
maps” that contextualized the qualitative data by pinpointing key transitions or turning 
points on the journey to disclosure. The change maps revealed patterns of behavior that 
were evident in the integrated account but probably not to the participant. They drew 
on both qualitative and quantitative data to test the emerging theory and to determine if 
they had actually pinpointed the characteristics of women who were and were not likely 
to disclose intimate partner violence to a health care provider. Catallo et al. (2012) hand 
drew each change map, incorporating data from the interviews. This kind of visualization 
can be produced by Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) 
(Inaba & Kakai, 2019). 
A grounded theory that is visualized in this linear fashion often has a dynamic social process 
at its core. In this case, Catallo and her colleagues identify three steps in the disclosure process 
in the 2012 article: (a) establishing readiness, (b) evaluating level of trust, and (c) the decision 
to seek care. 
Catallo et al. (2012) include a figure that reflects the elements of what is referred to as 
a formal grounded theory. A formal or classic grounded theory is envisioned in a multi-level 
way. Stages in the progression through a temporal process are at the center of a visualization of formal or 
grounded theory. Other elements include references to outcomes (anticipated or not), intervening conditions 
that mediate the outcome, and contextual factors. 
Table 2.4 itemizes the key components of a formal grounded theory, as identified by Seidel 
and Urquhart (2013). The table provides a definition for each element and extracts examples 
for each element in the model from the Catallo et al. (2012) study about the process of disclo-
sure to health care professional of intimate partner abuse. 
TABLE 2.4 Core Elements of a Formal Grounded Theory, Their Definition, and Key 
Components of the Catallo et al. Grounded Theory Model to Explain the Intimate Abuse 
Disclosure 
Item 
Definition 
Example from Catallo et al. (2012) 
Casual Condition 
Events or incidents that serve 
as triggers. 
“Being Found Out” 
Intervening Conditions 
Elements in the environment 
that influence the interactions. 
Type of interactions with health care 
providers 
Context 
Elements of the location that 
influence the interaction. 
Wait time, lack of privacy, multiple 
health care providers, concern 
about losing children to social 
services 
Strategy 
Sometimes associated with 
the participant, but often the 
activities that influence the 
Identifying a breaking point 
outcomes. 
Consequences/Outcome 
Outcomes of the actions and 
interactions. 
Self-initiated disclosure; forced 
disclosure 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VARIETY 
41 
Exemplar 3: developing a theoretical model as an outcome: an example 
that combines mixed methods, grounded theory, and community-based 
participatory action research 
It is possible to continue to expand our ideas about the many varied ways that MM-GTM can 
be approached by consulting an article produced by a multi-disciplinary team (community psy-
chology, sociology, anthropology, and social work) that built an expectation of plurality in the 
research design (i.e., Westhues et al., 2008). This project involved a five-year initiative designed 
to “explore, develop, pilot, and evaluate how best to provide community-based mental health 
services that are reflective for people from culturally diverse backgrounds” (Westhues et al., 2008, 
p. 702). This team of feminist researchers paired mixed methods, grounded theory, and com-
munity-based participatory research (CBPR) to synthesize findings from four sub-projects into 
a final meta-conceptual model that appeared in a qualitative health research journal. The CBPR 
framework meant that the team was committed to engaging stakeholders through all phases of 
the research project, including by engaging community members and data collection and analysis. 
Box 2.3 summarizes the purpose and design of Westhues et al.’s (2008) community-based 
project. It also identifies the ways that integration occurred, and the type of theoretical model 
produced. 
BOX 2.3 
Westhues et al.’s (2008) Study About Mental Health Services for 
Immigrant Populations in Canada 
Purpose: The purpose of this collaboratively based mixed methods research 
project was to build a practice-oriented theoretical framework to enhance men-
tal health services five cultural-linguistic groups in Canada (Punjabi Sikh, Man-
darin Chines, Somali, Spanish Latin American, and Polish). 
Design: Explicitly labeled as multi-method, mixed methods, and grounded 
theory, participatory action research (PAR) provided an integrative framework 
for this complex, multi-site project, which meant, according to the authors, 
“that we were committed engaging service providers and members of the 
cultural-linguistic communities in all phases of the study, including data analy-
sis” (p. 702). Data were collected from a comprehensive literature review, focus 
groups with community members from minority cultural linguistic groups, case 
studies, and an online service of health care service providers and analyzed 
concurrently. 
Integration: Data from the four methods were first analyzed separately using a 
combination of an inductive and deductive approach by subcommittees formed 
for this purpose. The conceptual models produced for each group were then 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
42 
VARIETY 
triangulated by members of the theory construction committee to produce a 
final integrative model that included some new synthetic categories. 
Unexpected findings: It was anticipated from the onset that many stakeholder 
groups would bring different views to bear on the topic of mental health. They 
report “the interactive and dialectic use of mixed data helped to discover para-
doxes and contradictions in what we had been told, as wells as the similarities 
and agreements” (p. 714). 
Theory produced: The meta-model theoretical model produced that integrated 
separate models constructed from different sources of qualitative and quantita-
tive data uses labels that are comparable to those of a grounded theory model. 
It includes outcomes, actions that are similar to strategies, and a column that 
refers to values that promote the transformational process. 
The project reflects the complexity involved in a community-based project where the same 
value-oriented commitment extended to implementing a highly collaborative model of team-
based research. The complexity of the project is evident in its methodological grounding and 
philosophical commitment. It is described as (a) multi-method (data gathered through interviews 
and surveys), (b) mixed methods (combining qualitative and quantitative approaches), (c) multi-site, 
and (d) “multi-perspectival.” An expectation for diverse points of view was built in the multi-level 
framing of the project. It was framed by the assumption that service providers, policy makers, and 
members of the five different cultural linguistic groups would bring very different perspectives. 
The account provided by Westhues et al. (2008) is unique in the exemplars I have reviewed 
in that it describes a research design that is embedded and mutually informed by team dynam-
ics and interaction with stakeholders. In this case, the methodology (CBPR) provided the 
organizing principle, not a theory like we saw in exemplar using the life-course perspective. 
The seven-person team appeared to form and reform the task oriented sub-committees ini-
tially assigned to analyze the different forms of data, while all the while memoing and com-
municating actively with each other. The process they describe is dialectical because the same 
people are moving across tasks and in ongoing communication. In this way, their depiction of 
the process resonates with the fluid, iterative conceptualization of synergistic fully integrated 
partnership based mixed methods research generated by Nastasi, Hitchcock, and Brown (2010). 
They differ in that Nastasi and colleagues imagined ongoing, iterative engagement of qualitative 
and quantitative data throughout the research process, while the Westhues et al. (2008) account 
downplays the quantitative data and concentrates on multiple qualitative sources of data. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The impression that grounded theory methods require the formulaic application of a set of 
procedures that must be followed step-by-step is one reason researchers avoid it (Timonen, 


VARIETY 
43 
Foley, & Conlon, 2018). “Descriptions portray theorizing,” Weick writes, “as mechanistic, with 
little appreciation of the often intuitive, blind, wasteful, serendipitous, creative quality of the 
process” (1989, pp. 518–519). Reservations about the method that emanate from this concern 
are no doubt further aggravated in the face of the argument that the application of grounded 
theory methods has been eroded because students have not been taught the differences that 
evolved between the approaches of its founders (cf. Boychuk Duchscher & Morgan, 2004). 
Weed (2009) takes a similarly firm admonitory tone in a review of the use of grounded theory 
in research in sport or exercise psychology, seemingly alarmed to find that authors were not 
distinguishing differences between approaches. 
All methods are hybrid, emergent, and interactive productions. 
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2008, pp. 2–3) 
Tight adherence to views of the founders who first conceived of grounded theory as a 
methodology is at odds with the principal argument at the basis of this chapter and why the 
brief title is “variety.” That is that every researcher adapts methods to their skills and circum-
stances within the inquiry logic of a method, as well as to the requirement for creativity and 
adaptability demanded changes in the environment, unexpected findings, pluralistic views of 
collaborators, and diverse perspectives of participants. With foundational grounding that comes 
from reading the methodological literature, methods can be applied in a systematic and rigorous 
manner that supports the credibility of the conclusions, without slavish attention to following 
a narrowly prescribed set of procedures. 
Neither methods nor design can be equated with quality (Gorard, 2004). Central to any 
judgment of the quality of a research report and whether it has an impact is the originality and 
power of the explanation produced and the extent it resonates with reality (Charmaz, 2014a). 
Many others emphasize “utility” of theory to both practice and future research as a central 
measure of quality of research involving theory. The central question to ask about theory is if 
it is a “model of reality that seems to ‘work’” (Hunter & Brewer, 2015, p. 619) and if it assists 
with making good decisions (Gorard, 2004). Theory is a tentative, partial explanation that is 
only good as long as it is useful, Gorard (2004) maintains. 
Each of the three exemplars featured in this chapter used grounded theory methods with 
the very practical purpose of helping to inform policy and practice about complex health and 
well-being questions among members of vulnerable populations. Evans et al. were concerned 
about family members the care of the home-bound elderly in the Mexican-American com-
munity; Catallo et al. with how emergency care personnel interact with women in abusive 
relationships; and Westhues et al. with developing a health care system that is responsive to the 
needs of immigrant populations with diverse cultural perspectives. 
Adding to the architecture of cross-cutting themes 
Table 2.5 adds a second layer of key themes to the architecture of cross-cutting themes intro-
duced in the first chapter. These are designed to help the reader extract important takeaways 
from the chapter. It is organized around three clusters of concepts: (1) integrated mixed meth-
ods designs, (2) MM-GTM, and (3) complexity and dissonance. 


 
 
 
 
44 
VARIETY 
TABLE 2.5 Linking Chapter 2 to Cross-Cutting Themes 
Cluster 
Major Themes that Cross 
Chapter 2 – Key Points 
Chapters 
Integrated 
Integrated mixed methods 
Conceptualizing a problem and research 
Approaches 
approaches engage qualitative 
questions in a multi-dimensional way 
to Mixed 
and quantitative data in 
can serve as the foundation for thinking 
Methods 
many phases of the research 
theoretically and developing an integrated 
Research 
process, but particularly during 
approach to mixed methods. 
analysis. 
Launching a project with a conceptual 
framework developed during the process 
of consulting a cross-disciplinary body 
of literature facilitates integration across 
research phases. 
Mixed 
MM-GT is a methodology that 
It is possible to sustain an inductive drive 
Methods and 
embeds the logic of mixed 
in a study that is framed by a theoretical 
Grounded 
methods in the constant 
framework from the literature at the onset. 
Theory 
comparative method and 
grounded theory procedures. 
MM-GT has informed research in a wide 
variety of different ways. It is its adaptability 
and variety that sustains its continued 
usefulness. 
MM-GTM has been paired with a variety 
of other qualitative research approaches, 
including participatory action research. 
Complexity 
The link between mixed 
A theoretical framework can offer interpretive 
and 
methods and complexity. 
insight about unexpected findings. 
Dissonance 
The contribution of paradox 
An expectation for plurality and dialectical 
and dissonance to explanatory 
exchange is built into the design of a 
power. 
MM-GTM participatory action research. 
Anticipating the next chapter 
The next chapter builds on the idea of the variety that we see in the way MM-GTM has been 
conducted but narrows the attention to the way that the analytical process can incorporate 
multiple sources and types of data. My purpose in Chapter 3 is not to revisit a well-worn path 
by itemizing grounded theory coding procedures or to arduously itemize all the distinctions 
between the ways the founders view these. This is a task that has been taken on by others. My 
argument in the third chapter is that mixed methods are adaptable to grounded theory proce-
dures because they can be embedded in an abductive exchange between an exploratory and a 
confirmatory stance. 
REVIEW QUESTIONS 
1 
How can a conceptual model developed from the literature during the planning stage of a 
project enhance the design of a study? 
2 
What is the difference between conceiving a core construct, like identity, in a one-dimen-
sional way from conceiving it in a multi-dimensional way? 


 
 
 
 
 
VARIETY 
45 
3 
What distinguishes a grand theory from a substantive grounded theory? 
4 
What is case-based analysis and how can it promote integration? 
5 
What are three major points of contention about people who have devoted considerable 
energy to writing about grounded theory as a methodology? 
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITIES 
1 
Creamer, E. G. (January 2016). Y
ouTube: Anatomy of a Mixed Method Publication – High-
lighting Integration During Reporting (https://youtu.be/5PhV0ocaJ3A) 
2 
Using your personal experience and knowledge of the literature, sketch a change map 
in the form of a grounded theory of your own project. Include activities or strategies, 
anticipated strategies, and individual and environmental factors that are likely to influence 
the achievement of targeted outcomes. Create a type of logic diagram that (a) starts with 
individual pre-disposition, (b) imagines a core sequence with steps suggesting ways change 
might occur over time, (c) list strategies, activities, interactions thought to influence a posi-
tive outcome, and (d) identify possible outcomes, both intended and unintended. 


 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3 
Mixed methods and the 
process of theorizing 
This chapter is about the procedures that advance theorizing, including how qualitative and quantitative data 
can be integrated through theoretical coding, analytical memo writing, case-based analysis, and theoretical 
sampling. 
TERMS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER 
• 
Case-based analysis 
• 
Integrated analytical memo 
• 
Integrated case-based analysis 
• 
Saturation 
• 
Theoretical coding 
• 
Theoretical sampling 
• 
Integrated theoretical coding 
• 
Integrated theoretical sampling 
INTRODUCTION 
In the first two chapters, our attention was directed to the outcomes of empirical research that 
uses mixed methods and grounded theory procedures in some part of the research process to 
generate an analytical or conceptual framework to explain a social experience or process. In 
doing so, our attention was on developing an explanatory framework that is local in the sense 
that it is grounded in a specific context. This is sometimes referred to as “middle range” theory. 
These are less ambitious in their scope and claims than so-called “grand” theories where evi-
dence supports the reliability of the constructs across settings. This was the case, for example, 
in research that people express embarrassment in much the same way across cultures that I 
reported in my 2018 textbook, An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research. 
Chapter 2 highlighted the variety in the ways grounded theory procedures have been 
used with mixed methods in a wide range of disciplinary contexts. This includes how it can be 
used as an integrative framework at the onset of a study, to offer interpretive insight as a study 


 
 
PROCESS 
47 
is underway, and/or as its principal outcome. Examples presented in that chapter demonstrate 
that mixed methods and grounded theory can be paired with other research methods, includ-
ing qualitative approaches like participatory action research and event analysis, to both expand 
understanding of a complex phenomenon and to provide some measure to confirm its findings. 
An emphasis on theory as a product as compared to theory as a process is one of the major 
differences between the epistemological foundations of thought associated with grounded the-
ory (Apramian, Cristancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017). Glaser and Strauss characterized these 
in different ways. In their minds, a theoretical framework is the ultimate endpoint of using 
grounded theory (Apramian et al., 2017). On the other hand, Charmaz, following a position 
Clarke took (2005), elevate theorizing over theory. Charmaz was explicit in the language she 
used to frame her preference for theorizing over theory: 
Theories present arguments about the world and relationships within it . . . My prefer-
ence for theorizing – and it is for theorizing not for theory – is unabashedly interpretive. 
Theorizing is practice . . . The fundamental contribution of grounded theory methods 
resides in offering a guide to interpretive theoretical practice, not in providing a blueprint 
for theoretical products. 
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 128) 
In an article that identifes “schools of thought” within grounded theory, Apramian et al. 
(2017) maintain that Charmaz was less enamored with producing a theoretical framework than 
her predecessors and mentors with a more modernist leaning. Instead, Apramian et al. (2017) 
assert, her interest in basic social interactions and processes and fexibly deploying analytical 
procedures that promote the development of the properties of theoretical constructs. Rigor to 
her was not transferability to other settings or conceptual density. Rather it was to authentically 
present the voices of participants. 
Purpose, contribution, and principal takeaways of the chapter 
In this chapter, our lens shifts from what theory or an explanatory framework looks like when it 
is a product of the systematic application of a set of mixed method procedures to the process of 
theory generation. This chapter attends to analytical procedures that combine data from quali-
tative and quantitative methods during the process of theorizing that contribute to analytical 
understanding. These are not always associated with a final product that is described as a theory. 
The chapter transgresses traditional approaches to grounded theory by building an argument for 
the ways a dialectical give-and-take between qualitative and quantitative data can be embedded 
into the constant comparative method. It offers new ways of applying core grounded theory 
procedures like theoretical coding, analytical memoing, and theoretical sampling. 
The chapter focus on procedures that integrate qualitative and quantitative analytical pro-
cedures moves us considerably closer to a model of MM-GTM that reflects a fully equal status 
in that it contains an equally robust qualitative and mixed methods arm. The approach taken 
in the chapter widens the options available for MM-GTM to extend well beyond preliminary 
views that it merely involves applying the constant comparative method to quantitative data as 
well as qualitative data. Similarly, although it is very likely that a MM-GTM study starts with 


 
 
 
 
 
48 
PROCESS 
separate analysis of different sources of data with procedures that maintain the integrity of that 
method, the emphasis once again is on the types of synergies that can be accomplished by an 
ongoing interactive exchange, particularly during analysis. The chapter further expands views 
of ways that data can be collected in grounded theory by offering examples of the creative use 
of visual methods. 
This chapter emphasizes the integration of data collected through qualitative and quantita-
tive methods in core grounded theory procedures. Principal takeaways from the chapter include: 
1 
There is support for the argument that, rather than being a purely inductive one, the ana-
lytical process in grounded theory research is more accurately characterized as an abduc-
tive one that moves back and forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance. 
This is an epistemological basis for the compatibility between grounded theory and mixed 
methods. 
2 
Promising directions for additional analysis often emerge from an abductive exchange 
between data generated qualitatively and quantitatively about the same phenomenon. 
3 
Case-based analyses that integrates qualitative and quantitative data in a narrative or a 
visualization can resemble a theoretical memo. These can advance theoretical insight about 
the relationships among constructs, including about the ways they are linked to micro-and 
macro-level variables that influence the process being studied. 
4 
Theoretical sampling is a grounded theory procedure that is an extension of the con-
stant comparative method in that additional data gathering is shaped with the purpose of 
advancing theoretical insight. A promising lead can guide theoretical sampling. Theoretical 
sampling can be used for both exploratory or confirmatory purposes. 
INTEGRATED ANALYSIS USING ABDUCTION 
The conception of the analytical process at the center of the constant comparative method as 
one that combines both an inductive/exploratory stance and a deductive/confirmatory one, 
is one that has been acknowledged. Charmaz, for example, declared: “grounded theory is 
not exclusively an inductive method” (2014a, p. 1079). This view of the analytical process in 
grounded theory as combining different analytical logics is a principal methodological argu-
ment for the compatibility between mixed methods and grounded theory. Sociologists Stefan 
Timmermans and Iddo Tavory (2012) took the position that induction does not produce the-
ory. Instead, they argued that it is the pragmatically grounded analytical strategy of abduction 
that is the key to generating theory. Pushing back against the characterization of qualitative 
research as inductive and quantitative research as deductive, Sandelowski (2014) maintained 
that all research cycles back and forth between the two (p. 6). There is growing recognition that 
abduction needs further exploration, co-editor with Kathy Charmaz of the SAGE Handbook of 
Grounded Theory, UK academician Anthony Bryant wrote. He maintained that while induction 
remains central to grounded theory, grounded theory is a “method for enacting abstraction and 
abduction,” Bryant asserts (2017, p. xii). 
We encountered abductive reasoning as a type of analytical logic in the first chapter. 
There, it is defined as an approach to analysis that is both inductive/exploratory and deductive/ 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
49 
confirmatory. It as an extension of the way the constant comparative method is used that often 
produces unexpected findings. Abduction “refers to the creative inferential process aimed at 
producing new hypotheses and theories based on surprising research evidence” (Timmermans 
& Tavory, 2012, p. 170). It often involves finding new concepts to account for puzzling empiri-
cal findings (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). It requires a willingness to abandon old convictions 
and to generate new ones (Reicherz, 2007). 
In abduction, “the researcher goes beyond data as well as pre-existing theory or theories. 
It is an innovative process because every new insight is a result of modifying and elaborat-
ing prior knowledge and putting old ideas together as the researcher tries to explain the 
new data.” 
(Thornberg, 2012, p. 247) 
In the context of MM-GTM, an analytical phase involving abduction is very likely to 
follow an initial phase where preliminary inferences or tentative conclusions are drawn from 
the separate analysis of different sources of qualitative and quantitative data. For example, in a 
project about vulnerability among children and homeless adolescents, Jo Moran-Ellis and a set 
of colleagues from the United Kingdom build an argument for the importance of conceptual-
izing integration in a way that requires maintaining the methodological integrity or character 
of each method: “integration involves the generation of a tangible relationship among methods, 
data, and perspectives, retaining the integrity of each” in a way that gives each method equal 
weight (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006, p. 51). (Equal weight means that each method is integral to 
developing the findings [Creamer, 2018d].) They argue this is a strategy to reconcile the episte-
mological and ontological tensions that arise from using multiple methods, including multiple 
qualitative methods. 
Theory generation is not usually accomplished through a linear process. It is likely to 
involve an iterative process during analysis as the investigator moved back and forth between 
induction and deduction and convergence and divergence. Theory generation is not something 
that can be accomplished in a linear or mechanistic fashion, but requires “simultaneous parallel 
processing” (Weick, 1989, p. 519). 
Visualizing an interactive approach to data analysis in MM-GTM 
Although there are other ways it might be executed, iterative exchanges between inductive, 
deductive, and abductive analytical strategies are often launched, first, with separate analysis 
of the different sources of data using analytical strategies that are consistent with the method. 
That is followed in a subsequent phase of analysis by cycling back and forth between the 
findings beginning to emerge from the analysis of different sources of data. These lead to the 
generation or what Cronin, Alexander, Fielding, Moran-Ellis, and Thomas (2007) describe 
as a “promising lead” that offers an explanation for a relationship between data sets. A prom-
ising lead is often conceptualized in the context of the literature. Others refer to them as a 
hypothesis or theoretical proposition. Hiles (2012) refers to them as an explanatory inference. 
These can take the form of an “if–then” statement about a relationship between constructs 
(Morgan, 2015). 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
50 
PROCESS 
PHASE 1 
Data Analyzed 
Separately 
DATA 1 
DATA 2 
DATA 3 
Induc˜on
Deduc˜on 
Induc˜on
Deduc˜on 
PHASE 2 
Findings from 
2 Data Sets 
Integrated 
Induc˜on
Deduc˜on 
PHASE 3 
Findings from 
All Data Sets 
Integrated 
Promising Leads 
Promising Leads 
FIGURE 3.1 An Inductive–Deductive–Abductive Analytical Cycle: Integrative MMR-GTM 
Figure 3.1 provides what is referred to as a procedural diagram. It visualizes a way analysis 
might progress in a mixed methods study with a theoretical drive that directly engages qualita-
tive and quantitative data in an interactive and iterative way. It refers to three types of analytical 
logics: inductive/exploratory, deductive/confirmatory, and abductive. 
This generic figure depicts a three-phase process that begins with the separate analysis of 
each data set. This is followed by investment of time and resources in a second phase where 
results from the initial round of analysis are engaged dialectically in a give and take that has 
both inductive and deductive dimensions. Conclusions can be verified or warranted through 
this back and forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance (Morgan, 2020). Dis-
sonance between the results from the different methods or evidence of a gap between what 
was expected can introduce an unexpected element to the analysis. This integrative step in 
theorizing can guide additional data collection or analysis or suggest novel directions for the 
research process. 
An example of a promising lead that emerged from an iterative exchange that veered 
between convergence and divergence is evident in a feminist account of a research proj-
ect about working mother’s involvement in their childrens’ school activities (i.e., Weiss, 
Mayer, & Kreider, 2003; Weiss, Kreider, Mayer, Hencke, & Vaughn, 2005). Their research 
challenged the prevailing assumption that paid employment is negatively associated with 
a mother’s involvement in their childrens’ school activities. Weiss et al. characterized the 
mixed methods analytical process as a highly interactive one that mirrored the team dynam-
ics. “An intentional and iterative interplay exists between the separate analysis of qualitative 
and quantitative data sets, such that mixing and integration occurs throughout analysis,” they 
wrote (Weiss et al., 2005, p. 52). The analytical procedures parallel the type of interaction on 


 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
51 
the team that they characterized as “extensive and respectful dialogue” (Weiss et al., 2003, 
p. 52). 
Abductive reasoning as an extension of a mixed methods approach 
to the constant comparative method 
An argument that prioritizes abduction over induction in the use of grounded theory meth-
ods  extends the idea of the constant comparative method to one that embraces mixed 
methods approaches. Conventionally defined as linking data collection and analysis in a 
qualitative approach by constantly comparing emerging constructs or concepts with new 
data as it is collected (Urquhart, Lehmann, & Myers, 2010), in mixed methods the idea 
of using a constant comparative approach to analysis extends to the inductive–deductive– 
abductive process that brings qualitative and quantitative data and analytical procedures into 
a conversation. 
Abduction extends to pragmatic views about the role of the literature 
in MM-GTM 
Cycling between an inductive/exploratory and a deductive/confirmatory one during analysis 
assumes familiarity with the literature and existing theory from the very beginning of the 
research process (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). The judgment about what is a promising 
lead that brings dataset together relies on personal experience, familiarity with the data, and 
knowledge of the literature. It can be sparked by team discussion (Cronin et al., 2007), par-
ticularly when interdisciplinary expertise is brought to bear. Familiarity with the literature 
can amplify the potential implications of inconsistencies, gaps, silences (Creamer & Edwards, 
2019). Noting the roots of abduction in a pragmatic philosophical perspective, Robert Thorn-
berg, wrote: 
Thus, by abduction, the researcher goes beyond data as well as pre-existing theory or 
theories. It is an innovative process because every new insight is a result of modifying and 
elaborating prior knowledge or putting old ideas together in new ways as the researcher 
explores and tries to explain the new data. 
(Thornberg, 2012, p. 247) 
INTRODUCING EXAMPLES IN THIS CHAPTER 
A wide reading of studies using MM-GTM yields many examples of the innovative use of 
a procedure or a visualization that could offer a tool for others with a project with a similar 
drive underway. Ideas for this chapter go beyond what I had in mind when I first started 
thinking about its contents. Some of the ideas in this chapter were generated in part from 
in-depth scrutiny of four studies that I consider in the following sections of the chapter. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52 
PROCESS 
I distinguish three as examples and the fourth as an exemplar. All use research methods in 
original and innovative ways, but I only designate a study as an exemplar when I consider the 
overall design, particularly the mixed methods component, to be refreshingly robust. I single 
out a study as an example when a research procedure that integrates data from different sources 
is used in an original or innovative way that could be adapted in other settings. 
Authors of each of the examples situate their work as utilizing mixed methods and at a 
minimum acknowledge following grounded theory coding procedures. Table 3.1 summarizes 
the innovative features of each of the four examples discussed at some length in this chapter. 
Table 3.1 provides information about each set of authors, the section of the chapter where dis-
cussion about them appears, and what is innovative about their approach. 
The examples reiterate the variety that is evident in research that pairs mixed methods 
with grounded theory. Each of the examples departs in some substantive way either from con-
ventional practice in grounded theory or mixed methods. For example, in their project about 
vulnerable populations, Cronin et al. (2007) deviate from definitions of mixed methods that 
require one method to be qualitative and a second quantitative. What is “mixed” in the Cronin 
et al. (2007) article is not qualitative and quantitative data, but data that were collected and 
analyzed with different qualitative approaches. 
I showcase the other examples discussed in this chapter for an original feature of their 
approach to grounded theory. For example, in writing about how undergraduates’ definitions of 
research evolve with experience, Lee et al. (2019) used a unique approach to the process of devel-
oping an analytic memo. They were not constructed by a solitary researcher but through multiple 
exchanges between a group of researchers who were actively engaged in coding the data. In the 
study about treatment for attention deficit disorder, Bussing and her colleagues (2012) did not 
collect their own data. This team of researchers was able to leverage a set of data that had already 
been collected. The expectation that new data be collected in a grounded theory is an assumption 
that Timonen, Foley, & Conlon (2018) dismiss as not always practical. The last example about 
the well-being of adolescent in war-torn areas in the former Yugoslavia by Jones and Kafetsios 
(2005) is at odds with the framing of grounded theory as an exclusively inductive approach that, 
as Whiteside, Mills, and McCalman (2012) proclaim, begins with no preconceived hypothesis 
to prove or disprove. 
TABLE 3.1 Innovative Features of the Four Examples of MM-GTM from Chapter 3 
Example 
Section in Chapter 
Innovative Feature 
Cronin et al. (2007) 
Promising leading 
Integrating multiple qualitative 
databases. 
Lee et al. (2019) 
Integrating through case-
based memos 
Collaboratively produced 
integrative analytical memos. 
Bussing et al. (2012) 
Integration through 
theoretical coding 
Teaming GT with hypothesis 
testing and data which refuted it. 
Jones & Kafetsios (2005) 
Integrative theoretical 
sampling 
Composite measure combining 
qualitative and quantitative data 
used for theoretical sampling. 


 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
53 
Some scholars insist that departures from conventional research practice violate the integ-
rity of the method and contribute to its erosion (i.e., Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg, 2006). 
Others long associated with grounded theory, like Anthony Bryant, take a different position. 
Bryant (2002) sees it as a negative that grounded theory is still so strongly associated with its 
founders, arguing it inhibits innovation. For a research method to remain viable and dynamic 
over time, particularly when it is used across disciplines, it must be adaptable to diverse circum-
stances (Ralph, Birks,& Chapman, 2015). 
Advancing integration through a promising lead 
Those with an epistemological bent that predisposes them to qualitative approaches will take 
comfort in a methodologically reflexive account produced by a team of researchers that set out 
to more fully understand experiences of vulnerability by integrating findings from data gener-
ated from four “mini” qualitative studies (i.e., Cronin et al., 2007) that used grounded theory 
procedures during coding. In an account of these small-scale studies that seem more like a pilot 
study than a full-fledged research project, these researchers accentuate the role of a “promising 
lead” in integrating data from different sources. A promising lead is “a lead for further analysis 
involving an iterative interrogation of all data sets” (Cronin et al., 2007, p. 576). 
The most creative part of this project is its shift from an interview to less conventional 
and more naturalistic means of data collection. An impression that interview participants were 
concerned “to present their life accounts as stories” led the researchers to make a course adjust-
ment and to add life history as a data collection method. The promising lead they trace emerged 
from the data gathered through visual methods. Physical safety emerged as a strong thread in the 
visual component of the study that included photo-elicitation interviews and video-recorded 
neighborhood tours with participants who were homeless. The team subsequently chose to 
explore this thread in their interview and life history data by creating what they referred to as 
a “data repertoire” that aligned information from all the data sources in a single matrix. The 
article concludes with a statement resonant with theoretical implications but falls short of pre-
senting a fully developed explanatory framework. 
A promising lead can make an appearance in the form of a hunch or burst of creative 
insight. These often rise to surface when each method produces a different, but likely overlap-
ping, understanding of the over-riding research question. In the Cronin et al. (2007) study this 
was about the ways that economic, social, and physical vulnerability are manifested. Singling 
out the role of a promising lead as a way to link findings from different sources of data points 
to a research design that requires adaptability of methods to emerging findings. The choice to 
pursue an unexpected finding revealed by the juxtaposition of findings from different methods 
rests on the researcher. Regardless of method, the act of analysis is always an interpretive one 
(Fielding & Fielding, 1986). The choice of new ideas to pursue and those to let fall by the 
wayside is an interpretive one made within the context of the research questions and a firm 
grounding in the literature. 
The team working with data about vulnerable populations (i.e., Cronin et al., 2007) constructed 
what in the realm of mixed methods is referred to as a data display for each promising thread. The 
juxtaposition of data from different methods about a promising lead or a theme is used formatively in 
that it generates further analysis that engages the iterative, inductive–deductive–abductive exchange 


 
 
 
 
 
 
54 
PROCESS 
TABLE 3.2 Illustrative Example of a Data Display from Multiple Sources of Data 
Sources of Data Related to Physical Safety Theme, by Participant 
Fabricated from Cronin et al. (2007) 
Fictitious 
Participant 
Narrative Interviews 
Photo-Elicitation 
Interview 
Video-Recorded Neighborhood 
Tour 
Lou Ellen 
History of physical 
assault as a child 
Photo of drug paraphernalia 
near a school playground 
Time of day influenced 
perceptions of safety, as did an 
unfamiliar location 
described earlier. At reporting, this kind of display can support an argument for validity by providing 
documentation of the source of conclusions drawn. It could well generate further rounds of data 
collection and in grounded theory what is referred to as theoretical sampling to further embellish 
gaps and silences disclosed by the juxtaposition of data collected with different methods. 
It is a shortcoming in reporting that while the text fully pursues the lead about physical 
safety as an aspect of vulnerability, there are no visualizations related to the analysis in the Cro-
nin et al. (2007) article. As we talk about in the next chapter, whether in the form of table or 
figures, these types of visualizations can play an important role in supporting the conclusions of 
a study. Table 3.2 is designed to help a researcher visualize what a data display might look like. 
I have extended the Cronin et al. article by extracting ideas articulated in the article to create 
the first few lines of what a data display might have looked like in this study. 
When coded in the same way, these types of visual displays can be generated by software 
that aids in the analysis of qualitative and visual data. If not in the final report, data displays like 
the ones described by Cronin et al. (2007) would be helpful as supplemental materials. 
The richest data from the Cronin et al. study (2007) came from naturalistic sources. These 
include field notes and a less conventional, participatory approach to data collection referred to 
as neighborhood mapping. Charmaz (2017b) joined other feminist and critical theorists in the 
commentary she offers of the limitations of conventional data collection strategies and, most 
notably, the semi-structured interview with marginalized populations, arguing, as have oth-
ers, that it reflects very Western cultural assumptions. More creative strategies like using visual 
methods as described in the next chapter will generate more authentic and robust data with 
groups of participants where the spoken word is not the best vehicle for communication. This 
might include, for example, children, non-English speakers, and those with special needs. The 
appearance of terse, two to three words quotes appearing in the findings section of an article 
speak to the limitations of the over-reliance on interviewing as a method of data collection in 
much qualitative research. 
SINGLING OUT CORE GROUNDED THEORY PROCEDURES 
Despite the diversity of perspectives voiced about grounded theory, there is a surprising level 
of consensus about its terminology and generally about what constitutes its core characteris-
tics (Rieger, 2018). Table 3.3 narrows our attention to eight core characteristics of grounded 


 
PROCESS 
55 
TABLE 3.3 Core Grounded Theory Procedures and Definitions 
Core Feature 
Definition 
Coding (open, focused, and 
theoretical) 
An increasingly abstract system of coding that begins with 
descriptive (open codes) and moves to a more narrowly 
defined set of codes that can include deductive codes. 
Constant comparative method 
New data is constantly compared to data previously 
collected and tentatively coded. 
Core category 
Central concept that could begin as a sensitizing concept 
that becomes the focal point of the theoretical explanation. 
Logic model, conditional matrix, 
or formal grounded theory model 
A conceptual model that includes contextual factors, 
inputs, outcomes, a process of strategies, and factors that 
mediate them. 
Memo writing 
An ongoing process of recording reflections about the 
research process and emerging theoretical ideas. 
Saturation 
A judgment made by investigators about when sufficient 
data has been collected when new rounds of data 
collection yields little new insight. 
Social process 
A temporal, time-ordered sequence that is at the center of 
a logic model. 
Theoretical coding 
Theoretical coding generates constructs to conceptualize 
the relationships between categories. 
Theoretical sampling 
A type of purposeful sampling where participants are 
selected for purposes of advancing theoretical ideas. 
theory. Table 3.3 synthesizes information about eight grounded theory procedures and provides 
a definition of each. Authors reporting on a grounded theory study rarely acknowledge more 
than a couple of these (Guetterman, Babchuck, Howell Smith, & Stevens, 2017). 
Table 3.4 reflects a subjective judgment of the different weighting that is given to the core 
procedures by leaders of different schools of thought defined within methodologists writing 
about grounded theory. While the work of each of these authors is linked to different onto-
logical and epistemological assumptions, with the exception of Charmaz’s affiliation with con-
structivism, there is little agreement among experts what philosophical grounding is attached 
to each school. 
Table 3.4 adds to the table that precedes it by recognizing that leading voices writing 
textbooks about grounded theory methods differ in the amount of space they dedicate to each 
procedure. The location of the Xs in the table is subjective, but it is informed by a number of 
articles devoted to discriminating between the methodological, ontological (nature of reality), 
and epistemological (how knowledge is constructed) priorities of each (e.g., Apramian et al., 
2017; Rieger, 2018; McCall & Edwards, 2021; Sebastian, 2019; Timonen et al., 2018). Some 
authors single out Adele Clarke’s situational analysis (2005) as an additional school of thought 
(e.g., Apramian et al., 2017; Timonen et al., 2018; Morse et al., 2009). The placement of the 
Xs in this table is eminently debatable. 
There is a modest level of consistency across the three schools of thought identified in 
Table 3.4 about the centrality of three core procedures as being essential to a grounded theory 
study. That is not to say they may not make a passing reference to the others. All three schools 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
56 
PROCESS 
TABLE 3.4 Priority Awarded to Core Grounded Theory Procedures by Schools of Thought 
Procedure 
Classic/Formal 
Straussian GT 
Constructivist GT 
Glaserian GT 
with Corbin 
Charmaz 
Positivist 
Realist 
Constructivist* 
Coding (open, focused) 
X 
X 
X 
Constant comparative method 
X 
X 
X 
Core category 
X 
Logic model, conditional matrix, or 
X 
formal grounded theory model 
Memo writing 
X 
X 
X 
Saturation 
X 
X 
Theoretical coding 
X 
Theoretical sampling 
X 
X 
Source: Apramian et al., 2017; Rieger, 2018; Sebastian, 2019 
TABLE 3.5 Frequency of the Use of Core Grounded Theory Procedures in an Analysis 
from a Systematic Review of 64 MM-GT Articles by Guetterman et al. (2017) 
Procedure 
Number/Frequency 
(N = 61 Articles) 
Constant comparative method 
26 (42%) 
Coding 
36 (59%) 
Generated a theory/framework 
20 (33%) 
Analytic Memos 
8 (15%) 
Saturation 
18 (30%) 
Theoretical sampling 
5 (8%) 
of thought are in agreement about the centrality of a structured, increasingly abstract approach 
to coding, the constant comparative method, and memo-writing. Differences among these 
authors is most evident on three items. The constructivist emphasis in Charmaz’s (2014a) work 
is in that she awards less attention than the other two authors on theory as the product of 
grounded theory procedures, theoretical sampling, and saturation. 
Authors of the articles comparing the approaches differ in the language they use to situ-
ate the paradigmatic grounded of each. Leading methodologists differ in their views about the 
paradigmatic grounding of the different schools of thought approach (e.g., Apramian et al., 
2017; Rieger, 2018; Sebastian, 2019). One group of authors position Glaser’s and Strauss’ ini-
tial framing of the methodology as post-positivism and modernism and Strauss and Corbin as 
symbolic interactionists (Ralph, Birks, & Chapman, 2015) (see Table 3.5). 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
57 
Estimating the frequency of the use of core grounded theory procedures 
A systematic review and analysis of peer-reviewed MM-GTM articles executed by Tim 
Guetterman and his colleagues (2017) offers some insight about how rarely most core grounded 
theory procedures are acknowledged in empirical MM-GTM articles. Researchers on this team 
dissected each article to catalog many features, including by the type of mixed methods design 
and the types of grounded theory procedures documented. Although conventional, the search 
terms they used have a lot to do with weaknesses in the sample of 61 articles yielded in their 
search. They write, “search terms were ‘grounded theory,’ and one of the following: ‘mixed 
method*, ‘multi-method,’ or ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’” (p.  184). A telltale sign of the 
weakness in the articles Guetterman et al. uncovered is that they found no example where the 
two methodologies were given equal priority. The search terms were not effective in locating 
a sample of articles with the type of meaningful integration during the analysis of the type that 
is considered in this book. 
The team of researchers concluded that there was not much recognition of core grounded 
theory procedures in most MM-GTM articles they located during their search process. The 
majority of articles (62%) recognized four or fewer core characteristics. Their cataloging revealed 
that none of the 61 articles recognized all of the core grounded theory procedures. They write: 
“Researchers employing grounded theory in mixed methods research rarely drew upon all or 
even most of the majors features of grounded theory” (Guetterman et al., 2017, p. 188). 
Guetterman et al. (2017) equate research quality with methodological transparency. They 
rely on the identification of six core procedures as an indicator of quality and transparency in a 
MM-GTM article. Reinforcing the idea that most of the time a reference to grounded theory as 
a method refers to the coding procedures and not its theoretical purpose, authors of 59% of article 
referred to developing a coding scheme. Only about one-third produced a theoretical framework. 
Memo writing and theoretical sampling were acknowledged only in a small number of studies. 
There are many reasons why researchers involved in complex, cross-disciplinary, team 
research executed in several sites may not use many of the core grounded theory procedures 
other than coding over the course of executing a project. Lack of in-depth knowledge of 
grounded theory is only one of several possible explanations. A second is associated space limi-
tations in journals and conventions about how much space is devoted to methods in content-
oriented articles. The majority of insight of creative uses of MM-GTM procedures comes from 
methodological articles or content-oriented articles that devote an unusual amount of space to 
documenting research methods. 
Embedding the engagement of qualitative and quantitative data in core 
grounded theory procedures 
While leading methodologists devoted to grounded theory have long championed the potential to 
use many kinds of data to generate theory, the recognition has been at the level of data and not the 
procedures. The emphasis placed on data is evident in the wording of the argument put forward 
about MM-GTM. For example, by Holton and Walsh (2017) maintained: “For grounded theo-
rists, using both qualitative and quantitative data opens a vast realm of additional empirical possi-
bilities for generating theory” (p. 11). They maintain the separation between the two approaches, 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
58 
PROCESS 
aligning themselves with the view that the principal way to imagine MM-GTM is in a two-
phase study with a qualitative phase devoted to theory generation and a second, quantitative 
phase attending to demonstrating its generalizability. Possibly because this requires multiple 
studies to execute and the likelihood that these are reported in separate articles, Walsh (2015) is 
one of the few examples I was able to locate that used this approach. 
An alternative to the emphasis on data as the source of an alliance between mixed meth-
ods and grounded theory is one that situates it in the analytical approach (constant compara-
tive method, abductive reasons) and procedures (coding, memo writing, theoretical sampling, 
etc.). This is a topic I first entertained in a 2018 article, “Enlarging the Conceptualization of 
Mixed Methods Approaches to Grounded Theory with Intervention Research” (Creamer, 
2018b). In that article, I introduced an argument for the potential for a fully integrated MM-
GTM (FIMM-GTM) where qualitative and quantitative data are integrated at multiple phases 
of the research process, including during analysis. I closed that article noting that potential to 
use a mixed methods approach to advance theory development had not been actualized and 
proposing that future research set out to identify the ways the two methods have been teamed: 
“There has been little acknowledgment in the literature about MM-GTM that the use of some 
procedures that are central to the process of developing grounded theory, including theoretical 
sampling and theoretical coding” (p. 13). This is the idea that launched this book. 
In the second chapter, I reviewed ways that qualitative and quantitative approaches can 
be integrated to produce a final explanatory model. In the next section of the chapter, I keep 
the focus on the act of theorizing and use three different examples of MM-GTM to follow 
up on the idea that mixed methods can be embedded in grounded theory procedures like 
theoretical coding, analytic memo writing, and theoretical sampling. Each of the examples 
point to the ways that mixed methods and grounded theory can be employed together in 
synergistic ways. 
THEORETICAL CODING 
Considerably more attention has been paid in the methodological literature to descriptive types 
of qualitative coding (i.e., open, axial, and selective or focused coding) than to an advanced type 
of coding referred to as theoretical coding. Theoretical coding generates constructs that conceptual-
ize the relationships between categories. “Redefining beauty” might be an example of a theoretical 
code generated as a core construct in a study about how women adjust their body image fol-
lowing a mastectomy. Theoretical coding can be a way to generate hypotheses or themes that 
subsequently can be tested quantitatively (Walsh, 2015), qualitatively, or with mixed data. 
Theoretical coding typically occurs later in the process of developing a coding scheme. 
It is framed in the literature as following an initial phase of open or emergent coding. This is 
the most descriptive phase of coding. It can be developed using a subset of the data. The next 
round of coding is referred to as focused coding. Normally, this refers to the phase of the cod-
ing process where clusters of codes referring to similar constructs are grouped together. Johnny 
Saldaña (2009), the author of a coding manual for qualitative researchers that greatly expanded 
ideas about ways to approach coding, defines theoretical coding as a strategy that leads to the 
discovery of a core category. Theoretical coding generally follows earlier more descriptive 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
59 
phases of coding. It is the leverage point that moves coding from descriptive to analytical or 
abstract. In the real world of practice, theoretical coding can be introduced at many points in 
the analytical process. 
Charmaz (2014a) ranks with her other methodologists writing about grounded theory in 
the way she presented theoretical coding. “The extent theoretical coding is an application of an 
emergent process is somewhat ambiguous,” Charmaz wrote (2014a, p. 150). She suggested that 
a coding scheme can include both inductive (or emergent codes) and deductively derived codes 
from the literature and other theoretical frameworks. T
o illustrate that point, she suggested that 
Glaser’s (1978a) coding families could prove useful. These include constructs such as context, 
conditions, consequences, and causal mechanisms that are central to developing a formal theo-
retical model. This type of model is illustrated in Chapter 6. 
In the process of moving from the realm of the descriptive to one that is more analyti-
cal and potentially theoretical, an investigator’s frame of mind shifts to one that is more 
overtly interpretive. One reason this level of coding is considered abstract is that it requires 
identifying patterns and regularities detected in the text but rarely apparent to the partici-
pant (Morgan, 2015). It is unlikely to find a participant, for example, that uses language 
about causality or about how one event or set of circumstances contributed to an outcome. 
The depth and nuance of theoretical coding depends on investigators’ personal experience, 
breadth of knowledge of the literature, and willingness to simultaneously juggle more than 
one possible explanation. 
An example of integration through theoretical coding 
We turn to an example from a project about attitudes about treatment options adolescents with 
attention deficit disorder (ADHD) to spark ideas about what integrated theoretical coding 
might look like. Integrated theoretical coding is a mixed methods analytical strategy that engages find-
ings from more than one type of data to generate theoretical propositions or hypotheses about the relation-
ship among categories. I use two articles produced from this long-term project that are explicitly 
labeled as mixed methods to explore the ways that integrated theoretical coding can be used in 
tandem with conventional grounded theory procedures (i.e., Bussing et al., 2005, 2012). 
The 2005 Bussing et al. article is unconventional in that the authors describe their proj-
ect as using grounded theory inductively with a theoretical framework that had already been 
developed. This is a pragmatic approach to developing a coding scheme that is not uncommon 
in practice. Both the 2005 and 2012 articles characterize the approach to coding of qualita-
tive data as one that combines both inductively and deductively derived codes. “The mixed-
method approach used in this study utilizes both inductive and deductive research methods,” 
that authors write (Bussing et al., 2005, p. 87). The movement back and forth between deduc-
tive and inductive coding meant a near seamless connection between the quantitative and 
qualitative data. 
In the earlier article (Bussing et al., 2005) described a process of developing analytical 
insight that reflected that the team of researchers used a highly interactive approach. Linking 
team dynamics to the construction of analytical memos, Bussing et al. (2005, p. 89) wrote: 
“Throughout the analysis process the research team took notes and shared memorandum, both 
analytical and reflexive.” The conceptual model was produced through this process. We see a 


 
 
 
60 
PROCESS 
similar process and outcome in an example from Lee et al. (2019) about engineers’ views about 
research that I discuss later in the chapter. 
In researching views about treatment options for ADHD, Bussing et al. (2012) had an 
opportunity to apply grounded theory methods to analyze an unusually robust body of data 
generated in response to an open-ended question on a survey about concerns about the unde-
sirable effects of treatment options. While it is quite common, if not always applauded, for 
someone to refer to a survey with open- and close-ended questions as mixed methods, this 
team of researchers had access to an unusual number of responses (1356) that ranged in length 
from one word to lengthy paragraphs. 
Bussing et al. (2012) coded the data supplied in response to an open-ended question on a 
survey in ways the combined conventional grounded theory coding procedures with theoreti-
cal constructs from the literature and that had emerged in prior phases of the research project. 
They describe a process of inductive coding that followed the usual sequence of open coding, 
axial coding, and selective coding but also included already established codes. Theoretical codes 
“were used to create an integrated model” (p. 97). Through this process, the team generated 
three theoretical codes that reflected reasons participants held negative views about a treatment 
option: negative attitude/dislike, perceived ineffectiveness, and burden. The “burden” theoreti-
cal code contained axial codes like cost and disruption of daily activities. 
Theoretical coding is directly linked to the construction of theoretical models that, accord-
ing to Charmaz, have an internal logic “that more or less coalesces into coherent forms” (2006, 
p. 128). Figure 3.2 reproduces the model Bussing and her colleagues (2012, p. 97) generated as 
a result of an analytical procedure that integrated deductively and inductively derived theoreti-
cal constructs. The journal where it appears is open access. I reproduce the model in full for a 
FIGURE 3.2 Conceptual Model from Bussing et al. (2012) 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
61 
number of reasons, including that: (a) it reflects theoretical coding; (b) it is concise but highly 
nuanced, leading to more than one interpretive conclusion; and (b) the practical implications 
about reasons patients may resist treatment are clearly evident. Paths connecting constructs in 
the model are based on the frequency of responses, with the darker shading indicating more 
than 20 responses. Small boxes with numbers make it possible to understand each path in terms 
of codes derived from an open coding phase. 
The figure contains key elements of a grounded theory, including causal conditions, the 
treatment or strategy, and the outcomes. The shaded lines in this figure connect the theoretical 
codes in the left column (negative attitudes, perceived ineffectiveness, burden) with the treat-
ment options in the center of the future (short-acting and long-acting medicine, education, 
behavior therapy, and counseling) with outcomes that are the undesirable effects anticipated 
(physiological side effects, dependence, psychological side effects, stigma. 
The insights in this model could be visualized in other ways. In the section of Coding 
Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2009) devoted to coding for causality, Johnny Saldaña dem-
onstrates a way that the types of interconnections shown in the Bussing et al. (2012) figure can 
be displayed to highlight the potential causal links between the theoretical in causal matrix or 
flowchart (p. 192). This type of table helps to disaggregate a complex figure by sorting out the 
results in terms of each treatment option. 
In Table 3.6, I apply the Saldaña (2009) strategy to tracing the paths in the grounded 
theory model produced by Bussing et al. (2012) by extracting information about three of the 
treatment options: long-term medication, education, and behavior therapy. The “more than” 
sign implies a linear orientation often embedded in a grounded theory model. 
Causality is implied in by the theoretical codes that offer an explanation for the “why” 
between the outcomes anticipated and the treatment option. The search for evidence about the 
“why” behind relationships between constructs builds internal validity (Eisenhardt, 1989). So, 
for example, education as a treatment option is not perceived to have undesirable effects but it 
is not the treatment option most strongly endorsed by participants because of the concern is 
that it might not be effective. 
Bussing et al. (2012) feature the model in the section of the article devoted to reporting on 
the qualitative analysis but an argument can clearly be made for what they represent as mixed 
TABLE 3.6 Illustrating Causal Pathways in the Grounded Theory Model Produced by 
Bussing et al. (2012) 
Theoretical Code: “Negative 
Strategy (Treatment 
Outcome – “Undesirable 
Treatment Perceptions” 
Option) 
Effects” 
> 
> 
> 
Burden (e.g., cost, adhering to a 
Long-acting medications 
Physiological side effects 
dosing regime) 
Burden (interference with daily routine) 
Education 
None 
Perceived ineffectiveness 
Burden 
Behavior therapy 
Dependence 
Perceived ineffectiveness 
Psychological side effects 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
62 
PROCESS 
data and mixed data analysis as one way to acknowledge that the lines between a qualitative and 
quantitative approach can be blurry. Rather than one that can be pigeon-holed as quantitative 
or qualitative, a “mixed position” is when some aspect of the quantitative analysis is pursued 
inductively or some aspect of the qualitative analysis is pursued deductively (Pearce, 2015). 
The constructs depicted in the model can be considered as “mixed” because the lines between 
those quantitatively derived and those qualitatively derived are blurry. Some were inductively 
derived through grounded theory methods and others were deductively derived. The figure 
can be considered “mixed analysis” because the paths between the constructs were not derived 
inductively, but by quantifying the frequencies of the responses. Bussing et al. (2012) could have 
afforded more methodological transparency to readers by devoting a section of the manuscript 
to explaining how mixing occurred and what was achieved by it. 
MIXED ANALYSIS THROUGH INTEGRATED CASE-BASED MEMOS 
Memo writing in its various forms is widely recognized as one of the core characteristics of 
grounded theory analytical procedures. Writing memos is an on-going process in grounded the-
ory. they are a record of reflections about the research process and emerging theoretical ideas. The 
priority awarded to memoing as a procedure that enhances theorizing spans different schools of 
thought about grounded theory, including those associated with formal theory (Glaserian) (Tim-
onen, Foley, & Conlon, 2018). Memos can be in a written as a narrative or constructed through 
a visualization like an informal sketch that captures preliminary ideas about the links between 
codes and sub-codes, between constructs embodied in categorical or selective codes, or that 
traces an idea about a temporal sequence. A field note from an observation could serve as a memo 
that could be coded later in the analytical process. Initially, memos are brief and constructed in a 
tentative way. Excerpts from a memo might appear in a manuscript, but their main purpose is to 
advance analytical reasoning. 
I refer to a memo that keeps a record of key decisions points in the analytical process as 
procedural memo and distinguish it from a more abstract and potentially theoretically signifi-
cant analytical memo. Memos are another type of data that serve as the fundamental bridge 
between data and emergent theory (Lempert, 2007). “If data are the building blocks of the 
development of theory, memos are the mortar,” Lempert wrote (2007, p. 119). A memo that 
toggles between description and abstraction can be the basis of an argument for patterns and 
relationships unlikely to be evident to a participant. More abstract than raw data in the form of 
interview transcripts or field notes, memos become data that can be the basis for further rounds 
of coding and theme development. Some memos grow in complexity and become an enduring 
part of the emerging theory, while others quickly fall by the wayside and can seem embarrass-
ingly naïve in retrospect. An eye to the literature during the iterative process of developing a 
memo can alert the researcher “to gaps in theorizing, as well as the ways that . . . the data tells 
a different, or more nuanced story” (Lempert, 2007, p. 254). 
An integrated analytical memo integrates data collected from qualitative and quantitative 
methods to advance theoretical insight. These are readily adaptable to communicating a coherent 
narrative or to encapsulating the type of temporal sequence associated with change over time. 
An analytical memo can integrate qualitative and quantitative data and serve as a stepping-stone 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
63 
for further analysis, particularly when this involves case-based analysis by recontextualizing 
what otherwise may seem the fracturing that occurs during open coding. The cycling back and 
forth between insights drawn from different sources of data that is involved in the construction 
of an integrated analytical memo is another example of the way the logic of mixed methods can 
be embedded in a grounded theory procedure. 
Analysis that is based on a case that integrates qualitative and quantitative data can be char-
acterized as mixed analysis. Integrated case-based analysis is a mixed methods analytical strategy 
that leverages data generated from qualitative and quantitative methods into a narrative or visualizations in 
ways that advance the analysis. A case might revolve around a core construct. It can be about an 
individual or an incident or event, like a public protest. Other units of analysis for a case-based 
analysis could be a caregiving dyad, a classroom, a community organization or hospital ward, 
a school, a neighborhood, a community, monument, or a piece of land. The development of 
cases allows a researcher to reconnect segments to the context (Cronin et al., 2007). 
Prioritizing case-based analysis as the “lynchpin for integration” in a mixed methods 
study, Pat Bazeley wrote: “Each case holds data from different sources and different types 
together, thus cases provide the lynchpin for integration of data” (2018a, p. 26). In MM-
GTM, an integrative case-based memo might take the form of a narrative that weaves together 
information from different sources to construct an account of steps or transitions in the process 
of change. This is similar to the “change maps” used by emergency room nurse, Christine 
Catallo, Ciliska, and MacMallan (2012) featured in Chapter 2. She sketched one for every 
participant and used them to pinpoint key transition points in the process leading to disclosure 
about partner abuse. The purposeful integration of qualitative and quantitative data for pur-
poses of further analysis is one feature that distinguishes case-based analysis from qualitative 
approaches to case study. 
In her description of it as mixed analytical strategy, Dutch scholar, Judith Schoonenboom, 
refers to the process of developing a case in ways that suggest the abductive process of moving 
back and forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance. She refers to this as “spiraling 
cycles of ideas and evidence” (2019, p. 1). The priority she places on discordances and discon-
tinuities in the construction of cases suggests that Schoonenboom’s perspective inclines to the 
postmodern. She traces different steps in the construction of a case, concluding that they often 
begin what she refers to as the “controversial case.” This is evidence that supports more than 
one conclusion about the role of a theoretical construct in a larger process. She also singles out 
what she refers to as “moderating cases.” These further address complexities emerging from the 
analysis of different data sources by developing an understanding of the conditions or circum-
stances under which core ideas do not apply. 
An integrative case-based memo or visualization is not simply a descriptive compilation 
like a data matrix, but a construction that involves interpretation, a winnowing down of the 
data, and organization in a way that communicates a coherent logic without concealing nuances 
in the ways it is experienced. In that way, it is similar to the reliance in fields like geology on 
producing field notes from observations. The lines between qualitative and quantitative data 
can be kept distinct in an integrated case-based memo, as we will see in the example described 
in the following section where making meaning of the dissonance between the two was part of 
the task. In other circumstances, an integrative memo can be constructed so seamlessly that it is 
difficult to discern the lines between the data generated by different methods. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
64 
PROCESS 
An example of an integrative case-based memo 
During a phase of intense coding and analysis of interview data, an innovative group of research-
ers at Clemson University led by Lisa Benson (Faber et al., 2019; Kajfez et al., 2021; Lee et al., 
2019) unexpectedly found themselves adding a step in their grounded theory project that involved 
developing an integrative analytical memo about each participant. Their interest in the role of 
real-world research experiences in the process of the development of an identity as a researcher 
is a good match with the emphasis placed on process in constructivist grounded theory. T
eam 
members central to the analytical process needed a wider context to understand undergraduate 
students’ evolving and sometimes contradictory understanding of the nature of research and what 
it means to be a researcher. The process of constructing the memos helped members of the team 
further explore what appeared to be the contradictory statements participants made during the 
interviews when they were asked to explain what they were thinking when they completed an 
item on the survey asking them to rate their view of themselves as a researcher. 
Dennis Lee took (Lee et al., 2019) took the lead in an article that documented the pro-
cedures team members used to develop and refine memos for each participant that integrated 
interview data with responses collected on a survey a few months earlier. The original authors 
of each of the 20 memos had conducted the interview and were well versed in the theories 
related to epistemology and identity that informed the research project. Each memo was for-
matted in a similar way, with a final section called “cross case analysis” devoted to the constant 
comparative act of weighing the in light of other memos. Each memo went through multiple 
revisions during the process of interaction among the two people who co-constructed the 
memo and the reviewers who subsequently provided feedback about them. This resonates with 
Eisenhardt’s (1989) observation that the process of building theory from case study research is a 
“strikingly iterative one” (1989, p. 546). 
The interactive process of constructing a detailed integrative memo about each participant 
led to downplaying the significance of the quantitative number respondents assigned to their 
response to survey items related to identity as researcher. Part of the researchers’ reluctance to 
base their analysis on the quantitative response was the realization that it froze a response about 
researcher identity to a single point of time. A quote that appeared in the memo about a par-
ticipant, Taylor, captures the fluidity of the meaning of the number assigned and how it was 
impacted just a few months later by experiences that had occurred since completing the survey. 
I feel like, from the time I answered your survey to now, I feel a lot more like a researcher, 
just in the sense that I’ve had a lot more exposure in the last few weeks to doing engineer-
ing-related research, so I’ve been exposed to another field in that sense. If I answered “7” 
for whatever reason on that, I would probably put myself at a an “8” now. 
(Taylor, quoted by Lee et al., 2019, p. 4) 
The evolving nature of Taylor’s experience fts with Lempert’s (2007) warning to be cautious 
about imposing linearity on a participant’s experience. Not all social processes unfold in a linear 
or for that matter, systematic, way, Lempert observed (2007). 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
65 
Integrative memos (cases) can be constructed to serve many different functions that advance 
theoretical insight. They can be organized to explore causal processes, to identify moderating 
variables that influence the outcomes, to pinpoint outcomes, or to describe the process of 
change (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). They can be analyzed to reveal under what circum-
stances the social process (Rule & John, 2015). Lee et al. (2019) listed five main benefits that 
accrued from the use of these case-based analytic memos in generating a theoretical framework. 
These are: (a) support the description of relationships between theoretical constructs, (b) inte-
grate what was often seemingly contradictory quantitative and qualitative data, (c) facilitate the 
use of the constant comparative method, (d) enhance data analysis and model building, and 
(e) verify a grounded theory model. They also served several practical purposes of consolidating 
data management and facilitating communication among team members about the data. As the 
final model began to coalesce, members of the research team returned to the integrative memos 
as a way to test model fit and to consider the new insight afforded by those who do not seem 
to fit the model. Their search for cases that appeared not to fit the emerging model is a strategy 
more strongly associated with Strauss and Corbin (1998), than it is the constructivist position 
put forward by Charmaz (2014a). 
THEORETICAL SAMPLING 
Theoretical sampling is a third core grounded theory procedure designed to advance theo-
rizing that can be readily adapted to include multiple sources of data. It follows a very different 
sampling logic than one that is based on trying to achieve representativeness. In a conventional 
sense, it is defined as an emergent and purposeful approach to sampling that follows and initial purpose-
ful sampling that is designed to advance theoretical insight by adding to the understanding of concepts, 
categories, relationships and themes. In the foundational literature about grounded theory, the 
purpose of theoretical sampling is to gain better understanding of categories and concepts 
and possible variations in them (Timonen, Foley, & Conlon, 2018). Emergent themes can be 
explored by adding questions to an interview protocol (Levina & Vaast, 2008) or expanding 
an observation protocol. 
Others writing about the use of theoretical sampling take a more expansive view of the 
purposes theoretical sampling can serve. It can include sampling to verify constructs or themes, 
to achieve saturation, or to pursue negative cases (Morse & Clark, 2019). It can be used to 
find an explanation for group differences, as well as to find an explanation for inconsistencies 
between data sources. Theoretical sampling based on the identification of disconfirming cases is 
often used during the cyclical process of theory building and testing (Booth, Carroll, Ilott, Low, 
& Cooper, 2013). It is possible to imagine theoretical sampling undertaken to understand gaps 
and silences in the data about elements of the phenomenon that were not raised by participants 
but expected from the literature. 
In MM-GTM, the analytical logic of abduction can be the engine that drives theo-
retical sampling. An abductive logic can enter the scene when a coding scheme has begun 
to solidify. “Theoretical sampling involves abduction as the researcher accounts for puz-
zling findings,” Charmaz noted (2019, p. 172). Maintaining her qualitative perspective, she 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
66 
PROCESS 
framed the back and forth as occurring between the data and the emerging theory. Find-
ings emerging from quantitative data or from quantitative analytical procedures would be a 
third partner in this arrangement in MM-GTM. For example, in intervention research in 
a health context where preliminary results ran counter to the assumption that a treatment 
would be effective, an abductive approach to theoretical sampling would pursue additional 
qualitative and quantitative data to support or refute multiple possible explanations for that 
finding. 
Saturation 
The argument for saturation as an indication of rigor now extends across many qualita-
tive approaches but the originators of grounded theory originally conceived of it as the 
end point, if not the point, of theoretical sampling. In their first publication, Glaser and 
Strauss (1967) described saturation in terms of fleshing out the characteristics of catego-
ries, rather than a theoretical model. “Saturation means that no additional data are being 
found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category. As he [sic] sees 
similar instances over and over again, the researcher becomes empirically confident that 
a category is saturated” (1967, p. 61). The pursuit of saturation can contribute to careful 
attention to the development of the properties of a category and produce “the sharply 
defined, measurable constructs that are necessary for strong theory,” Eisenhardt (1989, 
p. 542) maintain. 
Others define saturation in more practical terms. Eisenhardt (1989) defined saturation as 
a point in the analytical process “when marginal improvements become small” (1989, p. 533). 
Nursing educator and editor of a qualitative journal, Janice Morse, sees this differently. She 
that data collection ends when there is “enough data to build a comprehensive and convincing 
theory. That is, saturation occurs” (1995, p. 148). It is not the quantity of data, she out, but 
“valuing variation over quantity” (p. 147). An indicator of saturation is when the theoretical 
categories and model resonate with the literature (Nelson, 2017). 
There are wide variations in the way that theoretical sampling can be used in MM-GTM. 
It can depart from views of it framed in conventional grounded theory textbooks by serving 
a confirmatory purpose. Its use for confirmatory purposes is evident, for example, in a mixed 
methods study that used some grounded theory procedures to study depression among Japanese 
immigrants (i.e., Saint Arnault, 2009). She identified theoretical sampling as the strategy she 
used to test hypotheses generated in a previous phase of a study. 
Theoretical sampling does not always require additional data collection. A certain portion 
of the data can be reserved to verify findings (Bruce, 2007). The study by Bussing et al. (2005) 
about attitudes about treatments for attention deficit disorder explored earlier in the chapter, 
for example, used theoretical sampling with data that already had been collected. A similar 
strategy could be used with themes generated from an integrated case-based analysis. In a study 
of Indigenous empowerment, for example, Whiteside et al. (2012) demonstrate a way that 
theoretical sampling can be used with secondary data. 
Integrated theoretical sampling engages multiple types of data to advance theoretical insight 
about categories, concepts, relationships, and themes. In the exemplar described next, these are used 
with a carefully matched sub-sample from the larger population. 


  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS 
67 
Box 3.1 summarizes key features of the design of the MM-GTM study of the effects of 
childhood trauma during war by Jones and Kafetsios (2005). I distinguish this study as an exem-
plar, rather than an example, because of the way that the intent to integrate different sources of 
data and engage the dialectically is embedded at many points in the research process. 
BOX 3.1 
Jone’s and Kafetsios’s (2005) Study About War-Related 
Childhood Trauma 
Purpose: This mixed methods publication is part of a larger body of work related 
to an ethnographic study by a team of researchers in the United Kingdom inves-
tigating adolescents living in two neighboring cities on the opposite sides of a 
war in Bosnia (1992–1995) that involved ethnic genocide. Its declared aim was to 
better understand the relationship between overall exposure to political violence 
and well-being and the contextual factors that influence it. 
Design: This study is explicitly situated as mixed methods with a “primarily 
qualitative methodological stance” (p. 159). Study authors characterize their 
research as following the basic principles of grounded theory. The priority 
awarded to mixed methods is evident in the numerous sources of data and the 
multiple ways they were engaged interactively. Data were collected through 
interviews with adolescents and a parent, the administration of multiple ques-
tionnaires, including those related to trauma and well-being, and stories and 
life history timelines. 
Integration: Findings from multiple sources of data were integrated at many 
points in the research process and in many innovative ways. The most innovative 
of these included the quantification of the life history timelines and the creation 
of mixed data through the construction of a composite measure of well-being 
that was informed by subjective judgment and quantitative indicators. Both 
qualitative and quantitative were collected simultaneously through a survey that 
was administered orally where participants described their response to a vari-
ety of different types of trauma associated with war (bombing, pet killed, family 
member injured, friend killed, etc.) and then ranked their frequency (how often) 
and intensity (duration) 
Unexpected findings: The “promising lead” that emerged fairly early in this 
project is that findings were not consistent with the initial assumption that the 
well-being of adolescents in the two villages would differ because one had been 
the target of more sustained and intensive bombing. Because habituation leads 
to less feelings of threat, findings were described as “paradoxical” about quan-
tity of shelling. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
68 
PROCESS 
Theory produced: The research extended the original theoretical framework. 
Although not explicitly stated in a theoretical way, well-being (outcome) was 
influenced by contextual factors, most notably, the “degree to which an event 
disrupts the adolescent’s personal network, and their personal sense of secu-
rity” (p. 172). 
Although there are many fascinating elements of the methods used in this study, the dis-
cussion that follows draws attention to the creative ways that data from different sources were 
intermingled in the sampling strategy. 
An exemplar that launched theoretical sampling with a promising lead 
The Jones and Kafetsios (2005) study about the effects of ethnic violence was shaped by 
the theoretical assumption that the more intense and sustained it is, the more traumatic the 
experience and the more likely it is to damage a sense of well-being or security. This logic 
guided initial sampling procedures and the selection of adolescent youths from two villages 
that had experienced different levels of bombing during the Bosnian War between the Serbs, 
Croats, and Muslims that occurred between 1992 and 1995. The authors situate the study 
as mixed methods with a “primarily qualitative methodological stance” (Jones & Kafetsios, 
2005, p. 159). The second round of sampling procedures was influenced by an unexpected 
finding that operated like a “promising lead” discussed earlier in the chapter. The authors 
point to this theoretical anomaly when they write: “Initial readings of the [interview] tran-
scripts showed the importance of exposure in one town but not the other, yet there seemed 
to be an equal number of less well adolescents in each city” (Jones & Kafetsios, 2005, p. 163). 
This puzzling finding influenced subsequent integrative sampling procedures to further 
understand the theoretical implications of the relationship between exposure to violence and 
symptoms of trauma. 
Jones and Kafetsios (2005) used a unique approach to integrative theoretical sampling 
that was grounded in both qualitative and quantitative assessments. They built a mixed data 
composite measure of psychological well-being based that contained both a quantified change 
score, school grades, and the subjective judgments of parents, teachers, and the researcher who 
had been engaged in the field. Particular weight was given to the change score. That was the 
difference between the initial and final score participants assigned to their well-being as they 
drew their timeline. 
Jones and Kafetsios (2005) quantified findings from participant drawn timelines but did not 
include any examples of them in the paper. As this is a strange omission for a study that used 
visual methods, I constructed the visualization in Figure 3.3 from the narrative provided in the 
article in the study about adolescents during the Bosnian conflict to illustrate how data provided 
in the life history timeline was quantified. Participants drew a dot on the timeline reflecting an 
assessment of their well-being for each year of their life after age five. A line was drawn to connect 


 
 
PROCESS 
69 
Well-Being by Year 
0 
0.5 
1 
1.5 
2 
2.5 
3 
3.5 
4 
4.5 
5 
5-6 yrs. 
7-8 yrs. 
9-10 yrs. 
11-12 yrs. 
13-14 yrs. 
15-6 yrs. 
Well-Being 
Child 1 
Child 2 
Child 3 
FIGURE 3.3 A Facsimile of the Timeline Completed by Participants in the Study About 
War-Related Trauma 
the dot to produce a trajectory. Differences between the highest and lowest point of well-being 
were then calculated. 
A timeline can be “qualitized” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2019) by asking a participant to 
provide context for points on the timeline. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The attention in this chapter has been on procedures that promote theoretical reasoning by 
engaging more than one source of data and more than one analytical approach (inductive, 
deductive, and abductive). I have used several examples and one exemplar to illustrate the 
potential of embedding an abductive and dialectical exchange between qualitative and quanti-
tative data in three core grounded theory procedures: theoretical coding, analytical memoing, 
and theoretical sampling. The same logic readily extends to other grounded theory procedures 
such as axial coding and saturation. 
It would be disingenuous to suggest that the process of generating a theoretical framework 
with grounded theory and mixed methods can be reduced to a few formulaic steps that are use-
ful in all settings. One set of authors writing about grounded theory research undertaken with a 


 
 
70 
PROCESS 
feminist perspective compare doing grounded theory to preparing a gourmet meal. They write: 
“Doing grounded theory, rather than a tidy process, is as messy as preparing a gourmet meal 
where all the parts need to come together at the end”(Keddy Sims, & Stern, 1996, p. 450). This 
relates to the multi-dimensionality of the constructs and the complexity of the phenomenon 
being studied. An approach characterized by a high level of interaction among collaborators 
and that integrates findings from different types of data inevitably introduces new ideas and 
unexpected findings. 
Adding to the cross-cutting themes 
The final table in the chapter, Table 3.7, adds a third layer to the cross-cutting themes identified 
in the first and second chapter by singling out key points from this chapter. The table is orga-
nized around three clusters of concepts: (1) integrated mixed methods designs, (2) MM-GTM, 
and (3) complexity and dissonance. 
TABLE 3.7 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 3 to Cross-Cutting Themes 
Cluster 
Major Themes that Cross Chapter 3 – Key Points 
Chapters 
Integrated 
Approaches to Mixed 
Methods Research 
Integrated mixed methods 
approaches
 A narrative or visualization that integrates 
qualitative and quantitative data is a case-
based mixed method analytical strategy that 
can serve a formative purpose by promoting 
other kinds of analysis. 
Fully integrated mixed 
methods research (FIMMR) 
Fully integrated mixed method grounded 
theory (FIMM-GTM) embeds both qualitative 
and quantitative data in basic grounded 
theory procedures like theoretical coding, 
analytical memoing, theoretical sampling, 
and saturation. 
Mixed methods and 
grounded theory 
MMR contribution to 
explanatory power 
The inductive and exploratory component 
in MM-GT means that new insight with 
theoretical implications can emerge even in 
a study with a purpose to test an existing 
theory or hypothesis. 
MM-GTM 
The constant comparative method is not 
simply an inductive analytical approach, 
but one that also engages deduction and 
abduction. 
In MM-GTM, the analytical logic of 
abduction can drive theoretical sampling. 
Complexity and 
dissonance 
The link between mixed 
methods and complexity 
The contribution of 
paradox and dissonance 
to explanatory power 
A strategy for theoretical sampling can 
emerge from unexpected findings that 
emerge from comparing preliminary findings 
from different databases. 


 
 
 
 
 
1 
PROCESS 
71 
With an eye toward visual displays 
An integrative approach to grounded theory analytical procedures extends the widespread 
acknowledgment that both qualitative and quantitative data can play a role in a grounded theory 
study but moves well beyond any conventional approach to grounded theory. I continue this 
more expansive and creative logic in Chapter 4 where we continue to explore ideas related to 
case-based analysis by offering new ideas about the role visualizations that integrate qualitative 
and quantitative data can play in promoting more nuanced reasoning and in reporting. 
REVIEW QUESTIONS 
1 
How can case-based analysis promote integration of diverse sources of data? 
2 
How can a dialectical logic be built into the way core grounded theory procedures are used 
during analysis? 
3 
What is an example of how multiple sources of data can be engaged for purposes of theo-
retical sampling? 
4 
Under what circumstances can the inductive drive of grounded theory be maintained 
when a study is framed with an explanatory framework from the literature? 
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY 
Creamer, E. G. (March 13, 2018). Webinar: Mixed Methods and Grounded Theory sponsored 
by the Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA) and hosted by the 
International Institute of Qualitative Inquiry (IIQM): www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_-
oTXK8s1U&feature=youtu.be 


 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4 
Advancing theoretical 
reasoning with visualizations 
This chapter considers the ways that in empirical research, visual displays represent ideas at the same time they 
generate them. The chapter introduces creative approaches to integrating different sources of data in visual dis-
plays to advance theoretical reasoning. These include mapping, timelining, and variations of cluster mapping. 
TERMS INTRODUCED IN THE CHAPTER 
• 
Graphic elicitation 
• 
Integrative display 
• 
Joint display 
• 
Matrix mapping 
• 
Participatory photo mapping 
• 
Quantitizing 
• 
Timelining 
INTRODUCTION 
Diagrams, tables, and figures constructed by participants and/or researchers not only serve as a 
tool to succinctly communicate what was discovered through analysis but also as an analytical 
tool that generates insight (Buckley & Waring, 2013). In mixed methods, a joint display is the 
most commonly used tool for integration (Creswell & Plano, 2011). A display that integrates 
data from different sources can help a researcher visualize links between constructs, envision a 
core construct that is at the root of an interactive social process, or recognize conditions that 
mediate an expected outcome. Participatory procedures using graphic elicitation during 
data collection, such as through mapping and timeline activities, readily flow over to create a 
platform for an initial round of an analysis. Graphic elicitation is a data collection procedure where 
participants physically create and/or verbally edit a diagram or other visual display. 
In the last chapter, I re-imagined many core grounded theory procedures, like the writing 
of analytical memos and theoretical sampling, from their roots in a qualitative tradition to one 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
73 
that readily embraces a mixed methods approach. These go beyond the simplistic idea that mixed 
methods approaches to grounded theory are simply a matter of adding quantitative data to what is 
otherwise a profoundly qualitative set of procedures. In this chapter, I take on the same task with 
visual methods. These, too, have almost exclusively been presented as qualitative procedures. I re-
purpose them as accommodating many different types of data and methods even when maintaining 
a drive that moves back and forth between an inductive/exploratory and a deductive/confirmatory 
stance. I provide examples of the use of mixed methods during data collection and analysis with par-
ticipatory mapping, timelining, and what I refer to as matrix mapping. The examples are provided 
to inspire creative thinking about ways that they can be adapted and modified to fit other topics and 
context. The examples are meant to encourage researchers to think beyond procedures like inter-
viewing and surveys that are not the best fit with marginalized or invisible populations, youth, or to 
those where formal verbal exchange is unlikely to produce rich and meaningful data. 
Purpose, contribution, and principal takeaways of the chapter 
The use of visualizations is positioned as a critical step in the analytical process in both qualita-
tive (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and mixed method (Onwuegbuzie & T
eddlie, 2003) research 
but their use in the development or refinement of theory has not been explored (Buckley & 
Waring, 2013). At the same time, that there is little guidance about how to use them in mixed 
methods research (Plano Clark & Sanders, 2015), much less how they can be used to promote 
explanatory and theoretical insight in MM-GTM. 
The aim of this chapter is to invite readers to consider a range of examples of mixed methods 
studies that use visual displays in creative ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative data and/or 
approaches during data collection and analysis. My focus is on visual displays that have an itera-
tive component. I take an unconventional stance by distinguishing these as an integrative visual 
display rather than using the more generic term of joint display. The discussion about each of the 
examples underscores the key point of the chapter. That is that integration of findings from dif-
ferent sources of data in a visual display can be instrumental to advancing analytical and theoretical 
insight. While there are important links to qualitative software and to quantitative procedures, like 
multi-dimensional scaling, I must leave that topic to others to pursue. 
The chapter highlights the use of visual displays in mixed method research used in tandem with 
grounded theory procedures. It singles out strategies, including mapping, timelining, and other vari-
ations of diagramming that have been demonstrated to be compatible to integrating multiple sources 
of data in ways that generate new analytical insight. I return to one of the cross-cutting themes by 
considering ways that visual displays can reveal diverse perspectives and expose dissonance between 
findings from different analytical methods. My ambition is to provide examples that others could 
leverage in their own research. I postpone to the final chapter discussion of two types of visual dis-
plays that are a central feature of the expectations for reporting of a MM-GTM study. These include 
procedural diagrams (Creamer, 2020) and visual representations of substantive theoretical models. 
Principal take-aways from the chapter include: 
1 
A visual display can be used as a protocol to structure participatory data collection. 
2 
While integrative and joint displays play a critical role during reporting, they can also play 
an instrumental role in advancing analytical and theoretical insight. 


 
 
 
 
 
74 
VISUALIZATION 
3 
Joint and integrative displays can reveal diverse perspectives and expose dissonance between 
findings from different analytical methods. 
4 
Data from integrated visual displays can be used as the basis of case-based analysis and 
facilitate cross-case comparisons. 
5 
Visual displays have the potential to generate theoretical insight by helping an investigator 
envision patterns, time ordered social processes, and relationships among constructs. 
Organization of the chapter 
The chapter begins by considering the types and purposes of visual displays that integrate 
qualitative and quantitative data and/or approaches. The next section of the chapter is devoted 
to describing several different ways that participatory approaches have been used during data 
collection, including through mapping and timelining. The fourth section of the chapter shifts 
the focus away from the use of visual displays during data collection to that serve as a platform 
to integrate data during analysis. In the last part of the chapter, we consider a hypothetical 
example involving the effect of nature on well-being that illustrates the interactive interplay that 
can occur when data collection and data analysis overlap. 
JOINT AND INTEGRATIVE VISUAL DISPLAYS 
The use of visual displays, like diagrams, tables and figures, is widely endorsed in books about 
grounded theory, including those written by Corbin and Strauss (2008), Charmaz (2006), and 
Birks and Mills (2015). A display “is a visual format that presents information systematically, so 
the user can draw valid conclusions and take needed action” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 91). 
In mixed methods, a joint display encourages the integrative engagement of data (Bustamante, 
2017). It is a table or figure that arrays and sometimes links qualitative and quantitative data about the 
same constructs, research question, or themes (Guetterman, Fetters, & Creswell, 2015; McCrudden, 
Schraw, & Buckendahl, 2015; Plano Clark & Sanders, 2015). 
While it is customary to highlight the communicative role of a visualization in reporting 
findings, they can also play an important role during data collection and analysis. Buckley and 
Waring (2013) expand the discussion about visual displays by noting their multiple functions: 
“Diagrams, pictures, images, photographs, conceptual maps, matrices, tables and charts not 
only serve as visual representation of what is being discovered through analysis but also as gen-
erative/analytical techniques and communicative tools” (p. 149). Visualizations can contribute 
to developing as well as supporting the conclusions of a study (Maxwell, Chmiel, & Rogers, 
2015). That means visual display is not just a representation of what has been discovered but also 
provides a strategy to help the analyst generate new analytical and theoretical insight (Buckley & 
Waring, 2013; Shannon-Baker & Edwards, 2018). They may reveal elements that are keys to 
theory development or refinement, including by providing information about the sequencing 
of events, relationships among constructions, and connections between a social process and 
outcomes (Weick, 1995). The role of joint and integrative displays in developing the conclu-
sions of a study is consistent with Charmaz’s emphasis on grounded theory as a methodology 
for theorizing. Analytical joint displays can be creative. They integrate data and discipline-based 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
75 
expertise for purposes of knowledge discovery (Dickinson, 2010) and theory construction and 
refinement (Creamer, 2018b). 
Diagrams, pictures, images, photographs, conceptual maps, matrices, tables, and charts not 
only serve as a visual representation of what is being discovered through analysis but also as 
generative/analytical techniques and communication tools. 
(Buckley & Waring, 2013, pp. 148–149) 
Joint displays can serve both summative and formative purposes (Creamer & Edwards, 
2019). A summative joint display summarizes or visually portrays data during reporting. Qual-
itative and quantitative data are often juxtaposed in a summative joint display in ways that 
implicitly confirm parallels between them, leaving task of drawing inferences or conclusions 
largely to the reader. Joint displays can be used formatively. This is when visualizations serve 
as a form of data for analysis and/or as a mode of analysis (Shannon-Baker & Edwards, 2018). 
A formative visual display can be like a theoretical memo that plays an intermediary role 
during analysis. These are well suited to explore inconsistencies and contradictions because 
they encourage further analysis by presenting qualitative and quantitative data in the same 
analytical framework (Maxwell et al., 2015). When used formatively, a joint display or visual-
ization could be used as a new source of data that offers additional insight about patterns and 
relationships. 
I depart from the conventional practice among members of the mixed method com-
munity by making a distinction between a joint display and an integrative display. The 
word “joint” in joint display narrows that function of this type of figure or table to two 
types of data. An integrative visual display can include visual data or symbols, as well as 
quantitative and qualitative data. I reserve the term “integrative display” to a figure or table 
that integrates more than one type of data during analysis in a formative way that advances analytical 
or theoretical insight. As is the case with a figure that depicts a theoretical model, an integra-
tive display can provide more holistic understanding by including qualitative and quantita-
tive data on different constructs. This differs from Guetterman, Creswell, and Kuckartz’s 
(2015) assumption that a joint display link qualitative and quantitative data on the same 
constructs. 
Overlap between visual methods, grounded theory, and mixed methods 
Knigge and Cope (2006) coined the expression “grounded visualization” in a way that explic-
itly links it to theorizing. They defined it as an analytical strategy to “more fully integrate 
diverse forms of data toward building theories and drawing strong conclusions” (p. 2021). They 
identified four areas of overlap between grounded theory and visualization that extends to 
mixed methods as well. These are that they: (a) can be used for exploratory purposes to build 
themes inductively, (b) are often executed in ways that involve multiple rounds of data collec-
tion and analysis, (c) simultaneously consider particular instances and general patterns (italics theirs), 
and (d) encourage multiple views and perspectives for building knowledge (Knigge & Cope, 
2006, p. 2022). The multiple interpretations emerging from a visualization reflect complemen-
tary perspectives, with each source of data filling in information not available in another source 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
76 
VISUALIZATION 
of data. It can reflect interpretations that are on the one hand, consistent, and on the other, 
contradictory (Knigge & Cope, 2006). 
Purposes served by integrative visual displays 
Integrative displays can serve multiple purposes at different points in the research process in 
MM-GTM. Table 4.1 is organized by phase of the research process, beginning with data col-
lection and ending with reporting. It identifies a wide range of different purposes that visual 
displays can serve in MM-GTM. The table highlights synergistic ways that visual displays, 
including both as data and as a mode of analysis. 
Purposes identified in Table 4.1 extend beyond procedures strictly associated with analysis 
and include offering a way to communicate with stakeholders or to pursue member checking. 
Examples used later in the chapter illustrate the ways that a visual, like a matrix or mapping 
activity, can be used to enhance the potential to collect rich data as well as to provide an instru-
ment to promote theoretical reasoning. 
TABLE 4.1 Purposes of Integrative Visual Displays in MM-GTM, by Phase 
Phase 
Purpose 
Data collection 
• Enhance potential for authentic data collection (Umoquit et al., 
2013), including about sensitive topics (Kesby, 2000). 
• Engage stakeholders in ways that will inform later stages of the 
project. 
• Create a context for participants to tap into ideas and thoughts they 
have not yet articulated. 
• Expand the diversity of participants that can be involved in a 
research project. 
Data analysis 
• Serve as a catalyst for discussion among team members. 
• Serve as an “instrument of thought” and “evoke deeper elements of 
human consciousness” (Buckley & Waring, 2013, p. 149). 
• Facilitate cross-case comparison (Onwuegbuzie & Dickinson, 2008). 
• Provide the basis for a case-based analysis. 
• Enhance the ability to understand theoretical complexity and to 
detect patterns, relationships between theoretical constructs, and a 
sequence of events. 
• Reveal inconsistencies or contradictions between qualitative and 
quantitative data. 
• Facilitate member checking. 
Drawing conclusions 
• Explore the best possible explanation through visual and spatial 
reasoning (Buckley & Waring, 2013). 
Reporting 
• Provide transparency by documenting the link between data and 
conclusions. 
• Communicate linkages, a hierarchy, a temporal sequence through 
the spatial arrangement. 
• Highlight key findings and help the reader understand how the 
theoretical framework was developed. 
• Access a wider audience than by text alone (Buckley & Waring, 
2013). 


 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
77 
DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTEGRATIVE DISPLAYS 
Visual methods are approaches in which visualizations are developed, analyzed, and/or dis-
seminated to examine specific phenomenon (Prosser, 2007). In writing about the use of visual 
methods with mixed methods, Shannon-Baker and Edwards (2018) conceptualized visuals in 
four different categories: (a) when pre-existing visuals are used as data, (b) when visuals are 
created as a form of data to be used in analysis, (c) when visuals are created in the process of 
doing analysis, and (d) when visuals are created to report research findings. Research that uses 
visual methods with existing graphics might base analysis on photographs, artifacts in the home 
(e.g., Sheridan, Chamberlain, & Dupuis, 2011), wine labels (e.g., Tiefenbacher, 2013), or use 
data available from online archival websites like those devoted to restaurant menus or newspaper 
advertisements. The alignment of data in a visual can prove pivotal to seeing patterns in data 
that are not otherwise evident. Visuals that are created to report findings are often in the form 
of a conceptual model or theoretical framework in MM-GTM. 
There are a wide variety of visuals displays that can be used in MM-GTM in ways where 
they serve both as a form of data and as a medium to promote theoretical thinking. Table 4.2 
lists and provides a definition for the different types of integrative displays that will be explored 
in this chapter. These include concept maps, diagrams, mapping, joint displays, and what I refer 
to as matrix mapping. 
There are other types of visual displays used with mixed methods, like social network 
analysis, that I do not cover here. Sometimes referred to as ecomaps (Bravington & King, 
2018), the spatial arrangements in this type of diagram communicate relationships among 
constructs. 
TABLE 4.2 Definitions of Different Types of Visual Displays in MM-GTM 
Term 
Definition 
Concept map 
A diagram or drawing constructed by participants that is used as data. 
Diagram 
Operates like a theoretical memo by tentatively sketching links between 
categories developed through inductive, deductive, or, abductive 
reasoning. 
Mapping 
A grounded visualization procedure that involves the visual representation 
and analysis that includes geographic data (Knigge & Cope, 2006). 
Matrix mapping 
Shares qualities with a concept or cluster map, but what appears within 
the map is based on qualitative and quantitative data participants enter 
in a matrix with four or more cells. 
Integrative display 
A visualization that integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches in 
ways that advance analytical and theoretical insight. 
Joint display 
A type of visual display that combines, aligns, or links qualitative or 
quantitative data in a table or figure. 
Timelining 
Timelining is a participatory graphic elicitation method that encourages 
the construction of rich, time-ordered narratives of peoples’ life and 
experiences, often through diagramming or sketching combined with 
open-ended interview (Sheridan et al., 2011). 


  
 
 
 
 
78 
VISUALIZATION 
EXPLORING EXAMPLES OF MIXED METHODS USED WITH 
A VISUAL DISPLAY TO GENERATE ANALYTICAL INSIGHT 
This chapter diverges from all the other chapters in this book in that it incorporates no exemplar 
but singles out three examples for discussion instead. The distinction, as noted in Chapter 1, is 
that for purposes of this chapter the authors used a visual display in an innovative way that might 
be useful to other researchers. They are not exemplary in other ways relevant to this context. 
The chapter introduces three examples of mixed methods studies that used visual displays 
to integrate qualitative and quantitative data in ways that promoted analytical insight. Each used 
participatory methods in that they were constructed or co-constructed with participants in a 
dynamic and interactive way. Table 4.3 provides information about each of the three publica-
tions. It identifies the source, the disciplinary affiliation, the purpose of the display, and which 
stages of the research process that the visual display was used. Visualizations are used in these 
examples in ways that recognize that interpretation plays a role throughout research process. 
Bazeley (2018a) argues this is true for all research methods. 
Visual displays are used in each example in a different way. Each extends reasoning into 
additional dimensions of time or space. Timelining works well with narrative approaches, 
research about the lifespan, or event analysis that center on processes that unfold over time. The 
research using mapping introduces a spatial dimension. It works well with research involving 
interactions, such as occurring in public spaces or built environments, where the research is 
about human–environment interaction. All are intended to create a setting that helps the analyst 
to explore meanings and patterns that underlie diverse experiences and points of view. 
Each of the examples illustrates the use of a fully integrated approach to mixed methods 
(FIMMR) because there is attention to the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods 
across data collection and analysis. The examples differ in their approach to mixed meth-
ods. The example using grounded visualization through mapping (i.e., T
eixeira, 2016) and the 
TABLE 4.3 Examples of Visual Displays, by Field, Type, Purpose, and Stage of the 
Research Process 
Example 
Field 
Type 
Purpose of the 
Stage(s) of the 
Visual Display 
Research Process 
Youth views of housing 
abandonment (Teixeira, 
2016) 
Built 
environments 
Mapping 
To annotate 
photographs 
during a youth-
led neighborhood 
walking tour. 
Data collection and 
analysis 
Changes in poverty 
status over time in rural 
Bangladesh (Davis & 
Baulch, 2011) 
Economics 
Timelining 
To co-construct 
a time-ordered 
narrative. 
Data collection and 
analysis 
Fabricated example of 
the impact of nature on 
well-being 
Environmental 
sciences 
Matrix 
mapping 
To generate a set of 
themes for additional 
analysis and cross-
case comparison. 
Data collection and 
analysis 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
79 
hypothetical one that used matrix mapping were executed in an iterative way that continu-
ously moved seamlessly back and forth between data collected through different methods. 
This can be referred to as braided approach to mixed methods (Watson, 2019). The qualita-
tive and quantitative phases are more distinguishable in the timelining exercise completed 
by two economists using data collected in Bangladesh (i.e., Davis & Baulch, 2011). The 
data collection and data analysis phases are distinct in this study. In their typology of mixed 
methods design, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) would categorize this as a sequential fully 
integrated design. 
We move to consider three examples that used integrative displays during data col-
lection and/or analysis in the next section of the chapter. First, we study an example 
that used photographs with geospatial data to explore participants’ views of an urban 
neighborhood. The link to theorizing is clearest in this one. The second example shifts 
attention from space to time and a research strategy called timelining. This example was 
produced by a pair of economists who studied changes in poverty status over time among 
farmers in Bangladesh. The third example pivots around the use of data matrix to collect 
both qualitative and quantitative data about the relationship between an experience in 
nature and well-being. The cells in the 2 × 2 matrix afford a dimensionality that facilitates 
cross-case comparisons. Grounded theory methods are not well developed in any of these 
examples. 
Participatory photo mapping, grounded theory, and mixed methods 
Participatory photo mapping (PPM) is generally categorized as a qualitative approach but it 
is readily adaptable to mixed methods. Participatory photo mapping (PPM) is a graphic 
elicitation method that integrates photography, community mapping, and walk-along interviews to learn 
about people’s experiences in a spatial context. It can also utilize diagramming (Teixeira, 2014). “Maps 
provide a visual representation of the spatial dynamics of a social phenomenon or process” 
(Rucks-Ahidiana & Bierbaum, 2015, p. 99). These can be hand drawn by participants, by an 
investigator, or they can be co-constructed together. Photo mapping borrows procedures from 
photovoice (cf. Wang & Burris, 1997) but prioritizes the insight that is afforded about a public 
space like a community garden, museum, tourist spot, or neighborhood that could influence 
well-being or identity. A quantitative component can be added by using a software mapping 
platform to identify the coordinates of the geolocation for a photograph. This type of data 
collection strategy joins other participatory approaches in setting out to promote authentic 
communication with youth, marginalized populations like the homeless or disabled, and/or 
with groups with limited language skills. A participatory approach challenges conventional 
(positivist and post-positivist) approaches that position the researcher as an independent, neu-
tral observer. 
Studies with a geospatial component have been used in a wide range of mixed methods 
studies. These include in a study designed to promote campus safety (e.g., Hites et al., 2013). 
Other mixed methods studies have used hand-drawn figures to explore environmental factors 
that promote physical activity (Hume, Salmon, & Ball, 2005), how community gardens foster 
an attachment to place (Knigge & Cope, 2006), and others by feminist geographers explor-
ing land-use patterns in rural settings (e.g., Nightingale, 2003; Rocheleau, 1995). A drive to 


 
 
 
 
 
 
80 
VISUALIZATION 
explore underlying structures, like gender, race, and poverty, that perpetuate inequality is asso-
ciated with a feminist and transformative paradigm. 
An example of participatory photo mapping 
In the next section, we consider two articles by the same author (T
eixeira, 2014, 2016) about 
youths’ attitudes about urban neighborhoods. T
eixeira modeled her work using participatory 
photo mapping as a grounded visualization from Knigge and Cope (2006). In this case, the 
grounded visualization was the bridge that linked grounded theory and mixed methods. It 
integrated the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory with visual 
representation and the analysis of geographic data (Knigge & Cope, 2006). Data in the T
eixeira 
study included photos taken by youths, field notes recorded by the researcher during a walk-
about, interview data, and geospatial coordinates that marked the location of each photograph 
taken by the youths in the study. 
Grounded visualization is “a research strategy at the analysis level, which will more fully 
integrate diverse forms of data toward building theory and strong conclusions.” 
(Knigge & Cope, 2006, p. 2021) 
As with the study by Knigge and Cope (2006) that it is modeled after, that most unusual 
element of T
eixeira’s research is its documentation of the creation of an interactive database that 
merged multiple different types of data in Computer Assisted Qualitative Analysis Software 
(CAQDAS). Constructing a database that merges data on qualitative and quantitative constructs 
is the key to meaningful integration (Bazeley, 2018a; Creswell & Plano, 2011). In the study 
with the mapping exercise, integration occurred during analysis through the innovative linking 
of the multiple sources of data through a multi-media interactive map with hyperlinks using 
mapping software. Each location point was associated with one of the youth photos, a GIS 
coordinate, street map, and coding schemes created by both the youthful participants and the 
researcher. 
T
eixeira (2016) included a screenshot from the mapping software (ArcGis) she used in her 
article (see Figure 2, p. 591, in T
eixeira). The software made it possible for her to toggle back and 
forth between multiple different types of data about a specific location in a neighborhood that 
appeared in a participant’s photograph. It is not difficult to imagine how a researcher with this 
type of interactive database could use the kind of abductive process described in earlier chapters 
that moves back and forth between generating new ideas and supporting or refuting them. 
Teixeira’s two articles (2014, 2016) reveal different aspects of the project. The first article 
(2014) details the participatory side of the project and its transformative aim to promote com-
munity change. The focus shifts away from participants in the subsequent 2016 article where 
the author elected to situate her work within an existing theory, broken windows theory, as 
presented by Knigge and Cope (2006). From my perspective, the pairing with the broken 
windows theory is not consistent with the participatory action model. The translation is less 
than optimal because the broken windows theory is framed in language about “urban decay,” 
“blight,” “vacancy,” and “abandonment” that has negative connotations. The author acknowl-
edged that participants did not resonate with the negativity embedded in the language she 


 
 
 
 
 
  
 
VISUALIZATION 
81 
adopted from Knigge and Cope (2006). The language was far harsher than the language par-
ticipants used to describe their neighborhood. This is a case where my strategy to consult more 
than one article exposed a clash between the pre-existing theory that was utilized and how the 
author reported her interactions with participants in the field. 
This research is plagued by significant methodological weaknesses that ruled out my iden-
tification of it as an exemplar, including in the very small sample size based on convenience 
sampling. Despite these limitations, several qualities distinguish this study of participatory photo 
mapping, both in terms of grounded theory and mixed methods. These include: 
1 
Its purpose is consistent with grounded theory because it reflects a localized theory of a 
social process developed using an inductive approach that was grounded in the experience 
of the participants. 
2 
The quantitative, geospatial data helped to point to patterns and commonalities across the 
sites identified by participants in the photo mapping activity. 
3 
Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated during data collection through a group 
mapping activity. 
4 
Data were merged during analysis to create an interactive, integrated database. 
5 
In a second phase, the locally developed theory was compared to a well-known existing 
theory in ways that challenged it and invited further exploration. 
We turn from a use of visual methods that prioritizes spatial arrangements to one that 
attends to time, critical events, and the sequence of events. 
TIMELINING AS A VISUALIZATION STRATEGY THAT ENABLES 
INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA 
Timelines or lifelines are generally cast as a qualitative data collection method but are readily 
adaptable to approaches that integrate qualitative and quantitative data along a chronological 
dimension. Timelining is a participatory graphic elicitation method that encourages the construction of 
rich, time-ordered narratives of peoples’ life and experiences that is accomplished through diagramming or 
sketching combined with an open-ended interview (Sheridan et al., 2011). A timeline used in data 
collection can have both a vertical and a horizontal axis (Bravington & King, 2018). These are 
not necessarily restricted to collection at a single point in time but can be constructed over 
the course of several interactions to capture key transition points or change. The act of creat-
ing the diagram and annotating it can shrink the emotional and physical distance between the 
researcher and participant (Sheridan et al., 2011) in ways that enhance the quality of the data. 
Timelining activities are used more widely with adults than other types of drawing and dia-
gramming procedures. 
Timelining is a visual method that can be effective to study topics where the interest, as 
is typical with grounded theory, is with a social process that changes over time. In his disserta-
tion, Michael Kutnak (2017), formerly a doctoral student in higher education, used a mapping 
activity to gain understanding of key points in the collaborative decision-making process that 
academics, planners, architects, and engineers working together used to reach agreement about 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
82 
VISUALIZATION 
design of new academic buildings. He collected written and spoken language and symbols by 
handing each participant a set of magic markers and a sheet of paper from a flip chart and asking 
them to talk out loud as they diagrammed important steps in the process. Field notes were an 
important part of his data, along with images constructed by his participants. 
Like other visual methods, timelining is readily adaptable to a mixed methods approach. 
This procedure can be utilized either through data collection, during analysis, or through an 
approach that integrates that two. As we saw in one of the exemplars featured in the previ-
ous chapter about the experiences of adolescents in a refugee camps by Jones and Kafetsios 
(2005), both qualitative and quantitative data can be collected on a timeline. In this case, 
participants first tracked the frequency of their exposure to war-related violence over time 
on the horizontal axis. Subsequently, researchers asked them to elaborate their responses by 
annotating the timeline. Data in timelines are often quantified for purposes of analysis. A 
straightforward way to do this is by creating a dichotomous variable to code a timeline for 
the presence or absence of a specific event. 
A MM-GTM study used a timelining activity in the qualitative phase of a study about 
parents’ help-seeking behavior for a child with an attention deficit disorder that was reviewed 
in an earlier chapter. During semi-structured interviews, Regina Bussing et al. (2005, 2012) 
asked parents to describe their help-seeking behaviors. Further analysis was conducted to 
quantify different elements of the help-seeking behavior appearing on the timeline, includ-
ing about the types of treatment sought. When combined with quantitative indictors, these 
researchers reported significant differences by both race and gender, particularly for African 
American girls, in help-seeking behaviors by parents with children with attention deficit 
disorder. 
An example of using timelining and case-based analysis 
to understand changes in poverty status 
An international team of researchers involved in a large-scale, longitudinal study about changes 
in the poverty status in communities in rural Bangladesh (i.e., Davis & Baulch, 2011) created 
an innovative approach to timelining to reconcile dissonance between their qualitative data and 
a quantitative measure that had become a gold standard for the field. This conventional index is 
based on a single measure of expenditures. It documented an improvement in economic status, 
while the investigators had confidence in their qualitative data that presented a more pessimistic 
conclusion. 
Davis and Baulch (2011) developed case-based timelines to track the changing pov-
erty status of their participants. Figure 4.1 reproduces a figure the researchers created to 
represent the experiences of a 57-year-old woman. The figure includes quantitative data 
(a quantitative score that denotes one of five different poverty states at different points of 
time) and qualitative data that summarizes comments by the participant to explain the ups 
and downs in the graph line. The trajectory depicted in the timeline reproduced in the 
article shows a few up-ticks, but by and large it shows deteriorating circumstances between 
1950 and 2007. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
83 
FIGURE 4.1 Example of a Case-Based Timeline 
The timeline depicted in this figure is an example of the type of data that motivated Davis 
and Baulch (2011) to shift from a one-dimensional measure of poverty to a multi-dimensional 
one that factored in more than simply expenditures. This is a case where the inconsisten-
cies between the insights gained from the qualitative and quantitative data revealed different 
dimensions. Because expenditures increased over time, but land ownership declined, the figure 
captures a personal narrative where a single measure concealed shifts in personal and family 
economic well-being. The downward trajectory of the timeline shows how fragile these lives 
were and how a single, unexpected event could propel a person back into poverty. Analytical 
procedures that combined qualitative and quantitative indicators provided evidence to war-
rant the effectiveness of a more nuanced and multi-dimensional way to measure economic 
well-being. 
Davis and Baulch (2011) further integrated their qualitative and quantitative data 
through an unusual joint display. They generated a creative set of symbols to depict different 
trajectories graphed on the timelines. Symbols in the joint display reflect both the direction 
(declining, stable, improving) of the graph line, as well as if the progression was an even or 
uneven one. The number of cases in each category and the weight that was given to those 
cases in the quantitative analysis also appear in the joint display. A similar approach could 
be used to distinguish the trajectory of change over time about many constructs, including 
activity level, weight gain or loss, or recovery from illness or addiction, to name just a few 
possibilities. 
Table 4.4 reproduces the joint display from Davis and Baulch (Table 7, 2011, p. 126) that 
uses a set of images to embody what they refer to as common life trajectory patterns in their 
data. These were quantified for subsequent analysis. 


 
84 
VISUALIZATION 
TABLE 4.4 Davis and Baulch’s (2011) Visual Depiction of Common Life Trajectories 
Direction 
Stable 
Improving 
Declining 
Stable 
Pattern 
Smooth 
Smooth 
Smooth 
Saw-tooth 
Depiction Number of Cases 
8 
3 
2 
135 
Weighted Per cent 
of Cases 
1.47 
1.43 
0.36 
44.98 
Improving 
Saw-tooth 
76 
26.15 
Declining 
Saw-tooth 
30 
6.90 
Declining 
Single-step 
2 
0.48 
Declining 
Multi-step 
37 
18.22 
Total 
293 
100 
Integrating data through a matrix-mapping exercise 
Researchers using mixed methods have integrated qualitative and quantitative approaches 
through visual displays they sometimes refer to as a concept map and sometimes as a cluster 
map. When used as data, concept maps are generally hand drawn or diagrammed by participants 
in ways that depict a network of related concepts. Qualitative software like NVIVO, Dedoose, 
MAXQDA, or ATLASTI can be used to quantify qualitative data in ways that reveal similari-
ties in coding or text. Qualitative software has the capability to produce or map or figure of 
a complex construct, like sustainability, in ways that make it possible to discern relationships 
among constructs. 
There are multiple creative examples of the use of cluster or concept mapping in mixed 
methods. Following a structured approach used in evaluation and assessment, Windsor (2013), 
for example, used qualitative software and a concept map to cluster qualitative data about 


 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
85 
the dimensions and consequences of abuse in a distressed community. Another team (Walker, 
Block, & Kawachi, 2012) used similar procedures to map factors that influence the food-buying 
preferences of people living in locations where the options for buying groceries are more or 
less abundant. In the field of agriculture, Santiago-Brown, Jerram, Metcalfe, and Collins (2014) 
created a concept map to group statements reflecting different dimensions of wine growers’ 
definitions of sustainability based on their frequency. In a longitudinal grounded theory study 
with patients with advanced Parkinson disease, Williams and Keady (2012) used a series of 
concept maps they co-constructed with their participants to document how an illness narrative 
became more and more central to their definition of self over time. 
The research that distinguishes itself from a mixed method concept analysis or cluster 
analysis uses a type of mixing that relies on data transformation. Most often this is when quali-
tative data are quantified for purposes of statistical analysis. This is a mainstay of research using 
a mixed methods approach that is referred to as quantitizing (Sandelowski, Voils, & Knafl, 
2009). This is a type of data transformation where qualitative data are quantified for purposes of statistical 
analysis. In a structured approach to content analysis, this is often done by asking participants to 
assign a score so that the relevance or importance of statements generated during a brainstorm-
ing session can be ranked. In mixed methods studies, visual preference surveys quantitize visual 
data by asking participants to rate or score a photograph or image (e.g., Sweeney & Von Hagen, 
2015). In their use of mixed method concept mapping, both Walker et al. (2012) and Windsor 
(2013) used qualitative software to cluster the line numbers of text that appeared in close prox-
imity. The closer the line numbers on this type of cluster map, the more the statements were 
assumed to share an underlying meaning. 
In the next section of this chapter, I accept the challenge that I have presented to the reader 
to be creative in experimenting with integrative displays that advance the analytical insight in 
ways that move beyond simply quantifying qualitative data. I describe a hypothetical example 
about the benefits of a walk in a forest that I have used as an interactive activity in workshops 
about MM-GTM. I refer to the procedure as a participatory matrix-mapping activity. Matrix 
mapping is an interactive graphic elicitation method that asks participants to, first, enter the 
intersection of a quantitative score on a scale on the vertical axis and a second score on a scale 
on the horizontal axis and then to annotate the point of intersection with a few words to 
describe it. 
A matrix-mapping activity produces a type of cluster map that is plotted by participants 
rather than by qualitative software that quantifies qualitative codes or language. It is an inte-
grative display that collects both qualitative and quantitative data concurrently. Participants 
plot the intersection of their scores on two behavioral scales to generate a quantitative score. 
A qualitative component is added when a participant adds explanatory comments in a matrix 
with four cells. 
An example of a matrix-mapping activity conducive to MM-GTM 
I illustrate the way that a matrix-mapping activity might be used as a grounded visualization 
from an idea that was sparked by a review of the popular media book, Nature Fix, that appeared 
in the New York Times. Jason Mark (2017), a writer specializing in the environment, expressed 
some skepticism about claims made about the benefits to physical and psychological well-being 


 
 
 
86 
VISUALIZATION 
of experiences of nature that promise to help us be happier, healthier, and more creative. 
Nature neuroscientists purport that a walk in the woods as short as 15 minutes can reduce the 
stress hormone, cortisol, and when as long as 45 minutes, can significantly enhance cognitive 
performance and possibly generate feelings of generosity. One explanation is that the experi-
ence has its most profound impacts when it is an immersive one that engages all the senses from 
sounds (bird song, wind, rain) through the aerosols present in evergreen trees that act as a mild 
sedative. 
Not entirely convinced that these findings extend to the real world, Mark (2017) expressed 
skepticism that these claims might be “aspiration dressed up as a hypothesis.” In other words, 
that the unpredictability of the real-world experience, along with the potential introduction of 
unexpected weather, pests, wildlife, and equipment malfunctions might yield for less positive 
benefits. 
Figure 4.2 represents the type of 2 × 2 matrix that could be used to collect data to explore 
the link between well-being and an appreciation of nature, as evident through recollection of 
a single incident of a walk in the forest. In this hypothetical example, during the first phase 
of data collection, participants would plot the intersection of two scores, each using a one- to 
four-point scale with the vertical Y axis collecting an assessment of overall well-being and the X 
axis a measurement of appreciation of nature during a specific experience. In Figure 4.2, each 
circle represents a single participant. The label applied to each circle could be generated by the 
participant and/or the researcher and then used as the basis for a group interview or discussion. 
The data in Figure 4.2 are hypothetical. It is completed as if there are only six participants when 
considerably more would be needed to either confirm or develop a theory about the impacts 
of an immersive experience in nature. 
There are a lot of different ways this type of activity could involve participants both in 
data collection and analysis. Figure 4.3 is a flowchart that captures the way the research process 
might unfold in this matrix-mapping activity. 
FIGURE 4.2 Generating Analytical Insight from a Matrix-Mapping Activity 


 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
87 
!
PHASE 1: 
Data Collection 
through Mapping & 
Clustering Activity 
PHASE 2: 
Analysis 
Develop & Explore 
Tentative Themes 
through a Joint 
Display 
PHASE 3: 
Analysis 
Construct Integrated 
Case Profiles by 
Quadrant 
PHASE 4: 
Develop a 
Conceptual 
Model/Explore the 
Literature for 
Related Theories 
FIGURE 4.3 Procedural Diagram of the Design of Matrix-Mapping Activity 
Participants involved in the frst phase of the research might plot and annotate their scores on a 
data matrix and then explain their logic in a group setting. In the second phase of the process, 
preliminary themes could be developed that explore diferences within and between the quad-
rants in the matrix. A comparison of the experiences of participants positioned in the diferent 
quadrants very likely would uncover a diverse set of personal and environmental conditions that 
efect the experience. A case-based approach to analysis could be used in a third phase where 
the research analyst might draft analytical memos or a summary case profle for each of the four 
quadrants or for the extremes (high well-being, high nature; high well-being, low nature; low 
well-being, high nature; low well-being, low nature). Bazeley (2018a) suggests that a similar 
exploratory strategy could be used with a quantitatively generated cluster analysis. 
The use of a matrix or cluster map that integrates qualitative and quantitative data for anal-
ysis can extend to the use of a joint display. Qualitative and quantitative data are often aligned 
side by side with questions, themes, and/or statistics in a joint display (Guetterman et al., 2015). 
By and large, this type of visual display devotes more attention to words than does an integra-
tive display. Meaning can also be communicated in an integrative display through such visual 
devices as shading, dotted and solid lines, curved or straight lines, and arrows. 
Illustrating the use of a joint display to advance analysis 
Joint displays array or align qualitative and quantitative data on the same constructs. Some 
conceptualize joint displays primarily as a table with a two-column format that juxtaposes or 
links qualitative and quantitative data. These typically represent less fluidity in the interaction 
between data from different sources than the type of integrative display I have been review-
ing. Early conceptualizations of the formatting of a joint display were extended in a recent 
publication by Johnson, Grove, and Clarke (2019). They inserted a column at the center 


 
 
88 
VISUALIZATION 
of a conventional joint display in a process they referred to as “pillar integration.” They used 
the center column to document the themes that emerged when data from two sources were 
integrated. In an article I singled out as an exemplar in my first textbook (Creamer, 2018a); 
Castro, Kellison, Boyd, and Kopak (2010) accomplished the same thing by adding a column to 
the right of a two-column display. Key themes were proposed in the right column that emerged 
from the alignment of the qualitative and quantitative data in a rank order. 
Table 4.5 uses a small amount of fabricated data extracted from the 2 × 2 data matrix 
constructed from the matrix-mapping activity shown in Figure 4.2. The first two columns are 
characteristic of most joint displays in mixed methods. The first column lists quantitative scale 
scores. The second column lists fictional data extracted from interview data matched to the 
score. The table is ordered by the score in the first column. 
The third column is what positions this joint display as an intermediary step in the analy-
sis, rather than exclusively as a tool for reporting that represents the data. The third column 
lists examples of the types of themes that might emerge from considering the qualitative and 
quantitative data together. The influence of past experiences is noted by two participants, for 
example, and produced the theme: past experiences, positive and negative, influence the pres-
ent experience. The themes are posed as tentative statements that can be explored through 
additional rounds of data collection and analysis. Quantitative analysis might, for example, yield 
distinctions between the scores of individuals that describe interactions with and without other 
people or those with and without past memories. 
TABLE 4.5 Illustrative Joint Display Linking Qualitative and Quantitative Data from the 
Data Matrix from the Forest Example 
Scores on Well-B
and Nature Scales 
eing 
Qualitative Data 
Generated Themes 
3.8, 3.8 
Whenever I walk in the woods, I 
remember how my family used to 
camp when I was a kid. 
Theme 1: Pat experiences, 
positive and negative, 
influence the present 
experience. 
2.5, 1.0 
I really like the first half an hour 
or so of a walk in the woods, 
but after that I find I stop paying 
attention and start to think of other 
things I need to be doing. 
Theme 2: Unpredictable 
elements of the experience 
and the environment interfere 
with the ability to become 
immersed in nature. 
1.75, 3.0 
I really enjoy hiking, but I have run 
into some pretty scary weather. 
1.5, 3.5 
I was enjoying the walk with my 
family until my daughter was stung 
by a bee. 
1.0, 0.5 
I am very anxious about running 
into a bear. 
0.75, 2.2 
Someone in the group got sick 
and we had to get him medical 
help. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
89 
The scores on the two scales in this hypothetical example yield a moderately strong, posi-
tive statistical correlation. The limitation of basing conclusions on this quantitative index is that 
it obscures the distribution of the scores across the space depicted in the matrix. It supports the 
idea that there is a relationship but does not tell us anything that is theoretically intriguing about 
what influences that relationship. It conceals substantial variability in the immersion experience 
that could be explored through further analysis. Further analysis could well lead our imaginary 
researcher to conclude that it is difficult to replicate the idealized immersion experience of the 
laboratory in the real world where bugs, bears, insects, and weather can interfere with the abil-
ity to savor the experience of a walk in the woods. 
CONCLUSIONS 
The use of visual displays that integrate qualitative and quantitative data in ways that advance 
theory development has not previously been explored (Buckley & Waring, 2013). In this chap-
ter, I took on the task of reconceptualizing some procedures like timelining, concept mapping, 
and geospatial mapping, which have previously been viewed exclusively as qualitative methods 
as mixed methods procedures that can be used with grounded theory. There are many creative 
ways that qualitative and quantitative can be integrated in a visual display that extend well 
beyond the over-used practice of quantifying qualitative data. 
There are a number of ways that a visualization can contribute to developing theoretical 
insight. When a researcher is looking to develop, test or refine a theory, a visual display can help the 
researcher to specify patterns and to detect relationships between constructs (Bazeley & Jackson, 
2013). The juxtaposition of qualitative and quantitative data can help a researcher envision a core 
construct that might capture an instrumental feature of a social process or to identify and recognize 
conditions that mediate an expected outcome. It can also provide evidence of change over time. 
One of the challenges in reporting mixed methods, including in the final formatting of a 
visual display, is to find effective ways to communicate with what is often a cross-disciplinary 
audience (Hay, 2016). Members of this audience may share some content expertise, but it is 
often the case that their interest is as much about how the methodology is used as about what 
is learned from it. Figures and tables can be off-putting to readers when they are too complex, 
span more than a single page, use abbreviations that are not self-explanatory, or are packed with 
small print and a lot of detail. 
Guidelines for constructing effective joint and integrative displays 
Despite the variability that can be found in the way integrative and joint displays are con-
structed, there are some common guidelines that can boost their effectiveness during the 
reporting process. These include the following: 
1 
Provide a title for the display that acknowledges it demonstrates integration when it’s 
appropriate. 
2 
Even if they have been defined in the text, avoid abbreviations that are likely to be unfamiliar 
to many readers. This includes using abbreviations for variable names from computer output. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
90 
VISUALIZATION 
3 
All abbreviations and symbols should be explained in a footnote to the table or figure. 
4 
Clearly label what is qualitative data and what is qualitative data. 
5 
Avoid duplicating data across tables and figures. 
6 
Take advantage of using color and shading in journals in situations where an article will be 
displayed online. 
7 
Avoid inserting page shots of output from statistical software, especially those that use vari-
able names that are not self-explanatory. T
o consider the limitations of this, see an example 
of MM-GTM by Yang, Richardson, French, and Lehman (2011). 
8 
Acknowledge inconsistencies between findings from the different data sources by creating 
a symbol system. For example, a dotted line around a box can be used to signal weak or 
contradictory support for a variable. 
Adding to the architecture of the cross-cutting themes 
Table 4.6 adds yet another layer to the cross-cutting themes identified in the first chapter, by 
filling in information about key points from this chapter. The table is organized around three 
clusters of concepts: (a) integrated mixed methods designs, (b) MM-GTM, and (c) complexity 
and dissonance. 
TABLE 4.6 Linking Key Themes from Chapter 4 to Cross-Cutting Themes 
Cluster 
Major Themes that 
Chapter 4 – Key Points 
Cross Chapters 
Integrated 
approaches to 
mixed methods 
research 
Mixed methods and 
grounded theory 
Integrated mixed 
methods approaches 
Fully integrated mixed 
methods research 
(FIMMR) 
MMR contribution to 
explanatory power 
Joint and integrative visual displays are 
a strategic way to integrate findings from 
different methods during analysis. They can 
also be used to involve participants during 
data collection. 
Joint and integrative visual displays can provide 
a way to visualize patterns and connections that 
have theoretical implications. 
Constructing a database that merges data on 
qualitative and quantitative constructs is the key 
to meaningful integration. 
Quantifying qualitative data for analysis is an 
over-used strategy in mixed methods research. 
In some fully integrated mixed method (FIMMR) 
designs, the qualitative and quantitative phases 
may be difficult to disentangle, while in other 
cases, the phases are quite distinct. FIMMR 
designs can be executed in a concurrent or 
sequential manner. 
Timelines, matrices, concept maps, and other 
types of integrative visual displays can be used 
both to collect and analyze data. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
VISUALIZATION 
91 
Cluster 
Major Themes that 
Cross Chapters 
Chapter 4 – Key Points 
Complexity and 
dissonance 
The link between mixed 
methods and complexity 
Visual displays can reveal diverse perspectives 
and expose dissonance between findings from 
different analytical methods. 
The contribution of 
paradox and dissonance 
to explanatory power 
Appendix A consists of a multi-page table that summarizes the key points by the cross-
cutting themes for all the chapters. 
Bridging to the next chapter 
We saw the potential of dissonance to make a contribution to analytical insight in all three of 
the case examples considered in this chapter. For example, there was a sizable gap between 
the views of participants in the mapping activity reported by T
eixeira (2014, 2016) and the 
theory the researcher adopted. The economists exploring changes in economic well-being 
in the timelining example found that a widely adapted measure could not capture the multi-
dimensional nature of the phenomenon. The design of the instrument used to collect data in 
the example weighing the relationship between an immersive experience in a walk in the forest 
and physical and psychological well-being yielded a diverse array of conditions that were very 
likely to mitigate a positive outcome. 
While many might find these kinds of gaps disconcerting and possibly an indication 
of poor research, I am in agreement with those that argue that the opportunity to explore 
differences that emerge when findings from different data sets are considered together as 
a characteristic that distinguishes mixed methods as a methodology. Erzberger and Kelle 
(2003) maintain, for example, that divergent findings should not necessarily be taken as an 
indication of poor-quality data or research methods but should be considered “as a pointer 
to new theoretical insight” (p.  475). Authors of an early textbook about mixed meth-
ods, Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, value theoretical consistency and interpretive 
agreement, but acknowledge inconsistency between the inferences that emerge from dif-
ferent methods “might be considered a unique benefit from conducting mixed methods 
research” (2008, p. 116). 
In the next chapter, we link to one of the cross-cutting themes by exploring the possibility 
that inconsistencies in the findings generated by different methods is indeed a principal value-
added of pairing mixed methods with grounded theory. In that chapter, first we pick up the 
task of demonstrating how dissonance between findings can contribute to theoretical insight 
in MM-GTM. Second, we explore the conditions when this is most likely. We also look at 
the flip side of the issue by excavating situations where exceptions to a pattern may carry little 
significance. We revisit the argument for the importance of visual displays by exploring the role 
they can play in documenting the credibility of conclusions. 


 
 
 
 
92 
VISUALIZATION 
REVIEW QUESTIONS 
1 
How might a joint display or an integrative display be used for a case-based analysis? 
2 
What kinds of variables could be quantified in a research project collecting data through a 
timelining activity? 
3 
In what ways can a visual display contribute to theoretical insight? 
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY 
1 
Guetterman, T. (2019, August). Using joint displays to integrate qualitative and quantita-
tive data. Y
ou-Tube Video from International Institute of Qualitative Inquiry/Mixed 
Methods International Research Association Webinar Series. www.youtube.com/ 
watch?v=U5Jv9qY7OQA 


 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 5 
Leveraging dissonance 
to advance theoretical 
reasoning 
The opportunity to engage dissonance and incongruities in the results emerging from different methods is 
a unique benefit of a mixed methods approach. When pursued systematically, these often generate original 
insight. 
TERMS INTRODUCED IN THE CHAPTER 
• 
Initiation rationale 
• 
Rupture theorizing 
• 
Theoretical sensitivity 
• 
Theoretical triangulation 
• 
Verification 
• 
Warranting 
INTRODUCTION 
Many find it unsettling when their qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures yield results 
that run counter to their initial drive to build credibility by seeking another method to confirm 
findings. There certainly are occasions when unexpected or counter intuitive findings are not 
worth the investment of time and resources to pursue, including when there is only a small 
amount of data to support them or there are clear indications that the data or instruments were 
used in ways that were methodologically flawed. There are other circumstances when there are 
distinct benefits, including to the rigor of the research, when unexpected findings are pursued 
through additional analysis and/or data collection. “Divergent findings should not always be 
considered as an indicator of a poor research design; instead they may be considered a pointer 
to new theoretical insight,” Erzberger and Kelle wrote (2003, p. 475). 
The commitment to engage difference and to pursue paradox and contradiction is central 
enough to the methodology that undergirds mixed methods to warrant a separate designation 
in a widely used framework that identifies the principal rationales for its use. The originators 
of a classification system for the rationales for using mixed methods that continues to be widely 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
94 
DISSONANCE 
applied, Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) followed Rossman and Wilson (1985) in sin-
gling out what they referred to as the initiation rationale. This is one of the five principal ratio-
nales for integrating data that involves additional rounds of data collection and analysis to further explore 
unexpected, contradictory, or paradoxical findings. Rossman and Wilson (1985, p. 637) described the 
initiation purpose in this way: “Initiation is an analytical function that turns ideas around. It 
initiates new interpretations, suggests areas for further exploration, or recasts the entire research 
questions.” The word “initiation” signals the expectation that the discovery of contradiction 
initiates additional analysis. Greene et al. defined this rationale with these words: “Seeks the 
discovery of paradox and contradiction, new perspectives and frameworks, the recasting of 
questions or results from one method with questions or results from another method” (1989, 
p. 259). Greene et al. observed that qualitative and quantitative data tend to be given equal 
weight in this type of study. 
Initiation is an analytical function that turns ideas around. It initiates new interpretations, 
suggests areas for further exploration, or recasts the entire research question. 
(Rossman & Wilson, 1985, p. 637) 
The initiation rationale extends to research seeking to make meaning from gaps and 
silences and to consider what is missing or not there. In some situations, this can involve 
exposing assumptions in conventional measures used in research about a phenomenon and 
what they conceal. The pursuit of gaps and silences is evident, for example, in a study by 
Weiss, Mayer, and Kreider (2003) that probably set out to contest what now seems an outdated 
hypotheses that working mothers are less engaged in their children’s schoolwork than mothers 
not employed outside of the home. These authors described their turn to mixed methods as 
an “act of desperation” as they discovered that the conventional way mothers’ engagement was 
measured erased any of the mothers’ activities that occurred in locations outside of the school 
complex. 
Fielding (2012) argues that the “radical potential” of mixed methods lies not in terms 
of confirmation but its contribution to “sophisticated analytical conceptualization” (p. 125). 
As is exemplified in a study by Jang, McDougall, Herbert, and Russell (2008) about school 
success in challenging circumstances, this often occurs when results of statistical analysis gloss 
over differences between sites or participants that are evident in the more nuanced qualita-
tive data. It is the central thesis of this chapter that the discovery of empirically supported 
incongruities or gaps between the findings drawn from an initial analysis of data from differ-
ent sources, when framed within an understanding of the literature and solid data, can spark 
original insight. 
Purpose, contribution, and key points 
The chapter expands ideas about how robust MM-GTM research can be designed and 
executed by addressing two main purposes. The first is to build an argument for the 
potential for unexpected and sometimes paradoxical findings that emerge from the inte-
gration of different sources of data, analytical procedures, methods, and/or theoretical 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
95 
perspectives to contribute to original theoretical and methodological insight. The second 
purpose is to illustrate a range of procedures, including those associated with grounded 
theory, to explore or interrogate provocative and theoretically meaningful inferences in a 
systematic way. 
For purposes of the discussion here, the terms dissonant, paradoxical, incongruent, and dis-
cordant are used interchangeably to refer to situations where the integration of data, methods, 
theoretical frameworks, and/or perspectives produces unexpected findings. With the intent to 
explore their contribution to theoretical insight, I bring forward examples of articles that use 
mixed methods with grounded theory procedures that provide more than common reflexivity 
about the strategies they used to investigate dissonant findings. This approach necessarily pri-
oritizes research that gives comparable weight to both qualitative and quantitative procedures. 
It excludes examples where researchers reconciled inconsistencies between findings from dif-
ferent sources of data by setting aside one set of findings because of methodological limitations 
or philosophical priorities. 
Goals for the chapter are: 
1 
Explore different sources of dissonance. 
2 
Consider how views about discordant findings are influenced by philosophical paradigm. 
3 
Identify ways that the intent to engage multiple perspectives can be incorporated into the 
way a study is designed. 
4 
Summarize a range of analytical procedures that can be used to explore dissonance in a 
MM-GTM study. 
5 
Investigate the ways that dissonance was leveraged to generate original insight in the case 
exemplars. 
6 
Introduce ways that findings can be warranted. 
Principal takeaways from the chapter 
As with each of the four chapters that have preceded this one, the principal takeaways from the 
chapter align and expand four cross-cutting themes that are summarized in Appendix C. The 
principal points made in this chapter are: 
1 
When it is not due to methodological weaknesses, dissonance between results from differ-
ent methods often signals complexity in the phenomenon being studied. 
2 
Dissonance is more likely to materialize in mixed method designs where there is ongoing 
interaction between the qualitative and quantitative strands than in a component mixed 
method design where the interaction between qualitative and quantitative phases of the 
research is limited to the point of drawing conclusion. 
3 
Different schools of thought about grounded theory are associated with different para-
digms. These differ in the priority they award to diverse viewpoints, exceptions, and/or 
disconfirming evidence. 
4 
The theoretical implications of dissonant findings cannot be fully appreciated without 
familiarity with the literature associated with the phenomenon. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
96 
DISSONANCE 
5 
Case-based analysis can be used to investigate disconfirming cases and unexpected 
findings. 
6 
Rupture theorizing occurs when results from the empirical analysis challenge an extant 
measure, instrument, or theoretical framework. 
7 
The link between major findings and empirical data can be documented with a figure 
or table. 
Organization of the chapter 
The chapter begins broadly with a discussion of different sources of dissonances in mixed 
methods research, including when findings from different sources of data or analytical pro-
cedures are not in agreement, when findings dispute extant theory, or when the analysis 
reveals limitations of a widely used measure or instrument. It shifts next to an acknowledg-
ment that attitudes toward dissonance and how it should be resolved vary by philosophical 
paradigm. The remaining sections of the chapter are designed to arm the reader with a 
wide array of procedures they could deploy to engage unexpected findings. It provides an 
extended discussion of two exemplars and a number of examples that used mixed methods 
with grounded theory to systematically investigate discordant findings. A third example 
utilized mixed methods and case study to build theory. The chapter closes by considering 
the implications of prioritizing dissonance, and consequently complexity, in the design of 
MM-GTM. 
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT THE CENTRALITY 
OF DISSONANCE TO THE RESEARCH PROCESS 
Attitudes about what is the appropriate way to address exceptions to research findings and 
dissonance is influenced by philosophical assumptions or paradigm (Creamer, 2018c). Propo-
nents of different schools of thought about grounded theory take different positions on the 
necessity and even relevance of exceptions to the categories, themes, and overall framework 
that emerge. This is true about a commitment to verification as well (Dey, 1999). Verifica-
tion refers to procedures to verify findings that contribute to the rigor of a research study, construct valid-
ity, and in some contexts the reliability of findings. Recognizing that grounded theory has been 
approached from diverse perspectives, including in ways that have an effect on viewpoints 
about the role of verification, is an important element of developing the methodological 
expertise needed to report findings in a credible way. 
There is a good bit of variability in the position that is taken about the importance of veri-
fying findings in grounded theory approaches (Morgan, 2020). The originators and some of 
their proponents resist the idea that there is a need to verify findings (Dey, 1999). On the other 
hand, Strauss recognized the role of exceptions. He linked the role of exceptions to theoretical 
sampling and saw them as playing a role in developing the properties of a category (Apramian, 
Cristancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017). With its relativist assumptions, those writing from a 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
97 
constructivist perspective do not devote much attention to exceptions or to verifying findings. 
It is not in the philosophical tenants of constructivism to differentiate between contradictory 
perspectives (Fielding, 2009). Morgan (2020) describes Charmaz as “explicitly unwilling to 
accept the idea of verification” (p. 71). Dey expressed reservations about a methodology that 
“so resolutely refuses any refutations” (1999, p. 213). 
The role of dissonance and the intrigue of paradox move to center stage for those whose 
views put them outside a strictly relativist stance. The description of difference and exception 
is central to purpose of theory development from a postmodern perspective (Apramian et al., 
2017). From this perspective, differences between findings from different sources of data are 
not a methodological weakness that must be overcome or reconciled. Those operating by and 
large from a postmodern frame “accept difference as inevitable and ever-present” (Freshwater, 
2007, p. 135). In mixed methods, this extends to philosophical grounding in dialectical plural-
ism and an approach that centers the intent to consider multiple viewpoints, perspective, and 
standpoints in its definition (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). 
The decision to pursue contradictions that emerge both within and across methods 
with further analysis and/or data collection shares with a constructivist approach the view 
that there may well be more than one “right” answer. This may be the reason Charmaz 
and a Swedish academic Robert Thornberg (2020) positioned themselves as among those 
who ascribe to a more recent, non-positivist methodology that embraces dissonance. They 
describe this type of methodology as “acknowledging multiple realities, seeking diverse per-
spectives, and engaging in critical analysis throughout the research process” (Charmaz & 
Thornberg, 2020, p. 7). It is an entirely different matter to acknowledge diverse perspectives 
than it is to promote procedures that explore and ultimately find a reasonable explanation 
for dissonance. 
Table 5.1 singles out some of the major distinctions in perspectives about exceptions and 
dissonance among proponents of the four “schools of thought” associated with grounded 
theory, as broadly sketched by Apramian et al. (2017), Rieger (2018), and Sebastian (2019). 
None of these authors recognize pragmatism as an analytical logic used with grounded theory 
(cf. Morgan, 2020). The table lists associated spokespersons, perspectives about exceptions and 
dissonance, implications for mixed methods designs, and limitations of this methodological 
perspective. 
Hadley (2019a) points out that the different approaches should not be viewed as contradic-
tory but as part of a loosely interconnected network. An advantage of sketching out different 
viewpoints about the role of exceptions and dissonance in grounded theory is that it allows 
the up-and-coming researcher the opportunity to clarify his or her own views about it. Post-
positivist and modernists lean toward a strategy that allows for the systematic elimination of 
alternative explanations. Those whose mindset moves between constructivism into post mod-
ernism are likely to be most enthusiastic about experimenting with many of the strategies I 
describe in the next sections of the chapter. 
The variety of approaches to GTM need not be constructed as contradictory, but as part 
of interactive, interdependent network. 
(Hadley, 2019a, p. 568) 


  
 
 
 
98 
DISSONANCE 
TABLE 5.1 Varying Points of View about Exceptions, Dissonance, and the Need for 
Verification in Grounded Theory and the Implications for Mixed Method Designs, by School 
of Thought 
School of 
Perspective about 
Implications for Mixed 
Limitations of 
Thought/ 
Dissonance 
Methods Designs 
the Approach to 
Spokesperson 
MM-GT 
Classic Glaserian 
Resists the idea of the 
Well adapted to a design 
Underplay the 
grounded theory 
need for verification or for 
where the qualitative 
potential to use 
Straussian 
grounded theory 
explaining deviant cases 
as antithetical to an 
inductive approach (Dey, 
and quantitative strands 
are separated with the 
qualitative methods used 
grounded theory 
procedures to 
add to or refine an 
1999). 
first to generate theory 
existing theory. 
Charmaz’s 
constructivist 
grounded theory 
View different 
perspectives as endemic 
to the method and not 
something that requires 
reconciliation. 
inductively, followed by a 
quantitative phase where 
its generalizability is tested. 
Dissonance between 
findings from different 
methods less likely to occur 
with this approach. 
Postmodern 
Exceptions are part of 
Adaptable to more iterative 
Blurs the 
Clarkeian 
complexity. Difference is 
approaches to mixed 
distinction 
grounded theory 
a fundamental part of the 
methods where findings 
between qualitative 
theory-building process 
from one method may drive 
and quantitative 
(Apramian et al., 2017). 
further data collection and 
methods. 
analysis in another. 
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF DISSONANCE THAT EMERGE 
OVER THE LIFE OF A RESEARCH PROJECT 
In grounded theory, being open to new or unexpected interpretations and their theoretical 
implications is part of theoretical sensitivity. This is defined as having sufficient familiarity with 
relevant bodies of literature to recognize the theoretical implications of findings. Theoretical sensitiv-
ity allows the investigator to recognize nuances in the data and subtle differences in the way 
participants are using language. It paves the way for agility in combining the literature, data, 
experience, and prior knowledge (Suddaby, 2006). 
The discipline of generating multiple explanations 
The potential to leverage dissonance can be built into framing the need for a study and through 
its analytical procedures. It can also be like an uninvited guest who arrives with little advance 
warning asking to spend a few nights sleeping on your couch. Unexpected or incongruent 
findings can encourage the discipline of the alternative hypotheses or multiple explanations 
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Edwards, 2008). It does not introduce conflict when there is the epistemo-
logical conviction that there is one best answer that will prevail (Creamer, 2004). This is the 
“disciplined consideration” of a range of possible explanations before conclusions are drawn 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
99 
(Thorne, Kirkham, & O’Flynn-Magee, 2004). It is also the process of deliberately seeking 
evidence that would disprove one hypothesis or explanation over another that is so central to 
science (Edwards, 2008). This type of strategy for building strong conclusions can “unfreeze 
thinking” by driving an investigator to go beyond initial impressions and avoid foreclosing pre-
maturely on the obvious explanation (Eisenhardt, 1989). T
eams that are constituted with mem-
bers with expertise in diverse areas can offset bias and contribute to the disciplined approach to 
alternative explanations (Eisenhardt, 1989). A quizzical mindset can register gaps in the theory 
about the aspects of the phenomenon that are rendered invisible when applied to existing 
theory (Rule & John, 2015). 
A strategy to generate multiple explanations for a finding is well adapted to a grounded 
theory approach designed to generate a theoretical framework. This could occur, for example, 
with a theme or theoretical proposition that suggests a link between a contextual factor and 
an outcome. It can contribute to strong analytical conclusions in resisting what Johnson and 
Schoonenboom (2015) refer to as a binary “either/or logic.” Associating this with a dialectical 
perspective that is compatible with grounded theory, these authors recommend: “Instead of 
using an ‘either/or’ logic, we need a ‘both/and’ logic in which different forms of evidence are 
bought into dialogue, constantly compared, and combined into a whole that is more than the 
sum of the parts” (p. 591). We will see how an investigator might document support for a range 
of alternative hypotheses in the final section of this chapter devoted to using visual displays to 
warrant findings. 
Unexpected sources of dissonance 
Research projects have habit of unfolding in ways that are not entirely predictable. This is part 
of the real-world messiness of research that demands adaptability in research designs (Plano 
Clark & Ivankova, 2016; Sanscartier, 2018). Due to the inclusion of multiple perspectives and 
approaches mixed methods research is inherently complex, dynamic, and undetermined in 
practice because “insights and tensions cannot be fully anticipated or predicted” (Plano Clark & 
Ivankova, 2016, p. 277). As we see in the example by T
eixeira (2014, 2016) in the preceding 
chapter, the “mess” and the tensions introduced by unexpected findings are often air-brushed 
out of reporting. This can be understated as in T
eixeira’s case (2014, 2016) where a single 
sentence acknowledges that participants in her study resisted the negative language she used to 
characterize the urban spaces she studied. 
The ambiguity and uncertainty associated with this type complexity can emerge at any point 
in the research process. It can be introduced during the design phase when an investigator must 
tackle differences in the epistemological assumptions of different methods. This might occur, for 
example, when a grounded theorist using mixed methods finds it philosophically unacceptable 
to ignore what was learned in an earlier, quantitative phase of the project. “Mess” also makes an 
appearance once research is underway and the empirical findings diverge from what is expected 
(Sanscartier, 2018). Dynamics among team members and contextual factors, like differences 
between research sites, is yet a third source of complexity that can emerge while research is 
underway. In participatory action research or evaluation research, engagement with stakehold-
ers often introduces unexpected views or needs. The type of complexity often encountered in 


 
 
100 
DISSONANCE 
Design 
Methods 
Data 
Context 
Team 
Literature 
FIGURE 5.1 Potential Sources of Dissonance in a MM-GTM Study 
mixed method research requires that investigators have the skills to spontaneously and creatively 
adapt the research design to their environment (Poth, 2020; Sanscartier, 2018). 
Figure 5.1 identifies some of the potential sources of unexpected dissonance that might 
arise in a MM-GTM study. These can occur at any point in the research process, including dur-
ing the design phase, during implementation, and in the follow-up phase of reporting. 
Dissonance introduced through team dynamics and the engagement with diverse bodies of 
literature or expertise are elements that weave throughout the research process. 
Factors that mitigate the significance of unexpected findings 
As intriguing and intuitively appealing as some unexpected findings can prove to be, there are 
situations where competing demands make them impractical to pursue. Practical reservations 
present themselves when the finding would lead researchers away from the declared purpose of 
the research, require an investment of time and resources that is not feasible at the moment, or 
be too detrimental to the established timeline. A lack of sufficient empirical foundation is an 
additional reason why a researcher might be forced to set aside tantalizing findings for another 
day. The most important of these is when empirical grounding is not robust enough to war-
rant their pursuit (Bazeley, 2018a). Methodological limitations include miscalculation in the 
research design, quantitative measures with low reliability or statistical power, and small sample 
sizes in either the qualitative or quantitative data (Edwards, 2008). In cases where methodolo-
gists on a team believe that qualitative and quantitative data cannot be combined because they 
are different paradigms, “uncovering points of disagreements may be the best that researchers 
can achieve” (Loo & Lowe, 2011, p. 33). This is one explanation for why some authors allow 


 
DISSONANCE 
101 
multiple interpretations to stand alongside each other during reporting and defer their resolu-
tion to the reader (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006). 
DESIGNING FOR DISSONANCE 
There are a wide range of ways that the assumption that engaging dissonance and multiple 
explanations is associated with stronger inferences and original insight can be woven into the 
design of a research a project (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). Designing for divergence 
in anticipation of better understanding reflects a methodological commitment to dialectical 
pluralism (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). Some of these procedures can be built into the 
design of a research study from the outset, while others emerge as a response to the unexpected 
ways a research project often unfolds. 
Table 5.2 provides a list of some of the procedures that recognize the benefit of a dialecti-
cal orientation to inference quality. Although many can weave throughout different phases of a 
research project, the table organizes the strategies most closely associated with the design phase, 
analysis, and reporting. 
The strategies listed in this table are not limited to MM-GTM. They have wide applica-
bility to other types of mixed methods studies. The centrality of an ongoing dialectical dance 
between existing literature and theories about the phenomenon is underscored with its appear-
ance in multiple places in the table. Embedded these types of strategies in the initial planning of 
a study has the potential to invite the kind of creative tensions that lead to new insight. 
TABLE 5.2 Procedures that Leverage Dissonance in Ways that Advance Theoretical 
Reasoning 
Phase 
Procedure 
Design 
Frame the need for a study with competing theoretical frameworks and/or in 
results reported in the literature. 
Analysis 
Generate theoretical propositions form a case-based analysis or through an 
integrated joint display. 
Generate and test alternative explanations for key results. 
Explore group differences. 
Explore cases that seem to be exceptions through theoretical sampling. 
Explore unexpected outcomes and the conditions associated with them. 
Create a coding system that incorporates multiple competing explanations. 
Test results through theoretical sampling with new data. 
Consult literature in other domains to explain unexpected findings. 
Get stakeholder input on discordant findings. 
Reporting 
Warrant conclusions by documenting the link between data and findings 
through a visual display. 
Communicate information about findings that are not consistent in a visual 
display through dotted lines, shading, or other graphic tools. 
Seek explanations for unexpected findings in the literature in other disciplines. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
102 
DISSONANCE 
Although it is certainly a way to generate interest in a publication, I have encountered few 
examples of articles that are framed in ways that suggest the drive to understand dissonant findings 
or dissonance between findings reported in the literature was the driver for an initial plan for how 
the research would be executed. In the next section of the chapter, I explore three exemplars that 
tackled dissonance as part of the theory-building process during at least one phase of the analyti-
cal process. All differ from a classic approach to grounded theory and the view that engagement 
with the literature should be postponed until an analytical framework begins to solidify. Each of 
the exemplars was launched with familiarity with the literature, including theoretical frameworks. 
In all cases, authors described a process where there was back and forth with the literature during 
analysis that is recognized as part of an abductive approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). 
THE CHAPTER EXEMPLARS 
The exemplars underscore how commonplace it is for researchers to find that unexpected 
incongruities emerge when qualitative and quantitative data or analytical procedures are 
actively engaged during analysis for purposes of developing a grounded theory or elaborat-
ing an explanatory framework already available in the literature. In each of the exemplars, 
wrestling with unanticipated findings through additional analysis sparked original insight. 
The chapter exemplars each used different procedures to interrogate incongruities. The 
first exemplar by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) comes from the field of management. It is the 
only exemplar to explicitly frame the study as MM-GTM. These authors found that examin-
ing group differences helped to explain unexpected findings. The second exemplar, Carmona 
(2015), comes from the field of urban planning. Carmona engaged diverse perspectives from 
the literature by building case profiles that integrated qualitative, quantitative and visual data 
about a carefully selected sample of public spaces in a city. The third and final exemplar from 
Wesely (2010) reflects on the process used to find an explanation for findings that challenged 
the theoretical assumption that in the context of a voluntary language immersion program, that 
motivation and persistence are linked in a significant positive way. 
Table 5.3 singles out innovative features of each of the three chapter exemplars. 
Innovative features of the first chapter exemplar are explored next, as are the tensions 
introduced by team dynamics where members clearly distinguished their expertise as either 
quantitative or qualitative. 
TABLE 5.3 Innovative Features of the Chapter Exemplars 
Example 
Innovative Feature 
Kaplan & Duchon (1988) 
Explored group differences to explain dissonance. 
Carmona (2015) 
Integrated visual, quantitative, and qualitative data for a case-
based analysis of public spaces in a city; generated theoretical 
propositions from the cases grouped by type. 
Wesely (2010) 
Engaged competing theoretical perspective after unexpected 
findings emerged. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
103 
Exemplar 1: developing an explanation for contradictory findings 
by investigating differences between groups or sites 
Despite its publication in 1988 when mixed methods had barely begun to be formalized as 
a distinct methodology, a methodologically oriented article by Bonnie Kaplan and Dennis 
Duchon has qualities that make it still innovative today. There is an explicit acknowledgment 
in this article that the authors combined qualitative and quantitative methods with grounded 
theory. The reference list includes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods references that 
suggest an uncommon breadth of methodological expertise. The methods are still relevant, if 
perhaps the findings now seem out-of-date. 
There are reasons related to reflexivity and research methods that undergird the choice 
to single out the Kaplan and Duchon (1988) as an exemplar. I consider it worthy of replica-
tion; first, because of the reflexivity about the research process that is reported, and second, 
because of the refusal to disregard discrepant findings, and third, the methodological transpar-
ency afforded by amount of text that is devoted to highlighting the value-added of combining 
methods. Mixed methods made two contributions in this study. The first relates to triangula-
tion. Findings confirmed an original conceptual model. The second relates to what is referred 
to in mixed methods as an expansion purpose. Findings also elaborated the existing theoretical 
framework by introducing a new construct in the form of a condition. Kaplan and Duchon 
summarized the contribution of mixed methods this way: “Mixing methods can also lead to 
new insights and modes of analysis of that are unlikely to occur if one method if one method is 
used alone” (Kaplan & Duchon, 1988, p. 582). 
Box 5.1 summarizes key features of the Kaplan and Duchon article (1988). This includes 
the purpose of the research, information related to the design of the study, including the timing 
of data collection and analysis, how integration occurred, unexpected findings, and the nature 
of the theory produced. 
Several elements of the research design of the study reported by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) 
are also unusual. The first is the utility shown for developing a grounded theory model at the 
mid-point of the analysis as a way to propose an explanation for the discrepancies observed. 
This followed an initial round of analysis where the qualitative and quantitative data were 
analyzed separately by different investigators. Most original is the choice to re-analyze the 
quantitative questionnaire data based on new variables introduced by the grounded theory 
model that emerged from the initial phase of qualitative analysis. The additional round of data 
analysis contributed to the conceptual framework by providing statistical support to document 
the intermediary role of work orientation in explaining attitudes about the implementation of 
new management software. 
Part of the reflexivity evident in this article is its documentation of the dissonance intro-
duced by team dynamics. The article also points to the tensions on the original four-member 
team because it involved members who are not methodological boundary spanners but uni-
lateral in their ideas about how to approach research. The article authors who were what 
remained of the original team, refer to the “tenacity” that was required of the lead author 
not to abandon the insight she drew from the initial independent analysis of the qualitative 
data. The co-authors acknowledged that it took intense and ongoing negotiations to find 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
104 
DISSONANCE 
BOX 5.1 
Exploring Group Differences in a Study About the Implementation 
of Management Software by Kaplan and Duchon (1988) 
Purpose: This methodological article reports on the first phase of a multi-
method longitudinal project. The purpose of the study was to explore what 
happens when a new management information system was installed in com-
mercial laboratory settings. The authors developed and tested a grounded 
theory model. 
Design: In some ways, this study fits a core component design and can be 
referred to as using an exploratory, two-phase sequential mixed methods 
design. Multiple forms of a qualitative data were collected first, followed by the 
construction of a questionnaire. Analysis occurred in more than two phases, 
however. The contradictions between the inferences drawn from the indepen-
dent analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data and the construction of a 
grounded theory model at the mid-point meant that researchers returned to 
reanalyze the questionnaire data during a third phase of analysis. 
Integration: Data from the first phase of analysis were linked to the second 
because they were used for purposes of instrument development. Later in 
the analytical process, the approaches were merged in the construction of a 
grounded theory model. 
Unexpected findings: Results from an independent analysis of the qualitative 
and quantitative data were contradictory. The initial analysis of survey data did 
not support the findings from the qualitative data analysis that indicated strong 
differences in the work orientation of laboratory team members in different 
settings. 
Theory produced: The theoretical model developed distinguished between 
laboratory workers by the priority they placed on the product or on the pro-
cesses associated with producing them through benchwork. Those who pri-
oritize their job as producing reports saw the new management system as 
helpful, while those who prioritized the process viewed it as increasing the 
workload. 
a way to integrate the findings from the qualitative and quantitative analysis. They wrote it 
required: “a strong determination to accommodate each approach and to reconcile appar-
ently conflicting data resulted in an interpretation that synthesized the evidence” (Kaplan & 
Duchon, 1988, p. 582). Transparency about the challenges faced by members of the team 


 
  
                                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
105 
with non-overlapping areas of expertise introduced a polyvocality to the text that is rare 
(Creamer, 2011). 
In Chapters 2 and 3, we considered the ways that a case-based approach can be leveraged 
in MM-GTM to yield new insight in much the same way a theoretical memo can. Investigators 
can use a case-based approach to integrate qualitative and quantitative data in a narrative or a 
visualization in ways that resemble a theoretical memo. In the section that follows, we expand 
the discussion of a mixed methods approach to case-based analysis by looking at the roles it can 
play to advance understanding of discordant data. 
EXPLORING DISSONANCE WITH A CASE-BASED APPROACH 
IN MM-GTM 
Eisenhardt (1989) centers the exploration of paradoxical evidence through the analysis of mul-
tiple case studies. In another article that pre-dates the formalization of mixed methods as a 
distinct methodology, Eisenhardt (1989) wrote about the ways that multiple investigators and 
multiple sources of data can “foster diverse perspectives” and strengthen the grounding of a 
study (p. 533). She maintains the emphasis on diverse points of view as the purpose of cross-case 
comparisons that can force investigators to look beyond initial impressions and “see evidence 
through multiple lenses” (p. 533). 
Building theory from case studies centers directly on the juxtaposition of contradictory or 
paradoxical evidence. “That is, attempts to reconcile evidence across cases, types of data, 
and different investigators, and between cases and the literature increase the likelihood of 
creative reframing into new theoretical vision.” 
(Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 546) 
Other examples of the ways that a case-based analysis could be used to understand dis-
sonance include: 
1 
Constructing a detailed case to explain what appear to be exceptions to the theoretical 
framework that has been developed. 
2 
Shifting away from a qualitative approach by extracting variables, such as about conditions 
that impact an outcome, and quantifying them in ways that would allow for statistical analysis. 
3 
Constructing cases to compare how individuals or groups experience a social process and 
to find clues about causal factors that explain why it happens. 
4 
Generating a set of theoretical propositions or themes from cross-case comparisons. 
Including visual data in a case-based analysis 
Case-based analysis does not necessarily have to rest on a narrative form. It is possible to 
envision that a case could include not only words and numbers, but also visuals like photo-
graphs or diagrams. We see that, for example, in a study about weight that integrated multiple 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
106 
DISSONANCE 
different types of data, including a timeline, record of weight change over time, and visuals 
like photographs and images drawn by a participant (i.e., Chamberlain, Cain, Sheridan, & 
Dupuis, 2011). These do not necessarily have to be presented in a narrative form to prove 
useful during analysis. 
It is possible to envision the use of visual data as part of the data in a case-based analysis of 
the type we see with the next exemplar with a hypothetical example involving a public space. 
In this case, imagine the types of spaces that have been included in office buildings, residence 
halls, and libraries that have been designed with the intent to facilitate collaboration. Table 5.4 
is not from a real-world study. It integrates three kinds of data about a single location in the 
library at my own university to illustrate a creative approach to presenting a case study that 
incorporates visual data. This is the type of grounded visualization described by Knigge and 
Cope (2006). 
A real-world study would import many examples of this type of data into qualitative soft-
ware for analysis. This hypothetical example of case-based analysis that includes qualitative, 
quantitative, and visual data about a physical location will resurface later in the chapter in the 
section about documenting sources of data that support alternative hypotheses. 
The case study captured in Table 5.4 has two visual components. One column contains a 
photograph of the space. A second column pinpoints its location on a blueprint. This type of 
data could prove useful in a later stage of analysis in this imagined study by providing a way to 
measure aspects of the space, such as access to an exit or bathroom, which might influence how 
often the space is used by student groups. The third column integrates qualitative and quan-
titative data, as well as the results from qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures. The 
succinctness of the data presented about the case and the way it is displayed in table form could 
serve as vehicle to facilitate cross-case comparisons. 
My intent in synthesizing information about a mixed methods exemplar from urban 
planning that follows in the next section is not to endorse the idea that it should be replicated 
in its entirety. Instead, it is my goal to provide enough information about it that a reader 
might come out with some creative ideas about how some elements of its approach to data 
collection and/or analysis could be adapted to other contexts. Although the study as a whole 
has its weaknesses, the use of integrated mixed methods case studies described in the article 
might inspire others to think creatively about ways to incorporate visual data in a case-based 
analysis. 
TABLE 5.4 Example of Data for a Case-Based Analysis with Visual Components 
Data: Square footage 
Data: Distance from exit 
Data: Noise and traffic level 
Data: Index of frequency of usage 
Results of QUANT analytical procedure: 
Measure of overall student satisfaction. 
Results of QUAL analysis: Favored aspect: 
mobility of walls 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
107 
Exemplar 2: using mixed method case studies for purposes of theory 
development and elaboration 
The second exemplar from urban planning by Matthew Carmona (2015) featured in this chapter 
was framed from the onset by a bold intent to disrupt existing ways of theorizing public spaces 
in urban settings. Carmona (2015) reveals his impossibly ambitious intent when he declares 
that the goal of the project was “re-theorization of the nature of contemporary public space” 
(p. 374) in a way that counters a dominant narrative that characterize urban spaces, like squares 
and parks, negatively in terms of decline, crime, loss, and decay. This is the very language that 
we witnessed in the previous chapter in the article by T
eixeira (2016) about grounded visualiza-
tion. T
eixeira adapted that language of “urban decay” and the theoretical assumptions of its link 
to crime from the literature even as she acknowledged that it was language that her adolescent 
participants resisted. 
Box 5.2 singles out key design feature of the Carmona (2015) article. 
BOX 5.2 
Using Mixed Method Case Studies to Theorize Public Space in 
London by Carmona (2015) 
Purpose: The purpose of the project is explicitly theoretical. Its purpose was to 
use mixed methods case studies to develop and generalize a theory about “the 
multiple processes of designing, developing, using, and managing public space” 
in an urban setting (p. 377). 
Design: The mixed method project unfolded in two sequential phases. The first 
phase began with field observation of 130 public spaces distributed throughout 
London. Features of these spaces, like accessibility and comfort, were cata-
loged using a pre-determined typology and these data were subsequently used 
to identify a stratified, purposeful sample of cases that represented a broader 
class of cases. The second phase of the research was devoted to the case-
based analysis. 
Integration: Integration of findings from different analytical procedures and 
sources of data was embedded throughout this research project in a fully inte-
grated way. There were multiple levels of increasingly abstract analysis. During 
the first phase of the analysis, theoretical propositions resembling themes were 
drawn from individual cases (a public location) that were constructed using mul-
tiple sources of data, including photographs and maps showing the location and 
size of the space. During the second phase of the analysis, cases were grouped 
by type (e.g., domestic spaces, consumer spaces, service spaces, etc.) and an 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
108 
DISSONANCE 
additional set of theoretical propositions/themes were generated from comparing 
cases in the group. 
Unexpected findings: The “counter narrative” presented by the author presents 
a theoretical perspective that is in “rupture” with the idea that all public spaces 
should share the same design features. The strength of a city is that there are 
many public spaces and that these meet the needs of a diverse population by 
serving diverse needs. 
Theory produced: The article concludes with what could be considered a 
series of ten, inter-related theoretical propositions. The product of the research 
is described as theory, but it falls short of presenting a coherent conceptual 
framework or structure. 
Carmona characterized both the intent and outcome of his mixed method project in ways 
that resonate with what Walsh (2015) referred to as “rupture theorizing.” As compared to 
“incremental theorizing” which is far more common, rupture theorizing occurs when results from the 
empirical analysis challenge an accepted measure, instrument, or a theoretical framework. Researchers that 
produce rupture theories reframe conventional constructs in radically new ways (Walsh, 2015). 
During reporting, they refer to their contribution as diverging from conventional practices for 
measuring the construct or for understanding it. 
Language used throughout Carmona’s article (2015) signals his intent to disrupt conven-
tional views. Examples of wording appearing in this article that communicate an aim that is 
consistent with rupture theorizing include the following: 
• 
Produce a “counter narrative” that “subverts” the dominant narrative. 
(p. 397, 398) 
• 
Challenge “formula-driven approaches.” 
(p. 395) 
• 
Espouse a “questioning approach.” 
(p. 396) 
• 
“Turn critiques on their head.” 
(p. 397) 
The theory produced subverts the normative convention that assumes that there “is a 
single, idealized blueprint for public spaces” in an urban setting in favor of a more complex 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
109 
narrative that accepts that “users are diverse and will seek different things from their spaces” 
(Carmona, 2015, p. 398). Dissonance framed the final, meta-analytical framework because the 
case-study work “ultimately challenged many of the global space critiques” (p. 381). 
Using case-based analysis to develop theory 
Carmona’s (2015) research displays originality involving mixed methods and theory devel-
opment, but it cannot be said to use grounded theory procedures. The author’s purpose for 
using mixed methods is explicitly linked to developing a theory. Carmona, and no doubt 
an invisible team of other researchers, declared that he used mixed methods to develop 
in-depth, mixed method case studies of 14 public spaces in the city of London “as a basis 
from which to generate (and generalize) theory” (2015, p. 397). The analyses had a strong 
emergent quality, but in setting up the study to weigh findings against the critique in the 
literature, it has a deductive drive that is an uneasy fit with the grounded theory methods. 
The author observed that the benefits of going back and forth between findings from 
different analytical procedures were both to triangulate results from different analytical pro-
cedures and to build theory. An iterative approach to data analysis means that there was back 
and forth between an exploratory and a confirmatory stance and different types of data. 
According to Carmona (2015), the back and forth between results from different analytical 
procedures made it possible to see connections between different sources of data “that might 
otherwise not be so obvious” (p. 381). 
Providing evidence of originality 
One way that originality is demonstrated in this ambitious piece of research is in the breadth 
and creativity of the sources of data and the range of analytical procedures utilized. Data 
were collected through participant observation, documentary evidence, user assessment, 
informal interviews, geospatial data, content analysis of reviews in popular media, and time-
lapse photography. Data for each case included a photograph; a map pinpointing its shape, 
size, and location in the city; and additional details about when it was constructed, its func-
tion, and whether it was a public or private space. Data for each of the 14 public spaces 
were summarized as one row in an integrative table, rather than in the more conventional 
narrative form. 
The case-based analysis in this exemplar became increasingly abstract as it moved from a 
micro-level, to a meso-level, to a macro-level perspective and in ways that ultimately led to 
the development of an overarching theoretical framework. The first level of analysis was at the 
micro-level. It cataloged the characteristics of a large number of public spaces in the city of 
London. The second level of analysis was at the meso-level or group level. It focused on devel-
oping a list of themes about a class or group of spaces that shared similar physical attributes. 
The third iteration of the analysis is at the macro-level. Themes or theoretical propositions were 
developed during this iteration of the case-based analysis that singled out the similarities and 
differences between the groups of case studies clustered by type. 


110 
DISSONANCE 
Iteration of the 
Analysis 
Increasing Levels of Abstraction 
Construct a meta 
framework.
Develop theoretical 
propositions. 
Integrative Strategy 
Integrate data 
 
 
 
 
 
Macro 
Meso 
Level of Analysis 
Micro 
Cross-group 
comparison. 
Cases grouped by 
type. 
Unit of Analysis 
A case about a single 
location. 
FIGURE 5.2 Embodying a Stair-Step Process to Develop Theory from a Mixed Method 
Case-Based Analysis 
Figure 5.2 is my attempt to visualize the steps used in the exemplar to develop a theoretical 
framework from a mixed method case-based approach to analysis. The figure incorporates the 
visual metaphor of a stairstep to characterize the analytical process and how the level of abstrac-
tion increased across each of three iterations of the analysis. A micro-level of analysis refers in 
this case to an analysis based on individual cases; meso-level refers to analysis built from insight 
gained by comparing cases within a group; and macro-level analysis emerges from insight 
gained by a cross-case comparison across groups. 
The unit of analysis, level of analysis, and integrative strategy changed over the course of 
the process of building theory in the Carmona (2015) study. 
Methodological tensions introduced by the exemplar 
Carmona’s 2015 article is explicitly labeled as empirical mixed methods research with the 
purpose of theory development. It lacks details about the procedures that normally would 
be developed in greater detail in a methodological article. It is clear that results from the 
different research methods like the analysis of historical documents were incorporated in 


 
 
 
 
 
  
DISSONANCE 
111 
the cases, but no details are provided about how these analyses were conducted. A further 
critique is about the lack of transparency in the article about other members of the team 
and how they worked together during data collection and analysis. Unlike the first exemplar 
by Kaplan and Duchon (1988), which is characterized by polyvocality, Carmon’s article is 
written with a single authorial voice. It erases what was no doubt the very significant con-
tribution of members of the team that must have been involved in such a long-term and 
large-scale project. 
Even though it is unlikely that a doctoral student or early career investigator could tackle 
such an ambitious project in its entirety, the use of mixed method case studies to develop 
a theoretical process through an iterative process could be emulated in other contexts. The 
procedure used to generate theoretical propositions from a group of cases that shared a similar 
function, could be adapted to research about other physical locations that serve educational 
purposes, promote well-being, or foster community. This could include, for example, research 
considering the layout of classrooms, playgrounds, parks and green spaces, homeless shelters, or 
food distribution centers. 
The final exemplar in this chapter did not use visual data or a case-based analysis. It’s 
unusual in its recognition of the role extant theoretical frameworks played in explaining dis-
sonant findings. 
Exemplar 3: drawing on multiple theoretical frameworks 
during analysis 
A methodologically oriented article published by Pam Wesely (2010) illustrates the discipline 
of generating alternative explanation. The approach used by Weseley could be referred to a 
theoretical triangulation. Theoretical triangulation contributes to internal validity by drawing on 
multiple theoretical frameworks as a means to explain findings and weigh competing explanations. The 
research reported by Wesely (2010) is original in that it was not only purposeful about pursuing 
counterintuitive results during analyses but that the investigator drew on multiple theoretical 
frameworks from the literature to guide later stages of the analysis. Theoretical triangulation can 
serve as a test for internal validity by virtue of its ability to incorporate competing hypotheses 
(Jick, 1979). 
The puzzle Wesely (2010) was left to explain at the mid-point of the mixed analysis she 
conducted for her dissertation research was related to the inadequacy of her original theoretical 
framing in motivation theory to explain the quantitative findings about student attrition and 
persistence in a language immersion program. The students who were most interested in lan-
guage and most motivated to learn it, were not necessarily the ones who remained enrolled in 
the program. Defending her decision to use multiple theoretical frameworks, Wesely observed: 
“Accessing multiple theoretical frameworks is important in a mixed methods study when 
the primary theoretical framework corresponds strictly with either quantitative or qualitative 
approaches” (2010, p. 297). 
Box 5.3 summarizes key design features of this fully integrated MM-GTM study about a 
language immersion program by Wesely (2010). It reflects mixed priority because the conclu-
sions derived from mixed method analytical techniques. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
112 
DISSONANCE 
BOX 5.3 
An Exploration of the Link Between Motivation and Persistence in 
a Language Immersion Program by Wesely (2010) 
Purpose: The purpose of the study and the purpose of the article are different. 
The purpose of the study is framed in a quantitative way. It was to explore stu-
dents’ motivation to learn another language and its relationship to attrition from 
an intensive language immersion program. The purpose of the article is explicitly 
framed to explore the complexities of the relationship between language learn-
ing and motivation. 
Design:The article is organized by six distinct phases of analysis that followed 
data collection. The first, second, and fourth phases were qualitative. The third 
analyzed survey data. Mixed methods were used in the fifth and six phases. 
Integration: The secondary theoretical frameworks influenced how integration 
occurred during the later phases of analysis. Coders refined the initial, inductive 
coding scheme and grouped statements to reflect additional theoretical frame-
works identified from the literature. Two additional theoretical frameworks were 
added to the constructs to the socio-educational model: attribution theory and 
investment theory. 
Unexpected findings: Students’ attitudes toward learning a language did NOT 
necessarily have a strong impact on their decision to persist in an immersion 
language program. They did, however, seem to have a profound misunderstand-
ing of what language learning entailed. 
Theory produced: Attitudes toward language learning were related to motiva-
tion, but not the intention to persist in language study. In other word, highly 
motivated students who appreciated languages might well leave a program for 
reasons unrelated to the program or language. 
The exemplar featured in Box 5.3 is unusual in that the author explicitly positioned the 
paradigmatic grounding of her research. She described her approach as consistent with the 
dialectical perspective, writing: “My philosophy of mixed methods research corresponds with 
the dialectic thesis where opposing viewpoints of different methods and their interaction can 
create tension and be revealing in their own way” (Wesely, 2010, p. 300). She used a type of 
dialogical mixing (Creamer & Edwards, 2019) in the fourth phase of the analysis where she 
refined and added codes to her qualitative analysis to reflect the theoretical constructs and 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
113 
vying theoretical explanations that emerged from engagement in a more expansive body of 
literature. While she did not produce an over-arching explanatory framework, her findings 
were complementary in that she found it necessary to add a new set of constructs to explain 
the contradictory findings. 
WARRANTING INFERENCES THROUGH VISUAL DISPLAYS 
Transparency about methods and procedures is prized by all research approaches but is no 
guarantee of the credibility or validity of findings (Maxwell, 2013). Warranting is a type of 
methodological transparency in reporting that supports the credibility of conclusion, generally through a 
visual display that documents the empirical support for them. Bazeley described a warranted statement 
as “An assertion that is warranted is one that is convincingly argued and supported by research 
evidence” (Bazeley, 2018a, p. 278). Other methodologists well known to the mixed methods 
community suggest that a conclusion is warranted or defensible “in terms of documenting 
results, substantiating results, and validating conclusions” (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Johnson, 
2012). The task of documenting a conclusion is particularly critical when a conclusion is para-
doxical or runs counter to long-held views. 
Warranting is most commonly provided through a visual display like a table or figure. “It 
is critical to invest in developing well-crafted tables, appendixes, and visual aids to demonstrate 
the underlying empirical support and the anticipated richness of the case data, and to tie those 
tables clearly to the text,” Eisenhardt and Graebner advise (2007, p. 29). In mixed methods, 
warranting can be accomplished through different types of visual displays, including a joint dis-
play that integrates qualitative and quantitative data or findings. A concordance table is one type 
of joint display to documents the strength of support for themes or theoretical propositions. 
Triangulating through a concordance table 
A concordance table is a type of a joint display that combines findings from qualitative 
and quantitative data. Its purpose is related to warranting because it shows the extent that 
key conclusions, inferences, themes, and/or hypotheses are corroborated by analysis from 
more than one source of data. These can contribute to theoretical insight when they are 
organized by theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). This type of table 
generally reveals areas where findings are consistent, as well as areas where they are not in 
accord. Acknowledging themes or constructs where findings are inconsistent is an item that 
is often incorporated in standards for reporting in mixed methods (e.g., Wisdom, Cavaleri, 
Onwuegbuzie, & Green, 2012). 
Table 5.5 is a shell of a simple concordance table. It is organized by themes that might 
emerge from a qualitative analysis, from an abductive one that spread across both qualitative 
and quantitative data, or from quantitative analytical procedures. This hypothetical concordance 
table is comparing the extent that different hypotheses from a theoretical model were judged 
to be supported by the case data. It is only showing a few cases. More would be required in a 
real-world example. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
114 
DISSONANCE 
TABLE 5.5 Shell of a Concordance Table Illustrating a Way to Document Strength of 
Support Across Cases 
Theoretical Proposition 
Case 1 
Case 2 
Case 3 
Proposition # 1 
Low 
Moderate 
Moderate 
Proposition # 2 
Strong 
Strong 
Low 
This type of table could also be organized by participant or by source of data. A type of extreme 
case sampling could be used if the number of cases or participants was large enough. Contrast-
ing patterns in the data can more readily be observed by sampling very high and very low 
performing cases (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). In some circumstances, it could prove useful 
to develop a scheme to quantify values in the table by assigning a number to “absent,” “low,” 
“moderate,” and “strong” and using this transformed data in further quantitative analysis. 
Walsh (2015) included a more elaborate type of concordance table in an appendix to a 
paper reporting on her MM-GTM study about factors the influence the adoption of a new 
information system (p. 25, table not included). Walsh’s table is like an integrated database. It lists 
six theoretical codes or propositions, identifies that extent the generalizability had been dem-
onstrated, and reports findings from the secondary data, primary qualitative data, and primary 
quantitative data. Walsh describes the theoretical codes or propositions as emerging “through 
constant iterations between quantitative and qualitative data as they were collected and through 
the analysis of all of our data as one set” (2015, p. 14). 
A concordance table can play multiple roles for both the investigator and members of the 
audience of the article. For the investigator, the table and others like it could play a formative role 
by helping the researcher weigh the strength of the support and what it might add to the theory 
that is being developed. The role of the literature in understanding and elaborating the theoreti-
cal propositions was so strong that Walsh (2015) included it in her merged data set and referred 
to it as secondary data. For a reader or audience member, the table is summative. It provides a 
large enough slice of the data to offer a keyhole into an investigator’s line of reasoning. When 
there is enough data in the table, it allows a reader or audience member to form his or her own 
conclusions and to reach a judgment about whether the line of reasoning is convincing. Tables 
with raw data, as we see in the appendix supplied by Walsh (2015), make it possible for another 
investigator to build on the work and to see if it is possible to reproduce the findings. 
Using a joint display to warrant conclusions from a study 
A joint display that integrates qualitative and quantitative data can serve to warrant conclusions 
when it is arrayed in such a way as to communicate a pattern of association between variables 
that becomes central to an explanatory framework. This table is different from a concordance 
table in that it does not document record levels of agreement between different sources of data or 
cases but is used to highlight patterns or to summarize key qualitative and quantitative findings. 
An article by Eisenhardt (1989) that partnered grounded theory and case study methods 
included a joint display that integrated findings from the analysis of qualitative and quantitative 


 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
115 
TABLE 5.6 Excerpt from a Joint Display from Castro et al. (2010) that Reveals a Clear 
Pattern 
Case Number Life Satisfaction Quoted Statement About 
Story Lines 
Score 
Machismo Self-Identification 
Highest on Life Satisfaction 
ID 133 
2.17 
“I care about my family”; “For me 
it’s acting like a gentleman” 
ID 147 
1.57 
“I’m respectful of women”; “I 
never bring shame to the family” 
ID 164 
1.50 
“I do my best to take care of my 
family” 
ID343 
1.48 
“I treat women with respect and 
don’t beat them” 
Story Line 1: Men who 
value and engage in family 
caretaking exhibit high levels 
of caballerismo (positive 
machismo) in their male 
gender role identity, are 
giving and responsible, and 
they also experience high 
levels of life satisfaction. 
data about the leadership style of chief executive officers in nine for profit firms (see Table 3, 
p. 543; table not included). The organization of the table underscores key results from the study. 
A link is shown between qualitative quotes and a “CEO Power Score.” The alignment of the 
two sources of data revealed a strong pattern of association between an authoritarian leadership 
style and more consensus-oriented approaches. The table is not reproduced here because the 
cost of reproduction is prohibitive. 
The insight that can be gained by aligning a score on a quantitative indicator with excerpts 
from qualitative data in a way that reveals a pattern is also evident in an example of a mixed 
methods study by Castro, Kellison, Boyd, and Kopak (2010). One of the last tables in that 
article demonstrates a link between qualitative data reflecting views of masculinity and a quanti-
tative index of well-being. One reason this table is effective is that it sorted not by participant or 
case, but by a well-being score. An excerpt from interview data is aligned with the well-being 
score. It provides credibility for a single conclusion. That is that there is a relationship between 
views about masculinity (machismo) and well-being. 
Table 5.6 reproduces a small portion of the joint display from Castro et al. 2010, Table 3 
(p. 355) that is available through fair use policies. The column on the far right refers to a “sto-
ryline” that was generated by exploring the alignment of the qualitative and quantitative data. 
In the terminology of MM-GTM, this might be referred to as a theoretical proposition that 
integrates qualitative and quantitative data. 
The format of this table could be helpful to communicate the empirical support for key 
theoretical propositions emerging from a MM-GTM study. 
Documenting support for alternative explanations through a visual display 
Documentation that ensures the reader that systematic attention has been devoted to gauging 
the empirical support for a set of alternative explanations for key findings is part of most of the 
reporting guidelines developed by many professional associations. Ruling out rival explanations 
strengthens internal validity (Johnson & Schoonenboom, 2015). While the topic of alternative 


 
116 
DISSONANCE 
TABLE 5.7 Documenting the Systematic Testing of Alternative Explanations from the 
Hypothetical Collaborative Space Study 
Alternative Hypothesis About the Usefulness 
Source of Data 
of Collaborative Spaces 
Space Usage 
Structured 
Interviews 
Data 
Observation 
Students prefer locations that are easy to get to. 
X 
Students prefer private spaces. 
X 
Students prefer spaces that are in the center of 
X 
traffic flow. 
Students prefer spaces with movable furniture. 
X 
X 
X 
Students prefer spaces with technical supports 
X 
that make it possible to project a computer 
screen. 
explanations often earns at best a single sentence during reporting, documenting what steps 
were taken to process competing explanations for key findings can enhance the credibility of an 
argument and the likelihood that others will find it useful. 
Table 5.7 picks up on the hypothetical study of collaborative spaces on a university campus 
described in an earlier section in the chapter about using qualitative, quantitative, and visual 
data for case-based analysis. In this case, we are imagining how a visual display or data matrix 
could be used to document or warrant that alternative explanations about space use were pur-
sued systematically. Several theoretical propositions or hypotheses are listed in the table, along 
with an indication if there was support from them in any or all of three different sources of 
data: space usage statics, a structured observation protocol, and individual interviews. T
wo of 
the sources of data are quantitative (a structured observation protocol and space usage statis-
tics); while one is conventionally assumed to be qualitative. The theoretical propositions could 
emerge as categories emerging during the process of coding the qualitative data. 
The table illustrates how it is possible to build an argument for credibility of findings 
through a visual display. Findings from the three sources of data listed only triangulated on one 
item appearing in the table that is related to the flexible ways a space might be used: Students 
prefer space with movable furniture. Differences between interview data and the two quantita-
tive indicators suggest that what a student might voice as a preference during an interview is 
not necessarily reflected in the way they end up acting. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Whether it emerges from differences of opinion between collaborators or the different angles 
presented when more than one method is used, a central feature of the experience of executing 
MM-GTM with a dialectical perspective is that it introduces diverse perspectives. Dissonance, 
incongruities, unexpected or paradoxical findings simultaneously generate complexity while 
at the same time reflecting it. Unexpected findings that confound expectations can introduce 


 
 
 
 
 
 
DISSONANCE 
117 
delays and generate surprise and uncertainty. This has the benefit of forcing the conscientious 
investigator to avoid foreclosing prematurely on a quick or obvious answer, while at the same 
time making it difficult to achieve saturation about core constructs. Dissonance is not the 
exception but the rule in real-world research framed as MM-GTM. 
The complexity introduced when findings from the analysis of different sources of data are 
integrated in interactive ways is one reason for the variability in the way MM-GTM research 
executed. Referring to it as mixed grounded theory (MGT), Johnson and Walsh (2019) found it 
challenging to use conventional terminology or a conventional notation system to deconstruct 
the timing and sequence of articles reporting on MM-GTM. They commented about their 
variety, writing: “There are perhaps an infinite number of versions of MGT to be explored and 
‘invented’ by practicing researchers in the production of knowledge” (Johnson & Walsh, 2019, 
p. 523). The variety that is evident in MM-GTM, when an integrated approach is used, resists 
categorizing them or approaching them in a formulaic way. “Following textbook prescriptions 
and laying down approved research designs may be a necessary rite of passage but the benefits of 
mixing flow from creative innovation and conceptualization rather than a pragmatic approach” 
(Fielding, 2012, p. 126). 
Building on the cross-cutting themes 
The role of dissonance in MM-GTM is one of the cross-cutting themes that makes an appear-
ance in all of the chapters in this book. The same can be said for case-based analysis. Table 5.8 
contributes a final layer to the cross-cutting themes and to building an argument of MM-GTM 
as a distinct methodology. The table is organized around three clusters of concepts: (a) inte-
grated mixed methods designs, (b) MM-GTM, and (c) complexity and dissonance. 
A summary of all findings for all the cross-cutting themes appears in Appendix A. 
Looking forward to the next chapter 
The final chapter revisits several issues that have been introduced already and introduces 
some new topics. It reinforces the argument for the variety, if not idiosyncrasy, that is evident 
TABLE 5.8 Additions from Chapter 5 to the Architecture of the Cross-Cutting Themes 
Themes 
Integrated Approaches 
Mixed Method 
Complexity and 
to Mixed Methods 
Grounded Theory 
Dissonance 
Research 
(MM-GTM) 
Chapter 5 
A study can be designed 
Findings can be 
Integrating qualitative 
to explore divergence, 
warranted through 
and quantitative data 
Leveraging 
including between 
joint displays and 
in case studies is one 
Dissonance for 
theoretical perspectives 
other types of visual 
tool to investigate 
Theoretical 
available in the literature, 
displays. 
dissonant data and 
and Analytical 
but more often dissonance 
to weigh the level of 
Insight 
is encountered 
support for theoretical 
unexpectedly. 
propositions. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
118 
DISSONANCE 
in integrated MM-GTM and the difficulty that creates for attempts to apply conventional 
mixed methods language and design templates to what are often complex, multi-phase stud-
ies. It expands the discussion about gauging quality in MM-GTM that began in this chapter 
with the introduction of the notion of using visual displays to build and argument for the 
credibility of findings. It argues for foregrounding some indicators of quality well known to 
qualitative researchers, including saturation, methodological transparency, reflexivity, origi-
nality, and utility. 
REVIEW QUESTIONS 
1 
In what ways can unexpected, counterintuitive, or dissonant findings contribute to theo-
retical insight? 
2 
What analytical strategies can used to engage dissonant findings productively? 
3 
What differences are there in views about the role of dissonance in exceptions among the 
“schools of thought” surrounding grounded theory? 
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY 
1 
Consider several examples of reflexive accounts about the experience of using grounded 
theory in a doctoral dissertation (e.g., Alammar, Intezari, Cardow, & Pauleen, 2018; Nel-
son, 2017; Nagel, Burns, Tilley, & Aubin, 2015). Analyze these to identify what proved 
most challenging about using grounded theory for novice researchers. 


 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 6 
Highlighting quality 
through reporting 
A specific research design or method is no guarantee that a study is scientific or that the results are credible or 
useful. This chapter considers different strategies that can be used to gauge the quality of MM-GTM research, 
including in the ways that research procedures or a final theoretical framework can be visualized effectively in a 
table or figure. A list of indicators of quality is discussed that extends beyond a singular reliance on transpar-
ency about research methods during reporting. 
TERMS INTRODUCED IN THE CHAPTER 
• 
Methodological transparency 
• 
Procedural diagram 
• 
Reflexivity 
INTRODUCTION 
Ian Dey, author of an influential second-generation textbook about grounded theory, 
underscored the great variety of ways that grounded theory has been adapted in the real 
world of research practice. Dey was unusually direct in the words he chose to make the 
point that there is no one codified approach to grounded theory: “There is no such thing 
as ‘grounded theory’ if we mean by that a single, unified methodology, tightly defined 
and clearly specified. Instead, we have different interpretations of grounded theory,” Dey 
wrote (2004, p. 80). The benefit to recognizing the diverse ways grounded theory meth-
ods have been applied in research practice is that it signals its potential to meet diverse 
purposes and to adapt to situation-specific approaches that honor the complexity of real-
world problems. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
120 
REPORTING 
Purpose, contribution, and key points 
This chapter brings the book to a close by introducing some ideas about reporting and evaluat-
ing quality in MM-GTM, while at the same time pulling together threads from earlier chapters. 
By focusing on saturation, methodological transparency, reflexivity, utility, and originality as 
criteria for evaluating the quality of reports about MM-GTM studies and projects, the chapter 
promotes a set of criteria that apply to other qualitative research methods as well. The chapters 
adds to the argument about the power of a visual display to both imagine and report a holistic 
theoretical framework. 
Aims of the chapter 
The chapter suggests different strategies that can be used not only to gauge the quality of MM-
GTM during reporting, but to embed them in the way a project is conceived. Specific aims of 
the chapter are to: 
1 
Summarize characteristics of the chapter exemplars and what they tell us about the way 
mixed methods and grounded theory have been used across the globe. 
2 
Review the foundations of the methodological rationale for combining mixed methods 
and grounded theory and the argument that it is a distinct methodology. 
3 
Acknowledge tensions between MM-GTM and classic or formal grounded theory. 
4 
Demonstrate ways to visualize a theoretical model developed through MM-GTM. 
5 
Consider ways that an interactive approach to MM-GTM can be embodied in a procedural 
diagram. 
6 
Identify criteria to evaluate the quality of the research methods and theoretical and analyti-
cal outputs of MM-GTM. 
7 
Recognize challenges to conducting MM-GTM. 
Key takeaways from the chapter 
The following lists principal takeaways from this final chapter: 
1 
The impressive variety in the ways MM-GTM has been implemented makes it nearly 
impossible to categorize them. 
2 
MM-GTM is a distinct but eminently adaptable methodology that has as its foundation a 
shared set of assumptions about the way knowledge is constructed. 
3 
The assumptions of an interactive approach to MM-GTM are probably not compatible 
with a classic or formal approach to grounded theory. 
4 
A figure that depicts a theoretical or explanatory framework in a parsimonious way may 
well be the single most important element in the judgment of quality about a manuscript 
with a theoretical purpose. 
5 
An expansive view of criteria for weighing the merits of a MM-GTM include indicators 
related to the research methods (transparency, saturation, reflexivity) and the analytical and 
conceptual outputs (utility and originality) that apply equally to reporting in many research 
approaches. 


 
                                                              
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
121 
Organization of the chapter 
The chapter is organized in three major parts. The rationale for the methodological similarities 
between mixed methods and grounded theory is re-iterated in the first section of this chapter. 
This is followed by an exploration of different ways that a grounded theory model developed 
through mixed methods can be presented, including in conventional and less conventional 
ways. Then we shift our attention to considering how a generic set of quality criteria can 
apply to MM-GTM. Finally, the chapter begins to come to a close by identifying challenges 
researchers face, which are unique to MM-GTM. I end the chapter and the book by recogniz-
ing intriguing topics that I was not able tackle within the confines of this book but would be 
well worth pursuing elsewhere. 
CONSIDERING THE VARIETY EVIDENT IN THE CHAPTER 
EXEMPLARS 
In a recent exploration of the use of mixed method grounded theory reported by Johnson and 
Walsh (2019) illustrates the challenge of trying to catalog and label complex research using the 
conventional annotation system that has been widely adapted as a shorthand in mixed methods. 
Johnson and Walsh (2019) set out, much as Walsh (2015) did a few years earlier, to categorize 
examples of MM-GTM using conventions that distinguish the timing of the phases of the 
research process and that communicate whether priority is awarded to a qualitative or quantita-
tive logic. 
The experience Johnson and Walsh (2019) report illustrates the inherent paradox in try-
ing to catalog and label complex research. They were only able to identify a few commonali-
ties among the six illustrative cases MM-GTM designs they were able to categorize using a 
standard notation system employed by mixed method researchers (see Table 25.1, p. 525, not 
included here). Of the six cases featured in Johnson and Walsh’s table (2019), an equal number 
analyzed the qualitative and quantitative strands separately as did those that approached data 
analysis in an integrated way. Of the cases categorized as integrated, an exploratory stance was 
carried through in the analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data. One important 
similarity between the illustrative cases is that they all gave comparable weight to the quantita-
tive and qualitative phases. 
The conclusions Johnson and Walsh (2019) reached after trying to categorize even a 
small number of MM-GTM articles match observations that Sharlene Hesse-Biber (2018) 
made about qualitative dominant mixed method designs. Hesse-Biber argued that the emer-
gent quality that is evident in some or all of the phases of the research process makes it dif-
ficult to affix a label from a specific mixed method design up-front. “Locking one’s mixed 
methods project into a particular mixed methods design template a priori would be particu-
larly challenging when doing research from a qualitatively driven standpoint,” Hesse-Biber 
wrote (2018, p. 449). 
Johnson and Walsh’s (2019) analysis led them to conclude that the variety among MM-
GTM reports is so notable that it supports Walsh’s (2015) earlier conviction that every 
project is like a specialized ecosystem with its own unique methodology that combines 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
122 
REPORTING 
beliefs and practices with a specific combination of methods and techniques. “Each research 
project may be considered as having a specific methodology,” Walsh wrote in the earlier 
(2015, p. 4). 
Within acceptable limits, methods are reinvented every time they are used to accommo-
date the real world of research practice. 
(Sandelowski, Voils, Leeman, & Crandell, 2012, p. 320) 
That there is no single, formulaic way to implement a MM-GTM study is also evident 
in the exemplars that are showcased in this book. “Variety” is the single word spotlighted 
in Chapter 2. There the attention is not to try to categorize the ways the research was con-
ducted but to the ways that MM-GTM can be paired with other qualitative approaches like 
case study. 
A list of the exemplars appears as Table 1.1 and in Appendix A. Both grounded theory and 
mixed methods are awarded meaningful attention in each of the exemplars. A list of additional 
examples of MM-GTM appears in Appendix B. By and large, there is less transparency about 
research methods in the articles listed in Appendix B. 
The diversity that is evident in the set of exemplars featured in this textbook extends 
to disciplinary affiliation, geographical location, and the type of journal where the article 
appeared. Diversity is manifested in the following ways in the group of exemplars identified 
in this text: 
1 
The disciplinary affiliation of the first author of each exemplar extends beyond the fields 
of education and health where grounded theory is used most widely. Five emerged from 
authors in health-related field, one from management, one from social work, one from 
urban affairs, and one from child psychology. 
2 
The usefulness that has been found for mixed methods across the globe is evident in the 
institutional affiliation of the first author of each exemplar. Five of the first authors are 
affiliated with an institution in the United States, two in the United Kingdom, one in 
Japan, and one in Canada. 
3 
Most mixed method research is published in disciplinary journals, rather than method-
ological ones. This is evident in the exemplars as well. Only three of the exemplars featured 
in this text appeared in specialized, methodologically oriented journals. 
Given the admonishment that many doctoral student are given to avoid studies with a 
complex research design, it is gratifying to realize that three of the exemplars were completed 
as part of the requirements for a doctoral dissertation (i.e., Catallo, Jack, Ciliska, & MacMillan, 
2013; Kawamura, Ivankova, Kohler, Purumean-Chaney, 2009; Shim et al., 2017). Each of these 
come from the health field where doctoral research is not as individualistic as it often thought 
to be in other applied fields, particularly education, where research is less likely to occur within 
the context of a larger team receiving support from external funding. Another unexpected 
finding is that authors of three of the nine exemplars benefited from the tutelage of a well-
recognized expert in mixed methods (i.e., Kawamura et al., 2009; Kaplan & Duchon, 1988; 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
123 
Shim et al., 2017). With MM-GTM as with any other methodology, there are innumerable 
benefits to the novice researcher committed to producing cutting edge research to seek out a 
scholar who is engaged in a contemporary dialog about a research method and willing to share 
his or her expertise. 
ARTICULATING A METHODOLOGICAL RATIONALE FOR MM-GTM 
A methodological rationale that supports the compatibility between mixed methods and some 
approaches to grounded theory was introduced in the first chapter. A figure provided there 
(Figure 1.2.) highlights paradigmatic assumptions that underlie that two research approaches 
that are compatible. Areas of compatibility include: (a) the iterative nature of the constant com-
parative method, (b) abduction as an analytical logic, (c) the adaptability of both approaches 
to diverse philosophical paradigms, and (d) their ability to accommodate complexity. Another 
figure in Chapter 1 (see Figure 1.3) adds to the argument about the philosophical and analytical 
compatibility of the two approaches by highlighting areas where each makes a distinct contri-
bution. Most notably for grounded theory this includes prioritization of an exploratory stance 
that allows the unexpected to emerge. For mixed methods, this could include a commitment 
to a dialectical approach to mixed methods (Johnson, 2012) to engage multiple perspectives 
and viewpoints. 
The methodological rationale I advance moves considerably beyond the additive logic 
long advocated by influence leaders in grounded theory, almost all of whom recognized 
the potential to use both qualitative and quantitative data with grounded theory. My posi-
tion extends the idea of MM-GTM as both a methodology by embedding an abductive 
logic into core grounded theory procedures. This is likely to produce findings that cannot 
be disaggregated and reported separately in an article about the qualitative methods and 
another about the quantitative methods. An integrated approach to MM-GTM downplays 
trivialization of the qualitative component of a MM-GTM study, including by the simplistic 
assumption that in mixed methods qualitative analysis is primarily accomplished by quanti-
fying qualitative data. 
The methodological rationale I have developed downplays the argument often presented 
in the early days of the development of mixed methods in the 1980s when one of the arguments 
for its legitimacy was that using more than one method makes it possible to offset the weak-
nesses of another method (Creamer, 2018a). The methodological rationale I present is more 
about the value-added of linking different research methods. It is not a critique of the more 
contentious aspects of grounded theory, most notably about the role of the literature and the 
potential for a truly inductive approach. 
The methodological framework I provide for MM-GTM is not conveniently housed 
within a single “school of thought” about grounded theory. While my perspective shares 
qualities with the constructivist approach to grounded theory that Charmaz (2014a) cham-
pioned, my interest in producing a theoretical model shares and some features of Corbin and 
Strauss (2008). The emphasis I place on dissonance, paradox, and the messiness of research 
in the real discloses an affiliation with a postmodern perspective advanced by Clarke (2005). 


  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
124 
REPORTING 
Tensions between MM-GTM and a classic or formal approach 
to grounded theory 
Critical researchers “pick and choose” from different approaches to grounded theory (Sebas-
tian, 2019, p. 6). The methodological rationale for pairing grounded theory and mixed meth-
ods and the description of the way that its procedures can be extended to include a dialectical 
perspective borrows from more than one approach to grounded theory. It is most at odds with 
the philosophical assumptions of classic or formal approach to grounded theory. Areas where 
the position I take about epistemology and methods departs most noticeably from a classic or 
formal approach to grounded theory include the following: 
1 
Prioritizing of abduction rather than induction as the principal, if not the only, analytical logic. 
2 
Endorsing ongoing engagement with relevant literature throughout the research process 
rather than simply as a sensitizing concept. 
3 
Reservations about the idea that it is critical for a researcher to “bracket” out his or her 
own experiences and preconceptions. 
4 
Valuing both the process and product of grounded theory by recognizing the act of the-
orizing as Charmaz (2014a) presents it, but also its potential to generate a theoretical 
framework or paradigm as Strauss and Corbin (1990) referred to in early versions of their 
textbook. 
5 
Suggesting that MM-GTM can be used to elaborate or extend theory as well as to generate it. 
6 
Recognizing that it is very likely that an investigator might launch the coding process with 
a set of pre-established codes adapted from the literature or from previous phases of the 
research project. 
7 
Welcoming the idea that grounded theory can be applied to data collected through diverse 
means, including through visualizations or from the internet. 
8 
Describing situations where grounded theory approach can be added unexpectedly to 
what was planned as a quantitative study to explain unexpected or contradictory findings. 
9 
Showcasing the potential of dissonance and exceptions as a source of original insight. 
Some of the items appearing in the aforementioned list have the potential to enhance the use-
fulness of MM-GTM in settings beyond nursing and education where grounded theory has 
been used most widely. The idea that MM-GTM can be used to elaborate an existing theory 
can extend the likelihood it could prove useful in non-applied disciplinary contexts, like psy-
chology or in health felds, where a researcher is expected to launch each and every project with 
a well-substantiated theoretical perspective. 
Pairing MM-GTM with other qualitative approaches 
The rationale that highlights the compatibility between mixed methods and grounded theory 
can extend to other qualitative traditions, including discourse analysis (Hadley, 2019a, 2019b; 
Johnson, 2014), case study (Cook & Kamalodeen, 2020), narrative analysis (Floersch, Long-
hofer, Kranke, & T
ownsend, 2010), and participatory action research (Ivankova, 2015). This 
type of three-way pairing of methodologies, like mixed methods plus grounded theory plus 


 
 
REPORTING 
125 
case study, is not unusual. Any use of more than one research method is considered an advanced 
mixed method design. In their systematic review of MM-GTM articles, Guetterman, Bab-
chuck, Howell Smith, and Stevens (2017) calculated that more than 25% of the 61 articles 
they analyzed were using an advanced mixed method design. These included action research, 
longitudinal studies, and community-based participatory action research. 
The idea of a study that uses an advanced mixed methods design that includes more than 
one qualitative method is still open for debate. Janice Morse, a long-time editor of the Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Inquiry who has a long history of engagement with both qualitative 
and mixed method research, is among those who are comfortable with the position that as long 
as findings are integrated, two qualitative approaches can be accurately described as mixed 
methods (Morse, 2010). 
MM-GTM can be extended to include findings that emerge from not just one but several 
qualitative approaches. This might be the case, for example, with inductively driven mixed 
method case study research (Cook & Kamalodeen, 2020). We saw additional examples of the 
way that MM-GTM has been paired with more than a single qualitative approach. This includes 
the three-way pairing of MM-GTM with event analysis in the exemplar by Evans, Coon, and 
Ume (2011) as well as with the exemplar by Westhues et al. (2008) that paired MM-GTM with 
community-based participatory action research. Both of these are featured as exemplars in the 
chapter about variety (Chapter 2). One advantage of mixing findings from multiple qualitative 
methods is that it is possible to circumvent the ever-present debates about paradigm compat-
ibility by approaching each method from a single paradigm like constructivism. 
An example from four US-based authors from social work illustrates how the label “mixed 
method” can be applied appropriately to the process of integrating findings from more than one 
qualitative approach. In a study about adolescents’ perspectives about psychotropic treatment, 
Floersch et  al. (2010) integrated thematic, grounded theory, and narrative methods. They 
labeled their approach as “a multi-analytic, mixed, or hybrid approach to qualitative analysis” 
(p. 15). Floersch et al. (2010) conducted the analysis sequentially, developing core themes in the 
first phase of analysis using thematic analysis. Turning to line-by-line coding of interview data 
was done as a second step with the purpose of seeing the connections between key constructs 
through axial coding. Narrative analysis was used in the third to phase to recognizing temporal-
ity in the experience and to understand shifts in views that occurred before, during, and after 
treatment began. The intent to integrate findings from the different qualitative approaches 
extended to producing “an integrated conceptual framework” (Floersch et al., 2010, p. 1). 
The task of communicating theoretical insight from a MM-GTM study is aided by a 
graphic or visualization. In the next section, we consider two examples of the use of a compos-
ite model to communicate a theoretical framework during reporting. Authors of both of these 
models further help to communicate their findings by the way they organized their findings 
sections. 
VISUALIZING A THEORETICAL MODEL DEVELOPED WITH MM-GTM 
Only a small proportion of investigators that use both grounded theory and mixed methods 
extend the analytical process to include a visualization or graphic that embodies a theoretical 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
126 
REPORTING 
framework. It is much more common to find examples that short-circuit the analytical process 
after generating a list of categories. Others move it one step closer to a theoretical framework 
by producing a set of themes (also called theoretical propositions) that link constructs. During 
analysis, diagrams can help a researcher make sense of relationships that may not have been 
previously explicit (Buckley & Waring, 2009). In this way, diagramming is an active part of the 
theory generation. 
In addition to their role during analysis, translating a theoretical model into a visual display 
provides a succinct way for an investigator or group of investigators with a realist orientation to com-
municate a complex theory (Buckley & Waring, 2009). A realist orientation is one that envisions 
causality in a qualitative way (Maxwell, 2012). Buckley and Waring (2009) provide several examples 
of ways that grounded theory models have been depicted. A figure that embodies a theoretical or 
explanatory framework in a parsimonious way may well be the single most important element in 
the judgment of quality about a manuscript with a purpose to develop or refine a theoretical theory. 
The most common approach in MM-GTM is to generate or refine a theoretical model 
in a strand of research devoted to a qualitative approach. We saw that, for example, in two 
MM-GTM exemplars discussed an earlier chapter (i.e., Catallo et al., 2013; Kaplan & Duchon, 
1988). In research about an intervention in a medical setting designed to create a safe environ-
ment for battered women to speak candidly about their injuries, Catallo et al. (2013) turned to 
grounded theory to develop a model to explain a non-significant results in what was otherwise 
a quantitative study. Kaplan and Duchon (1988) also dedicated a phase of the research project 
to qualitative analysis, again for the purpose of explaining non-significant quantitative findings. 
In both cases, the theoretical model was built or elaborated through qualitative methods. 
Integrated approaches to a grounded theory visualization 
Some authors of MM-GTM studies have taken a more unconventional and integrated approach 
to developing or elaborating a theoretical framework. T
wo of these (Kawamura et al., 2009; 
Shim et al., 2017) presented a final grounded theory model that fits the definition of an inte-
grated visual display. Both of these sets of authors depicted their final theoretical model in a 
way that included constructs and links between constructs that were identified through both 
qualitative and quantitative procedures. A figure that depicts a final grounded theory that was 
generated entirely through qualitative procedures is not a joint display. 
The final models presented by Kawamura et al. (2009) and Shim et al. (2017) recognize 
the possibility that findings from qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures do not always 
cohere to reveal a unified story line. Each of their models includes a notation system to indicate 
when findings from the analysis of different types of data were consistent or inconsistent. The 
utility of signaling parts of a theoretical model where findings did not entirely cohere is that it 
is an invitation for future research. 
The integrated composite model presented in the chapter exemplar 
The exemplar featured in this chapter is one of several articles authored by Minjung Shim 
that reported on research that she did for her doctoral dissertation about the impact of 
a health intervention targeted at ameliorating chronic pain through dance and movement 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
127 
therapy (Shim et al., 2017). I singled out this article for inclusion in this final chapter as 
an exemplar primarily because of the quality and transparency of reporting, including by 
providing a figure that visualizes a “grounded theory meta-model” (p. 36). In the first phase 
of what is described as a three-phase process, Shim was strategic but departed from a classic 
approach to grounded theory by first developing a preliminary conceptual model based on 
the literature and interviews with practitioners. The model was revised in the third and final 
phase of the process. 
Box 6.1 uses the customary template to summarize key features of the 2017 article by 
Shim et al. (2017). It identifies the purpose of the article, features of the way the research was 
executed, and how integration occurred. It also incorporates information about the way Shim 
created an integrated joint display to identify inconsistencies between participants and sources 
of data. 
BOX 6.1 
Shim et al.’s (2017) MM-GTM Study About a Health Intervention 
Purpose: Produced from research Shim’s did for her dissertation, this article is 
one of several she produced to describe the impact of an intervention that was 
designed to test the impacts of dance or movement therapy on the management 
of chronic pain. 
Design: Shim et al. labeled her research as using a sequential exploratory-con-
firmatory MM-GTM design, citing a fairly early version of Strauss and Corbin 
(1998). The procedural diagram included in the article depicts the research as 
occurring across three phases, each involving some type of mixing. The first 
phase is described as exploratory where an initial model was developed that 
combined the literature and the results from the analysis of interview data. In 
the second experimental phase, standardized survey data and qualitative data 
from journals and interviews were constructed to test and refine the model. The 
third phase of the research involved the construction of a final composite model. 
Integration: This is a fully integrated, multi-phase mixed methods study. Shim 
enhanced awareness of the significance of mixing methods through a number 
of joint displays that compared qualitative and quantitative findings on the same 
constructs. 
Unexpected findings: Shim et al. annotated the final composite model by using 
an asterisk to indicate when qualitative and quantitative results were consistent. 
These largely involved the identification of intervening conditions, like peer sup-
port, that influenced project outcomes. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
  
128 
REPORTING 
Theory produced: The final composite model embodies the multi-dimension-
ality that is characteristic of a formal or classic grounded theory. It singles out 
an underlying social process (referred to as learning new ways of living in the 
body and being in the world), as well as the personal and clinical conditions that 
influence it. The authors used an asterisk as a simple but effective way to signal 
corroboration between the qualitative and quantitative data. 
The article by Shim et al. (2017) includes a figure of the theoretical model that some refer 
to as a formal grounded theory. They developed a graphic to embody a theoretical model (see 
Figure 4, p. 36) that is based on components from Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) conditional 
matrix. The model identifies a core construct around which all other constructs are linked 
(learning new ways of living in the body and being in the world), outcomes (both anticipated 
and unanticipated), intervening conditions (factors that mediated the main therapy process), 
and other contextual conditions, like evidence of a social support network, that impact the 
effectiveness of the therapy in achieving its intended outcomes. 
A time-ordered process is at the center of Shim et al.’s theoretical model. This is a prior-
ity in Charmaz’s (2014a) constructivist approach to grounded theory. As is the case with many 
health-related or educational interventions, the process at the center of this grounded theory 
model is steps on the journey to behavior change. The model no doubt went through many 
iterations over the life of the project. Subjecting the theory to multiple revisions contributes to 
theoretical saturation (Shim, Johnson, Bradt, & Gasson, 2020). 
Figure 6.1 reproduces (with copyright permission) the composite grounded theory 
model that is depicted in Figure 4 (p. 36) from Shim et al. (2017). Shim et al. adapted a 
similar strategy as Kawamura et al. (2009) in using textual symbols. An asterisk is used to 
alert readers to elements of the model where findings from qualitative and quantitative data 
were consistent. The asterisks appearing in the final composite model produced by Shim 
et al. indicate that both qualitative and quantitative data were collected about the majority of 
constructs in the model. 
Both Kawamura et al. (2009) and Shim et al. (2017) found the truth in Sanscartier’s (2018) 
observation that when multiple sources of data are analyzed and integrated, findings do not 
always cohere to present a single or coherent view of reality. In the process of exploring com-
plexity, Sanscartier (2018) observed that norm of presenting findings “as unified, singular real-
ity” (p. 3) can mask divergent views and findings. He maintains that the danger in presenting a 
theoretical model in a visual is the risk over simplifying reality. 
An additional reporting feature: addressing inconsistent data 
through a joint display 
In addition to enhancing the quality of reporting by organizing the findings section of the 
article that appeared in the European Journal of Integrative Medicine around key components of a 
conditional matrix from Strauss and Corbin (1990), Shim et al. (2017) added another layer of 


 
 
REPORTING 
129 
FIGURE 6.1 A Final Composite Grounded Theory Model from Shim et al. (2017) 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
130 
REPORTING 
transparency through a joint display (see Table 6, p. 33; table not shown). The purpose of what 
they referred to as “a joint display of comparisons”was “to assess to what extent the quantitative 
and qualitative results converge/diverge” (p. 31). This table provides assurances that the investi-
gators enhanced validity by taking steps to more fully understand discrepant data. 
WRESTLING WITH WAYS TO GAUGE QUALITY IN MM-GTM 
There is a substantial body of methodological literature devoted to the task of identifying 
criteria to weigh the quality of empirical research and reporting. This extends to mixed 
methods where I have questioned the practice of the practice to apply one set of criteria 
to the qualitative research methods and a second one to the quantitative methods because 
it totally disregards integration (Creamer, 2018a). The Mixed Method Evaluation Rubric 
(MMER) that I introduced in my 2018 textbook, An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed 
Method Research, is the only one of a cluster of rubrics to include a set of criteria specifi-
cally targeting integration. The construct referred to as “interpretive comprehensive” in the 
MMER is also the only rubric to include items related to validity. It contains items such 
as recognizing alternative explanations and acknowledging inconsistencies between findings 
from different sources of data. 
I am a proponent of a more generic set of criteria that cross methods and that priori-
tizes attention to the act of integration that is so central to any definition of mixed methods 
(Creamer, 2018a). A UK methodologist with expertise in a variety of methods, Stephen 
Gorard, takes the position that many core criteria of research quality cross methods one step 
further. He argues that many shared assumptions and practices cross not only methods but 
academic fields. He writes: “at its core, the nature of scientific inquiry is the same in all fields” 
(Gorard, 2004, p. 12). 
Standards of quality in reporting in mixed methods, such as those published by the National 
Institute of Health (Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Clegg Smith, 2011) and the American 
Psychological Association (Levitt et al., 2018), simplify the task of gauging quality by provid-
ing a checklist of items that should be included in a research report. In mixed methods, this 
includes applying a label to name the research design, specifying the timing of data collection 
and analysis, and making a comment about the priority awarded to the qualitative and quantita-
tive strands, among other things. While clear-cut and easy to implement, this type of standard 
for reporting leaves unclear ways to address the quality of the research methods and the way 
they were executed and if the product generates any new analytical insight. Gorard objects to 
equating research design with quality. He writes: “A specific design or method does not make 
a study scientific” (Gorard, 2004, p. 12). 
Criteria for weighing the merits of research conducted using MM-GTM extend beyond 
the expectation for transparency in reporting. An expansive view of criteria for weighing the 
merits of a MM-GTM include indicators related to the research methods (transparency, satura-
tion, reflexivity) and the analytical and conceptual outputs (utility and originality) that apply 
equally to reporting in many research approaches. Methodological transparency refers to 
providing enough detail about the research methods for a reviewer or reader to be able to draw conclusions 
about its credibility. From a post-positivist, but not necessarily a constructivist perspective, the 


 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
131 
expectation for methodological transparency extends to providing sufficient documentation 
(i.e., warranting) to support conclusions. 
A specific design or method does not make a study scientific. 
(Gorard, 2004, p. 12) 
In MM-GTM, methodological transparency requires identifying how core grounded pro-
cedures were implemented and details about how integration occurred and what it accom-
plished. On the other hand, saturation is a type of quality criterion that is core to procedures 
used in grounded theory. It is a signal that data collection is sufficient when no new properties 
of a category emerge that contribute to further analytical insight. 
The application of saturation, transparency, reflexivity, utility, and originality as indicators 
of the quality of reporting we explore further in this final section of Chapter 6. 
Saturation 
Saturation often appears in lists of the core procedure in grounded theory. In grounded 
theory, saturation is applied relative to theoretical categories. The most frequent way it 
is described is as a signal that data collection is sufficient when no new properties of the 
categories emerge that contribute further analytical insight. According to Charmaz (2014), 
saturation is accomplished when no new properties about a category emerge. Acknowledg-
ing the challenge of this task in a complex design, Dey (1999) is more pragmatic. He prefers 
the term theoretical sufficiency. Eisenhardt similarly sets a less absolute goal for satura-
tion, observing that the process ends when “marginal improvement becomes small” (1989, 
p. 533). 
The ability to achieve a reasonable degree of saturation depends on sampling strategy and 
sample size. One of the greatest limitations of grounded theory studies is inadequate sample 
size (Morse & Clark, 2019). Saturation is linked to theoretical sampling and “means more than 
a one-time check” (Charmaz, 2014a, p. 215). The more multi-dimensional the core construct 
and complex the model, the less likely that saturation can be achieved without an uncommon 
amount of data. An expectation to saturate categories and their properties can have an impact 
on a final composite model. It is very likely to produce a more streamlined or parsimonious 
final theoretical model or statement. 
Methodological transparency 
Standards for quality of reporting that have been adapted for mixed methods emphasize meth-
odological transparency about the research procedures, particularly about integration, and the 
utilization of method-appropriate terminology (e.g., Creswell et al., 2011; Levitt et al., 2018). 
In MM-GTM the expectation for methodological transparency extends to using appropriate 
terminology and an explanation about how core grounded theory analytical procedures, like 
theoretical sampling, were executed. The emphasis on methodological transparency is evident 
in the first analysis of a body of MM-GTM research articles where quality was assessed by the 


 
132 
REPORTING 
number of core grounded theory procedures that were identified and explained (e.g., Guetter-
man et al., 2017), without attending to integration. 
Transparency about research methods is strongly related to the utility of the research for 
other investigators and to understanding how the research was conducted. It is no guarantee 
that a study is rigorous or that the conclusions are valid or warranted (Maxwell, 2013). In 
MM-GTM, evaluative criteria extend to finding a way to warrant the conclusions, including 
key themes or constructs and relationships depicted in a final composite theoretical model. 
The process of warranting a conclusion refers to documenting the link between data and key 
findings. In mixed methods, findings are often warranted through a table or figure or table that 
incorporates qualitative and quantitative data and traces the link between data and themes or 
hypothesis that are central to the conclusions. 
Conventional approaches to reporting mixed method research can camouflage how much 
interaction there was between the qualitative and quantitative data, methods, or strands of a 
study. It is a challenge to determine if integration occurred and, if so for what purpose, when 
the qualitative and quantitative findings are reported in separate manuscripts (Archibald, Radil, 
Zhang, & Hanson, 2015; Bryman, 2007). Conventional approaches to reporting that divide 
quantitative and qualitative findings in separate sections can impose a barrier to integrating 
results (Reeping, Tayler, Knight, & Edwards, 2019). Standard strategies for organizing manu-
scripts that downplay the contribution of the integration of different sources of data or analyti-
cal techniques can be offset by devoting a section to integration and by using visual displays that 
juxtapose or link data from different sources. 
Procedural diagrams 
Procedural diagrams are a staple of reporting mixed methods research and part of the expecta-
tion for methodological transparency (Creamer, 2020). A procedural diagram is a process-
oriented figure like a flowchart that contributes to transparency by clearly describing important steps in 
the research process. It is a type of integrated visual display that contributes to transparency by 
clearly communicating important steps in the research process. One of challenges in reporting 
introduced by a fully integrated mixed method design is to find innovative ways to summarize 
key steps in a dynamic, interactive process in a procedural diagram, especially when interaction 
among team members proves instrumental to the insight drawn (Creamer, 2020). A proce-
dural diagram bolsters the credibility of the research by providing enough documentation for a 
reader or audience member to reach a judgment about whether procedures were executed in 
a systematic way. 
A procedural diagram often goes through multiple iterations as an investigator or research 
team moves from an initial proposal to the task of reporting it to a wider audience. The final 
version of a procedural diagram that appears in a journal article or as part of a research presenta-
tion necessarily simplifies the research process. It distills key steps, planned or not, that proved 
instrumental to the research process. Particularly in complex multi-phase projects, the final ver-
sion of the procedural diagram very likely differs in substantive ways from an initial conception 
constructed months, if not years, ahead of time. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
133 
Business tycoon Warren Buffet is reputed to have said, “The rearview mirror is always 
clearer than the windshield.” What that means in this context is that choosing an appropri-
ate label and designing a procedural diagram that accurately reflects how research unfolded 
is something that cannot be fully envisioned until it is completed. Conventional tem-
plates (see Creswell & Plano, 2011) for depicting a basic design have to be adapted for an 
advanced design, including in situations where there is a high level of interaction between 
collaborators or between findings emerging from different sources of data (Creamer, 2020). 
Conventional approaches to reporting that divide quantitative and qualitative findings in 
separate sections can prove to be a barrier to integrating results (Reeping & Edwards, 
2020). 
The procedural diagram provided by the exemplar featured in the preceding chapter by 
Wesely (2010) about the role of motivation in persistence in a language immersion program, 
illustrates some techniques that can be used to embody a complex, integrated mixed methods 
study with a grounded theory component and a mixed priority. The figure is unusual because it 
does not include both data collection and analysis. It concentrates only on the phases of analysis. 
It uses a horizontal orientation that is generally used in mixed methods to depict a sequential 
design. Wesely’s figure depicts a research project that was executed in six phases. Curved lines 
in the figure show the interaction between findings emerging from the qualitative and quantita-
tive strands. 
Figure 6.2 reproduces (with copyright permission) the procedural diagram provided by 
Wesely (2010, p. 302). 
Several additional strategies used by Wesely (2010) could be useful to others intent on 
representing an interactive mixed methods design. Observe, first, that although there was a 
feedback loop later in the process, that qualitative and quantitative data were first analyzed 
separately. A footnote to the table notes that different types of shading were used to distinguish 
qualitative data or analytical procedures, quantitative data or analytical procedures. Particularly 
of note is that multiple forms of shading were used to indicate when qualitative and quantitative 
phases were integrated. 
FIGURE 6.2 Wesely’s (2010) Procedural Diagram Showing in Interactive Design 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
134 
REPORTING 
Reflexivity 
Reflexivity is an additional dimension of quality that is part of the expectation for transpar-
ency, particularly in qualitative research. An expectation that has an effect on both the way research is 
executed and reported, reflexivity involves considering ways that a lone researcher or, in a team setting, the 
way that team dynamics, influence the way research was executed and/or its outcomes. It includes recog-
nizing the ways that the researcher has an effect on the research process (Hall & Callery, 2001). 
Reflexivity is more challenging in the type of team-based research that is to so common with 
large scale mixed methods projects. In this setting, reflexivity includes considering the ways that 
team dynamics influenced the insight that was generated. This extends to acknowledging ways 
that differences in interpretation informed the research process. 
Reflexivity serves multiple purposes. Sometimes referred to as positionality, reflexivity is con-
ventionally thought of as a fixture of reporting that contributes to understanding the research and 
weighing its credibility. Framed at a time when positivism and, later, post-positivism dominated 
scientific thinking as a strategy to offset “bias” and bolster “objectivity” by setting aside preconcep-
tions, more contemporary views frame reflexivity as an act that helps a reader or audience mem-
ber understand how a theoretical perspective, like feminism or critical race theory, informed the 
choices made in a research project. This type of reflexivity can be seen in an account by Malagon 
et al. (2009) that explores the use of grounded theory with critical race theory. 
There is a place for reflexivity about paradigmatic positioning at the beginning of a research 
project as well. Describing his journey from thinking he would be forced to choose just one 
approach to grounded theory during his doctoral research, Irish author James Nelson (2017) 
recommends reading enough of the methodological literature about grounded theory to grasp 
the different approaches (“schools of thought”) as an important intellectual exercise that sensi-
tizes the researcher to the choices that are available in designing and executing a study. While 
navigating the different points of view about grounded theory and uncovering some of the 
more hegemonic elements of its politics, Nelson found it liberating when he came upon Dey’s 
(2004) observation that there is no one single unified grounded theory methodology, but many. 
In a complex project where there is a high level of interaction among team members 
about findings that emerge, the expectation for reflexivity often extends to explaining how 
diverse approaches to interpreting findings were navigated. Rather than sweeping these kinds 
of differences under the rug, this can involve a polyvocal approach that acknowledges differ-
ences of perspectives (Creamer, 2011). Polyvocality enlivens voice in a text. More importantly, 
it has implications for social justice as well. It offsets the inclination to allow a single authorial 
voice to dominate and to erase the contributions of those with less power or authority. 
The exemplar written by Bonnie Kaplan and Dennis Duchon (1988) and reported in 
the preceding chapter about research involving the implementation of an information system 
provides an example of the type of reflexivity that communicates respect for different perspec-
tives. In some cases, this can be tensions introduced at a point in time or in an academic field 
where a qualitative research is awarded less regard. In the discussion section of the article, after 
describing how the qualitative researcher (Kaplan) pushed the quantitative research (Duchon) 
to re-analyze the quantitative data in light of the grounded theory model she produced from 
the qualitative data, the authors stressed the value-added of wrestling with these tensions. They 
pointed to the value-added to producing synthetic insight when they observed in the discussion 


 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
135 
section that it took “a strong determination to accommodate each approach and to reconcile 
apparently conflicting data resulted in an interpretation that synthesized the evidence” (Kaplan 
& Duchon, 1988, p. 582). Overlap in areas of expertise can make it easier to negotiate the kinds 
of tensions introduced when findings from different sources of data are engaged in meaningful 
ways (Bryman, 2007). 
Utility 
Pragmatically oriented researchers have been at the forefront of advocating utility as a key indi-
cator of quality. The pragmatic view is that the key issue is if research produces conceptual and 
theoretical insight that is useful (Bryant, 2009). This includes scientific usefulness in generating 
new research as well as utility in practice (Corley & Gioia, 2011). In practice-oriented fields, 
like management, information systems, nursing and other medical fields, and education, it 
includes the synergy produced in generating new ideas for evidence-based practice. 
Originality 
Originality is related to the novelty of the analytical insight or the way it is displayed in a 
figure or table and the extent it adds to what has previously been known about the phe-
nomenon. The argument for an original contribution is something a researcher generally 
pursues in the discussion section of a manuscript where authors are expected to re-integrate 
their findings with the literature, including theories (Morse, 2020). In MM-GTM, a novel 
contribution might be the addition of a recognition of how contextual factors, like a margin-
alized status, can interrupt conventional patterns of association. A nuanced yet parsimonious 
figure that integrates findings from multiple sources of data or research methods is one way 
to demonstrate originality. 
Table 6.1 builds on the idea that indicators of quality include both a contribution to 
knowledge and to practice. It is informed by two projects where I had the opportunity to 
serve as an external evaluator for funded grants about the role of an undergraduate research 
experience in promoting an interest in a career that involves research. One was with a team of 
collaborators from engineering education. This is the team I referred to in Chapter 3 in a sec-
tion about using integrated memos as the basis for a case-based analysis (see Lee et al., 2019). 
The second was a funded project led by two faculty members in geology at Concord College 
(Allen, Kuehn, & Creamer, 2020). A dissertation completed by a former doctoral student advi-
see about the undergraduate research experiences by Janice Austin (Austin, 2017) served as an 
additional source of ideas for Table 6.1. 
Table 6.1 is a hypothetical example that offers a template for the task of re-integrating find-
ings with the literature in a succinct way that highlights the contribution. This could help an 
investigator build the case for the originality and utility of the research. It lists examples of the 
types of theoretical propositions that might be generated in a grounded theory study, extracts 
related information from the literature that would normally be accompanied by a reference, 
and then explicitly identifies what the research adds to existing knowledge and suggests about 
practice. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
136 
REPORTING 
TABLE 6.1 Documenting the Contribution of Selected Theoretical Propositions from a 
Grounded Theory Model: A Hypothetical Example 
Theoretical 
Current State of 
Contribution to 
Contributions to 
Proposition 
Knowledge* 
Knowledge 
Practice 
Identity as a 
As they are making 
In engineering, experience 
Students benefit 
researcher is 
the choice of an 
with real-world research 
from the opportunity 
only one of many 
academic field to 
projects often shake 
to reflect on their 
emerging identities 
study, developmentally 
confidence in the idea that 
ideas about the 
a novice researcher 
many students are at a 
there are clear right and 
nature of knowledge 
juggles. 
stage where they view 
wrong answers. 
and how the way it 
knowledge as fixed and 
is constructed differs 
characterized by a right 
across academic 
and wrong. 
disciplines. 
Peers play as strong 
Mentors play a critical 
The inter-disciplinary and 
It is helpful to 
a role as a research 
role in promoting a 
team-based nature of 
provide training 
mentor in shaping 
student’s interest in 
much research challenges 
about ways to be an 
an identity as a 
science or engineering. 
ideas that interpersonal 
effective member of 
researcher. 
skills are unimportant 
a research team. 
in engineering and the 
sciences. 
Real-world impact 
 Students are often 
The routine and repetitive 
It is important for 
is an important 
motivated to enroll in a 
nature of experiments 
researchers to 
motivator for 
science or engineering 
that occur in a controlled 
highlight the real-
interest in a career 
major by a conviction 
laboratory setting can 
world implications of 
in science or 
of their potential to 
dampen the conviction 
research. 
engineering.
generate social and 
about the global impact of 
global benefits. 
science and engineering. 
* Each of the entries in this column would be supported by a series of references. 
CHALLENGES FACED BY INVESTIGATORS USING MM-GTM 
Most research in the human and social sciences, including in health-related fields and busi-
ness management, is complex and multi-phase. It has a habit of sending an investigator down 
many “rabbit holes.” Even though we constantly have an eye on the clock, the calendar, and 
resources, I would say the type of messiness introduced by unexpected, but substantiated 
findings, is part of what fuels an interest in research that for many academics extends over the 
entire course of a career. Professional standards for reporting, professional conventions, and 
word limits for journal articles add to the challenge of reporting a methodologically nuanced 
research project. 
MM-GTM introduces its own set of challenges, particularly for the novice researcher. 
These include: (a) juggling the proliferation of terminology that is introduced when two or 
more research methods are used, (b) establishing a meaningful sample size, and (c) reflecting 
sensitivity to different approaches to grounded theory by carefully incorporating appropriate 
references. Each of these is discussed in the following section. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
137 
Juggling a surplus of technical language 
Using research methods as established as grounded theory and mixed theory introduces the 
need to navigate the distinct dictionaries of terms associated with each in ways that demonstrate 
that the researcher has expertise in both methods. This is especially the case when publishing 
in a methodological journal where a fairly sophisticated level of knowledge is required. In 
MM-GTM, methodological transparency requires identifying core grounded procedures. The 
specialized terminology associated with a research method is a shorthand that facilitates com-
munication among the informed but that can simultaneously be alienating to those unfamiliar 
with it. The challenge is to deploy specialized terminology accurately and in ways that do not 
overburden the text. 
The purpose of the project and the nature of the audience both have something to do with 
the choice to prioritize the language of one method over another. For example, mixed meth-
ods might be downplayed when the submission is made to a qualitative journal. On the other 
hand, the mixed method component might be highlighted in quantitative journal. A balanced 
approach that awards the same amount of space to each method in a manuscript could work 
well when the journal is a methodological one. Regardless of the priority awarded to any one 
method, knowing enough about each method to be successful at publishing is certainly pos-
sible, but challenging in MM-GTM. 
Extending the conception of a meaningful sample size 
Artificially setting a sample size is a risky venture in both grounded theory and MM-GTM. 
The expectation for ongoing waves of theoretical sampling, including to pursue exceptions 
or unexpected findings, is one reason for this. A second is the drive to achieve theoreti-
cal saturation/sufficiency with multiple, inter-related constructs. Although classic grounded 
theorist may be satisfied with a small sample (Charmaz & Thornberg, 2020), a token number 
of participants can limit the amount of data available to a researcher. Except in certain types 
of research like biography, it restricts the ability to achieve analytical density, to publish in a 
reputable venue, and to build an agenda for future research. Morse is blunt in the language 
she used when she observed: “Small sample studies, although they proliferate, are not usually 
implementable and do not make a substantial contribution” (Morse, 2020, p. 3). Similarly, 
a homogenous sample can delude a researcher into thinking saturation has been achieved 
(Morse, 2020). 
On the other hand, the labor-intensive nature of emergent coding procedures, particu-
larly if it involves line-by-line coding, sets practical limits on how much data can be managed 
in the grounded theory portion of a MM-GTM study. This might be the case, for example, 
in a study that extracts a large amount of data from social media platforms, Y
ouTube videos, 
or webpages. In this kind of situation, a reasonable solution is to develop or refine a coding 
scheme with a systematically selected (not purposeful or convenience) sub-sample of data. In 
some contexts, text mining approaches can prove useful to confirm properties of a category, to 
trace steps or transitions in a process, or to verify links between categories suggested by Inaba 
and Kakai (2019). 


 
138 
REPORTING 
Being sensitive to different schools of thought 
Authors of a number of reflective accounts reporting on the experience of using grounded 
theory or MM-GTM for doctoral research, have commented on the challenge of juggling not 
only of the different points of views of the founders of grounded theory, but also between the 
second generation of scholars, often their students, who, like Charmaz, followed them but 
bought an entirely different paradigmatic perspective to the enterprise (e.g., Alammar, Intezari, 
Cardow, & Pauleen, 2018; Nagel, Burns, Tilley, & Aubin, 2015; Nelson, 2017). 
Developing familiarity with the differences in viewpoints between leaders of the different 
schools of thought about grounded theory is not as daunting a task as it might seem to be at the 
onset. Although each brings a slightly different stance to it, there is no shortage of summaries 
that have been published recently that single out key topics where the perspectives differ (e.g., 
Apramian, Cristancho, Watling, & Lingard, 2017; Reiger, 2018; McCall & Edwards, 2021; 
Sebastian, 2019). These streamline the task of distinguishing the points of views and can help to 
increase the likelihood that supporting references are used in an informed way during report-
ing. Apramian et al. (2017) are among those who insist that differences between the schools of 
thought associated with grounded theory have been exaggerated and that lines between them 
are far more permeable than is suggested in some of the literature. 
Many investigators approach grounded theory in ways that borrow from more than one 
school of thought or epistemological perspective. Recognizing these differences through 
informed use of supporting references adds credibility to research and the expertise of the 
authors. We see that tensions play out in an example of MM-GTM that is listed with other 
example in Appendix B, which methodological limitations. Laws et al. (2015) in a MM-GTM 
reported results from an intervention designed to promote obesity prevention in early life. 
These authors claim to use “grounded theory principles” (p. 4). Charmaz’s 2014a book is the 
only item related to grounded theory to appear in the reference list. Laws et al. (2015) pre-
sented a theoretical model and summarized it using language from Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) 
conditional or consequential matrix (context, strategies, conditions, contextual factors, and 
outcomes) that is not associated with Charmaz. As I highlighted in the chapter about process 
(Chapter 3) by using a block quote, Charmaz used explicit language to voice her interest in 
theorizing and not theory. The type of generic attribution we see in this article is not unusual 
in reporting about grounded theory studies. It weakens the credibility of the research by com-
municating  only a very narrow familiarity with the methodological literature. 
Developing an expansive view of expertise 
Many of most well-known academics have dedicated a lifetime to fine-tuning their expertise 
in a research method and/or substantive content area. While it has long been a point of pride 
to situate one’s identity as either a qualitative researcher or a quantitative one, to be a reputable 
mixed method researcher in these complex times demands expertise that extends beyond this 
arbitrary distinction. UK researcher and prolific author T
ony Onwuegbuzie (2012) was one of 
the first to articulate that to be a “mixed researcher” requires familiarity with (and no doubt 
respect for) both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This same call for a more expan-
sive view of expertise extends to engaging what has been published about a phenomenon in 


REPORTING 
139 
more than one academic field or discipline. A more expansive conception of methodological 
expertise better positions a researcher to choose and to adapt the methods that are most suited 
to the problem at hand. 
Research methods are not frozen in time. Changes in methods are occurring in what 
senior scholar Janice Morse describes as “breath-taking speed” (2020, p. 2). One implication 
of this is pressure for researchers to engage not only the classic or cannon about a research 
method, but also methodological literature and examples from diverse disciplines that reflect 
more contemporary applications. By and large, textbooks that played a formative role in shap-
ing understanding of a methodology become in a way historical artifacts of the socio-cultural 
movement at the time and are replaced by a second and third generation of books that reflect 
more contemporary perspectives. Developing methodological expertise requires reading a 
breadth of different viewpoints about any method. Increasingly, this can be accomplished at no 
cost by consulting with videos available through the internet. The expertise to utilize multiple 
approaches demands that researchers continually engage and re-engage with contemporary 
viewpoints about qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. It often means a 
reading list that extends into unfamiliar fields and disciplines. Reading broadly means making a 
point not to read just familiar names from the Western world, but to search out publications by 
authors writing from within an array of different socio-political contexts. 
Advancing methodological training through professional development activities, now 
readily available online, can promote dialog that bridges disciplinary domains. It builds fluency 
with a dictionary of the terminology associated with different research methods. It contributes 
to the ability of researchers to develop the confidence about the potential for creativity and 
new insight when mixed methods is recognized as a methodology that extends well beyond the 
initial act of collecting qualitative and quantitative data. 
CONCLUSIONS 
No methodology is without its detractors. Among those frustrated with how grounded the-
ory is used routinely, there is a concern that it reduced to a mechanical approach to coding, 
regardless of the context or purpose, at the cost of its most important outcome – an explana-
tory framework. Others have voiced reservations about that are fundamental to its core meth-
odological assumption, including the possibility, or even desirability, of entering a research 
project in an “objective” way with no a priori assumptions, or of the feasibility of “discover-
ing” a theory without consulting the literature. Investigators of a postmodern persuasion may 
well challenge the presentation of composite theoretical models as reductionist and simplistic. 
Detractors of mixed methods point criticize its apparent receptivity to combining methods that 
reflect different paradigmatic assumptions. Some question the feasibility of developing expertise 
in multiple methods. Investigators can be advised that both mixed methods and grounded are 
too complex, and possibly too ambitious, for the novice researcher. 
Certainty is a mirage in a complex, rapidly changing world. I could not disagree more 
with the advice to novice researchers to avoid advanced mixed methods designs, like those 
that are used when methods are combined. Both mixed methods and grounded theory can be 
conducted from grounding in a wide range of paradigmatic positions. Each offers a broad set 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
140 
REPORTING 
of guidelines and a palette of procedures to tackle the complexity that is introduced, including 
in an intervention, when the core constructs, like trauma or identify or caregiving, are multi-
dimensional and subject to a multi-layered set of micro- and macro-level contextual conditions. 
Innovation is not achieved simply by applying a standardized procedure (Erzberger & Kelle, 
2003). Rather than offering the certainty of a simplistic formulaic approach, I have explored 
MM-GTM as basic scaffolding for an investigator or a set of investigators to customize a range 
of tools that are suitable to contemporary problems and contexts. 
Truly novel discoveries are never the result of simply applying some standardized procedure. 
(Erzberger & Kelle, 2003, p. 465) 
The chapter closes by summarizing the cross-cutting themes and recognizing important 
topics that have yet to be addressed about MM-GTM. 
Cross-cutting themes 
I have brought each of the preceding chapters to a close by summarizing the ways that what 
was discussed in the chapter added to three cross-cutting themes. These are about (a) inte-
grated approaches to mixed methods research as compared to those that by and large keep 
the qualitative and quantitative strands separate, (b) MM-GTM, and (c) the role of complex-
ity and dissonance in executing research as well as in advancing the analytical insight that is 
generated. 
Appendix C provides the reader a concise overview of the architecture of the book by 
distilling key points from each chapter about each of the cross-cutting themes. It is organized 
by chapter and theme. It integrates information from the summaries that have appeared in each 
chapter. The following further condenses key takeaways from the text about MM-GTM: 
1 
MM-GTM is an advanced mixed method design that is generally conducted with a multi-
phase research design. 
2 
From a pragmatic or dialectical perspective, areas of overlap in the philosophical founda-
tions of mixed methods and grounded theory include extending the constant compara-
tive method to include different types of data and embedding an abductive logic in core 
grounded theory procedures, including theoretical coding, theoretical sampling, diagram-
ming, and the construction of analytic memos. 
3 
The monumental variety in the ways MM-GTM research has been conducted defies clas-
sification. The variety includes its pairing with more than one qualitative method, includ-
ing participatory action research, discourse analysis, and case study to name just a few. 
4 
MM-GTM can be used to build a conceptual or theoretical framework or to elaborate an 
existing theoretical framework from the literature. 
5 
Integrative joint displays and case-based analysis play an instrumental role in advancing 
analytical and theoretical insight. 
6 
Dissonance between findings from different methods or evidence of gaps that they suggest 
can introduce an unexpected element to the analysis that produces explanatory inferences 
or theoretical propositions. 


 
 
 
 
 
REPORTING 
141 
Topics left unaddressed 
I should not, I suppose, be surprised to reach the end of this book to find that there are a 
number of topics that I have not addressed that could be addressed in a book about mixed 
methods approaches to grounded theory. Most notable among these is quantitative approaches 
to grounded theory. With the exception of Walsh (2014), I have not devoted much space to 
quantitative dominant MM-GTM. These omissions are largely a reflection of my own interests 
and should not be taken as a statement about their quality or dismissal of the possibility they 
could be legitimate examples of MM-GTM. 
There are some topics that I intended to address but I could not. The main reason for this 
is largely that, as I did in my first book (Creamer, 2018a), the commentary I have been able 
to provide has been shaped by the exemplars I located. In a few cases, these are extended by 
hypothetical examples. This explains, for example, the omission of a discussion about causal-
ity in grounded theory that is associated with a realist perspective. This is present in method-
ological literature but virtually absent in examples of MM-GTM with a genuine qualitative 
component where claims about prediction and causality are rarely made. Consistent with the 
research trajectory launched in my early days as a faculty member (see Schneider, 1998), it was 
my intention to devote a good bit of space to feminist MM-GTM. A constructivist orienta-
tion to grounded theory is well adapted to feminist positionality. There are many examples 
of grounded theory studies conducted from a feminist standpoint and of those that deploy 
multiple methods. I was not able to locate one that reflected feminist MM-GTM in ways that 
awarded comparable attention to both mixed methods and grounded theory. For someone 
interested in building on the topic of this book, there is much more that could be written about 
MM-GTM with case study and case-based analysis. 
REVIEW QUESTIONS 
1 
What are some of the similarities in the philosophical foundations of mixed methods and 
grounded theory? 
2 
In what ways are there important differences in the philosophical assumptions of mixed 
methods and grounded theory? 
3 
What are steps an investigator to highlight the quality, originality, and utility of the research 
that is being reported? 
4 
How can an investigator communicate through a final, composite model that there is con-
tradictory evidence about some of the findings? 
SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVITY 
1 
Before fleshing out your ideas about launching a research project, it can be surprisingly 
liberating to read a critique about grounded theory and one about mixed methods. For 
mixed methods, I suggest a highly cited article by Guest (2012). An alternative would be 


142 
REPORTING 
to read the last chapter about controversies by Creamer (2018a). An article by Thomas and 
James (2006) problematizes three issues about grounded theory, including what is meant by 
the word “theory,” “ground,” and “discovery.” Reading a critique by someone who is well 
versed in the history and nuances of a research methodology can be liberating because it 
assures an investigator that there are many different ways to approach even the most widely 
used methodologies. 


Glossary 
(with a notation of the chapter where the term is frst introduced) 
Abduction. Abduction is one of three approaches to reasoning that include induction (gen-
eralizing from the specific to the general) and deduction (generalizing from the general 
to the specific). It is the process of generating multiple possible explanations for an 
unexpected or surprising finding and then systematically investigating these. (Chapter 1) 
Analytic density. Associated with validity, analytic density refers to envisioning constructs 
in a multi-dimensional way or to developing or elaborating an explanatory framework 
in a way that adds conceptual nuance or richness to the findings. (Chapter 1) 
Case-based analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data are integrated in a narrative or visu-
alization for further analysis. (Chapter 3) 
Concept map. A diagram that is constructed by participants and/or the researcher that 
serves as visual data in analysis. These often create a network of clustered words or con-
cepts. (Chapter 4) 
Conceptual framework. A conceptual framework offers a tentative explanatory frame-
work that is based on a synthesis of related literature and what is known in a practical 
way about a phenomenon. (Chapter 1) 
Constant comparative method. An analytical strategy where data, and eventually emerg-
ing constructs and themes, are continuously compared and contrasted as data collection 
and analysis unfolds. (Chapter 1) 
Design. A map or plan about how an empirical study is executed. (Chapter 2) 
Formal or classic grounded theory. A formal or classic grounded theory is envisioned in 
a multi-level way. Stages in the progression through a temporal process are at the center 
of a visualization of formal or grounded theory. Other elements include references to 
outcomes (anticipated or not), intervening conditions that mediate the outcome, and 
contextual factors. (Chapter 2) 
Fully integrated mixed method research. A research methodology where the inte-
gration of qualitative and quantitative data and/or analytical procedures is embedded 
through all phases of the research process from the formulation of the research questions, 
to data collection and sampling, during analysis, and during the process of drawing con-
clusions. (Chapter 1) 


 
144 
GLOSSARY 
Fully integrated mixed method grounded theory methodology (FIMM-GTM). 
Uses grounded theory procedures and strategies to integrate different sources of data 
throughout the research process, including during data analyses, to produce and some-
times test a theoretical framework. (Chapter 1) 
Graphic elicitation. A data collection procedure where participants physically create and/ 
or verbally edit a diagram or other visual display. (Chapter 4) 
Grounded theory. Often confused with a set of procedures to guide the coding and analysis 
of qualitative data, grounded theory is first and foremost a methodology that provides 
a comprehensive approach to generate a theoretical framework inductively from data. 
(Chapter 1) 
Initiation rationale. One of the five principal rationales for integrating data that involves 
additional rounds of data collection and analysis to further explore unexpected, contra-
dictory, or paradoxical findings. (Chapter 5) 
Integrated case-based analysis. A mixed methods analytical strategy that leverages data 
generated from qualitative and quantitative methods into a narrative or visualizations in 
ways that inform the analysis. (Chapter 3) 
Integrated analytical memo. Integrates data collected with qualitative and quantitative 
methods to advance theoretical insight. (Chapter 3) 
Integrated theoretical coding. A mixed methods analytical strategy that engages find-
ings from more than one type of data to generate theoretical propositions or hypotheses 
about the relationship among categories. (Chapter 3) 
Integrated theoretical sampling. Engages multiple sources of data to advance theoretical 
insight about categories, concepts, relationships, and themes. (Chapter 3) 
Integrative display. A figure or table that integrates data from multiple sources one during 
analysis for purposes of advancing analytical or theoretical insight. (Chapter 4) 
Joint display. A table or figure that arrays and sometimes links qualitative and quantitative 
data about the same constructs, research questions, or themes. (Chapter 4) 
Matrix mapping. An interactive graphic elicitation method that asks participants to, first, 
enter the intersection of a quantitative score on a scale on the vertical axis and, second, 
score on a scale on the horizontal axis and then to annotate the point of intersection with 
a few words that describe it. (Chapter 4) 
Methodological dynamism. Refers to how methods evolve and remain viable over time. 
(Chapter 2) 
Methodological transparency. Providing sufficient details about research methods during 
reporting for a reviewer or a reader to be able to reach a judgment about the credibility 
of the research. (Chapter 6) 
Mixed method research. A systematic approach to data collection and analysis that com-
bines different sources of data and quantitative and qualitative analytical procedures 
with the intention to engage multiple perspectives in order to more fully understand 
complex social phenomenon. (Chapter 1) 
Mixed method grounded theory methodology (MM-GTM). A methodology that 
embeds a dialectical logic in the constant comparative method and grounded theory 
procedures to develop a mid-level theoretical framework or to elaborate an existing one. 
(Chapter 1) 


 
 
 
GLOSSARY 
145 
Multi-method research. Research that incorporates multiple sources of data and/or meth-
ods but does not integrate them in a substantive way. (Chapter 1) 
Participatory photo mapping. A graphic elicitation method that integrates photography, 
community mapping, and walk-along interviews to learn about people’s experiences in 
a spatial context (Texiiera, 2014). It can also utilize diagramming. (Chapter 4) 
Procedural diagram. A procedural diagram is a process-oriented figure like a flowchart 
that contributes to transparency by clearly describing important steps in the research 
process. (Chapter 6) 
Quantitizing. A type of data transformation where qualitative data are quantified for pur-
poses of statistical analysis. (Chapter 4) 
Reflexivity. An expectation that has an effect on both the way research is executed and 
reported, reflexivity involves considering ways that a lone researcher or, in a team set-
ting, the way that team dynamics, influence the way research was executed and/or its 
outcomes. (Chapter 6) 
Rupture theorizing. Rupture theorizing occurs when results from the empirical analysis 
challenges a long-standing measure, instrument, or theoretical framework. (Chapter 5) 
Saturation. One of the core procedures in grounded theory. It is a signal that data collec-
tion is sufficient when no new properties of a category emerge that contribute to further 
analytical insight. (Chapter 3) 
Theory. A cohesive explanatory framework generated empirically through a systematic set 
of procedures. (Chapter 1) 
Theoretical coding. Theoretical coding generates constructs that conceptualize the rela-
tionships between categories. (Chapter 3) 
Theoretical sampling. An emergent and purposeful approach to sampling that follows and 
initial purposeful sampling that is designed to advance theoretical insight by adding to 
the understanding of concepts, categories, relationships and themes. (Chapter 3) 
Theoretical sensitivity. Having sufficient familiarity with relevant bodies of literature to 
recognize the theoretical implications of findings. (Chapter 5) 
Theoretical triangulation. Contributes to internal validity by drawing on multiple theo-
retical frameworks as a means to explain findings and weigh competing explanations. 
(Chapter 5) 
Timelining. A participatory graphic elicitation method that encourages the con-
struction of rich, time-ordered narratives of peoples’ life and experiences that is 
accomplished through diagramming or sketching combined with an open-ended 
interview. (Chapter 4) 
Verification. Refers to procedures to verify findings that contribute to the rigor of a research 
study, construct validity, and in some contexts the reliability of findings. (Chapter 5) 
Warranting. A type of methodological transparency in reporting that supports the cred-
ibility of conclusion, generally through a visual display. (Chapter 5) 




Appendices 




  
  
 
 
APPENDIX A 
List of exemplars by chapter 
CHAPTER 1: ESTABLISHING LANGUAGE AND PURPOSE 
Kawamura, Y
., Ivankova, N., Kohler, C., & Purumean-Chaney, S. (2009). Utilizing mixed 
methods to assess parasocial interaction of an entertainment-education program audience. 
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 88–104. 
CHAPTER 2: VARIED APPROACHES TO USING MIXED 
METHODS WITH THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS 
Catallo, C., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H.L. (2012). Minimizing the risk of intrusion: A 
grounded theory of intimate partner violence disclosure in emergency departments. Jour-
nal of Advanced Nursing, 69(6), 1366–1376. 
Evans, B. C., Coon, D. W
., & Ume, E. (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic 
guide for mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity. Journal of Mixed Methods 
Research, 5(4), 276–292. 
Westhues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., & Fleras, A. (2008). 
Developing theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method partici-
patory action research study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(5), 701–717. 
CHAPTER 3: MIXED METHODS AND THE PROCESS 
OF THEORIZING 
Jones, L., & Kafetsios, K. (2005). Exposure to political violence and psychological well-being 
in Bosnian adolescents: A mixed method approach. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 
10(2), 157–176. 


 
                                        
150 
APPENDICES 
CHAPTER 5: LEVERAGING DISSONANCE TO ADVANCE 
THEORETICAL REASONING 
Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorizing contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new 
normative. Journal of Urbanism, 8(4), 373–405. 
Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988, December). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods 
in information systems research: A case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 
571–586. 
Wesely, P
. (2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods 
research to explore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 295–312. 
CHAPTER 6: HIGHLIGHTING QUALITY THROUGH REPORTING 
Shim, J., Johnson, R. B., Gasson, S., Goodill, S., Jermyn, R., & Bradt, J. (2017). A model of 
dance/movement therapy for resilience-building in people living with chronic pain. Euro-
pean Journal of Integrative Medicine, 9, 27–40. 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B 
List of examples of 
MM-GTM* 
Agerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2008). Outsourcing to an unknown workforce: Exploring open 
sourcing as a global sourcing strategy. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 385–409. 
Alexandre, R., Walsh, I., & Michel, K. (2016). Is SAM still alive? A bibliometric and interpretive map-
ping of the strategic alignment field. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(2), 75–103. 
Ball, S. B. (2013). Accelerated baccalaureate nursing students use of emotional intelligence in nursing 
as “caring for a human being”: A mixed methods grounded theory study. International Journal of 
Nursing Education Scholarship, 10(1), 293–300. 
Barley, S. R., & Meyerson, D. E. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 
22(4), 887–906. 
Bussing, R., Koro-Ljunberg, M., Gary, F., Mason, D. M., & Garvan, C. W. (2005, March–April). 
Exploring help-seeking for ADHD symptoms: A mixed methods approach. Harvard Review of Psy-
chiatry, 85–101. 
*Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorizing contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new norma-
tive. Journal of Urbanism, 8(4), 373–405. 
*Catallo, C., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H.L. (2012). Minimizing the risk of intrusion: A grounded 
theory of intimate partner violence disclosure in emergency departments. Journal of Advanced Nurs-
ing, 69(6), 1366–1376. 
DeVito Dabbs, A., Hoffman, L. A., Swigart, V., Happ, M. B., Iacona, A.,& Dauber, J. H. (2004). Using 
conceptual triangulation to develop an integrated model of the symptom experiences of acute 
rejection after lung transplantation. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(2), 138–149. 
*Evans, B. C., Coon, D. W., & Ume, E. (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic guide 
for mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 
276–292. 
Floersch, J., Longhofer, J. L., Kranke, D., & Townsend, L. (2010). Integrating thematic, grounded 
theory and narrative analysis. Qualitative Social Work. http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/ 
02/24/1473325010362330 
Forrest, L., Huprich, S., Jacobs, S. C., Elman, N., Veilleux, J., C., & Kaslow, N. J. (2013). Training 
directors’ perceptions of faculty behaviors when dealing with trainee competence problems: A 
mixed method pilot study. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 7(1), 23–32. 
Gallagher, J. A., Hall, E. L., Anderson, T. L., & Del Rosario, K. L. (2013). A mixed-methods explora-
tion of Christian working mothers’ personal strivings. Journal of Psychology Theology, 41(1), 48–60. 
Gasson, S., & Waters, J. (2013). Using a grounded theory approach to study online collaborative 
behaviors. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 95–118. 
Grant, A. M., Berg, J. M., & Cable, D. M. (2014). Job titles as identity badges: How self-reflective titles 
can reduce emotional exhaustion. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1201–1225. 
*Refers to articles singled out for discussion as exemplars. 


 
 
152 
APPENDICES 
Harms, K., King, J., & Francis, C. (2009). Behavioral changes based on a course in agroecology: A 
mixed methods study. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 38, 183–194. 
Harrison, Y. D., & Murray, V. (2012). Perspectives on the leadership of chairs of nonprofit organiza-
tion boards of directors: A grounded theory mixed-method study. Nonprofit Management and Leader-
ship, 22(4), 411–437. 
Hausman, A. (2000). A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying 
behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 403–419. 
*Jones, L., & Kafetsios, K. (2005). Exposure to political violence and psychological well-being in Bos-
nian adolescents: A mixed method approach. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 10(2), 157–176. 
*Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988, December). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in 
information systems research: A case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 571–586. 
*Kawamura, Y., Ivankova, N., Kohler, C., & Purumean-Chaney, S. (2009). Utilizing mixed methods 
to assess parasocial interaction of an entertainment-education program audience. International Jour-
nal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 88–104. 
King, K. P. (2010). Advancing educational podcasting and faculty inquiry with a grounded research 
model: Building on current mixed-methods research across contexts. The Journal of Continuing 
Higher Education, 58, 143–155. 
Laws, R., Campbell, K. J., Plight, P., Ball, K., Lynch, J., Russell, G., Taylor, R.,& Denney-Wilson, 
E. (2015). Obesity prevention in early life: An opportunity to better support the role of maternal 
and health nurses in Australia. BMC Nursing, 14, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-015-0077-7 
McFerran, K., Roberts, M., & O’Grady, L. (2010). Music therapy with bereaved teenagers: A mixed 
methods perspective. Death Studies, 34, 541–565. 
Meschede, T., Thomas, H., Mann, A., Stagg, A., & Shapiro, T. (2016). Wealth mobility of families 
raising children in the twenty-first century. Race and Social Problems, 8, 77–92. 
Milford, T. M., & Tippett, C. D. (2013). Preservice teachers’s images of scientists: Do prior science 
experiences make a difference? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 745–762. 
Morgan, D. G., & Stewart, N. J. (2002). Theory building through mixed-method evaluation of a 
dementia special care unit. Research in Nursing and Health, 25, 479–488. 
Nelson, A., Cordova, D., Walters, A., & Szecsy, E. (2016). Storytelling for empowerment for Latino 
teens: Increasing HIV prevention knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(2), 
202–231. 
*Shim, M., Johnson, R. B., Gasson, S., Goodill, S., Jermyn, R., & Bradt, J. (2017). A model of dance/ 
movement therapy for resilience-building in people living with chronic pain. European Journal of 
Integrative Medicine, 9, 27–40. 
Teixeira, S. (2016). Beyond broken windows: Youth perspectives on housing abandonment and its 
impact on individual and community well-being. Child Indicators of Research, 9(3), 582–607. 
Thornberg, R., & Knutsen, S. (2011). Teenagers’ explanations of bullying. Child & Youth Care Forum, 
40(3), 177–192. 
Tu, M. (2018). An exploratory study of Internet of Things (IoT) adoption intention in logistics and 
supply chain management. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(1), 131–151. 
Wall, J. D., & Knapp, J. (2014). Learning computing topics in undergraduate information systems 
courses: Managing perceived difficulty. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(3), 245–259. 
Walsh, I. (2014). A strategic path to study IT use through users’ IT culture and IT needs: A mixed-
method grounded theory. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23, 146–173. 
*Westhues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., & Fleras, A. (2008). 
Developing theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory 
action research study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(5), 701–717. 
Yang, D. Z., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of a content 
analysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educa-
tional Technology Research and Development, 59, 43–70. 


 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX C 
Summary by chapter and 
cross-cutting theme 
Chapter 
Cross-Cutting Themes 
Integrated Approaches to 
Mixed Method 
Complexity and 
Mixed Methods Research 
Grounded Theory 
Dissonance 
Methodology 
(MM-GTM) 
Chapter 1: 
DEFINITIONS 
Establishing 
Language and 
Purpose 
Integrated research uses 
strategies that intentionally 
promote interdependence 
between their sources 
of data, methods, or 
approaches. 
The most effective way 
to become an integrated 
researcher is to be 
competent in more than one 
qualitative and quantitative 
research method. 
Fully integrated mixed 
method grounded theory 
(FIMM-GT) uses grounded 
theory procedures with both 
qualitative and quantitative 
data and integrates them in 
substantive ways throughout 
the research process to 
produce and sometimes 
test a theoretical framework. 
Integration generally serves 
multiple purposes in this 
type of study. 
Conventional 
perspectives maintain 
the independence of 
the stands and the view 
the purpose MM-GTM 
to build theory with 
qualitative procedures 
and to test it with 
quantitative ones. 
In MM-GTM, the 
constant comparative 
method can be 
applied to quantitative, 
qualitative, and mixed 
data. 
A dynamic design 
is needed to adapt 
to rapidly changing 
research environments, 
unexpected results, 
and to negotiate 
different perspectives 
team members bring 
to research initiatives. 
A process that is 
deliberate about 
engaging the 
dissonance and 
paradox that is 
introduced by 
abduction is the 
lynchpin that reaches 
across mixed methods, 
grounded theory, and 
complexity. 


 
 
 
154 
APPENDICES 
Chapter 
Cross-Cutting Themes 
Integrated Approaches to 
Mixed Methods Research 
Mixed Method 
Grounded Theory 
Methodology 
(MM-GTM) 
Complexity and 
Dissonance 
Chapter 2: 
VARIETY 
Varied 
Approaches to 
Using Mixed 
Methods with 
Theoretical 
Frameworks 
Chapter 3: 
PROCESS 
Mixed 
Methods and 
the Process of 
Theorizing 
Chapter 
4: VISUAL 
DISPLAYS 
Advancing 
Theoretical 
Reasoning 
with 
Visualizations 
Conceptualizing a problem 
and research questions in 
a multi-dimensional way is 
a foundation for thinking 
theoretically and advances 
an integrated approach to 
mixed methods. 
Launching a project with 
a conceptual framework 
developed during the 
process of consulting a 
cross-disciplinary body 
of literature facilitates 
integration across research 
phases. 
A narrative or visualization 
that integrates qualitative 
and quantitative data can be 
used as the basis for a case-
based analysis. 
Fully integrated mixed 
method grounded theory 
(FIMM-GTM) embeds both 
qualitative and quantitative 
data in basic grounded 
theory procedures like 
theoretical coding, 
diagramming, analytical 
memoing, theoretical 
sampling, and saturation. 
While integrative and joint 
displays play a critical role 
during reporting, they can 
also play an instrumental role 
in advancing analytical and 
theoretical insight. 
It is possible to sustain 
an inductive/exploratory 
drive in a study that is 
framed by a theoretical 
framework from the 
literature at the onset. 
MM-GTM has informed 
research in a wide 
variety of different ways. 
It is its adaptability and 
variety that sustains its 
continued usefulness. 
MM-GTM has been 
paired with a variety 
of other qualitative 
research approaches, 
including participatory 
action research. 
The inductive and 
exploratory component 
in MM-GTM means 
that new insight with 
theoretical implications 
can emerge even in a 
study with a purpose to 
test an existing theory 
or hypothesis. 
The constant 
comparative method is 
not simply an inductive 
analytical approach, 
but one that also 
engages deduction and 
abduction. 
Visual displays have the 
potential to generate 
theoretical insight by 
helping a researcher 
envision patterns and 
relationships among 
constructs. 
A theoretical 
framework can provide 
an explanation for 
unexpected findings. 
An expectation for 
plurality and dialectical 
exchange is built 
into the design of a 
MM-GTM participatory 
action research. 
Dissonance between 
findings from different 
methods or evidence 
of gaps that they 
suggest can introduce 
an unexpected 
element to the 
analysis that produces 
explanatory inferences 
or theoretical 
propositions. 
Theoretical sampling 
can be directed by 
unexpected findings. 
Joint and integrative 
displays can reveal 
diverse perspectives 
and expose 
dissonance between 
findings from different 
analytical methods. 
(Continued) 


 
 
 
APPENDICES 
155 
Chapter 
Cross-Cutting Themes 
Integrated Approaches to 
Mixed Methods Research 
Mixed Method 
Grounded Theory 
Methodology 
(MM-GTM) 
Complexity and 
Dissonance 
Chapter 5: 
DISSONANCE 
Leveraging 
Dissonance 
for 
Theoretical 
and Analytical 
Insight 
Chapter 6: 
REPORTING 
Highlighting 
Quality in 
Reporting 
In some fully integrated 
mixed method (FIMMR) 
designs, the qualitative and 
quantitative phases may be 
difficult to disentangle, while 
in other cases, the phases 
are quite distinct. FIMMR 
designs can be executed in 
a concurrent or sequential 
manner. 
A visual display can be used 
to structure data collection 
that simultaneously collects 
qualitative and quantitative 
data. 
A study can be designed to 
explore divergence, including 
between theoretical 
perspectives previously 
considered in the literature, 
but more often dissonance is 
encountered unexpectedly. 
Qualitative and quantitative 
findings can be integrated 
in a composite theoretical 
model. 
Data generated from 
timelines, concept 
maps, matrices, and 
mapping exercises 
that combine multiple 
sources of data can 
be used as the basis 
of case-based analysis 
and facilitate cross-
case comparison. 
The credibility of 
findings can be 
warranted through 
different types of joint 
displays. 
Mixed methods and 
grounded theory 
share several key 
epistemological 
assumptions. 
MM-GTM is an 
advanced design that is 
often executed in more 
than two phases. 
There is huge variety in 
the way that MM-GTM 
studies have been 
accomplished. 
Integrating data from 
different analytical 
procedures for a 
case-based analysis is 
one tool to investigate 
dissonant data and 
to weigh the level of 
support for theoretical 
propositions. 


 
References 
Agerfalk, P
. J. (2014). Insufficient theoretical contribution: A conclusive rationale for rejection? European 
Journal of Information Systems, 23, 593–599. 
Alammar, F
. M., Intezari, A., Cardow, A., & Pauleen, D. J. (2018). Grounded theory in practice: Novice 
researchers’ choice between Straussian and Glaserian. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(2), 225–245. 
Allen, J., Kuehn, S., & Creamer, E. G. (2020, May). A boost for the CURE: Improving learning out-
comes with curriculum based undergraduate research. GSA Today, 30. https://doi.org/10.1130/ 
GSATG458GW 
Apramian, T., Cristancho, S., Watling, C., & Lingard, L. (2017). (Re) grounding grounded theory: A 
close reading of theory in four schools of thought. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 359–376. 
Archibald, M. M., Radil, A. I., Zhang, X., & Hanson, W
. E. (2015). Current mixed methods practices in 
qualitative research: A content analysis of leading journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 
14(2), 1–33. 
Austin, J. (2017). Incidents in the undergraduate research experience that contribute to an interest in science, technol-
ogy, engineering, and math (STEM) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 
Bazeley, P
. (2018a). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. London, UK: Sage. 
Bazeley, P
. (2018b). “Mixed methods in my bones”: Transcending the qualitative-quantitative divide. 
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 334–341. 
Bazeley, P
., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage Publications. 
Benoliel, J. Q. (1996). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 
406–428. 
Birks, M.,& Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Boeije, H., Slagt, M., & van Wesel, F
. (2013). The contribution of mixed methods research to the field of 
childhood trauma: A narrative review focused on integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 
347–369. 
Booth, A., Carroll, C., Ilott, I., Low, L. L., & Cooper, K. (2013). Desperately seeking dissonance: Iden-
tifying the disconfirming case in qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 23(1), 
126–141. 
Boychuk Duchscher, J. E., & Morgan, D. (2004). Grounded theory: Reflections on the emergence vs 
forcing debate. Methodological Issues in Nursing, 48(6), 605–612. 
Bravington, A., & King, N. (2018). Putting graphic elicitation into practice: T
ools and typologies for the 
use of participant-led diagrams in qualitative research interviews. Qualitative Research, 19(5), 502–523. 
Bruce, C. D. (2007). Questions arising about emergence, data collection, and its interaction with analysis 
in a grounded theory study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6(1), 1–12. 
Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology and Theory and Appli-
cation, 4, 25–42. 


 
REFERENCES 
157 
Bryant, A. (2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. FQS: Forum: 
Qualitative Social Research, 10(3), Art 2, no page numbers. 
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. New Y
ork, NY: 
Oxford University Press. 
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2019). The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory. London, UK: Sage. 
Buckley, C., & Waring, M. J. (2009). The evolving nature of grounded theory: Experiential reflections 
on the potential of the method for analyzing children’s attitudes towards physical activity. International 
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 317–334. 
Buckley, C., & Waring, M. J. (2013). Using diagrams to support the research process: Examples from 
grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 148–172. 
Burch, P
., & Heinrich, C. J. (2017). Mixed methods for policy research and program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage Publications. 
Bussing, R., Koro-Ljungberg, M. K., Gary, F
., Mason, D., & Garvan, C. (2005). Exploring help-seeking 
for ADHD symptoms: A mixed methods approach. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 13(2), 85–101. 
Bussing, R., Koro-Ljungberg, M. K., Noguchi, K., Mason, D., Mayerson, G., & Garvan, C.W
. (2012). 
Willingness to use ADHD treatments: A mixed methods study of perceptions by adolescents, parents, 
health professionals, and teachers. Social Science and Medicine, 74, 92–100. 
Bustamante, C. (2017). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based joint display 
in mixed method case study research. Journal of Mixed Method Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
1558689817712119 
Carmona, M. (2015). Re-theorizing contemporary public space: A new narrative and a new normative. 
Journal of Urbanism, 8(4), 373–405. 
Castro, F
. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative 
mixed methods research and data analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360. 
Catallo, C. J., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H.L. (2012). Minimizing the risk of intrusion: A grounded 
theory of intimate partner violence disclosure in emergency departments. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 
69(6), 1366–1376. 
Catallo, C. J., Jack, S. M., Ciliska, D., & MacMillan, H. L. (2013). Mixing a grounded theory approach 
with a randomized controlled trial related to intimate partner violence: What challenges arise for 
mixed methods research? Nursing Research and Practice, 1–12. doi:10.1155/2013/798213 
Chamberlain, K., Cain, T., Sheridan, J., & Dupuis, A. (2011). Pluralism in qualitative research: From 
multiple methods to integrated methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 8, 151–169. 
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Charmaz, K. (2014a). Constructing grounded theory (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Charmaz, K. (2014b). Grounded theory in a global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. 
Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9), 1074–1084. 
Charmaz, K. (2017a). Special invited paper: Continuities, contradictions, and critical inquiry in grounded 
theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–8. 
Charmaz, K. (2017b). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 
23(1), 34–45. 
Charmaz, K. (2019). “With constructivist grounded theory you can’t hide”: Social justice research and 
critical inquiry in the public sphere. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 165–176. 
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in 
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/147480887.2020.1780357 
Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after a postmodern term. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Clarke, A. E., & Friese, C. (2007). Grounded theorizing using situational analysis. In A. Bryant & K. 
Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 363–397). London, UK: Sage. 
Collins, C. S., & Stockton, C. M. (2018). The central role of theory in qualitative research. International 
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10. 
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2012). Securing a place at the table: A review 
and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, 
56(6), 849–865. 


 
 
 
158 
REFERENCES 
Conlon, C., Carney, G., Timonen, V
., & Scharf, T. (2015). “Emergent reconstruction” in grounded 
theory: Learning from team-based interview research. Qualitative Research, 15(1), 39–57. 
Cook, L. D., & Kamalodeen, K. J. (2020). Combining mixed methods and case study research (MM+CSR) 
to give mixed methods case study designs. Caribbean Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 47–76. 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd 
edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoreti-
cal contribution. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. 
Creamer, E. G. (2004). Collaborators’ attitudes about differences of opinion. Journal of Higher Education, 
75(5), 556–571. 
Creamer, E. G. (2011). Experimenting with voice and reflexivity to produce multi-voiced texts. In C. 
Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education (2nd edition, pp. 367–380). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Creamer, E. G. (2016). A primer about mixed methods in an educational context. International Journal of 
Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research, 15(8). www.ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/view/700 
Creamer, E. G. (2018a). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Creamer, E. G. (2018b). Enlarging the conceptualization of mixed method approaches to grounded the-
ory with intervention research. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 919–934. http://journals.sagepub. 
com/doi/10.1177/0002764218772642 
Creamer, E. G. (2018c). Paradigms in play: Using case studies to explore the value-added of diver-
gent findings in mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 
30–40. 
Creamer, E. G. (2018d). Editorial: Striving for methodological integrity in mixed methods research: The 
difference between mixed methods and mixed up methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4). 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jee.20240 
Creamer, E. G. (2020). Visualizing dynamic fully integrated mixed method designs. International Journal of 
Multiple Research Approaches, 12(1), 1–13. 
Creamer, E. G. (2021, March). Extending the value-added of mixed methods in sustainability research. 
In A. Factor & J.P
. Ulhoi (Eds.), Sustainability and small to medium-sized enterprises: Lessons from mixed 
methods research (pp. 177–191). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. 
Creamer, E. G., & Edwards, C. D. (2019). Embedding the dialogic in mixed method approaches to theory 
development. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(3), 239–251. https://doi.org 
/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1598357 
Creamer, E. G., Guetterman, T., Govia, I., & Fetters, M. (2020, December). Challenging procedures 
used in systematic reviews by promoting a case-based approach to the analysis of qualitative methods 
in nursing trials. Nursing Inquiry. Early view. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12393 
Creamer, E. G., & Schoonenboom, J. L. (2018). Introduction: Inter-method mixing as a gateway to 
methodological mixing. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 879–886. 
Creswell, J. W
., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V
. L., & Clegg Smith, K. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods 
research in health sciences. Bethesda, MD: Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research, National 
Institute of Health. 
Creswell, J. W
., & Plano, C. V
. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd edition). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Creswell, J. W
., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V
. L., & Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative 
research extends mixed methods research. Research in Schools, 13(1), 1–11. 
Cronin, A., Alexander, V
. D., Fielding, J., Moran-Ellis, J., & Thomas, H. (2007). The analytic integration 
of qualitative data sources. In P
. Alasuutari, L. Brickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), SAGE handbook of social 
research methods (pp. 572–584). London, UK: Sage. 
Davis, P
., & Baulch, B. (2011). Parallel realities: Exploring poverty dynamics using mixed methods in rural 
Bangladesh. Journal of Development Studies, 47(1), 118–143. 
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London, UK: Routledge. 


 
 
REFERENCES 
159 
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. London, UK: Academic Press. 
Dey, I. (2004). Grounded theory. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, I. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative 
research practice (pp. 80–93). London, UK: Sage. 
Dickinson, W
. B. (2010). Visual displays for mixed methods findings. In A. Tashakkori & C. T
eddlie (Eds.), 
SAGE handbook of social and behavioral research (2nd edition, pp. 469–504). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of 
Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111–124. 
Eccles, M., Grimshaw, J., Walker, A., Johnston, M., & Pitts, N. (2005). Changing the behavior of health-
care professionals: The use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. Journal of Clinical 
Epidemiology, 58, 107–112. 
Edwards, J. R. (2008). T
o prosper, organization psychology should . . . overcome methodological barriers 
to progress. Journal of Organization Behavior, 29, 469–491. 
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 
14(4), 532–550. 
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. 
The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. 
Erzberger, C., & Kelle, U. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In A. 
Tashakkori & C. T
eddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 457–490). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Evans, B. C., Coon, D. W
., & Ume, E. (2011). Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic guide for 
mixed methods studies: A methodological necessity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 276–292. 
Evans, B. C., Crogan, N., Belyea, M., & Coon, D. W
. (2009). Utility of the life course perspective in 
research with Mexican American caregivers of older adults. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 20, 5–14. 
Faber, C. J., Benson, L. C., Kajfez, R. L., Kennedy, M. S., Less, D. M., McAlister, A. M., & WU, G. 
(2019). Dynamics of researcher identity and epistemology: The development of a grounded theory model. 2019 
ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Tampa, Florida. 
Fielding, N. G. (2009). Going out on a limb: Postmodernism and multiple method research. Current 
Sociology, 57, 427–447. 
Fielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed method designs: Data integration with new research 
technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124–136. 
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data: The articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods 
in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 
Flanagan, P
. J., McGrath, M. M., Meyer, E. C., & Coll, C.T. (1995). Adolescent development and transi-
tions to motherhood. American Academy of Pediatrics, 96(2), 273–282. 
Flick, U. (2017). Mantras and myths: The disenchantment of mixed-methods research and revising trian-
gulation as a perspective. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 46–57. 
Floersch, J., Longhofer, J. L., Kranke, D., & T
ownsend, L. (2010). Integrating thematic, grounded theory 
and narrative analysis. Qualitative Social Work. http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/24/1 
473325010362330 
Freshwater, D. (2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal of Mixed Methods 
Research, 1(2), 133–146. 
Gasson, S. (2009). Employing a grounded theory for MIS research. In D. Yk, L. B. Williams, S. L. Schen-
berger, & M. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of research on contemporary theoretical models in information systems 
(pp. 34–56). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing. 
Gasson, S., & Waters, J. (2013). Using a grounded theory approach to study online collaborative behav-
iors. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 95–118. 
Gibson, C. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the 
value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 193–223. 
Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management 
Review, 15(4), 584–602. 
Glaser, B. (1978a). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press. 
Glaser, B. (1978b). All is data. Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal, 6(2), no page numbers. 


 
160 
REFERENCES 
Glaser, B. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Y
ork: 
Aldine. 
Gorard, S. (2004). Sceptical or clerical? Theory as a barrier to the combination of research methods. 
Journal of Educational Enquiry, 5(1), 1–21. 
Gorard, S. (2010). Research design, as independent of methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. T
eddlie (Eds.), 
SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral sciences (2nd edition, pp. 237–251). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Greckhamer, T., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2006). The erosion of a method: Examples from grounded 
theory. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(6), 729–750. 
Greene, J. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. Journal of Research & Method in 
Education, 28(2), 207–2011. 
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley Publishers. 
Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods 
Research, 2(1), 7–22. 
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V
. J., & Graham, W
. F
. (1989). T
oward a conceptual framework for mixed-method 
evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. 
Guest, G. (2012). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Meth-
ods Research, 7(2), 141–151. 
Guetterman, T. C., Babchuck, W
. A., Howell Smith, M. C., & Stevens, J. (2017). Contemporary 
approaches to mixed methods-grounded theory research: A field-based analysis. Journal of Mixed Meth-
ods Research, 13(2), 179–195. 
Guetterman, T. C., Creswell, J. W
., & Kuckartz, U. (2015). Using joint displays and MAXQDA soft-
ware to represent the results of mixed methods research. In M. T. McCrudden, G. Schraw, & C. W
. 
Buckendahl (Eds.), In use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data 
(pp. 145–175). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 
Guetterman, T. C., & Fetters, M. D. (2018). T
wo methodological approaches to the integration of mixed 
methods and case study designs: A systematic review. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 900–918. 
Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W
. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results 
in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 
554–561. 
Hadley, G. (2019a). Grounded theory in applied linguistics research. London, UK: Routledge. 
Hadley, G. (2019b). Critical grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of 
current developments in grounded theory (pp. 564–589). London, UK: Sage. 
Hall, K. P
. (2010). Advancing educational podcasting and faculty inquiry with a grounded research model: 
Building on current mixed-methods research across contexts. The Journal of Continuing Higher Educa-
tion, 58, 143–155. 
Hall, W
. A., & Callery, P
. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and 
relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257–272. 
Happ, M. B., Dabbs, A. D., Tate, J., Hricik, A., & Erlen, J. (2006). Exemplars of mixed methods data 
combination and analysis. Nursing Research, 55(28), 343–349. 
Harrison, Y
. D., & Murray, V
. (2012). Perspectives on the leadership of chairs of nonprofit organization 
boards of directors: A grounded theory mixed-method study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 
22(4), 411–437. 
Hausman, A. (2000). A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behavior. 
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 403–419. 
Hay, M. C. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research. 
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2018). T
oward an understanding of a qualitatively driven mixed methods data col-
lection and analysis: Moving toward a theoretically centered mixed methods praxis. In U. Flick (Ed.), 
The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 545–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 


 
REFERENCES 
161 
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Flowers, H. (2019). Using a feminist grounded theory approach in mixed methods 
research. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded 
theory (pp. 497–516). London, UK: Sage. 
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P
. (2008). Pushing on the methodological boundaries: The growing need 
for emergent methods within and across disciplines. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P
. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook 
of emergent methods (pp. 1–16). New Y
ork, NY: Guilford Press. 
Hiles, D. (2012). Mixed methods and the problem of the logic of inquiry. Draft paper presented at the QMiP 
symposium on “Mixed Methods in Psychology”. Annual BPS Conference, London, April 18–20, 
2012. 
Hites, L. S., Fifolt, M., Beck, H., Su, W
., Kerbawy, S., Wakelee, J., & Nassell, A. (2013). A geospatial 
mixed methods approach to assessing campus safety. Evaluation Review, 37(5), 347–369. 
Holton, J. D. (2008). Grounded theory as a general research methodology. Grounded Theory Review, 7(2), 
67–93. 
Holton, J. D., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Applications with qualitative and quantitative data. 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Howell Smith, M. C., Babchuk, W
. A., Stevens, J., Garrett, A. L., Wang, S. C., & Guetterman, T. C. 
(2019). Modeling the use of mixed methods-grounded theory: Developing scales a new measurement 
model. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(2), 184–206. 
Hume, C., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2005). Children’s perceptions of their homes and neighborhood envi-
ronments, and their association with objectively measured physical activity: A qualitative and quantita-
tive study. Health Education Research, 20(1), 1–13. 
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015). Designing multimethod research. In R. B. Johnson (Ed.), The Oxford 
handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 185–205). Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. 
Hunter, A., Murphy, K., Grealish, A., Casey, D., & Keady, J. (2011). Navigating the grounded theory 
terrain: Part 1. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 6–10. 
Inaba, M., & Kakai, H. (2019). Grounded text mining approach: A synergy between grounded theory 
and text mining approaches. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory 
(pp. 332–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Irwin, S. (2008). Data analysis and interpretation: Emergent issues in linking qualitative and quantitative 
evidence. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P
. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 415–435). New 
Y
ork, NY: Guilford Press. 
Ivankova, I. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Ivankova, N., & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological poten-
tials and advantages. In E. G. Creamer & J. L. Schoonenboon (Eds.), American Behavioral Scientist, 
62(7), 978–997. 
Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. New Y
ork, NY: Guilford Press. 
Jang, E., McDougall, D. E., Herbert, M., & Russell, P
. (2008). Integrative data analytic strategies in research 
in school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221–247. 
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative 
Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611. 
Johnson, L. (2014). Adapting and combining constructivist grounded theory and discourse analysis: A 
practical guide for research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 8(1), 117–133. 
Johnson, R. B. (2012). Guest editor’s editorial: Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has 
come. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 751–754. 
Johnson, R. B., McGowan, M. W
., & Turner, L. A. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: Inherently a 
mixed method? Research in the Schools, 17(2), 65–78. 
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). T
oward a definition of mixed methods 
research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. 
Johnson, R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2015). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health 
intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587–602. 


162 
REFERENCES 
Johnson, R. B., & Walsh, I. (2019). Mixed grounded theory: Merging grounded theory with mixed 
methods and multimethod research. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current 
developments in grounded theory (pp. 517–531). London, UK: Sage. 
Johnson, R. E., Grove, A. L., & Clarke, A. (2019). Pillar integration process: A joint display technique to 
integrate data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 301–320. 
Jones, L., & Kafetsios, K. (2005). Exposure to political violence and psychological well-being in Bosnian 
adolescents: A mixed method approach. Clinical and Child Psychiatry, 19(2), 157–176. 
Kajfez, R., Lee, D., Ehlert, K., Faber, C., Benson, L., & Kennedy, M. (2021). A mixed methods approach 
to understanding researcher identity. Studies in Engineering Education, 2(1), 1–15. 
Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988, December). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in infor-
mation systems research: A case study. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 12(4), 571–586. 
Kawamura, Y
., Ivankova, N., Kohler, C., & Purumean-Chaney, S. (2009). Utilizing mixed methods to 
assess parasocial interaction of an entertainment-education program audience. International Journal of 
Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 88–104. 
Kearney, W
. S., Kelsey, C., & Herrington, D. (2013). Mindful leaders in highly effectives schools: A mixed-
method application of Hoy-s M-scale. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(3), 316–335. 
Keddy, B., Sims, S. L., & Stern, P
. N. (1996). Grounded theory as feminist research methodology. Journal 
of Advanced Nursing, 23, 448–453. 
Kelle, U. (2001). Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of qualitative 
and quantitative methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), no page numbers. 
Kesby, M. (2000). Participatory diagramming: Deploying qualitative methods through an action research 
epistemology. Area, 32(4), 423–435. 
Knigge, L.,& Cope, M. (2006). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quan-
titative data through grounded theory and visualizations. Environment and Planning, 38, 2021–2037. 
Koopmans, M. (2017). Mixed methods in search of a problem: Perspectives from complexity theory. 
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 16–18. 
Kushner, K. E., & Morrow, R. (2003). Grounded theory, feminist theory, critical theory: T
oward theo-
retical triangulation. Advances in Nursing Science, 26(1), 30–43. 
Kutnak, M. J., Jr. (2017). The process of design for general classroom facilities in higher education institutions. 
Degree: PhD, Higher Education, Virginia T
ech. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/77575 
Laws, R., Campbell, K. J., Van der Plight, P
., Ball, K., Lynch, J., Russell, G., Taylor, R., & Wilson, E. 
D. (2015). Obesity prevention in early life: An opportunity to better support the role of maternal and 
child health nurses in Australia. BMC Nursing, 14, 26. doi:10.1186/s12912-015-0077-7 
Lee, D., McAlister, A., Ehlert, K., Faber, C., Kajfez, R., Creamer, E.,& Kennedy, M. (2019). Enhancing 
research quality through use of analytical memo writing in a mixed methods grounded theory study implemented 
by a multi-institution research team. Proceedings of the IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 
October 16–19, Cincinnati, OH. 
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and 
Quantity, 43, 265–275. 
Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking questions of the data: Memo writing in the grounded theory tradition. 
In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 245–264). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2008). Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries 
in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 307–332. 
Levitt, H. M., Creswell, J. W
., Josselson, R., Bamberg, M., Frost, D. M., & Suarez-Orozco, C. (2018). 
Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed meth-
ods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications task force report. American 
Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. 
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role 
of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918. 
Loo, I. D., & Lowe, A. (2011). Mixed methods research: Don’t “just do it”. Qualitative Research in Account-
ing and Management, 8(1), 22–38. 


 
 
REFERENCES 
163 
Malagon, M. C., Huber, L. P
., & Velez, V
. N. (2009). Our experiences, our methods: Using grounded 
theory to inform critical race theory methodology. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 8(1), 253–272. 
Mark, J. (2017, March 2). Get out of here: Scientists examines the benefits of forests, birdsong, and run-
ning water. The New York Times Book Review. www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/books/review/nature-
fix-florence-williams.html (Retrieved March 31, 2020). 
Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25. 
doi:10.1177/1468794106058866 
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). The importance of qualitative research in causal explanation in education. Qualita-
tive Inquiry, 18(8), 655–661. 
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Maxwell, J. A., Chmiel, M., & Rogers, S. E. (2015). Designing integration in multimethod and mixed 
methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and 
mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223–239). Oxford, UK: Sage. 
Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. (2003). Mixed method design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & 
C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral analysis (pp. 241–271). New Y
ork, 
NY: Guilford Press. 
Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & 
C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 145–168). Thousand 
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
McCall, C., & Edwards, C. D. (2021). New perspectives for implementing grounded theory. Studies in 
Engineering Education, 1(2), 93–107. 
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Buckendahl, C. W
. (2015). Use of visual displays in research and testing. 
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 
McFerran, K., Roberts, M., & O’Grady, L. (2010). Music therapy with bereaved teenagers: A mixed 
methods perspective. Death Studies, 34, 541–565. 
McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and 
reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334–342. 
Mendlinger, S., & Cwikel, J. (2008). Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data on women’s health 
behaviors: A double helix model for mixed methods. Qualitative Health Research, 18(2), 280–293. 
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th edi-
tion). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. 
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Mixed methods and wicked problems. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 3–6. 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35. 
Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V
. D., Cronin, A., Dickenson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2006). 
Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims, and implications. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 45–59. 
Morgan, D. G., & Stewart, N. J. (2002). Theory building through mixed-method evaluation of a dementia 
special care unit. Research in Nursing and Health, 25, 479–488. 
Morgan, D. L. (2013). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. 
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage Publications. 
Morgan, D. L. (2015). From themes to hypotheses: Following up with quantitative methods. Qualitative 
Health Research, 25(6), 789–793. 
Morgan, D. L. (2020). Pragmatism as the basis for grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 25(1), 64–73. 
Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147–149. 
Morse, J. M. (2010). Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed methods designs. Qualitative Inquiry, 
16(6), 483–491. 
Morse, J. M. (2015). Issues in qualitatively driven mixed method designs: Walking through a mixed-
method project. In S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed 
methods research inquiry (pp. 206–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 


 
164 
REFERENCES 
Morse, J. M. (2020). The challenging face of qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 
19, 1–7. 
Morse, J. M., & Clark, L. (2019). The nuances of grounded theory sampling and the pivotal role of 
theoretical sampling. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments in 
grounded theory. London, UK: Sage. 
Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left 
Coast Press. 
Morse, J. M., Stern, P
. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing 
grounded theory: The second generation. New Y
ork, NY: Routledge. 
Nagel, D. A., Burns, V
. F
., Tilley, C., & Aubin, D. (2015). When novice researchers adopt constructiv-
ist grounded theory: Navigating less travelled paradigmatic methodological paths in PhD dissertation 
work. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 20, 365–383. 
Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., & Brown, L. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing 
mixed method design typologies. In A. Tashakkori & C. T
eddlie (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed meth-
ods in social and behavioral research (2nd edition, pp. 305–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Nelson, J. (2017). Using conceptual depth criteria: Addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in 
qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 17(5), 554–570. 
Nightingale, A. (2003). A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixed methods in natural 
research management. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 77–90. 
Omoquit, M., Tso, P
., Varga-Atkins, T., O’Brien, M., & Wheeldon, J. (2013). Diagrammatic elicitation: 
Defining the use of diagrams in data collection. The Qualitative Report, 18(30), 1–12. 
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2012). Introduction: Putting the MIXED back into quantitative and qualitative 
research in educational research and beyond: Moving toward the radical middle. International Journal of 
Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 192–219. 
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Dickinson, W
. B. (2008). Mixed methods analysis and information visualizations: 
Graphical display for effective communication of research results. The Qualitative Report, 13(2), 204–227. 
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2019). On qualitizing. International Journal of Multiple Research 
Approaches, 11(2), 98–131. 
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & T
eddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In 
A. Tashakkori & C. T
eddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351– 
383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Pearce, L. D. (2015). Thinking outside of the Q boxes: Further motivating a mixed research perspective. 
In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research 
inquiry (pp. 42–56). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 
Plano Clark, V
. L., & Ivankova, N. V
. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Mixed Methods 
Research Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Plano Clark, V
. L., & Sanders, K. (2015). The use of visual displays in mixed methods research: Strategies 
for effectively integrating quantitative and qualitative components of a study. In M. T. McCrudden, 
G. Schraw, & C. Buckendahl (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and 
reporting data (pp. 177–206). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 
Poth, C. N. (2018a). Innovation in mixed methods research: A practical guide to integrative thinking with complex-
ity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Poth, C. N. (2018b). The curious case of complexity: Implications for mixed methods practice. Interna-
tional Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 1–9. 
Poth, C. N. (2020). Confronting complex problems with adaptive mixed methods research practices. 
Caribbean Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 29–46. 
Prosser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies, 22(1), 13–30. 
Ralph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y
. (2015). The methodological dynamism of grounded theory. Inter-
national Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1–6. 


REFERENCES 
165 
Reeping, D., & Edwards, C. (2020, August). Exemplars of integration in engineering education’s use of mixed 
methods research. ASEE 2020 Annual Conference and Exposition. doi:10.18260/1-2-34623 
Reeping, D., Tayler, A. R., Knight, D. B., & Edwards, C. (2019). Mixed methods analysis strategies in 
program evaluation: Beyond “a little quant here, a little qual there”. Journal of Engineering Education, 
108(20), 178–196. 
Reicherz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE 
handbook of grounded theory (pp. 214–228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Rieger, K. L. (2018). Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nursing Inquiry, 26. https:// 
doi.org/10.1111/nin.12261 
Rocheleau, D. (1995). Maps, numbers, text, and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. 
Professional Geographer, 47(4), 458–466. 
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative 
methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627–643. 
Rucks-Ahidiana, Z., & Bierbaum, A. H. (2015). Qualitative spaces: Integrating spatial analysis for a mixed 
methods approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(2), 92–103. 
Rule, P
., & John, M. (2015). A necessary dialogue: Theory in case study research. International Journal of 
Qualitative Methods, 14(4), no page numbers. doi:10.1177/1609406915611575 
Saint Arnault, D. (2009). Cultural determinants of help seeking: A model of research practice. Research and 
Theory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 23(4), 259–278. 
Saint Arnault, D., & Fetters, M. D. (2011). RO1 funding for mixed methods research: Lessons learned 
from the “mixed methods analysis of Japanese depression” project. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 
5(4), 309–329. 
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative research. Research 
in Nursing and Health, 15, 213–218. 
Sandelowski, M. (2014). Unmixing mixed-methods research. Research in Nursing in Health, 37, 3–8. 
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 
208–222. 
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Leeman, J., & Crandell, J. L. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods-mixed 
research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 317–331. 
Sanscartier, M. D. (2018). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed 
Methods Research, 14(1), 47–62. 
Santiago-Brown, I., Jerram, C., Metcalfe, A., & Collins, C. (2014). What does sustainability mean? 
Knowledge gleaned from applying mixed methods research to wine grape growing. Journal of Mixed 
Methods Research, 9(3), 232–251. 
Schneider, A. (1998, September 11). Why don’t women publish as much as men? The Chronicle of Higher 
Education, pp. A14–A16. 
Schoonenboom, J. (2019). Develop your case! How controversial case, subcases, and moderated can 
guide you through mixed methods data analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–13. doi:10.3389/ 
fpsyg.2019.01369 
Sebastian, K. (2019). Distinguishing between the types of grounded theory: Classical, interpretive, and 
constructivist. Journal for Social Thought, 3(1), 1–9. 
Seidel, S., & Urquhart, C. (2013). On emergence and forcing in information systems grounded theory 
studies: The case of Strauss and Corbin. Journal of Information Technology, 28, 237–260. 
Shannon-Baker, P
., & Edwards, C. (2018). The affordances and challenges to incorporating visual meth-
ods in mixed methods research. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 935–955. 
Sheridan, J., Chamberlain, K., & Dupuis, A. (2011). Timelining: Visualizing experience. Qualitative 
Research, 11(5), 552–569. 
Shim, J., Johnson, R. B., Gasson, S., Goodill, S., Jermyn, R., & Bradt, J. (2017). A model of dance/move-
ment therapy for resilience-building in people living with chronic pain. European Journal of Integrative 
Medicine, 9, 27–40. 


166 
REFERENCES 
Shim, M., Johnson, B., Bradt, J., & Gasson, S. (2020). A mixed methods-grounded theory design for 
producing more refined theoretical models. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(1), 61–86. 
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (1st edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publications. 
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded 
theory (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 
49(4), 633–642. 
Sweeney, S. M., & Von Hagen, L. A. (2015). Middle school students’ perceptions of safety: A mixed 
methods study. Journal of School Health, 85(10), 688–696. 
Tashakkori, A., & T
eddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral science 
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Tashakkori, A., & T
eddlie, C. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an 
integrative framework. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 101–119). 
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 
Teixeira, S. (2014). “It seems like no one care”: Participatory photo mapping to understand youth per-
spectives on property vacancy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(3), 390–414. 
Teixeira, S. (2016). Beyond broken windows: Y
outh perspectives on housing abandonment and its impact 
on individual and community well-being. Child Indicators of Research, 9(3), 582–607. 
Thomas, G. (2010). Doing case study: Abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qualitative Inquiry, 
16(7), 575–582. 
Thomas, G., & James, J. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground, and 
discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767–795. 
Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 
243–259. 
Thorne, S., Kirkham, S. R., & O’Flynn-Magee, K. (2004). The analytic challenge in interpre-
tive description. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1). https://journals.sagepub.com/ 
doi/10.1177/160940690400300101 
Tiefenbacher, J. P
. (2013). Themes of U.S. wine advertising and the use of geography and place to market 
wine. EchoGeo, 23. doi:10.4000/echogeo.13378 
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory 
to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. 
Timonen, V
., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic 
introduction to doing GT research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–10. 
Urquhart, C. (2007). The evolving nature of grounded theory method: The case of the information 
systems disciplines. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 
339–351). London, UK: Sage. 
Umoquit, M., Tso, P
., Varga-Atkins, T., O’Brien, M., & Wheeldon, J. (2013). Diagrammatic elicitation: 
Defining the use of diagrams in data collection. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1–12. 
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. (2010). Putting the “theory” back into grounded theory: 
Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems, 20, 357–381. 
Urquhart, K. (2013). Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. London, UK: Sage. 
Van Maanen, J., Sorensen, J. B., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). Introduction to special topic forum: The inter-
play between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1145–1154. 
Walker, R. E., Block, J., & Kawachi, I. (2012). Do residents of food deserts express different food buy-
ing preferences compared to residents of food oases? A mixed-methods analysis. International Journal of 
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-41 
Walsh, I. (2014). A strategic path to study IT use through users’ IT culture and IT needs: A mixed-method 
grounded theory. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23, 146–173. 
Walsh, I. (2015). Using quantitative data in mixed-design grounded theory studies: An enhanced path 
formal grounded theory in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 24, 531–557. 


REFERENCES 
167 
Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs 
assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. 
Watson, A. (2019). Methods braiding: A technique for arts-based and mixed methods research. Sociological 
Research Online, 25(1), 66–83. 
Weed, M. (2009). Research quality considerations for grounded theory research in sports and exercise 
psychology. Psychology of Sports Medicine, 10, 502–510. 
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 
14(4), 516–531. 
Weick, K. E. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–290. 
Weisner, T. S. (2016). Findings that matter: A commentary. In M. C. Hay (Ed.), Methods that matter: 
Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research (pp. 391–408). Chicago: The University 
of Chicago Press. 
Weiss, H. B., Kreider, H., Mayer, E., Hencke, R., & Vaughn, M. A. (2005). Working it out: The chron-
icle of a mixed-method analysis. In Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods 
and the study of childhood and family life (pp. 47–64). Baltimore, MD: John D. and Catherine T. MacAr-
thur Foundation Series on Mental Health and Development. 
Weiss, H. B., Mayer, E., & Kreider, H. (2003). Making it work: Low-income working mothers’ involve-
ment in their children’s education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 879–901. 
Wesely, P
. (2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods research to 
explore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 295–312. 
Westhues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., & Fleras, A. (2008). Devel-
oping theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative mixed method participatory action 
research study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(5), 701–717. 
Whiteside, M., Mills, J., & McCalman, J. (2012). Using secondary data for grounded theory analysis. 
Australian Social Work, 63(4), 504–516. 
Whittemore, R. (2005). Analysis of integration in nursing science and practice. Journal of Nursing Scholar-
ship, 37(3), 261–267. 
Williams, S., & Keady, J. (2012). Centre stage diagrams: A new method to develop constructivist grounded 
theory-late-stage Parkinson’s disease as a case exemplar. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 218–238. 
Windsor, L. C. (2013). Using concept mapping in community-based participatory research: A mixed 
methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 274–293. 
Wisdom, J. P
., Cavaleri, M. A., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Green, C. A. (2012). Methodological reporting 
in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles. Health Services Research, 
47(2), 721–741. 
Wuest, J. (1995). Feminist grounded theory: An exploration of the congruency and tensions between two 
traditions in knowledge discovery. Qualitative Health Research, 5(1), 127–137. 
Wuest, J., & Hodgins, M. J. (2011). Reflections on methodological approaches and conceptual contribu-
tions in a program of caregiving research: Development and testing of Wuest’s theory of family care-
giving. Qualitative Health Research, 21(2), 151–161. 
Yang, D. Z., Richardson, J. C., French, B. F
., & Lehman, J. D. (2011). The development of a content 
analysis model for assessing students’ cognitive learning in asynchronous online discussions. Educational 
Technology Research and Development, 59, 43–70. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9166-1 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Index 
Note: Page numbers in italics indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. 
abduction 17–18; abductive reasoning, as mixed 
methods approach extension 51; integrated 
analysis using 48–49 
Agerfalk, P
. J. 4 
Alexander, V
. D. 49 
analytic density 10 
Apramian, T. 47, 97, 138 
Austin, J. 135 
Babchuck, W
. A. 8, 125 
Baulch, B. 82–84 
Bazeley, P
. xx, 63, 78, 113 
Benson, L. 64 
bi-dimensional approach 30 
Birks, M. 74 
Bosnian War 68 
Boyd, S. J. 88, 115 
Brown, L. M. 42 
Bryant, A. 48, 53, 122 
Buckley, C. 74, 126 
Buffet, Warren 133 
“burden” theoretical code 60 
Bussing, R. 52, 59–62, 66, 82 
Caracelli, V
. J. 94 
Carmona, M. 102, 107–109, 111 
case-based approach in MM-GTM 105; exploring 
dissonance with 105; macro-level perspective 
109; meso-level perspective 109; micro-level 
perspective 109; mixed method case studies 
107–109; multiple theoretical frameworks 
111–113; providing evidence of originality 
109–110; stair-step process 110; theoretical 
triangulation 111; visual data in 105–106 
case-based timeline 82–84, 83 
case study 124 
Castro, F
. G. 88, 115 
Catallo, C. J. 14, 36, 38–40, 43, 63, 126 
causality 61, 96–98 
change maps 40 
Charmaz, K. xx, 4, 6–7, 28–29, 34, 47–48, 54, 60, 
65, 74, 97, 98, 123–124, 128, 131, 138 
Ciliska, D. 38, 63 
Clark, A. 30, 87 
Classic Glaserian grounded theory 98 
close-ended questions 60 
community-based participatory action project 
(CBPR) 36, 41 
complexity 19 
composite grounded theory model 129 
comprehensiveness 12 
Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis 
Software (CAQDAS) 40, 80 
concept maps 40, 77 
conceptual framework 5 
concordance table, triangulating through 113–114 
Conlon, C. 52 
constant comparative method 16–17; iterative exchange 
embedded in 16–17; linking to an abductive logic 17 
constructivist grounded theory 9, 64, 98 
context 29 
Coon, D. W
. 125 
Cope, M. 75, 80–81, 106 
Corbin, J. 40, 65, 74, 123–124, 128, 138 
core grounded theory procedures 54–56, 55–56; 
coding 55; constant comparative method 55; core 
category 55; frequency of the use of 57; logic model, 
conditional matrix, or formal grounded theory model 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INDEX 
169 
55; memo writing 55; qualitative and quantitative data 
in 57–58; saturation 55; social process 55; theoretical 
coding 55; theoretical sampling 55 
Creswell, J. W
. 23, 28 
Cronin, A. 49, 52–54 
cross case analysis 64 
cross-cutting themes 24–25, 43–44, 70–71, 90–91, 
117, 140 
crossover methodology 2–3 
data analysis in MM-GTM 49–51 
Davis, P
. 82–84 
Dey, I. 33, 97, 119, 131, 134 
diagram 77 
dialectical stance 14 
discourse analysis 124 
Discovery of Grounded Theory, The 23 
dissonance in MM-GTM, leveraging to advance 
theoretical reasoning 93–118; case-based approach 
in MM-GTM 105; centrality of dissonance to 
research process 96–98; contradictory findings, 
explanation for 103–105; cross-cutting themes, 
building on 117; designing for 101–102, 101; 
discipline of generating multiple explanations 
98–99; initiation rationale 94; potential sources 
of dissonance 98–100; unexpected sources of 
dissonance 99–100; varying points of view 98; 
visual data in a case-based analysis 105–106; 
see also visual displays, warranting inferences through 
diversity 122 
Duchon, D. 102–103, 111, 126, 134 
Dunne, C. 34 
ecomaps 77 
Edwards, C. 77 
Eisenhardt, K. M. 64, 66, 105, 113–114 
Erzberger, C. 91, 93 
Evans, B. C. 31, 35, 37, 125 
evidence-based explanatory models 2 
feminist grounded theory 26, 28, 70 
Fielding, J. 11, 49, 94 
Fielding, N. xxi 
final composite model from Kawamura, 11–12, 13 
Flick, U. 26 
Floersch, J. 125 
Flowers, H. 23 
Foley, G. 52 
formal grounded theory 40 
fully integrated approach to mixed methods 
(FIMMR) 78–79 
fully integrated mixed method grounded theory 
methodology (FIMM-GTM) 8, 58 
fully integrated mixed method research (FIMMR) 8 
Gasson, S. 17 
Glaser, B. 5–7, 9, 28–29, 34, 47, 66, 128 
Gorard, S. 43 
Graebner, M. 113 
Graham, W
. F
. 94 
grand theories 29, 46 
graphic elicitation 72 
Greene, J. C. 7, 9, 14, 94 
grounded theory 2, 4–6; conceptual framework 5; 
grounded theory method (GTM) 14, 33–34, 
40; meta-model 127; mixed methods and 6–7; 
social-psychological processes 6 
grounded visualization 75–76 
Grove, A. L. 87 
Guetterman, T. C. 8, 21, 57, 125 
Hadley, G. 97 
Herbert, M. 94 
Hesse-Biber, S. N. 23, 26, 28, 121 
Hiles, D. 50 
Hitchcock, J. H. 42 
Holton, J. D. 7, 34, 57 
Howell Smith, M. C. 8, 125 
Inaba, M. 137 
inductive–deductive–abductive analytical cycle 50 
initiation rationale 94 
integrated analysis using abduction 48–49 
integrated analytical memo 62–63 
integrated approaches to a grounded theory 
visualization 126 
integrated case-based analysis 63 
integrated methodological approaches 2 
integrated theoretical coding 59–62; causal pathways 
produced by Bussing 61; close-ended questions 
60; conceptual model from Bussing et al. 60; 
open-ended questions 60 
integrated theoretical sampling 66 
integrative case-based memo 64–65 
integrative display 77 
integrative MMR-GTM 50 
integrative visual displays 74–75; concept map 77; data 
analysis 76; data collection 76; diagram 77; drawing 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
170 
INDEX 
conclusions 76; integrative display 77; joint display 
77; mapping 77; matrix mapping 77; mixed 
methods used to generate analytical insight 78–79; 
participatory photo mapping (PPM) 79; purposes 
served by 76; reporting 76; timelining 77; types 77 
interpretive comprehensive 130 
Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Method Research, 
An 130 
investigators using MM-GTM 136–139; challenges 
faced by 136; expansive view of expertise, 
developing 138–139; meaningful sample size 137; 
technical language 137 
Irwin, S. 31 
Ivankova, N. 11 
Jang, E. 94 
Johnson, B. R. 10 
Johnson, L. 9 
Johnson, R. B. 9–10, 14, 23, 87, 99, 117, 119, 121 
joint displays 74–75, 128–130; addressing 
inconsistent data through 128–130; to advance 
analysis 77, 87–89; of comparisons 130; final 
composite grounded theory model from Shim 
et al. 129; qualitative data 88–89; quantitative 
data 88; to warrant conclusions 114–115 
Jones, L. 52, 67, 68, 82 
Kafetsios, K. 52, 67, 68, 82 
Kakai, H. 137 
Kaplan, B. 102–103, 111, 126, 134 
Kawamura, Y
. 11–12, 126, 128 
Keady, J. 85 
Kelle, U. 91, 93 
Kellison, J. G. 88, 115 
Knigge, L. 75, 80–81, 106 
Kopak, A. 88, 115 
Kreider, H. 94 
Kutnak, M. 81 
language and purpose, establishing 1–25; 
multi-method research 2; purpose 2–3; 
contribution 2–3 
Laws, R. 138 
Lee, D. 52, 59, 64 
Lehman, J. D. 33 
Lempert, L. B. 64 
leverage dissonance and paradox 13–14 
literature review 3, 26, 28–30, 34–35, 35, 100; 
in MM-GTM, 51; methodological 138–139; 
theoretical coding 58–62, 114 
Locke, K. 18 
MacMillan, H. L. 38, 63 
macro-level constructs 29 
Malagon, M. C. 134 
mapping 77 
mapping software (ArcGis) 80 
Mark, J. 85–86 
Mason, J. 11 
matrix mapping, integrating data through 77, 84–85; 
conducive to MM-GTM 85–87; design of 87; 
generating analytical insight from 86; qualitative 
software 84 
Mayer, E. 94 
McCalman, J. 52 
McDougall, D. E. 94 
Mertens, D. M. xxi 
meso-level constructs 29 
methodological adaptability of grounded theory 33 
methodological dynamism 33 
methodological rationale for MM-GTM, 
articulating 123–125; methodological 
transparency 131–132; originality 135; 
procedural diagrams 132–133; quality gauge 
ways in 130–131; reflexivity 134–135; saturation 
131; utility 135; visualizing a theoretical model 
developed 125–126 
methodological transparency 130–132 
Mexican American immigrants 31, 35 
micro-level constructs 29 
middle range theory 46 
Mills, J. 52, 74 
mixed analysis through integrated case-based memos 
62–63 
mixed grounded theory (MGT) 117, 119 
Mixed Method Evaluation Rubric (MMER) 130 
mixed method grounded theory methodology 
(MM-GTM) 3, 7; analytic logic 15, 20; analytic 
procedures 15, 20; “classic” approach to 9–10; 
compatibility with multiple paradigms 16; 
contextual issues 15; contributions of each 
method 19–20; cross-cutting themes 24–25; an 
exemplar of 11–13; formal approach to grounded 
theory versus 124; integrated approaches to, 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INDEX 
171 
distinguishing exemplars of 20–23; as an invitation 
to leverage dissonance and paradox 13–14; link to 
complexity 19; as a methodology, conceptualizing 
14–16; multiple sources of data in, analyzing 18; 
pairing with other qualitative approaches 124–125; 
prevalence, indications of 8–9; qualitative phase 9; 
quantitative phase 9; research design 15 
mixed methods 6–7, 51; analytic density 10; in 
building explanatory power 10–11; grounded 
theory and 6–7; prioritizing the role of 10–11; 
“radical potential” of 10; research 7; used to 
generate analytical insight 78–79 
mixed methods and the process of theorizing 46–71; 
abductive reasoning to the constant comparative 
method 51; core grounded theory procedures 
54–56; cross-cutting themes 70–71; integrated 
analysis using abduction 48–49; integrated case-
based memos, analysis through 62–63; integrated 
theoretical sampling 66; integrative MMR-GTM 
50; interactive approach to data analysis 49–51; 
saturation 66–68; theoretical coding 58–59; 
theoretical sampling 65–66; theoretical sampling 
with a promising lead 68–69 
mixed methods with theoretical frameworks 
26–45; contribution 27; cross-cutting themes 
43–44; “design” word, implications of 28–29; 
demonstrating variability with a group of exemplars 
in 35–36; explore counterintuitive findings 
(Exemplar 2) 38–40; formal grounded theory 40; 
life course perspective 37; macro-level constructs 
29; meso-level constructs 29; methodological 
adaptability 33; micro-level constructs 29; 
multi-dimensionality in research questions, 
embedding 30–31; multi-layered social contexts 
29; objectives 27; purpose 27; research problem in, 
conceptualizing 29–30, 30; study design, theory 
use (Exemplar 1) 36–38; theoretical model as an 
outcome, developing 41–42; theoretical reasoning, 
literature contribution to 35; varied approaches to 
using 26–45 
mixed priority 8, 111, 133 
moderating cases 63 
Moran-Ellis, J. 49 
Morgan, D. G. 16, 97 
Morse, J. M. 14, 66, 125, 139 
multi-dimensionality 2; framing a research problem in 
29–30, 30; in research questions, embedding 30–31 
multi-dimensional theorizing 31–33; conceptual 
framework 31; exemplar that models 31–33; from 
Evans 32; initial visualization 31; qualitative data 
32; quantitative data 32 
multi-method research 2–3 
Myers, M. 33 
narrative analysis 124 
Nature Fix 85 
Nelson, J. 134 
Niehaus, L. 14 
Onwuegbuzie, A. 138 
open-ended questions 60 
paradigm(s) 15, 125; feminist 80; multiple 16; 
philosophical 96, 123 
participatory action research (PAR) 2, 41, 124 
participatory photo mapping (PPM) 79 
Plano, C. V
. 28 
positivism/postpositivsm 16, 56, 79, 97, 130, 134 
Postmodern Clarkeian grounded theory 98 
Poth, C. xxi 
pragmatism 16–17, 97 
procedural diagrams 132–133 
quality: assessing in MM-GTM 130–131; 
highlighting through reporting 119–141 
QUAL+QUAN combination logic 21 
radical potential 10–11, 94 
randomized controlled trial (RCT) 38 
reflexivity 134–135 
reporting: conventional approaches to 132–134; 
highlighting through 119–141; inconsistent data 
128–130; integrative visual displays 76; mixed 
methods 89, 130; on MM-GTM 117, 130, 132; 
shortcomings in 54; visualization in 74 
research design 10, 15; adaptability in 99; complex 
19, 122; implications of 28; quality and 130 
Rieger, K. L. 97 
Rossman, G. B. 94 
rupture theorizing 108 
Russell, P
. 94 
Saint Arnault, D. 66 
Saldaña, Johnny 58, 61 


 
172 
INDEX 
Sandelowski, M. 4, 30, 35, 48 
Sanscartier, M. D. 128 
saturation 66–68, 131 
Schoonenboom, J. L. 63, 99 
Sebastian, K. 97 
Seidel, S. 14, 33, 40 
Shannon-Baker, P
. 77 
Shim, J. 10, 126–128 
social-psychological process 6 
spiraling cycles of ideas and evidence 63 
Stevens, J. 8, 125 
Strauss, A. 9, 28–29, 40, 47, 65–66, 74, 96, 123–124, 
128, 138 
Straussian grounded theory 98 
Suddaby, R. 17 
Tashakkori, A. 91 
Tavory, I. 48 
Taylor, R. 64 
team-based project 38 
T
eddlie, C. 91 
T
eixeira, S. 80, 99, 107 
theme see cross-cutting themes 
theoretical coding 58–62; see also integrated 
theoretical coding 
theoretical propositions 126 
theoretical reasoning advancing with visualizations 
72–92; integrative displays 74–75; joint displays 
74–75; literature contribution to 35; matrix-
mapping, integrating data through 84–85; visual 
methods, grounded theory, and mixed methods, 
overlap between 75–76; see also integrative visual 
displays; joint displays; timelining as visualization 
strategy 
theoretical sampling 65–66, 68–69 
theoretical sensitivity 98 
theoretical triangulation 111 
theory 3–14; “burden” theoretical code 60; case-
based approach in MM-GTM 111–113; Classic 
Glaserian grounded 98; composite grounded 
model 129; constructivist grounded 9, 64, 98; 
defining 3–14; feminist grounded 26, 28, 70; 
formal grounded 40; fully integrated mixed 
method research (FIMMR) 8; grand 29, 46; in 
building explanatory power 10–11; middle range 
46; mixed grounded theory (MGT) 117, 119; 
mixed methods and grounded 6–7; Postmodern 
Clarkeian grounded 98; Straussian grounded 98; 
see also specific theories/types 
Thomas, H. 49 
Thornberg, R. 4, 34, 97 
timelining as visualization strategy 77, 81–82; 
case-based analysis and 82–84; in integration of 
different types of data 81–82; in understanding 
poverty status 82–84 
time-ordered process 128 
Timmermans, S. 48 
Timonen, V
. 52 
triangulating through concordance table 113–114 
Ume, E. 125 
unexpected sources of dissonance 99–100; factors 
that mitigate 100–101; in MM-GTM study 100 
Urquhart, C. 14, 33, 40 
utility 135 
variety 122 
verification 96 
visual data in case-based analysis 105–106 
visual displays 2, 75–76, 113 
visual displays, warranting inferences through 
113–116; documenting support for alternative 
explanations 115–116; joint display to warrant 
conclusions from a study 114–115; triangulating 
through concordance table 113–114 
Walsh, I. 7, 10, 16, 17, 23, 57–58, 117, 119, 121–122 
Waring, M. J. 74, 126 
warranting 50, 83; concordance table, triangulating 
through 113–114; inferences through visual 
displays 113–116; joint display use in 114–115 
Waters, J. 17 
Weed, M. 43 
Weiss, H. B. 51, 94 
Wesely, P
. 102, 111, 133 
Westhues, A. 41–42, 125 
Whiteside, M. 52, 66 
Williams, S. L. 85 
Wilson, B. L. 94 
Windsor, L. C. 84