Regular Article

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Volume 20: 1–13
Grounded Theory Approaches Used in © The Author(s) 2021
DOI: 10.1177/16094069211052203
Educational Research Journals journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq

Laura M. Stough1  and Sungyoon Lee2

Abstract
Grounded theory has become one of the most commonly used qualitative research approaches. Since its first introduction,
grounded theory methodology has taken on different iterations and evolved a number of variants. This review examined highly-
ranked educational journals to determine grounded theory methodologies used most frequently by educational researchers. A
total of 210 studies from 15 education journals were analyzed across 18 years of publication. A coding scheme was developed and
used to categorize studies by type of methodological approach and inclusion of common grounded theory elements. Increasing
variability in the types of grounded theory approaches was found in educational research over the last two decades. While
educational researchers appear to prefer Straussian approaches to the design and analysis of grounded theory studies, Charmaz’s
constructivist approach has increased in popularity over the last decade. In addition, most educational researchers used grounded
theory as a data analysis technique rather than as a complete methodological approach. Only a small proportion of the 210 studies
(29.5%) delineated a “grounded theory.” Finally, despite their publication in highly-ranked educational journals, methodological
inconsistencies and descriptive cloudiness were evidenced across many of these grounded theory studies.

Keywords
grounded theory, qualitative research, methodology, methods

Grounded theory has become one of the most commonly used 2011; Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Barney Glaser and
qualitative research methodologies (Birks & Mills, 2015; Anselm Strauss first wrote about grounded theory methodology
Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Morse, 2009; Timmermans & in 1965 as part of their joint study Awareness of Dying. Glaser
Tavory, 2007). While it shares a number of characteristics and Strauss subsequently published The Discovery of
with other qualitative approaches (e.g., coding, categorization, Grounded Theory (1967) which described a systematic
and inductive analysis), grounded theory is distinct as it aims methodological approach that differed from hypothesis-driven
to generate theory that is grounded in data. Some grounded deductive approaches that used data to verify existing theory
methodologists argue that theory, either substantive or and, instead, derived theory from data gathered by the researcher.
formal, should always emerge from analysis (e.g., Birks In their conceptualization, Glaser and Strauss (1967) described
et al., 2019; Glaser, 1992; Holton & Walsh, 2017), while beginning a study without a preconceived theory in mind,
others (e.g., Charmaz, 2014) conceptualize theorizing as an rather building theory that was “grounded in” data collected
interpretive practice in that “…researchers may use and analyzed for a particular study.
grounded theory methods to pursue varied emergent ana-
lytic goals and foci instead of pursuing a priori goals and
foci such as a single basic social process” (p. 180). 1
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
2
Grounded theory is often used in educational research, as Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
well as across a wide range of other academic disciplines,
Corresponding Author:
including anthropology, management, medicine, nursing, Laura M. Stough, Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M
social work, sociology, and psychology (Creswell & Poth, University, 4225 TAMU, College Station, TX 77840, USA.
2018; Glesne & Webb, 1993; Holton & Walsh, 2017; Tarozzi, Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use,
reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE
and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Grounded theory methodology has taken on different it- Table 1. Common Characteristics of Grounded Theory
erations since its introduction. In 1990, Strauss and Corbin Methodologies.
published a revisionist methodology, Basics of Qualitative Research phase Characteristics or elements
Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques,
which included a number of derivations and extrapolations Data gathering Interviews, focus groups,
from the original 1967 methodology. Their work spawned a observations, video, audio,
division in what came to be known as “Straussian” versus archival data, and
quantitative data
“Glaserian” approaches (see Stern, 1995) to grounded theory,
Data analyzing Analytical memos
with Glaser continuing to advocate for the original 1967 Coding
methodology and Strauss developing revised versions. Strauss Constant comparative analysis
and Corbin went on to publish three additional editions of their Formation of categories
book, modifying and advancing their methodology in each Identification of properties
subsequent version.1 Students of Glaser and of Strauss also of categories
developed several different evolutions of grounded theory: Simultaneous data collection
and analysis
Most notably Kathy Charmaz, who published the first edition
Theoretical sampling
of Constructing Grounded Theory in 2006, and Adele Clarke, Theoretical saturation
who published Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After Theoretical sensitivity
the Postmodern Turn in 2005. These two works have proved Data conceptualization Integration of higher order
influential in shaping methodological discussions of grounded concepts
theory over the last two decades. However, the seminal Theory development/grounded
Glaserian and Straussian publications continue to be widely theorizing
used and referenced by grounded theory methodologists (see Overall characteristics Iterative analysis, inductive
Clarke, 2019; Flick, 2019; Kelle, 2019). Despite differences in analysis, emergent design
and methodology
these approaches, researchers generally concur grounded
theory approaches do share methodological characteristics
(Birks & Mills, 2015; Cho & Lee, 2014; Fassinger, 2005; in 2009 a total of 555 articles using grounded theory were
Kenny & Fourie, 2015), the most common of which can be found (Tarozzi, 2011). Grounded theory appears to have
found in Table 1. become the dominant qualitative methodology in sociological
The appreciable development of grounded theory has led to publications by the late 1980s (Timmermans & Tavory, 2007).
“a number of variants and embodiments—and new phrases Between 1991 and 1998, grounded theory methodologies
and accentuations can be found in each new edition of one of received 2622 out of 4134 citations in the Social Science
its central texts” (Reichertz, 2019, p. 260). Kenny and Fourie Citation Index—nearly 64% of the total (Titscher et al., 2000).
(2015) argue several grounded theory methodologies (i.e., By 2006, Tarozzi (2011) found grounded theory had surpassed
Glaserian, Straussian, and Constructivist/Charmazian) have ethnography as the most commonly used qualitative method,
“…diverged to such an extent that they are neither homog- also outnumbering phenomenology (1180 vs. 3410 grounded
enous nor interchangeable methodologies” (p. 1270). Bryant theory studies), discourse analysis (2146), and narrative in-
(2019a) similarly notes grounded theory has evolved variants quiry (218) as the most popular qualitative methodology in the
“…not always existing happily side by side” (p. xxv). Meth- Web of Science database. Examining the Scopus database,
odologists largely acknowledge there are methodological aims Holton and Walsh (2017) found over 1400 grounded theory
and analytical characteristics that distinguish amongst the studies published in 2013, compared to less than 250 articles
Glaser and Strauss, Glaserian, Straussian, Charmazian, and per year in 1999.
Clarkean approaches to grounded theory (see Apramian et al.,
2017; Birks & Mills, 2015; Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Denzin,
Grounded Theory in Educational Research
2007; Holton & Walsh, 2017; Reichertz, 2019). These differ-
ences include different aims as well as terminology and varied Grounded theory approaches also have become widely used
views on what constitutes “grounded theory” (see Table 2). within the discipline of education (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
The majority of highly-ranked educational journals publish
grounded theory research and grounded theory studies are
Growth in Grounded Theory Research presented frequently at educational research conferences
Since the seminal publication of Glaser and Strauss’ 1967 (Stough & Lee, 2019). Grounded theory approaches also are
work, thousands of articles have been published that employ commonly taught in qualitative research courses within col-
grounded theory methodologies. The growth in usage of this leges of education (Glesne & Webb, 1993; Onwuegbuzie
qualitative methodology has been rapid. A Web of Science et al., 2012) and appear in qualitative research textbooks
search found only six studies using grounded theory in the used in graduate education courses (refer to Creswell & Poth,
1980s, but by 1999 the number had grown to 134 articles, and 2018; Hesse-Biber, 2017; Patton, 2014).
Stough and Lee 3

Table 2. Comparison of Different Variants of Grounded Theory.

Introduced concepts and What is considered a “grounded

Methodologist Aim of grounded theory terminology theory”

Glaser and “…the discovery of theory from data Categories, coding, concept, “Grounded theory can be presented
Strauss systematically obtained from social constant comparative method, either as a well-codified set of
research.” (1967, p. 2) core category, delimiting the propositions or in a running
theory, formal theory, integration theoretical discussion, using
of categories, memo writing, conceptual categories and their
properties, simultaneous data properties.” And, “…it is a theory
collection and analysis, substantive because it explains or predicts
theory, theoretical integration, something” (1967, p. 31)
theoretical sampling, theoretical
saturation, and theoretical
sensitivity
Glaserian “The goal of grounded theory is to generate a Basic social processes, coding “The generation of grounded theory
theory that accounts for a pattern of families, integrative fit, open occurs around a core category.”
behavior which is relevant and problematic coding, selective coding, (1978, p. 93). And, “GT is the
for those involved…” (1978, p. 93) substantive coding, theoretical relation between concepts which
coding, theoretical memos, emerged from the population by
theoretical sorting, and constant comparing and then are
theoretical writing related to each other by a
theoretical code.” (2019, p. 441)
Straussian with “The purpose of grounded theory method is, Axial coding, conditional matrix, “A grounded theory is one that is
Corbin of course, to build theory that is faithful to paradigm model, storyline (1990); inductively derived from the study
and illuminates the area under study.” analytic tools, central category, of the phenomenon it represents.
(1990, p. 24) conceptual ordering, conditional/ That is, it is discovered, developed,
consequential matrix, diagrams, and provisionally verified through
microanalysis (1998) systematic data collection and
analysis of data pertaining to that
phenomenon.” (1990, p. 23)
Charmazian “Grounded theory methods consist of a Diagramming concepts, focused Grounded theory refers to both the
systematic approach to qualitative inquiry coding, initial and advanced result of the research process and
for the purpose of theory memos, initial coding, integrating the research process itself (Bryant
construction….Grounded theory is both and sorting memos, theoretical & Charmaz, 2007)
method and methodology in concepts, and theoretical memo
contemporary use of the terms.” (2017, p. writing (2006)
1–2 & p. 7)
Clarkean “…grounded theory focuses on Positional maps, situational maps, “…generating sensitizing concepts
systematically analyzing qualitative data to situational matrix, and social and theoretical integration toward
elucidate the key forms of action worlds/arenas maps (2005); provocative yet provisional
undertaken by participants in a particular researcher embodiment and grounded theorizing rather than
situation.” (2007, p. 363) situatedness (Clarke et al., 2018) the development of substantive and
formal theories as the ultimate
goals…” (2007, p. 369)

A number of factors have likely contributed to adoption of 2008). Emergent design and theoretical sampling provide
grounded theory by educational researchers. Grounded theory flexibility in grounded theory designs, thus helpful in
approaches are well suited for studying learning and cognition, school-based studies where availability to participants and
as well as for studying classroom interactions and processes. classrooms often fluctuate. Finally, grounded theory analytical
Grounded theory is compatible with different epistemological methods are compatible with a number of qualitative meth-
positionalities used by educational researchers, including odologies including ethnography, case study, narrative, and
constructivism, critical approaches, and post-positivism phenomenology (Birks & Mills, 2015; Timmermans & Tavory,
(Birks & Mills, 2015; Denzin, 2019). Research on teaching 2007) – all used frequently within the field of education.
and learning uses various types of data sources, including However, it should be noted that some grounded theory
verbal data, observations, and test results; and grounded methodologists take issue with decoupling grounded theory
theory is compatible with a wide variety of data sources, analytical techniques from the use of the methodology in its
even statistical data (i.e., Holton & Walsh, 2017; Glaser, entirety; Glaser (2002), in particular, refers to such approaches
4 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Figure 1. Journal identification and article selection process.

as “Qualitative Data Analysis” and argues such studies should We visited the editorial websites of each of the 20 journals
not be considered grounded theory research at all. to ensure they published qualitative studies. We excluded four
The purpose of this study was to examine types of journals (i.e., Review of Educational Research, Educational
grounded theory methodologies used in educational research. Psychologist, Educational Research Review, and Educational
Given the evolution and divergence of grounded theory Psychology Review) as they published primarily review ar-
methodologies, we were particularly interested in what var- ticles than data-based studies. We then consulted with three
iants educational researchers currently were using, as well as discipline-area experts about the nature and scope of several
in how usage has changed over the last two decades as new journals with which we were less familiar (i.e., Computers and
grounded theory variants emerged. In addition, we examined Education, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Internet and
the descriptions of common grounded theory methods and Higher Education, and Academy of Management Learning
analytical techniques used in these studies. and Education) to ensure these journals were commonly used
by educational researchers. We excluded the journal Academy
of Management Learning and Education as our discipline-
Method area expert identified its primary disciplinary focus as man-
agement, rather than education. As a result, the final number of
Journal Search and Selection journals included in our systematic analysis was 15.
We completed a systematic, comprehensive search for all
research articles mentioning grounded theory across an 18
year period of time within a selected group of research journals
Article Search and Selection
(see Figure 1). First, we identified high quality journals in the To identify research articles that employed grounded theory
field of education using the 5-year impact factors for journals methodologies, we conducted a database search followed by a
listed in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports (JCR). To do so, a confirmatory search. We used the Education Resources In-
ranking of the top 20 educational research journals was formation Center (ERIC) and PsycInfo databases to search
generated by including the JCR subcategories of Education within articles published 2000 to 2017, using the 15 selected
and Educational Research, Special Education, and Educa- journal names as additional limiters. To be as comprehensive
tional Psychology. We restricted our sample to high-ranking as possible, we used the keyword phrase “grounded theory” to
educational journals as (1) we assumed the grounded theory scan for mention anywhere within these published articles.
studies published in them would tend to be of higher quality When a refined search function for article type was available,
and (2) to keep the total number of articles analyzed for this we included “research article” to excluded editorials, reviews,
study manageable (given a total of 10,554 articles across 317 commentaries, or other types of monographs, and “English” to
educational journals in the JCR mentioned “grounded theory” obtain only articles in English. We set the range to include the
in the years 2000–2017). years 2000–2017 for two reasons. First, the types of grounded
Stough and Lee 5

theory methodologies used increased in variation after Char- examples of how descriptions found within the articles were
maz’s publication in 2000 on constructivist grounded theory categorized. Citations to specific grounded theory publications
(Clarke, 2019). Second, the 2018 JCR finalized at the initiation across the 210 articles are summarized in Table 4. In categorizing
of this study indexed articles up to and including 2017. To the methodological approach, we used the methodological variant
confirm we had located all articles within these parameters, we claimed by the researcher(s) in the article. We did not evaluate
conducted a supplemental search within the websites of each of adherence to the cited variant during this step in the analysis. In
the 15 selected journals, using the same range of years and other words, if a researcher claimed to be using a particular
keywords as used for the database search. We thus confirmed grounded theory approach, we categorized the article accordingly.
the number of articles identified through the database search Each of the 210 articles was then read a third time, this time
and Web site search was the same. focusing on the methodological details and analytical steps
Our search yielded 313 articles from the 15 included described within each article. The coding scheme was based
journals. The text of each of these 313 articles was read in full upon common characteristics of grounded theory approaches
and independently by both the first and the second author to typically referred to by methodologists (see Birks et al., 2019;
determine if they should be included in our in-depth analysis. Bryant, 2019b; Fassinger, 2005; Kenny & Fourie, 2014;
To be included in our in-depth analysis, articles had to meet Thornberg, 2017) as well as grounded theory characteristics
the two following criteria: (a) data had been collected and common across variants of grounded theory (refer to Table 1).
analyzed for the study, and (b) grounded theory was identified In addition, we coded whether each study used grounded theory
as either the primary methodology or was used as a method for as a “methodology” or “for analysis only.” Following Bogdan
the analysis of the data. Articles referring to “grounded the- and Biklen (1998), methodology was conceptualized as guiding
ory” generically or citing grounded theory publications but not theory, general logic or the theoretical perspective of a research
employing the approach methodologically or analytically project while analysis viewed as referring to the concrete
were not included. After comparing the independent coding of techniques or procedures the researcher engaged in to analyze
the 313 articles by the two authors, 19 disagreements were data. Accordingly, studies referring to grounded theory as the
found. The authors then jointly reviewed and discussed these overall methodological approach or to grounded theory as part
19 articles until agreement was reached regarding whether or of their design or data collection (in addition to analysis) were
not they met the criteria. A final total of 210 articles met coded as using grounded theory “methodology.” Studies that
criterion for inclusion for in-depth analysis.2 included grounded theory only in reference to analysis of the
data were coded as using grounded theory “for analysis only.”
Each author was assigned half of the 210 articles to code
Article Coding
independently. Interrater reliability between the two authors
Each of the 210 articles was read a second time, this time fo- was checked halfway through the coding process (86.1%
cusing on the type of grounded theory methodology described agreement was found) and disagreements discussed to further
within each article. For each article, the first author identified: refine the coding process. After coding all articles, we then
(a) the primary type of grounded theory methodological checked each other’s coding of each article. All disagreements
approach described by the researcher(s) (e.g., Straussian, were then resolved through discussion. As a final check of our
Glaserian, and Charmazian), (b) other grounded methodologies coding process, we noted any inconsistencies in patterns in the
described in the article, (c) other qualitative methodologies data (for example, articles that did not use coding or cate-
described by the researcher(s), and (d) whether or not a gorizing at all as part of their analyses) and reexamined these
grounded theory model was produced in the study. If multiple instances jointly.
grounded theory methodologies were given equal attribution by
the researcher(s) as having been used in the study, all were
recorded conjointly as the primary methodological approach. Analysis
The second author then independently reviewed each of the
210 included studies. A total of 16 disagreements regarding Our analytic approach was descriptive. We calculated fre-
the primary methodological approach were found. These quency and percentages separately for articles that used
disagreements were discussed until both authors were satisfied grounded theory as methodology (n = 56) and for articles
with the categorization of the primary grounded theory using grounded theory only for analysis (n = 154). In addition,
approach. Each study was categorized using names of we calculated the total frequency of each coded description or
grounded theory founders, following suggestions from characteristic and then calculated its percent as part of the total
other methodologists (see Apramian et al., 2017; Bryant, number of articles (n = 210) coded.
2019b; Kenny & Fourie, 2014; Reichertz, 2019) as fol-
lows; (a) Glaser & Strauss, (b) Glaserian, (c) Straussian, (d)
Results
Charmazian, (e) Clarkean, (f) Mixed GSCCC (Glaser,
Strauss, Corbin, Charmaz, and/or Clarke), (g) Other, (h) Journals included in our study and total articles evaluated in-
GSCCC + Other, or (i) Not Specified. Table 3 provides depth from each of these journals are listed in Table 5. Grounded
6 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Table 3. Examples of Categorization of Methodologies Cited in Articles.

Categorization Sample excerpts from analyzed articles

Glaser and Strauss “To analyze data, we turned to the principles of grounded theory, which is based on the idea that theories are to be built
rather than tested (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)” (as cited in Carreón et al., 2005)
Glaserian “Getting a total overview of the data is a first important step (Glaser, 1978) for which we took the time needed … It is
important that the theory fits, that is, connects with the data, that it works, that is, explains what happened, and that it is
relevant (Glaser, 1978)” (as cited in Waeytens et al., 2002)
Straussian “The process of analysis in grounded theory, moving from description to interpretation and then building a theory, is
complex, but Strauss and Corbin (1990) have provided a number of guidelines to make the process systematic and
rigorous” (as cited in Kirchhoff & Lawrenz, 2011)
Charmazian “Data were analyzed utilizing constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006), an inductive, iterative approach to
analysis” (as cited in Knight & Watson, 2014)
Clarkean “To use analytic methods that would allow me to investigate the complex, situated, relational activities of teaching, I
combined traditional qualitative analytic conventions (such as coding) with situational analysis, a postmodern form of
grounded theory (Clarke, 2003), …” (as cited in Strom, 2015)
Mixed “Data were analyzed using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in order to identify emerging themes. …A
constructivist grounded theory was used, which seeks an interpretive understanding that accounts for the context of
the phenomenon being studied and directs the researchers to engage in analysis of the data as they gather it while
recognizing the role they play as researchers in the collection, reconstruction, and analysis of data (Charmaz, 2000)” (as
cited in Watson et al., 2011)
Other “We drew on grounded theory techniques to identify themes and patterns, and to derive categories of reasons for the
professional plans nominated by participants in each of the three clusters (Auerbach and Silverstein, 2003; Patton,
2002)” (as cited in Watt & Richardson, 2008)

Table 4. Reported Methodological Approaches Categorization.

Approach Citation

Glaser and Strauss Glaser & Strauss, 1967a; 1970

Glaserian Glaser, 1965; 1969; 1978; 1992
Straussian Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990b; 1994; 1997; 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 1990; 2008c,d; 2015e
Charmaz Charmaz, 1983, 1990, 1995b, 1995a, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006f; 2011; 2014; Charmaz & Henwood, 2008
Clarke Clarke, 2003; 2005
Mixed GSCCC Mixed Glaser and Strauss, Glaserian, Straussian, Charmaz, and/or Clarke approaches
Other Other grounded theory methodologists or references
Mixed/Other A mixture of GSCC and other methodologists or references cited
Not specified No reference to or citation of grounded methodology specified
a
One article incorrectly cited “Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1979). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne NY: Aldine.”
b
One article incorrectly cited “Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1995). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.”
c
One article incorrectly cited “Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. C. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.”
d
Three articles incorrectly cited “Strauss A., & Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.”
e
One article incorrectly cited “Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.”
f
One article incorrectly cited “Charmaz, K. (2007). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.”

theory articles were found across all of the 18 publication years had six or fewer grounded theory articles and the journal Met-
included in our analysis. The majority of studies using grounded acognition and Learning did not publish a grounded theory study
theory were published in Computers and Education (20.0%, n = between 2000 and 2017 that met our criteria.
42), Science Education (16.2%, n = 34), the American Educa- As seen in Table 6, Straussian was the most frequently used
tional Research Journal (13.8%, n = 29), and the Journal of grounded theory approach in the identified studies (37.1%, n
Counseling Psychology (10.5%, n = 22). Three journals alone = 78), followed by Mixed GSCCC (27.1%, n = 57), and
(Computers and Education, Science Education, and the Amer- Glaser & Strauss, 1967 (14.3%, n = 30). Interestingly,
ican Educational Research Journal) accounted for half of the Clarke’s (2005) situational analysis approach was cited as the
210 articles evaluated in our in-depth analysis. Seven journals primary methodological approach in only one of the articles we
Stough and Lee 7

Table 5. Number of Articles by Educational Journal (n = 210).

Ranka Journal title 5-year impact factor # of articles %

1 Internet and Higher Education 6.571 6 2.9

2 Journal of Educational Psychology 6.197 6 2.9
3 Educational Researcher 6.163 4 1.9
4 Learning and Instruction 5.695 3 1.4
5 Computers and Education 5.568 42 20.0
6 Child Development 5.474 4 1.9
7 Journal of Teacher Education 4.787 16 7.6
8 American Educational Research Journal 4.762 29 13.8
9 Reading Research Quarterly 4.496 14 6.7
10 Journal of the Learning Sciences 4.471 14 6.7
11 Studies in Science Education 4.448 1 0.5
12 Journal of Counseling Psychology 4.404 22 10.5
13 Science Education 4.367 34 16.2
14 Metacognition and Learning 4.278 0 0.0
15 Exceptional Children 4.140 15 7.1
Total 210
a
“Rank” reflects ranking based on 5-year impact factors from the Journal Citation Report 2017.

Table 6. Number of Articles by Type of Grounded Theory Approach analysis of the data. Methodological approaches used in other
(n = 210). studies included action research, critical theory, discourse
analysis, ethnography, evaluation study, hermeneutics, life history,
Grounded theory method # of articles %
mixed methods, narrative research, oral history, phenomenology,
Straussian 78 37.1 quantitative analysis, and rhizoanalysis.
Mixed GSCCC 57 27.1 Grounded theory studies were found across all publication
Glaser and Strauss 30 14.3 years included in our analysis. Again, Straussian approaches
Charmaz 19 9.0 were the most popular across all 18 years (see Figure 2).
GSCCC + other 9 4.2 However, we detected a change in the pattern of citations across
Glaserian 6 2.9 time. Between 2000 and 2002, no citations for Charmaz were
Other methodologist 6 2.9
found, but starting in 2005, educational researchers increasingly
Not specified 4 1.9
began to cite her work. By 2009, Charmazian approaches were
Clarke 1 0.5
cited more often than were Glaserian approaches (with the
exception of in 2015) and this trend continued through 2017.
reviewed. Further analysis of the Mixed GSCCC category re- Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) original work on grounded theory
vealed 49 of the 57 studies (23.3% of all articles) reported using a was also consistently cited across all 18 publication years,
Straussian approach as part of their methodology. In sum, 60.5% sometimes more than, sometimes less than Charmaz’s work.
(n = 127) of the 210 studies we reviewed cited a Straussian As shown in Table 7, studies using grounded theory as
approach as a primary methodological approach to their study. methodology (26.6%, n = 56) were very likely to mention
Six of the studies attributed grounded theory approaches to using inductive analysis (96.4%), coding (92.9%), iterative
methodologists who actually were not grounded theorists (i.e., analysis (91.1%), categories (87.5%), and integration of re-
Boyatzis, 1998; Yin, 2003) or to general qualitative textbooks sults (87.5%). In contrast, identifying properties (33.9%) and
(e.g., Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2002) that provided overviews theoretical sensitivity (14.3%) were described rarely in these
of various methodological approaches and summarized a range studies. However, considerable variability was evidenced
of grounded theory approaches. Four studies stated they were even amongst the 56 studies using grounded theory as an
using “grounded theory analysis,” “elements of grounded overall approach; For example, 25% (n = 14) addressed at least
theory,” or “a grounded theory approach” but did not cite or 10 of the 14 common grounded theory characteristics, while
refer to a grounded theory methodologist anywhere in the 25% included six or less of the 14 characteristics.
article. The majority of the studies (73.3%, n = 154) used grounded
In 112 of the 210 studies, researchers reported using other theory as an analytical approach, rather than as methodology.
methodological approaches in addition to grounded theory. As may be expected, these studies reported using design and
Most commonly researchers (n = 62) reported using case study data collection elements of grounded theory at a lower rate;
along with grounded theory in either their design or their Few referred to analytical memos (18.2%), simultaneous data
8 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Figure 2. Number of articles by type of grounded theory methodology by year (n = 210).

Table 7. Grounded Theory Elements Found across Articles.

GT element Complete methodology (n = 56) Only for analysis (n = 154) Total (n = 210)

Inductive analysis 96.4% (54) 72.7% (120) 82.9% (174)

Coding (initial/open) 92.9% (52) 83.6% (138) 90.5% (190)
Iterative analysis 91.1% (51) 55.8% (92) 68.1% (143)
Categories 87.5% (49) 66.1% (109) 75.2% (158)
Integration of results 87.5% (49) 27.3% (45) 44.8% (94)
Theory development 82.1% (46) 9.7% (16) 29.5% (62)
Constant comparison 73.2% (41) 37.6% (62) 49.0% (103)
Simultaneous data collection and analysis 66.1% (37) 13.9% (23) 28.6% (60)
Saturation 60.7% (34) 7.9% (13) 22.4% (47)
Memos 48.2% (27) 18.2% (30) 27.1% (57)
Emergent design 42.9% (24) 14.5% (24) 22.9% (48)
Theoretical sampling 41.1% (23) 3.0% (5) 13.3% (28)
Properties/property 33.9% (19) 5.5% (9) 13.3% (28)
Theoretical sensitivity 14.3% (8) 1.3% (2) 4.8% (10)

collection and analysis (13.9%), or theoretical sampling (3.0%). grounded theory resulting from data analysis, followed by the
In contrast, some common elements pertinent to analysis were Journal of Counseling Psychology (86.4%, n = 19), Educational
reported relatively more frequently, for example, coding Researcher (50%, n = 2), and Exceptional Children (40%, n = 6).
(83.6%) and categories (66.1%). Other analytical elements
were reported much less frequently, for example, constant
Discussion
comparison (37.6%) and saturation (7.9%). However, in 34
(22.1%) of the articles using grounded theory only for The publication of qualitative studies in the educational re-
analysis, only two or fewer characteristics of grounded theory search literature has increased substantially over the last
were mentioned. 50 years. A large number of these studies have incorporated
Sixty-two of the 210 studies (29.5%) presented and de- grounded theory, either as a methodology or as an analytical
scribed a grounded theory resulting from the analysis of their method. However, variations on Glaser and Strauss’ (1967)
data. As might be expected, the majority of these studies (82.1%, original conceptualization of grounded theory have emerged
n = 51) were those using grounded theory as a methodology. across time, some becoming so distinct it is argued they are
Proportionately, studies published in the Journal of Educational incompatible (Jones & Noble, 2007; Kenny & Fourie, 2014).
Psychology (100%, n = 6) were the most likely to present a Methodologists also have noted inconsistencies in studies
Stough and Lee 9

employing grounded theory, including violations in use of the educational research, (2) few other analytical approaches can
methodology or misattributions of its methodological procedures be similarly “decoupled” and used with another qualitative
(Apramian et al., 2017; Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg, 2005; methodological approach, and (3) grounded theory has be-
Suddaby, 2006). Jones and Noble (2007) described such con- come accepted as a generic approach to analyzing qualitative
fusions in the management research literature, cautioning that data. Other methodologists have noted the trend by re-
grounded theory within that discipline was “…in danger of searchers to use grounded theory as a means of analysis, rather
losing its integrity” (p. 98). Given the widespread use of than as a methodology (e.g., Greckhamer & Koro-Ljungberg,
grounded theory in the education literature, understanding 2005; Timmermans & Tavory, 2007). Glaser (2019) recently
which grounded theory variants have been adopted by edu- commented on the increase in studies that produce “grounded
cation researchers, as well as how grounded theory has been description” (p. 441) rather than abstracted concepts that lead
implemented within this discipline, is warranted. to theory construction. Educational researchers appear to be
As expected, grounded theory methodologies were used following the trend of using grounded theory as an analytical
frequently in qualitative studies published in highly-ranked tool rather than as an overall methodology.
educational journals. However, three journals accounted for Even in studies that did adopt grounded theory as a
half of these articles while the majority of the journals included methodology, some did not report using common character-
six or fewer grounded theory articles across 18 years of istics such as codes, categories, constant comparison, or
publications—representing considerable variability in the saturation in their analyses. As our analysis relied on study
proportion of grounded theory studies published across edu- descriptions, it could be researchers simply did not report
cational journals. Interestingly, the two journals containing the these procedures in text. However, the omission in reporting
largest number of grounded theory articles (Computers and these essential elements of grounded theory analysis is puz-
Education and Science Education) differ considerably in zling. A majority of studies also failed to mention memos,
topical focus, suggesting grounded theory holds appeal theoretical sampling, properties, or theoretical sensitivity.
even across disparate educational sub-disciplines. Again, these are common elements of grounded theory ap-
In our analysis, the grounded theory methodology most proaches, but researchers simply did not reference them. Other
frequently referenced across the last two decades was a authors have similarly noted the limited or lack of description
Straussian approach. Furthermore, when educational researchers of methodology in grounded theory studies (e.g., Bryant,
cited a mixture of grounded approaches, most also included a 2019b; Suddaby, 2006). We postulate some researchers ei-
Straussian approach. Several methodologists have associated ther were not knowledgeable about essential grounded theory
the rise in popularity of grounded theory with the publication elements or simply failed to provide a complete description of
of Strauss’ (1987) and Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) works their analytical processes.
(Bryant, 2019b; Timmermans & Tavory, 2007). With respect Results revealed other inconsistencies. Some studies using
to educational research, we suggest that Strauss and Corbin’s grounded theory only as an analytical technique reported
methodological frame, with its paradigmatic tendency toward using theoretical sampling- which is actually part of grounded
symbolic interactionism, was compatible with interpretivist theory design and data collection. In some of these cases,
paradigms that gained popularity in educational research in the theoretical sampling was used conjointly with another
1990s. In the studies analyzed here, Kathy Charmaz’ (2000) methodology; in other cases, the term incorrectly referred to
constructivist approach to grounded theory was first referenced another process (for example, snowball sampling was in-
in 2007 and received an increasing proportion of citations in correctly referred to as “theoretical sampling”). In some
later years. By the end of the 20th century, constructivism had studies, concurrent data collection and analysis took place as
become the preferred qualitative paradigm across multiple part of another methodological approach, such as case study or
disciplines, including education (Clarke, 2019; Perkins, 1999). ethnography. However, in some instances description was
Charmaz’s textbooks, published in 2006 and 2014, provided lacking detail and we could not determine if concurrent data
new material on grounded theory and educational researchers collection and analysis were part of the grounded theory
appear to have found Charmaz’s constructivist approach approach or another qualitative approach.
compatible with their own paradigmatic leanings. However, our Only a small proportion of the 210 studies (29.5%) de-
findings also reveal the original Glaser and Strauss (1967) text lineated a “grounded theory.” Jones and Noble (2007), in an
continues to be referenced frequently across time—more than analysis of grounded theory studies in the management lit-
five decades after its first appearance in the literature. erature, similarly found only 34.4% of 32 studies produced an
Results from the analysis of usage of the elements of overall theory. While the express purpose of the original
grounded theory in these studies were surprising in several Glaser and Strauss (1967) methodology was to produce a
aspects. First, most educational researchers used the approach theory based on data, later methodological variations have not
as a data analysis technique rather than as a methodological insisted on producing a grounded theory as a result of the
approach. We suggest three possible reasons: (1) grounded analytical process. For example, Strauss and Corbin stated
theory provides a method for analyzing qualitative data that is “...some will use our techniques to generate theory, others for
compatible with many other qualitative approaches used in the purpose of doing very useful description, or conceptual
10 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

ordering [classifying and elaborating]” (1998, p.9). Further, unclear or incomplete descriptions written in these articles,
Charmaz (2006) has argued that grounded theorizing can calculations of the relative use of these methodologies may
occur throughout the analytical process and it is not obligatory have been skewed.
for a grounded theory study to produce a substantive or formal
theory as an outcome.
Despite their publication in highly-ranked educational Conclusion
journals, our analysis of these 210 stuides found cursory and This study provides a refined analysis of how grounded theory,
insufficient descriptions of elements of grounded theory as either as a methodology or as an analytical method, is being
methodology. Even when researchers used grounded theory as used in educational research. We found increasing variety in
a methodology, many did not detail steps they used to analyze the types of grounded theory approaches used in educational
the data. In addition, when other qualitative approaches (e.g., research over the last two decades. And, while educational
case study, ethnography, phenomenology, etc.) were used in researchers appear to prefer Straussian approaches in designing
conjunction with grounded theory, many articles were unclear and analyzing grounded theory studies, Charmaz’s constructivist
which qualitative approach was used for the study design and approach has increased in popularity over the last decade. Finally,
did not detail how grounded theory was used in conjunction we found considerable variability in these studies in the usage
with other approaches. Such “method slurring” in grounded of grounded theory, both as a methodology and as an ana-
theory is not new, having been described by Baker, Wuest, and lytical method. We concur with Bryant, 2019a observation that
Stern as early as 1992. In a number of studies, only a single grounded theory “is simultaneously enormously popular and
sentence was used to describe the analytical process. These widely misunderstood” (p. xxv). While grounded theory
findings were unexpected and dismaying. We agree with other approaches were used frequently by educational researchers,
methodologists (i.e., Bryant, 2019b; Holton & Walsh, 2017) we found methodological inconsistencies and descriptive
that considerable attention needs to be paid to claims by re- cloudiness to be commonly evidenced across studies—even
searchers that they are using grounded theory approaches– within highly-ranked educational research journals.
either as a methodology or as an analytical tool. We concede
that the majority of these educational journals, while highly- Declaration of Conflicting Interests
ranked, publish primarily quantitative, rather than qualitative
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
studies. However, editors of research journals should ensure that
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
studies using grounded theory methodologies receive careful
evaluation by qualified reviewers with expertise in the
Funding
methodology.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Limitations ORCID iD
Our analysis was limited by several factors. First, we relied on Laura Stough  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0313-5045
researchers’ own identification and written description of the
methodology and analyses used in these studies. Many re- Notes
searchers identified multiple grounded theory approaches,
making it necessary to code these studies as using “mixed” 1. It should be noted that Strauss and Corbin’s 2nd edition of the
approaches. In others, the methodological approach was not “Basics of Qualitative Research” (1998) was published posthu-
clearly identified and we had to rely on in-text citations to mously after Strauss’ death in 1996. The 3rd (2008) and 4th editions
determine the grounded theory approach used. In some arti- (2015) were published with Juliet Corbin as first author and Anselm
cles, elements from conflicting analytical approaches (for Strauss as second author.
example, Strauss & Corbin (1990) versus Glaser & Strauss, 2. Due to space limitations, we did not provide a table of the 210
(1967)) were used and cited. In addition, some studies cited articles analyzed. A copy of this list, along with the categorization
methodologists who were not, in fact, grounded theory described in this article, can be obtained by contacting the first
methodologists and had to be coded as “other” in our author.
analysis. Several researchers referenced qualitative meth-
odology textbooks as a whole, in which cases we could not References
determine the specific grounded theory methodology used Apramian, T., Cristancho, S., Watling, C., & Lingard, L. (2017). (Re)
and thus were also coded as “other.” In a handful of cases, grounding grounded theory: A close reading of theory in four
no specific grounded theory approach could be determined schools. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/
at all as the researchers did not cite a methodologist nor an 10.1177/1468794116672914
approach to the data, necessitating a code of “not specified.” Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. N. (1992). Method slurring: The
Given that our coding was by necessity based on sometimes grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of
Stough and Lee 11

Advanced Nursing, 17(11), 1355–1360. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical
j.1365-2648.1992.tb01859.x guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
Birks, M., Hoare, K., & Mills, J. (2019). Grounded theory: The Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice
FAQs. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-7. research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919882535. handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 359-380). Sage
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. Publications.
Sage Publications. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in Publications.
education: An introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Charmaz, K., & Henwood, K. (2008). Grounded theory. In C. Willig,
Allyn & Bacon. & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quali-
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for edu- tative research in psychology (pp. 240–260). Sage Publications.
cation (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and dif-
Thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications. ferences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20. https://
Bryant, A (2019a). Senior editor’s introduction. In A. Bryant, & K. nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss32/2.
Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current developments Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping
in grounded theory (pp. xxv-xxvi). Sage Publications. after the postmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4),
Bryant, A (2019b). The varieties of grounded theory. Sage 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553
Publications. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Introduction: Grounded theory postmodern turn. Sage Publications.
research: Methods and practices. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz Clarke, A. E. (2019). Situating grounded theory and situational
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 1–28). analysis in interpretive qualitative inquiry. In A. Bryant, &
Sage Publications. K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory
Carreón, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of (pp. 1–47). Sage Publications.
presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2018). Situational
American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 465–498. analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn. Sage
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042003465 Publications.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research:
and interpretation. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Soci-
research: A book of readings (pp. 109–126). Little. ology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Charmaz, K. (1990). “Discovering” chronic illness: Using grounded Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research:
theory. Social Science Medicine, 30(11), 1161–1172. https://doi. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
org/10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (1995a). Between positivism and postmodernism: Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research:
Implications for methods. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
17(2), 43-72. (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (1995b). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
27-49). Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and re-
Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. search design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage
In N. K. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative Publications.
research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Sage Publications. Denzin, N. K. (2007). Grounded theory and the politics of inter-
Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), pretation. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE
Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations handbook of grounded theory (pp. 454–471). Sage Publications.
(pp. 335–352). Waveland Press. Denzin, N. K. (2019). Grounded theory and the politics of inter-
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist pretation, redux. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE
methods. In N. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp.
qualitative inquiry (pp. 249–291). Sage Publications. 449–469). Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded theory. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, & P. Leavy Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise:
(Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and Grounded theory in counseling psychology research. Journal of
practice (pp. 496–521). Oxford University Press. Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: A qual- 1037/0022-0167.52.2.156
itative method for advancing social justice research. In Hand- Flick, U. (2019). From intuition to reflexive construction: Research
book of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Sage. design and triangulation in grounded theory research. In A.
12 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded Kirchhoff, A., & Lawrenz, F. (2011). The use of grounded theory to
theory (pp. 125–144). Sage Publications. investigate the role of teacher education on STEM teachers’
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative career paths in high-need schools. Journal of Teacher Education,
analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. https://doi/org/10. 62(3), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110397840
2307/798843 Knight, M. G., & Watson, V. W. M. (2014). Toward participatory
Glaser, B. G. (1969). The constant comparative method of qualitative communal citizenship: Rendering visible the civic teaching,
analysis. In G. McCall, & J. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in par- learning, and actions of African immigrant youth and young
ticipant observation (pp. 216–227). Addison-Wesley. adults. American Educational Research Journal, 51(3),
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the 539–566. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213512517
methodology of grounded theory. The Sociology Press. Morse, J. M. (2009). Tussles, tensions, and resolutions. In J. Morse,
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence P. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. Clarke
vs. forcing. The Sociology Press. (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using (pp. 13–19). Left Coast Press.
grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., Slate, J. R., Stark, M., Sharma,
1(2), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100203 B., Frels, R., Harris, K., & Combs, J. P. (2012). An exemplar
Glaser, B. G. (2008). Doing quantitative grounded theory. The for teaching and learning qualitative research. The Qualitative
Sociology Press. Report, 17(1), 16–77. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss1/2.
Glaser, B. G. (2019). Grounded description: No No. In A. Bryant, & Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods
K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of current develop- (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
ments in grounded theory (pp. 441–446). Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods:
Integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Aldine
Perkins, D (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational
Publishing.
Leadership, 57(3), 6–11.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
Reichertz, J. (2019). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.
theory–An Updated Review. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.),
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1970). Discovery of substantive theory.
The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded
In W. Filstead (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 288–297).
theory (pp. 259–281). Sage Publications.
Rand McNally.
Stern, P. N. (1995). Eroding grounded theory. In J. M. Morse (Ed.),
Glesne, C., & Webb, R. (1993). Teaching qualitative research: Who does
Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 212–223).
what?. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
Sage Publications.
6(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839930060307
Stough, L. M., & Lee, S. (2019, February 6-8). An examination of
Greckhamer, T., & Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2005). The erosion of a
grounded theory methods used in top-ranked education journals
method: Examples from grounded theory. International Journal
[Paper presentation]. Southwest Educational Research Associ-
of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(6), 729–750. https://doi.
ation 42nd Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
org/10.1080/09518390500298204
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2017). The practice of qualitative research (3rd Cambridge University Press.
ed.). Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:
Holton, J. A., & Walsh, I. (2017). Classic grounded theory: Appli- Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
cations with qualitative and quantitative data. Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An
Jones, R., & Noble, G. (2007). Grounded theory and management overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
research: A lack of integrity?. Qualitative Research in Orga- qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Sage Publications.
nizations and Management: An International Journal, 2(2), Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice.
84–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640710778502 Sage Publications.
Kelle, U. (2019). The status of theories and models in grounded Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research.
theory. In A. Bryant, & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook Sage Publications.
of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 68–88). Sage Strom, K. J. (2015). Teaching as assemblage: Negotiating learning and
Publications. practice in the first year of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2014). Tracing the history of grounded 66(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115589990
theory methodology: From formation to fragmentation. The Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not.
Qualitative Report, 19(52), 1–9. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/ Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. https://doi.
vol19/iss52/1 org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083020
Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2015). Contrasting classic, Straussian, and Tarozzi, M. (2011). Foreward. In P. Stern, & C. Porr (Eds.), Essentials
constructivist grounded theory: Methodological and philo- of accessible grounded theory (pp. 7–11). West Coast Press.
sophical conflicts. The Qualitative Report, 20(8), 1270–1289. Thornberg, R. (2017). Grounded theory. The BERA/SAGE handbook
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss8/9. of educational research (pp. 355–375). Sage Publications.
Stough and Lee 13

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2007). Advancing ethnographic and Instruction, 12(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/
research through grounded theory practice. In A. Bryant, & S0959-4752(01)00024-X
K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory Watson, W. R., Mong, C. J., & Harris, C. A. (2011). A case study of
(pp. 493–512). Sage Publications. the in-class use of a video game for teaching high school history.
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in Computers & Education, 56(2), 466–474. http://dx.doi.org/10.
qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive 1016/j.compedu.2010.09.007
analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10. Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions,
1177/0735275112457914. and aspirations concerning teaching as a career for different types
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of of beginning teachers. Learning and Instruction, 18(5), 408–428.
text and discourse analysis. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.06.002
Waeytens, K., Lens, W., & Vandenberghe, R. (2002). Learning to Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage
learn’: teachers’ conceptions of their supporting role. Learning Publications.