Types of Grounded Theory Design

Grounded theory is not one method but a family of methods. Different researchers, building on the original work of Glaser and Strauss, have taken the approach in different directions. Two designs are particularly worth knowing: the emergent design closer to Glaser’s original framing, and the constructivist design that explicitly accepts the researcher’s role in shaping the theory.

Emergent design

The emergent design holds that theory should emerge from the data rather than be forced into predetermined categories. The researcher’s job is to stay close to the data and let the theory rise from it.

This is the closest to the original framing of grounded theory. The researcher tries to keep their own assumptions out of the analysis as much as possible, on the principle that the data should speak for itself.

A grounded theory in this design exists at the most abstract conceptual level rather than at the least abstract level found in visual data presentations like coding paradigms. The theory is conceptual, not just a tidied-up version of the data.

Four criteria for emergent design

A theory developed under the emergent design is judged by four criteria.

1. Fit. The theory has to match the data. If the theory says one thing but the data says another, the theory is wrong.
2. Work. The theory has to be useful. It should help explain the process being studied.
3. Relevance. The theory has to address real concerns. A theory that is technically correct but does not engage with what people actually care about is not relevant.
4. Modifiability. The theory has to be modifiable. As new data appears or conditions change, the theory should be able to update without collapsing.

These four criteria are not high standards in the abstract. They are demanding in practice. A theory that fits today’s data may not fit next year’s. A theory that works for understanding may not work for prediction. A theory that seems relevant in one context may be irrelevant in another.

The reflective practitioner using emergent grounded theory keeps the four criteria in view as a discipline. After developing a theory, they ask: does it fit? Does it work? Is it relevant? Can it be modified? If any answer is uncertain, the theory needs more work.

Constructivist design

The constructivist design takes a different stance. It sits between the positivist position (truth is out there waiting to be discovered) and the post-modern position (truth is purely a construction of the observer). The constructivist researcher recognises that their own beliefs, values, and history shape the analysis.

In a constructivist study, the researcher does not try to remove themselves from the analysis. They acknowledge that they are part of it and write about how their position affects what they see.

The constructivist design has several distinctive features.

The study explains the feelings of individuals as they experience a phenomenon or process. The researcher is interested in the lived experience, including its emotional dimensions, not only its observable surface.

The study mentions the beliefs and values of the researcher and ignores predetermined categories. The researcher writes about their own perspective as part of the work, rather than pretending to be invisible.

The narrative is more explanatory, discursive, and probing of the assumptions and meanings for the individuals in the study. The writing style is different from emergent design: it explores rather than declares.

For a teacher, the constructivist design fits naturally with reflective practice. The teacher is not pretending to be an outside observer of their classroom; they are inside it, with their own values and biases. Constructivist grounded theory makes those values and biases part of the analysis instead of trying to scrub them out.

Choosing between the designs

The choice of design depends on the researcher’s question and stance.

A teacher who wants to understand a process as objectively as they can, while accepting the limits of their position, may prefer the emergent design. The four criteria give them a clear standard for what good theory looks like.

A teacher who recognises that their values and history are inseparable from how they read their classroom may prefer the constructivist design. They would rather acknowledge their position than pretend to neutrality they do not have.

Neither design is right in the abstract. Both produce legitimate grounded theory studies. The choice depends on what kind of theory the practitioner wants to build and what kind of disclosure they want to offer about their own role.

In practice, many teacher-researchers do something in between. They use the discipline of constant comparison and saturation from the emergent design, while acknowledging their own perspective in the writing as the constructivist design recommends.

The zig-zag of data and analysis

A central feature of grounded theory across both designs is the zig-zag of data collection and analysis. The researcher moves back and forth between the two until categories are saturated.

The pattern looks like this. The researcher collects some data. They analyse it, developing initial codes and categories. The analysis suggests what data is needed next: this category needs more elaboration, that category seems thin and needs more cases, this relationship needs to be tested with new data. The researcher collects the next round of data, focused on what the analysis demanded. They analyse the new data along with the old. The cycle repeats.

The zig-zag continues until the categories are saturated, meaning new data does not add new properties or modify the categories.

This is different from the linear pattern in much research, where data collection is finished before analysis begins. Grounded theory’s zig-zag is one of its defining features. It is what allows the theory to be genuinely grounded in the data; the analysis is shaped by the data, not imposed on it.

Quality questions for evaluating a grounded theory study

When reading or reviewing a grounded theory study, several questions check whether it is well done.

1. Is there an obvious connection between the categories and the raw data? The categories should be visibly grounded in the data, not floating above it.
2. Is the theory useful as a conceptual explanation for the process being studied? A grounded theory should produce conceptual insight, not just description.
3. Does the theory provide a relevant explanation of actual problems and a basic process? Relevance matters. A theory that does not address real concerns is academic in the bad sense.
4. Can the theory be modified as conditions change or further data are gathered? Modifiability is one of the four criteria for the emergent design and a useful test in any design.
5. Is a theoretical model developed or generated that conceptualises a process, action, or interaction? A grounded theory is more than a list of categories; it is a model.
6. Is there a central phenomenon (or core category) specified at the heart of the model? The model needs a centre, identified through selective coding.
7. Does the model emerge through phases of coding? The reader should be able to trace the move from open codes to axial relationships to selective integration.
8. Does the researcher attempt to interrelate categories? Categories on their own are not theory; the relationships between them are.
9. Was the theory validated by comparing it to the data, examining how it supports or refutes existing theories, or checking with colleagues? A grounded theory should be tested in some way before publication.

These questions can also be used by a teacher-researcher reviewing their own work. They function as a self-check before claiming that a study has produced a useful grounded theory.

Flashcard

What are the four essential criteria for an emergent grounded theory?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Fit, work, relevance, modifiability

Fit means the theory matches the data. Work means the theory is useful for understanding the process being studied. Relevance means it addresses concerns that actually matter. Modifiability means the theory can update as new data or conditions appear.

Why this matters for the reflective practitioner

A reflective practitioner who knows about the two designs has a richer choice when they want to study their own setting systematically.

If they are studying a process they want to describe at a fairly objective level, the emergent design with its four criteria gives them a clear standard.

If they are studying their own classroom or department, where their own role is unavoidable, the constructivist design lets them write honestly about their perspective without pretending to neutrality.

In both cases, the discipline of the analysis (open, axial, selective coding; constant comparison; theoretical sampling; saturation) keeps the work grounded in the data rather than drifting into informal opinion.

The choice of design is itself a reflective decision. The practitioner asks: what is my position in this study? What kind of theory am I trying to build? What disclosure can I offer about my own perspective? The answers shape the design they choose, and the design shapes what kind of theory they end up with.