What Grounded Theory Is
Grounded theory in one line
Theory generated inductively from the data, not borrowed from existing frameworks.
Core elements
- Inquiry shaped by social and social-psychological processes
- Analytic codes and categories built from the data
- Data collection and analysis happen together
- Inductive: theory emerges, not verified
- Theoretical sampling refines categories
- Systematic application reaches abstract levels
Constant comparison
| What it is | What it does |
|---|---|
| Comparing one segment of data with another | Reveals similarities and differences |
| Building toward abstract concepts | Avoids descriptive interpretation |
| Iterative across the study | Discovers patterns |
Coding
The act of identifying categories and properties in the data. Can be formal or informal.
A reflective practitioner who reads enough about teaching ends up with a problem. The theories available are general; the situations they teach in are specific. Grounded theory is a methodology developed in the 1960s for exactly this gap. Instead of borrowing a theory and trying to fit it to the situation, the practitioner generates theory from the situation itself.
What grounded theory is
Grounded theory is a research methodology focused on generating theoretical ideas, or hypotheses, from experiences rather than starting with them as fixed assumptions. The theory is inductively derived from the study of the phenomena it represents.
The phrase the theory is grounded means just that. It is rooted in the data, not floating above it. The researcher does not start by saying “I believe Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development applies here, and I will look for evidence.” They start by collecting data, observing patterns, and letting theory emerge from what they find.
For a reflective practitioner, the appeal is direct. The teacher knows their classroom intimately. They have access to data that no outside researcher could match. Grounded theory gives them a disciplined way to turn that data into theory about how teaching actually works in their setting.
Core elements of grounded theory
Several elements distinguish grounded theory from other research approaches.
Inquiry shaped by social processes
Grounded theory is interested in social and social-psychological processes. How do people interact? How do they make sense of situations? What patterns of behaviour emerge from their interactions?
A teacher using grounded theory might study how students in their class form study groups, how the groups change over time, and what social dynamics shape who learns what. The interest is in the process, not the static structure.
Analytic codes built from the data
The codes and categories the researcher uses come from the data itself, not from a pre-existing list. The researcher reads the data, notices what is happening, and creates codes that capture what they see.
This is harder than it sounds. The temptation is to fall back on familiar categories. A teacher reading their classroom data may see “engagement” and “disengagement” because those are the categories they already know. Grounded theory pushes the researcher to look harder, until categories that are specific to the data emerge.
Data collection and analysis together
In grounded theory, data collection and analysis are not separate stages. They happen together. The researcher collects some data, analyses it, then uses the analysis to decide what data to collect next.
This is called theoretical sampling. The researcher follows where the analysis leads. If a category is emerging but needs more data to fill out, the next round of data collection focuses on that category.
Inductive, not deductive
Grounded theory is inductive. It builds theory up from the data. Deductive approaches start with a theory and test it against data. Grounded theory does the reverse.
This means the researcher does not have a fixed hypothesis at the start. They have a research question, but the theory that answers it is not predetermined. The whole point is to discover what the theory should be.
Theoretical sampling
As categories emerge, the researcher samples more data to refine, elaborate, and exhaust each category. The sampling continues until no new properties emerge from new data. This is called saturation.
Saturation is not the same as having enough data. It is having data that has stopped revealing anything new about the category. A category is saturated when more data does not change the category’s properties.
Systematic progression to abstraction
Done systematically, grounded theory analysis moves from concrete observations to increasingly abstract concepts. The early stages produce descriptive codes. Later stages produce theoretical categories. The final stages produce a theory that connects the categories.
The progression takes time. A grounded theory study cannot be rushed; the move to abstraction has to be earned by working through the data carefully.
Constant comparison
The core analytic tool in grounded theory is constant comparison. The researcher compares one segment of data with another, then with another, looking for similarities and differences.
The comparison happens at multiple levels. The researcher compares specific incidents to other incidents. They compare incidents to emerging categories. They compare categories to other categories.
Three things come out of constant comparison.
- Abstract concepts. By comparing many specific incidents, the researcher moves from descriptive accounts to abstract concepts that capture what is common across the incidents.
- Avoidance of mere description. Constant comparison forces the researcher to ask what each piece of data is an example of, not just what happened. This pushes the analysis past description.
- Discovery of patterns. Patterns become visible only through comparison. A single incident is just an incident. Twenty incidents compared to each other reveal the pattern.
A teacher using grounded theory to study, say, how students respond to feedback, would compare many specific responses, then categorise them, then compare the categories, until a theoretical account of feedback response emerges from the comparisons.
Coding
Coding is the act of identifying categories and their properties in the data. The researcher reads through the data and labels what they see.
Coding can be formal or informal. Formal coding uses software, structured spreadsheets, and explicit category definitions. Informal coding might use coloured highlighters and margin notes. Both are legitimate; the choice depends on the scale of the study.
The early codes tend to be descriptive: words and phrases that label what is happening in a piece of data. Later codes become more analytic: concepts that capture what the data is an example of, at a more abstract level.
A useful discipline during coding is to focus on action. Instead of asking “what does this represent?” the researcher asks “what is the person doing? What are they trying to achieve? What strategy are they using?” This keeps the codes anchored to social and psychological processes, which is what grounded theory is interested in.
The coding process is iterative. Early codes get refined, merged, split, or replaced as the analysis develops. A code that seemed important in week one may turn out to be a sub-property of a larger category by week six.
Why grounded theory matters for reflective practice
Grounded theory matters for the reflective practitioner for several reasons.
It treats the practitioner’s data, what actually happens in their classroom, as the source of theory. This respects the depth of knowledge the practitioner has and turns it into something more than informal observation.
It is disciplined. Reflection that stays informal can confirm what the practitioner already believes. Grounded theory’s tools, especially constant comparison, push the practitioner past their initial readings.
It produces theory that fits the practitioner’s setting. Borrowed theories from other contexts often need translation; grounded theory generates theory that already fits.
It can be done at small scale. A full PhD-level grounded theory study takes years. A teacher in a single school can run a smaller version: a few students over a term, focused on one specific question, using grounded theory’s principles to analyse what they see.
For a reflective practitioner, knowing about grounded theory is not the same as becoming a researcher. It is having access to a method that can be used when reflection benefits from being more systematic.
Theory is built up from data, not deduced from a pre-existing framework
In a deductive approach, the researcher starts with a theory and tests whether the data supports it. In an inductive approach like grounded theory, the researcher starts with data, codes and categorises it, and lets theory emerge from the analysis. The theory is grounded in the specific data of the specific situation.
Limits to keep in view
Grounded theory has limits a reflective practitioner should be aware of.
It is time-intensive. Even a small grounded theory study takes weeks of careful work. A practitioner who wants quick answers should use a faster method.
It can drift if the researcher is not disciplined. Without constant comparison and theoretical sampling, the analysis can settle into describing what happened rather than building theory.
It produces theory that fits the studied setting, but generalisation to other settings is not automatic. A grounded theory developed in one school’s context may not transfer directly to another school.
The reflective practitioner who uses grounded theory understands these limits and uses the method when it fits, not as a default tool for every question.