The Qualitative Report 2014 Volume 19, How To Article 13, 1-15
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/el-hussein13.pdf

Using Grounded Theory as a Method of Inquiry:
Advantages and Disadvantages
Mohamed El Hussein
Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Sandra Hirst
University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Vince Salyers and Joseph Osuji
Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta Canada
There are many challenges and criticisms attached to the conduct of research,
none the least of which is a notion that much of the research undertaken in
professional disciplines such as nursing may not have clinical and/or practical
relevance. While there are a plethora of qualitative research methods that
individuals must consider when designing research studies, one method stands
out - Grounded Theory (GT). Grounded theory was developed in the early
1960’s by Glaser and Strauss. With its theoretical orientation based in
sociology, GT strives to understand and explain human behavior through
inductive reasoning processes (Elliott & Lazenbatt, 2005). Because of its
emphasis on the utilization of a variety of data sources that are grounded in
particular contexts, GT provides a natural theoretical fit when designing
nursing research studies. In this article, the authors provide an overview of
GT and then describe the appropriateness, advantages, and disadvantages of
applying it as part of the research design process. Additionally, the authors
highlight the importance of taking a reflexive position to stay engaged while
interacting with the data, and explore how to apply GT theory to particular
research questions and studies. Finally, the strengths and limitations of this
method of inquiry as applied to nursing research using a brief case study
approach is presented. Keywords: Grounded Theory, Advantages,
Constructivist Grounded Theory
According to MacDonald (2001) Grounded Theory (GT) is characterized by its concrete
and structured guidelines, a feature that helps novice researchers in their investigation and is a
good fit for the pragmatic approach of the practice of nursing. Moreover, GT offers a practical
and flexible approach to interpret complex social phenomena (Charmaz, 2003); and it provides a
strong intellectual justification for using qualitative research to develop theoretical analysis
(Goulding, 1998). It is worth noting that GT was developed as a reaction to the passive
acceptance that all the “great” theories have been discovered and that the main task of
research is to test these theories by using quantitative scientific procedures (Charmaz, 1983).
It is the assertion of the authors of this paper that GT will expose the researchers’ data to
“rigorous analysis” in order to “develop theoretical analysis” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 127). Thus,
GT is a way of thinking about data with the intent to conceptualize it (Charmaz, 2009). Data
is continuously subject to interrogation until the theory emerges (Charmaz, 2006). Globally,
grounded theorists start with inductive logic even though they differ on their foundational
assumptions. GT also “provides a frame for qualitative inquiry and guidelines for conducting
it” (Charmaz, 2009, p. 127). Inductive logic means that the researcher does not start with a
hypothesis or theory and then prove or disprove it, but rather the researcher first starts by

2

The Qualitative Report 2014

collecting data in the setting, concurrently analyzes it, and then generates a hypothesis
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). According to Glaser (1998), GT is “enjoyable, meaningful,
informative, and empowering” hence, “JUST DO IT” (p. 19) because it fits, works and is
appealing.
In this article, we provide an overview of GT and then describe the appropriateness,
advantages and disadvantages of applying it as part of the research design process.
Additionally, we highlight the importance of taking a reflexive position to keep the researcher
engaged, while interacting with data, and to explore how to apply GT theory to particular
research questions and studies. Finally, we explore the strengths and limitations of this
method of inquiry when it is applied to nursing research using a brief case study approach.
Appropriateness of GT as a Method of Inquiry
As a qualitative method of inquiry, GT follows many of the same steps as in other
research frameworks. The steps in GT:
1) initiating research question,
2) data selection,
3) data collection,
4) data analysis, and
5) conclusion of the research
The research method selected in any study should be driven by the research question and should
be e differentiated from other methods of inquiry by its approach to data collection and analysis
(Egan, 2002). Moreover, it should be be relevant to the area of investigation, and should meet
the needs and skills of the investigator (Maxwell 2005). Maxwell (2005) added that the
research questions are “the heart, or hub, of the model; they connect all the other components
of the design, and should inform, and be sensitive to, these components” (p. 5).
According to Jeon (2004), the researcher’s ontological, epistemological, and
methodological orientations will determine the version of GT to use, which eventually
determines which theoretical perspective or philosophy will act as the perfect fit to inform
and guide the process of inquiry. Ontology refers to the nature of reality, whereas
epistemology is the relationship between the inquirer and the known (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005). The ontology and epistemology determine the methodology or the way we know the
world and gain knowledge of it (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Mills, Bonner and Francis (2006)
claimed that the variability of epistemological positions that grounded theorists embrace is
located at several spots on the “methodological spiral” (p. 13), and is guided by and reflective
of its underlying ontologies. Researchers must first identify their ontological and
epistemological positions, so as to be able to select a spot on the methodological spiral to
indicate which GT they are theoretically comfortable with and will enable them to practice
and experience their beliefs during the process of inquiry (Mills et al., 2006).
The main advantages of GT are its intuitive appeal, ability to foster creativity, its
conceptualization potential, and its systematic approach to data analysis, and the fact that
researchers using it can gather rich data. The advantages, disadvantages and limitations with
using GT as a method of inquiry are highlighted in Table 1 and further explored in the
following sections.

Mohamed El Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji

3

Table 1: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Limitations of GT as a Method of Inquiry
Advantages
Provides for Intuitive Appeal

Disadvantages/Limitations
Exhaustive Process

Fosters Creativity

Potential for Methodological Errors

Potential to Conceptualize

Reviewing the Literature without Developing
Assumptions

Systematic Approach to Data Analysis

Multiple Approaches to GT

Provides for Data Depth & Richness

Limited Generalizability

Advantages of GT as a Method of Inquiry
Intuitive Appeal
At the outset of this argument it is imperative to note that GT is not limited to a
specific field, discipline or any type of data (Glaser 1992). GT has informed different areas
and has demonstrated a wide range of applicability (Morse, 2009). Myers (2009) argued that
GT has an “intuitive appeal” (p. 111) for new investigators because it permits them to get
“immersed” (p. 111) deeply within the data. This immersion is translated practically in the
constant comparison, coding and memoing approaches to data analysis. Charmaz (2006)
supported this notion and asserts that GT provides novice researchers with the needed
principles and “heuristic devices” to “get started, stay involved, and finish your [the] project”
(p. 2). Charmaz (2006) added that while other qualitative traditions permit investigators to
treat data as they please without clear directions on how to proceed , GT provides “explicit
guidelines” (p. 3) that direct researchers about how to carry out their research. For many
pragmatic researchers, GT is very useful in answering their questions, enlightening their
thinking and for providing them with reassurance when hesitations arise during the research
process.
Fostering of Creativity
GT does not start with testing an existing hypothesis, but uses the empirical data to
generate concepts and theories (Glaser, 1978). In other words, it does not bias emergence the
theory with a priori assumptions (Glaser, 1978). To ascertain this emergence, investigators
are encouraged to avoid “preconceived theoretical data” (Myers 2009, p. 108), a suggestion
that can be seen as an advantage to enhance creativity and trigger the development of new
ideas. Furthermore, GT encourages the researcher to move through a process of discovery
whereby themes and interpretations naturally emerge from the data. In essence, GT allows
the research to derive meaning from the data and analysis using creative, inductive processes;
it allows for the emergence of original findings from the data (Jones, Kriflik, & Zanko,
2005).
The authors argue that this approach could be a double-edged sword and researchers
must check the scope of prior research in order to ensure that their study will add to the
“corpus of writing” (Stebbins. 2001, p. 42). Glaser (1978) finalized this argument with his
statement that “the generative nature of GT constantly opens up the mind of the analyst to a
myriad of new possibilities” (p. 6).

4

The Qualitative Report 2014

Potential to Conceptualize
According to Stebbins (personal communication, July 6, 2012), the most important
component of science is the “concept.” The approach taken to study data will eventually
influence the generation of these concepts. Blumer (1969) echoed this notion, as he believes
that the root of the problem in the process of finding an answer to an issue are ill-defined
concepts which frequently do not allow for a precise, agreed-upon, and correct interpretation
of subjective empirical data. Blumer (1969) added that “this condition of imprecise
conceptualization lies at the heart of the scientific difficulties” (Blumer, 1969, pp. 171-172).
Blumer (1969) further clarified the importance of conceptualization in the process of
simplification; in his view conceptualization separates the relevant from the irrelevant. It is
worth noting, that in our attempt to show the importance of conceptualization the authors are
not trying to undermine the significance of description. Stebbins (personal communication,
July, 6, 2012) suggested that the single most important initial step to science is “description”.
Glaser affirmed Stebbin’s position by stating that “immaculate description is the best way to
render research data” (p. 3).
GT is unique in its ability to generate concepts by utilizing the logic of constant
comparison and frequent memo writing (Glaser, 1978). This specific approach to theory
development is derived from the “continuous interplay between data collection and data
analysis (Myers, 1997). Glaser (1978) argued that concepts have “broadening power” and are
“easier to remember” as they encompass a myriad of incidents, which facilitates the
transferability of these concepts into unfamiliar contexts. Furthermore, Glaser (1978) added
that there is “much value in the conceptualizing and conceptual ordering of research data” (p.
3). Late Glaser (1998) reiterated a similar position reflected in his statement, “By far the most
exciting use of GT over the last ten years is its legitimation of concept generation” (p. 133).
Strauss and Corbin (1994, p. 274) identified that “the major difference between this
methodology [GT] and other approaches to qualitative research was its emphasis on theory
development”.
Systematic Approach to Data Analysis
A notable advantage of the GT method is in its systematic approach to data analysis.
Glaser (1978) defined GT as “systematic generating of theory from data that itself is
systematically obtained from social research” (p. 2). Strauss and Corbin (1990) mirrored this
definition in their statement that GT is “a qualitative research method that uses a systematized
set of procedures to develop and inductively derive GT about a phenomenon” (p. 24). Other
qualitative research methods frequently depend on the use of broad principles rather than the
systematic approach, leading to difficulty in their application and interpretation (Myers,
2009). This systematic approach of analyzing data is beneficial in judging, generalizing and
comparing the results of GT research (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). We contend that this
systematic approach to data analysis provides for rigor and ensures trustworthiness in the
emerging theory. Stebbins (2001) supported this argument by differentiating between
accidental discovery (serendipity) and systematic exploration that is based on the
epistemological and ontological assumptions of the explorer. The latter is sustainable as it is a
“broad-ranging, purposive, systematic, pre- arranged undertaking” (p. 4), during which
researchers actively and purposefully place themselves in a position to seek for “discoveries”
(p. 4) instead of continuing their usual research and passively waiting for the “aha” moments
or serendipity to strike (Stebbins, 2001).
Systematic procedures such as simultaneous collection and analysis of data and the
constant comparative logic and theory that emerges from data provide GT with rigor that is

Mohamed El Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji

5

not accounted for in other qualitative approaches (Charmaz, 2006). Additionally, being
systematic provides the researchers with enough evidence to support their claims (Myers,
2009, p. 111). Glaser and Strauss (1967) extended this thought further by directing the novice
researcher to check for the relevance, fitness, workability and modifiability of the discovered
GT which attracted researchers and kept them engaged. Charmaz (2006) added that “by
adopting GT methods you can direct, manage, and streamline your data collection and,
moreover, construct an original analysis of your data” (p. 2).
Data Depth & Richness
The approach used by grounded theorists to collect rich data is another advantage that
is substantial (Charmaz, 2006). Rich data will make the “world appear anew” (Charmaz,
2006, p. 14) because the richness of the data will provide the researcher with concrete and
dense fabric to construct a thorough analysis of the data in addition to aiding the researcher to
go beneath the surface of the participants’ social and subjective life (Charmaz, 2006).
Charmaz (2006) contended that the research adventure starts with “finding data” (p. 14). Data
will unearth the context and structure of the participants’ lives in addition to divulging their
feelings, views, intentions and actions (Charmaz, 2006). In order to obtain rich data,
researchers are expected to seek thick descriptions (Geertz, 1973) through writing “extensive
field notes of observation” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 14), gathering thorough narratives from
interviews, and above all “collecting respondents’ written personal accounts” (p. 14). The
aforementioned approaches to data collection can enhance identifying information but are
unsuccessful in providing insights into it (Charmaz, 2006). GT methods provide the tools for
“making sense of the data” (p. 15) and refining it to generate insight into the participants’
world. Rich data must provide the researcher with enough background about the participants,
processes and settings. Moreover, rich data must “reveal what lies beneath the surface” (p.
19) and must expose any changes over time.
Researchers collecting rich data should stay alert to collecting “multiple views of the
participants’ range of actions” (p. 19). Rich data will enable the researcher to develop
analytic categories that facilitates the comparison of data in order to percolate new ideas.
Charmaz (2006) espoused that GT can be constructed with different types of data depending
on the research topic and questions. The researcher’s aim is to enter the participants’ lives to
see it from inside which eventually illuminates the “unobtainable views” (Charmaz, 2006, p.
24) that outsiders usually assume about the world. Utilizing the logic of GT forces the
researcher to go back to the data and forward into analysis to gather further data and to refine
the “emerging theoretical framework” (p. 23) which offers the researcher a “fresh look and
creating novel categories and concepts” (p. 33).
Disadvantages/ Limitations of GT as a Method of Inquiry
This section discusses the most common disadvantages of GT. Since the word
“disadvantages” might have negative connotations and because GT has positively changed
and advanced the way scholars perceive qualitative research, the authors prefer to use the
term “limitations” since these limitations can be overcome with time and experience.
Exhaustive Process
Myers (2009) embraced the notion that novice researchers can become inundated at
the coding level with GT, as open coding is a time consuming, tiring and laborious process.
The process of abstracting and encompassing concepts is not an easy task. Novice researchers

6

The Qualitative Report 2014

may become so hindered and absorbed with the coding process that they may lose sight of
accomplishing the task of discovering the ideas and themes that emerge from the data.
Furthermore, GT usually generates lower level theories that have multiple limitations (Myers,
2009). Annells (1996) forewarned researchers who are planning to use GT that this approach
is “not simple” (p. 177) and must not “be hurried” (p. 177), as it may take months to fine tune
the theory around the core category. Annells further advised that a mentor should be available
to help novice grounded theorists in their journey of inquiry.
High Potential for Methodological Error
Charmaz (1989) contended that novice researchers using GT may tend to blur
methodological lines by selecting purposeful instead of theoretical sampling. She further
suggested that it is acceptable to start with purposeful sampling, however, the researcher must
revert to theoretical sampling where the “process of data collection is controlled by the
emerging theory” (Glaser, 1978, p. 36). Failure to do so will result in a lack of conceptual
depth (Benoliel, 1996). Another pitfall the new researcher might face is the use of only one
source of data, such as that of interviews. To help circumvent the utilization of one data
source, Glaser (1992) recommended undertaking both observations and interviews as part of
the data collection process. If a researcher ignores this advice it may cause him or her to
focus on the lived experience of the subjects instead of on the social process (Benoliel, 1996).
Additional methodological mistakes such as “muddling qualitative methods,
generational erosion, premature closure and methodological transgression” (Wilson &
Hutchinson, 1996) may be seen as additional potential limitations to GT research. Evans
(2013), concluded that there are valuable “lessons learned” (p. 49) whereby the novice
researcher may avoid these potential methodological errors and are worthy of consideration.
A detailed discussion of these methodological errors is beyond the scope of this paper.
Reviewing the Literature without Developing Assumptions
Reviewing the literature is a contentious and debatable issue in GT that sometimes
discourages scholars from using the method. Throughout the evolution of GT, researchers
have repeatedly debated how best to approach and utilize existing literature within the
research study (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). Glaser and Strauss (1967) unequivocally and
overtly encouraged researchers to write the literature review after completing the analysis so
as not to contaminate the research findings. Similarly, Corbin and Strauss (2008) affirmed
that because “there is always something new to discover” (p. 36), it is unnecessary to review
all of the literature before starting the study. According to Glaser (1998), researchers are
advised to limit their prior reading before the exploration of the GT; researchers planning to
use GT are advised to omit the literature review (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Schreiber (2001) argued this position by discussing Glaser’s (1998) and Strauss and
Corbin’s (1998) notion of theoretical sensitivity and the importance of a literature review in
guarding against potential biases that could be a threat to the rigor of the study. Theoretical
sensitivity refers to the capability to recognize the subtleties and connotations in the data and
the associations among the categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In brief, sensitivity is having
insight into the data. The researcher becomes sensitive to what is in the data through
immersion in it, as well as based on the researcher’s prior professional and personal
knowledge and experiences. In other words, these insights prepare the researcher to
comprehend and interpret data. It is through awareness and acknowledgement of the
researcher’s background, knowledge and perspective that the researcher is able to see the data
without prejudging it or forcing predetermined explanations on it (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Mohamed El Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji

7

The authors concur with Schreiber with regards to the significance of a literature
review in enhancing theoretical sensitivity, bearing in mind Stebbins’ (2001)
recommendation that the literature reveals “how these studies leave unexplored certain
critical aspects of the phenomenon” (p. 43). Schreiber (2001) supported this stance by
asserting that researchers who apply for financial grants must demonstrate a comprehensive
understanding of the “state of the science” (Schreiber, p. 58), therefore a review of current
(and pertinent) literature is needed for methodological reasons. Other grounded theorists have
approached the review of literature as necessary to both “situate your work within the body of
related literature” (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, p. 123), and to “set the stage for what you do in
subsequent sections or chapters” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 166).
Multiple Approaches to GT
In an attempt to legitimize qualitative inquiry, Glaser and Strauss (1967) with their
different educational backgrounds and expertise co-developed their book, The Discovery of
Grounded Theory. Although the book was a great success, the authors’ differing ontological
and epistemological assumptions created a fissure in the understanding and application of
GT, leading to the creation of at least four different approaches to GT that resulted in
confusion among scholars. Glaser was influenced by the quantitative positivist paradigm,
whereas Strauss embraced the qualitative interpretive paradigm (Annells, 1997). This tension
and division between the original authors created an intellectual debate among researchers
and raised several questions about GT method and how to utilize it properly. Strauss and his
student Juliet Corbin used the foundational procedures for GT and developed improvised
additional tools and techniques that they recommended during the process of coding and
memo writings. This new approach surfaced in their book Basics of Qualitative Research
(1990). Although Strauss and Corbin’s philosophical paradigm was never stated explicitly,
their approach is quite similar to that of the constructivist paradigm (Annells, 1997); although
there are some basic exceptions that more closely aligns their work with the objectivist
paradigm. One example of this is their assertion that the process of “verification” follows
very prescriptive guidelines for data analysis. One could argue that when strict data analysis
guidelines are utilized theory development may be forced rather than allowed to emerge.
Another conceptual difference between Glaser and Strauss is their understanding of
the generated theory. According to Glaser, theory is a momentary product that is still
developing, and is subject to further testing and verification by gathering new data. Strauss,
on the other hand, argues that theory can be used in practice without the need for further
verification, as verification is done in the data during the process of generation (Hallberg,
2006). This conceptual difference leads to a difference in the form of the discovered GT.
Hallberg (2006) argued that the outcome of GT is another source of confusion.
Hallberg (2006) added that GT is sometimes presented as a hypothesis to be further tested
(Glaser, 1978), in the form of narratives (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) or even through a stories
that identify categories and relationships (Charmaz, 2006). Although the product may be
different, there is unanimous agreement among scholars with regards to the characteristic of
the theory generated. For instance, according to Glaser and Strauss (1967), theory is “either a
well-codified set of propositions or in a running text of theoretical discussion, using
conceptual categories and their properties” (p. 31). It is worth noting here that a theory is not
an “absolute truth” but rather a tentative explanation of a phenomenon. According to Strauss
and Corbin (1998), the word “theory” in this context is used to demonstrate the relationships
that exist among concepts coming from the data and supports understanding of the social
world by illuminating its categories. Simply put, the fact that it explains or predicts
something makes it a theory (Strauss &Corbin, 1990). Thus, a theory is a statement regarding

8

The Qualitative Report 2014

possible relationships among categories about a phenomenon that facilitates the
comprehension of a social world.
Limited Generalizability
According to Polit and Beck (2010), “generalization is an act of reasoning that
involves drawing broad conclusions from particular instances that is making inference about
the unobserved based on the observed” (p. 1451). The issue of generalization is less
frequently discussed in qualitative research, and is considered complicated and controversial
because the main goal of qualitative research is to provide a rich and contextualized
understanding of the human experience. Research questions that are explored through GT
methods allow for a unique opportunity to extrapolate findings that further explain these
experiences. This unique opportunity is due to the nature of GT exploration and its ability to
reveal high level concepts and theories that are not specific to a particular participant or
setting (Glaser, 2002). Ayres, Kavanagh and Knafl (2003) argued that “just as with statistical
analysis, the end product of qualitative analysis is generalization, regardless of the language
used to describe it” (p. 881). Polit and Beck (2010) espoused that knowledge is not generated
by testing a new theory, but rather knowledge grows through confirmation. They added that
confirmations come with systematic replication which leads to confirmatory evidence.
Stebbins (2001) stressed that the “main goal of exploratory research is the production of
inductively derived generalizations about the group, process, activity, or situation under
study” (p. 6). Afterwards, the researcher weaves these generalizations into GT. Herein lies
the conundrum: while there are unique opportunities to analyze, interpret, and further
interpret the data using GT, what happens if results are not easily generalized? Considering
the nature of GT as a qualitative method of inquiry, threats to external validity or
generalizability may be limitations of the research being undertaken and warrant
consideration by the researcher.
Applying GT to a Study of Delirium Underrecognition by Registered Nurses:
A Brief Case Study
Background
In the process of shaping the research question on the phenomenon of delirium
underrecognition by Registered Nurses (RNs), it became clear that only a few studies
explored the problem from a nursing perspective. Moreover, although delirium is a
multidimentional concept (Lou & Dia, 2002) most of the literature concentrates on the
biomedical nature of the disease. While it is important for RNs to understand the
pathophysiological concepts of delirium, it is equally important to understand the contextual
factors to enhance RNs’ skills of delirium recognition.
It is worth noting that, nurses still do not readily recognize delirium in their practice
regardless of the severity of their patients’ illness (Saxena & Lawlwey, 2009; Pun & Boehm,
2001; Khan & Bourgeois, 2009; Cole, 2004; Cerejeira & Mukaetova-Ladinska, 2011; Ely &
Page, 2011), and there is consistent evidence that older adults admitted to acute care settings
are experiencing delirium at rates ranging from 11% to 87% (Aldemir et al., 2001; Ely et al.,
2001; Immers et al., 2005; Roberts, 2004; Van Rompaey et al., 2009). Moreover, this
phenomenon is not quantifiable, as it focuses on the responses of the RNs who are interacting
with older adults to understand the complicated social process of delirium underrecognition.
Furthermore, critical analysis of the literature highlighted the need to approach
delirium from a different perspective due to the dearth of literature in relation to

Mohamed El Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji

9

understanding delirium as a contextual phenomenon involving the patient, family and the
RNs. Belanger and Ducarme (2011) supported this position in their extensive review of the
recent literature, focusing on patients’ and nurses’ perspectives of delirium. They established
that only 17 research articles highlighted the subjective nature of the experience of delirium
from the perspective of the patient and the nurses. They added that most of the literature
“focused above all on the characteristics, pathophysiology, incidence, etiology, prognosis of
delirium as well as on the prevention, detection, evaluation and management” (p. 304).
Neville (2008) argued convincingly in favor of expanding the understanding of delirium
beyond the biomedical perspective, and suggested considering its personal and relational
aspects.
Thus, based on the limited qualitative research literature and the lack of theory to
explain the phenomenon of delirium underrecognition by RNs, one of the authors considered
the development of a proposal to research this phenomenon. Moreover, he determined that
GT would provide the theoretical underpinning to explore this problem. He decided to
explore delirium from multiple perspectives (e.g., patient, families, RNs) to enable an
understanding of the processes RNs utilize to recognize delirium during their interactions
with older adults in acute care settings. To better understand the work of acute care RNs
while interacting with older adults, he believes that GT will provide the opportunity to
conceptualize and develop a theory to explain the phenomenon and ground it in the data.
The Research Proposal Using Constructivist GT as a Method of Inquiry
While language, textual data, time and settings are important factors to be considered
when analyzing data, the focus of analysis in GT is behavior and its meanings that takes place
during social interaction (Wilson & Hutchinson, 1991). The behavior of the RNs and the
behavior of older adults, from the perspective of the RNs, will be described, analyzed and
conceptualized to construct a theory that provides good explanatory power for the behavior of
delirium underrecognition. Furthermore, GT is particularly applicable for exploring this topic
due to the nature of this phenomenon, and its deep roots and relatedness to nursing practice
(Schreiber, 2001).
RNs working in acute care setting have diverse and heterogeneous perspectives and
therefore different constructions of realities as they interact with older adults with delirium.
Therefore, the researcher will use constructivist GT to carry out the research, rather than
traditional GT approaches as deciphered by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later by Strauss
and Corbin (1990). His decision was based on several factors. First, he is familiar with the
concept of delirium and is “not free from the claims of related literature” (Glaser, 1998, p.
69) or of prior assumptions. Second, his philosophical position can be described as relativist
ontologically and subjectivist epistemologically. Third, the intensive laborious model of data
analysis recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1990) does not fit with the path of
concatenation or longitudinal exploration (Stebbins, 2001) that he plans to follow as part of
this program of research. Finally, since the main focus of the study is to “make meaning,” the
constructivist approach is ideal because it requires the creation of a sense of reciprocity in the
process of interaction between participants and the researcher when co-constructing meaning.
Eventually, he hopes to develop a substantive theory that is grounded in the participants’ and
researchers’ experiences. The constructivist approach also requires the establishment of
relationships with participants that explicates power imbalances and attempts to modify these
imbalances (Van Maanen, 1991).
The constructivist paradigm of GT embraces the ontological stance of relativism that
focuses on local and specific constructed realities (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Constructivist
grounded theorists are more likely to claim that “reality cannot actually be known, but is

10

The Qualitative Report 2014

always interpreted” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 22) and acknowledge the mutual creation of
knowledge by the researcher and the research participant (Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Schwandt,
1994). This philosophical position corresponds well with his understanding of reality and
knowledge development, with the context of delirium underrecognition as a complex
phenomenon, and with RNs as clinicians with different backgrounds, education levels,
experiences, and understandings.
Contrary to the classical GT that follows the objectivist
canon of viewing truth as a single, universal and enduring reality, constructivist grounded
theorists acknowledge interpretation as the means of construction of co-created realities and
the assignment of meaning to social action and interaction (Annells, 1996). This feature will
provide the researcher with the opportunity to partake in the interpretation of realities
constructed by RNs during the processes of interaction with older adults. Acting like
“passionate” participants (Lincoln & Guba, 2000, p. 171), constructivist grounded theorists
assist in the reconstruction of multiple voices and perspectives, accommodating the diversity
of the RNs interacting with older adults. This process requires authentic engagement with
research participants and a rich understanding of their worlds (Mills, Bonner, & Francis
2006). Concerned with subjective meaning, constructivist grounded theorists tend to ask
research participants open-ended questions that provide insights into the meanings of their
experiences rather than its mere description.
In coding, memo writing and developing of categories, constructivist grounded
theorists move beyond the description of overt data, and pay attention to psychological and
social assumptions inherent in the data (Charmaz, 2000; Munhall, 2001). Data is not separate
from either the observed or the observer but rather reciprocally constructed during
interaction. Moreover data is “relativistic, situational and partial” (Charmaz, 2009, p. 138),
consequently, data collected from RNs in acute care settings will reflect the influence of
those settings on the realities perceived and interpreted by those RNs. Objectivist/classical
GT is based on the assumptions of positivism, where it assumes the discovery of data by a
neutral observer who is separate from the data and not loaded with preconception (Lincoln &
Guba, 2000) which contradicts the contextual essence of his study.
While the objectivist GT emphasizes developing abstract parsimonious
generalizations free from contexts of origin but which fit, explain and display relevance to the
empirical data of the participants, the aim of the constructivist GT is to gain an “interpretive
understanding of the empirical phenomenon” (p. 139) so that the theory constructed will be
credible, original, useful, and above all resonates and is relative to the “historical moment”
(p. 139). Further, the constructivist GT is a “contemporary revision” of the classical GT
(Charmaz, 2009). This revision is done to renew and revitalize the classic GT. Integrating
recent methodological approaches challenges the assumptions of generating a general abstract
theory and is likely to yield to situated knowledge (Haraway, 1991). Participants’ meanings
and actions are contrasted with the larger social structure in order to see “current social
conventions and power relationships” (p. 131).
A reflexive position may surface when a researcher explores an experience that the
researcher can share with the participants (p. 132) which can potentially create a “tone of
authenticity” (p. 1330) in the succeeding analysis. The reflexive mode of the contemporary
GT keep the researcher engaged, and interacting with data and the emerging idea rather than
taking a distanced stance toward their studies (Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz (2006) maintained
that lack of reflexivity can lead to surfacing and sprouting of the researcher’s own implicit
assumptions and interpretation to an extent that it may hold an “objective status” (p. 132). In
the objectivist view, reflexivity is treated as another source of data for abstraction and is not
considered as a substantial part of the whole research process. Constructivists are expected to
demonstrate how their standpoints, positions, and interactions have influenced their

Mohamed El Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji

11

interpretation of data. From this perspective, the claim of objectivity by utilizing the
comparative logic of GT cannot be validated.
In his study proposal, the researcher will develop a theory that explains the processes
that RNs use to recognize delirium in older adults. Charmaz (2006) maintained that GT has a
unique advantage of being able to systematically focus on studying processes by using
empirical observations to construct a theory. She added that GT has the potential of
developing conditional theories that contextualize certain realities (Charmaz, 2006). Myers
(2009) contends that GT is specifically useful for studying “regular, repeated processes” (p.
111).
Conclusion
Although GT is “a member of the family of qualitative research approaches” (Glaser,
1998, p. 38), it differs from other qualitative research methods in that it does not only provide
meaning, understanding and description of the phenomenon under study, but it also does
theory-generation (Glaser 1978). GT approach to data analysis has evolved over the years
primarily due to the change in the way we understand and treat knowledge. Facts are not
taken at face value without being subjected to analysis and critique. Researchers with
different ideas are creating a difference in the advancement of knowledge. Science in general
and qualitative research in particular has transformed remarkably since Glaser and Strauss
wrote their book The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967.
GT has been refined over the years to meet the scientific demands of this era.
Consequently, Glaser’s realist ontology (Annells, 1996) is in total opposite to the relativist
ontology of the current qualitative traditions. As a result of this relativist ontological stance,
truth is constructed individually and collectively. The process of construction and re
construction of the “truth” is ongoing and subject to the interpretation of context (re
contextualization; MacDonald & Schreiber, 2001). The relativist ontological stance and its
supporters should be credited for keeping GT ”viable” and ”sustainable” and demonstrate that
GT has not “outlived its usefulness” (MacDonald & Schreiber, 2001, p. 42).
Being supporters of GT, the authors have reviewed some seminal and contemporary
literature on the topic. Additionally, advantages, disadvantages, and limitations with using
GT as a method of inquiry were provided. Finally, using a brief case study, the authors
described the suitability of GT as a method of inquiry to explore the phenomenon of delirium
underrecognition by RNs. GT is particularly applicable to nursing research because it allows
for flexibility and options for data collection, analysis, and interpretation in complex
environments such as the one described in the case study. Using GT as a method of inquiry
facilitates the researcher’s ability to provide insight into the experiences of key stakeholders
such as clients, families, and nurses in clinical contexts and is recommended when carrying
out qualitative research in these settings.
References
Aldemir M., Özen S., Kara I. H., Sir A., & Bac¸ B. (2001). Predisposing factors for delirium
in the surgical intensive care unit. Critical Care, 5, 265-70. http://dx doi:
10.1186/cc1044
Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of
inquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 379-393. http://dx doi:
10.1177/104973239600600306

12

The Qualitative Report 2014

Annells, M. (1997). Grounded theory method, part I: Within the five moments of qualitative
research. Nursing Inquiry, 4, 120-129. http://dx doi: 10.1111/j.14401800.1997.tb00085.x
Ayres, L., Kavanagh, K., & Knafl, K. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to
qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 1, 3871-883. http://dx doi:
10.1177/1049732303013006008
Benoliel, J. Q. (1996). Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health
Research, 6, 406-428. http://dx doi: 10.1177/104973239600600308
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). Introduction: grounded theory research methods and
practices. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory
(pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cerejeira, J., & Mukaetova-Ladinska, E. B. (2011). A clinical update on delirium: From early
recognition to effective management. Nursing Research and Practice, Article ID
875196, http://dx doi:10.1155/2011/875196.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In R.
Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston, MA: Little,
Brown and Company.
Charmaz, K. (1989). Discovering chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science and
Medicine, 30, 1161-1172. http://dx doi:10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509-535).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory - objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 249-291).
London: Sage
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the ground: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M.
Morse (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127-154).
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Egan, T. (2002). Grounded theory research and theory building. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 4(3), 277-95.
Elliott, M., & Lazenbatt, A. (2005). How to recognize a 'quality' grounded theory research
study. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22(3), 48-52.
Ely, E., Inouye, S., Bernard, G., Gordon, S., Francis J., May L.,… Dittus, R. (2001) Delirium
in mechanically ventilated patients: Validity and reliability of the confusion
assessment method for the intensive care unit (cam-icu). The Journal of American
Medical Association, 286, 2703-2710. http://dx doi:10.1001/jama.286.21.2703
Evans, G. (2013). A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory:
Rationalization for classical grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 12(1),
37-55.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz
(Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in methodology of grounded theory. San
Francisco, CA: University of California Press.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

Mohamed El Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, and Joseph Osuji

13

qualitative research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist
agenda. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50-57. http://dx
doi.10.1108/13522759810197587
Hallberg, L. R. (2006). The “core category” of grounded theory: Making constant
comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being,
1, 141-148. http://dx. doi: 10.1080/17482620600858399
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Situated knowledge: The science question in feminist and the
privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of
nature (pp. 183-202). New York, NY: Routledge.
Jeon, Y. (2004). The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism.
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18, 249-256.
Jones, M. L., Kriflik, G., & Zanko, M. (2005). Grounded theory: A theoretical and practical
application in the Australian film industry. In A. Hafidz Bin Hj (Ed.), Proceedings of
international qualitative research convention 2005 (QRC05). Malaysia: Qualitative
Research
Association
of
Malaysia.
Retrieved
from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/46/
Khan, R. A., Kahn, D., & Bourgeois, J. A. (2009) Delirium: Sifting through the confusion.
Current Psychiatry Report, 11, 226-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11920-009-00358
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacDonald, M. (2001). Finding a critical perspective in GT. In R. Schreiber & P. N. Stern
(Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 113-158). New York, NY: Springer.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded
theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), Article 3. Retrieved from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/mills.pdf
Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & management. Thousand Oak, CA:
Sage.
Page, V., & Ely, E. W. (2011). Delirium in critical care. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Polit, D., & Beck, T. B. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths
and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1451-1458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
Pun, B. T., & Boehm, L. (2011). Delirium in the intensive care unit: Assessment and
management. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 22, 225-237. http://dx doi:
10.1097/NCI.0b013e318220c173
Roberts B. (2004). Screening for delirium in an adult intensive care unit. Intensive and
Critical Care Nursing, 20(4), 206-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2004.04.003
Saxena S., & Lawley D. (2009). Delirium in the elderly: A clinical review. Postgraduate
Medical Journal, 85(1006), 405-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2008.072025.
Schreiber, R. (2001). New directions in grounded formal theory. In R. Schreiber & P. N.
Stern (Eds.), Using grounded theory in nursing (pp. 227-246). New York, NY:
Springer.
Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K.
Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitaitve research (pp. 118-137).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14

The Qualitative Report 2014

Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory: techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Grounded theory: techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. L, & 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.
Van Maanen, J. (1991). Playing back the tape: Early days in the field. In W. Shaffir & R.
Stebbins (Eds.), Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of qualitative research (pp.
31-42). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Rompaey, B., Shuurmans, M., Shortridge-Baggett, L., Truijen, S., Elseviers, M., &
Bossaert, L. (2009). Long term outcome after delirium in the intensive care unit.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18, 3349-57. http://dx doi: 10.1111/j.13652702.2009.02933.x.
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1991). Triangulation of qualitative methods:
Heideggerian hermeneutic and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 1, 263276. http://dx doi: 10.1177/104973239100100206
Wilson, H. S., & Hutchinson, S. A. (1996). Methodological mistakes in grounded theory.
Nursing Research, 45, 122-124.
Author Note
Mohamed El Hussein, PhD (Candidate) is an Associate Professor in the School of
Nursing in the Faculty of Health & Community Studies at Mount Royal University. Address:
Mount Royal University, 4825 Mount Royal Gate SW, Calgary, AB. T3E 6K6. Phone: 403440-8633. E-mail: melhussein@mtroyal.ca
Sandra Hirst, PhD is an Associate Professor in Faculty of Nursing at the University of
Calgary. Address: University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, T2N 1N4. Phone: 403-220-6270. E-mail: shirst@ucalgary.ca
Vince Salyers, EdD is the Associate Dean of the Faculty of Health & Community
Studies at Mount Royal University. Address: Mount Royal University, 4825 Mount Royal
Gate SW, Calgary, AB. T3E 6K6. Phone: 403-440-8433. E-mail: vsalyers@mtroyal.ca
Joseph Osuji C, RN, PhD is an Associate Professor in the School of Nursing in the
Faculty of Health & Community Studies at Mount Royal University. Phone: 403-440-6559.
E-mail: josuji@mtroyal.ca
Copyright 2014: Mohamed El Hussein, Sandra Hirst, Vince Salyers, Joseph Osuji,
and Nova Southeastern University.
Article Citation
El Hussein, M., Hirst, S., Salyers, V., & Osuji, J. (2014). Using grounded theory as a method
of inquiry: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19(How To
Article 13), 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/elhussein13.pdf