Grounded Theory and the Constant Comparative Method

Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS) 3(1):83-86 (ISSN:2141-6990)
83
Grounded Theory and the Constant Comparative Method:
Valid Research Strategies for Educators
Sharon M. Kolb
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. USA
___________________________________________________________________________
Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss who believed that theory could emerge through
qualitative data analysis. In grounded theory, the researcher uses multiple stages of collecting, refining, and
categorizing the data. The researcher uses the strategies of the making constant comparisons and applying
theoretical sampling to obtain a theory grounded in the data. The justification of this paper is to provide
discussion on the validity of grounded theory and the constant comparative method as effective research
strategies for educators. The qualitative design of grounded theory will be the focus of this paper, along with a
discussion of the constant comparative method, issues related to trustworthiness, and limitations inherent in
grounded theory methodology
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: qualitative research, grounded theory, constant comparative method, education research, qualitative
methodology
__________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Grounded theory is one of four qualitative designs
frequently used in the human and social sciences; the
other designs are ethnographies, case studies, and
phenomenological studies. The major difference
between grounded theory and the other designs is the
emphasis on theory development (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005). The qualitative design of grounded theory
will be the focus of this paper, along with a
discussion of the constant comparative method,
issues related to trustworthiness, and limitations
inherent in grounded theory methodology.
Grounded theory was developed by Barney Glaser
and Anselm Strauss who believed that theory could
emerge through qualitative data analysis (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). In grounded theory the researcher
uses multiple stages of collecting, refining, and
categorizing the data (Strauss & Corbin). As
identified in the literature, making constant
comparisons and applying theoretical sampling are
necessary strategies used for developing grounded
theory (Creswell, 2007; Locke, 1996; Strauss &
Corbin; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998).
Constant Comparative Method
The constant comparative method is used by the
researcher to develop concepts from the data by
coding and analyzing at the same time (Taylor &
Bogdan, 1998). The constant comparative method
“combines systematic data collection, coding, and
analysis with theoretical sampling in order to
generate theory that is integrated, close to the data,
and expressed in a form clear enough for further
testing” (Conrad, Neumann, Haworth, & Scott, 1993,
p. 280). Constant comparative methodology
incorporates four stages: “(1) comparing incidents
applicable to each category, (2) integrating categories
and their properties, (3) delimiting the theory, and (4)
writing the theory” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 105).
Throughout the four stages of the constant
comparative method, the researcher continually sorts
through the data collection, analyzes and codes the
information, and reinforces theory generation through
the process of theoretical sampling. The benefit of
using this method is that the research begins with raw
data; through constant comparisons a substantive
theory will emerge (Glaser & Strauss). Grounded
theory is a labor-intensive task that requires the
researcher to invest time in the processes of analysis
and data collection.
DATA COLLECTION
Data can be collected from observations, interviews
or other research sessions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006).
During the process of gathering data the researcher
can employ a variety of methods to elicit information
pertaining to the study. The techniques commonly
identified in the literature for collecting data are
document collecting, participant observing, and
interviewing (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).
Document Collecting
Collecting written documents provide a source of
information such as meeting dates or events as well
as in-depth descriptions of how individuals think
about their world. The research examines written
documents to gain a deeper understanding and
description of the participant’s convictions, conduct,
and experiences (Bodgan & Biklen, 2006). Glesne
and Peshkin stress the value of document collecting
in corroborating observations and interviews and
generating further trustworthiness among data (1992).
Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS) 3 (1): 83-86
© Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2012 (ISSN: 2141-6990)
jeteraps.scholarlinkresearch.org

84
Participant Observing
Participant observation is a process where the
researcher can observe a setting to fully participating
in the setting to collect data (Glesne & Peshkin,
1992). The main purpose for participant observation
is the gain thorough understanding of the research
setting and the participants in the study. Often
participant observation is used in conjunction with
interviewing to collect data in the participant’s words
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2006).
Interviewing
The process of interviewing during a qualitative
study allows the researcher the opportunity to gain
the perspectives of other individuals. Glesne and
Peshkin share how “the opportunity to learn about
what you cannot see and to explore alternative
explanations of what you do see is the special
strength of interviewing in qualitative inquiry” (1992,
p. 65). The interactive nature of interviewing is a
component mentioned often as a practice in grounded
theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In the grounded
theory approach the researcher attempts to analyze
the data to develop a theoretical interpretation of
what is acquired through observation (Kvale &
Brickmann, 2008). Accordingly, vast amounts of
data can be collected through the process of
interviewing. Researchers should continue data
collection until the point of data saturation (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967).
Data saturation occurs when the researcher is no
longer receiving information that has not previously
been noted (Glaser & Strauss). During the onset of
data saturation, the researcher begins to obtain a
better understanding of which directions to pursue
throughout analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). Data
collection and data analysis occur simultaneously
throughout the duration of a qualitative study (Kolb
& Hanley-Maxwell, 2003). The development of
generating theory is dependent on the conjunction of
data collection and analysis.
ANALYSIS
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) explain data analysis as a
systematic process of sifting and arranging all
information obtained from interview transcripts, field
notes and other material collected to increase your
understanding of the data to enable the presentation
of what have been discovered. In a grounded theory
approach, the areas of reducing the data into
manageable units and coding information are integral
parts of the analysis process (Miles & Huberman,
1994).
Data reduction
In qualitative research, data reduction continues
throughout the duration of the study. Data reduction
is a process that involved selection, simplification,
abstraction and transformation of the raw data (Miles
& Huberman, 1994). Data reduction is a form of
analysis that can be used to combine pieces of
information into categories.
Coding
Strauss and Corbin (2008) refer to the process of
analyzing data as coding. Coding involves three
levels of analyses: (a) open coding, (b) axial coding,
and (c) selective coding, to gather a complete picture
of the information obtained during the data collection
process (Strauss & Corbin). During this first phase of
the coding process the researcher is comparing data
and continually asking questions about what is and is
not understood. The identification of different
categories, properties, and dimensions within and
among the data can be accomplished by a variety of
techniques that examine parts or the whole document
in a systematic manner (Strauss & Corbin).
The next step of coding is the axial coding procedure
where data are pieced together in new ways after
open coding allowing connections between
categories. By the continuation of asking question
and making comparisons, the inductive and deductive
thinking process of relating subcategories to a
category is the main emphasis of the axial coding
(Strauss & Corbin).
In the final stage of coding, Strauss and Corbin
(2008) define selective coding as the process of
identifying and choosing the core category,
systematically connecting it to other categories,
validating those similarities and relationships and
then completing categories that, that need further
refinement and development. Only after the process
of crucial integration of weaving and refining all the
major categories into the selection of a core category
can the grounded theory emerge (Strauss & Corbin).
The concepts and relationships that are developed
through the coding process help guide the data
collection and analysis process referred to as
theoretical sampling.
THEORETICAL SAMPLING
In qualitative research, the process of theoretical
sampling combined with the constant comparative
method mentioned above is a significant strategy
used by researchers in the development of grounded
theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Taylor and Bogdan
(1998) explain that theoretical sampling is a
procedure of selecting additional cases to be studied
to gather new insights or expand and refine concepts
already gained. Theoretical sampling is often used in
conjunction with the three levels of coding as
describe by Strauss and Corbin (2008). During the
first level of open coding, sampling is purposeful and
systematic; the second level of axial coding
incorporates sampling in a more structured systematic
approach to help validate relationships among the
data; and the final level, selective coding, specifically

85
seeks a more deliberate agenda of sampling to help
test and integrate categorical findings until the point
of data saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 2008). Data
saturation is the point when the information collected
in the study becomes redundant (Bogdan & Biklen,
2006). It is necessary for data saturation to occur to
help ensure that adequate information has been
gathered to accurately reflect the perspectives of the
study’s participants.
Trustworthiness and Limitations
Establishing trustworthiness and considering study
limitations are major factors in accurately reflecting
the integrity of the research project (Glesne &
Peshkin, 1992). Although it is difficult to prove
absolute exactness of research; various strategies
have been identified in the literature to improve
trustworthiness through triangulation (Kolb &
Hanley-Maxwell, 2003).
Triangulation
Triangulation is a technique used to accurately
increase fidelity of interpretation of data by using
multiple methods of data collection (Glesne &
Peshkin, 1992). Triangulation usually depends on the
convergence of data gathered by different methods; it
can also be achieved using the same method gathered
over time. Primarily, the goal of obtaining
triangulation is the enhancement of validity and
trustworthiness (Glesne & Peshkin).
Validity
It is the researcher’s responsibility to take
precautionary measures to confirm areas of validity
within his/her research (Strauss & Corbin, 2008).
Measures that can be taken to promote validity in a
study are reflexivity, documentation, theoretical
sampling, negative case analysis and transferability
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Because validity is an
area of concern in research methodologies,
researchers need to account for the information
provided in the study and to acknowledge internal
and external validity (Kolb & Hanley-Maxwell,
2003). Internal validity addresses the accuracy of the
data by incorporating the procedures of triangulation,
member checks, and participant involvement
(Creswell, 2007). External validity addresses the
areas of reliability and generalization. The focus of
qualitative research is to form unique impressions
and understandings of events rather than to generalize
the findings (Creswell). Generalization in a
qualitative study is enhanced by carefully examining
the extent to which the development of the grounded
theory can be applied to other cases (Bickman &
Rog, 2008). The chances of replicating the study are
more likely when detailed protocols are recorded,
researcher biases are noted, and individual
perspectives are anticipated (Creswell, 2007). In
addition to validity, another measure to strengthen the
validity is for the researcher to constantly be reflexive
throughout the duration of the study (Bickman &
Rog).
Reflexivity
Another major threat to validity can be the researcher
herself. Two threats to validity that commonly occur
in qualitative studies are the bias of the researcher
and reactivity which is the effect the researcher has
on the setting or the study (Bickman & Rog, 2008).
One attempt to help minimize the effects of the
researcher bias on the study is reflexivity. In being
reflexive the researcher must incorporate continuous
awareness of reflecting, examining and exploring
his/her relationship through all stages of the research
process (Conrad et al., 1993). In addition to being
reflexive an examination of negative case examples
provides another method in checking accuracy of data
analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Negative Cases
Similar to reflexivity, examining negative cases
provides another strategy from interjecting personal
bias in analysis. By investigative negative cases,
researchers may gain valuable insight from the
smallest piece of data that may appear insignificant at
one moment but prove the contrary in the final
analysis (Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). Negative cases
refer to data that seems to stand far apart from the
other data collected and does not coincide with the
emergent theory. Researchers should carefully
analyze negative cases to deepen understanding of the
people they are studying (Taylor & Bogdan).
Finally, in conjunction with the above measures to
increase validity with a grounded theory approach,
the two central procedures of the constant
comparison and theoretical sampling are recognized
as a means of validity in research (Parry, 1998).
Through a search of the literature, researchers
continue to stress the importance of accurately
presenting information to reflect the most vivid
meaning of the data. It is the researcher's
responsibility to take necessary measures to
triangulate and validate findings, by thoroughly
checking the interpretation and analysis to avoid
unnecessary study limitations (Glesne & Peshkin,
1992). Regardless of what precautions are taken,
limitations will be present; therefore, it is the
researchers' responsibility to acknowledge those
circumstances to help clarify the qualities of the study
(Collet-Klingenberg, & Kolb (2011).
LIMITATIONS
Grounded theory is one of a variety of qualitative
research methodologies, which may or may not be
the most appropriate method based on the research
problem or question. An area of caution is needed
when selecting the most appropriate method to help
the researcher arrive at a greater understanding and
knowledge of the problem. Therefore, issues such as

86
managing the data and credibility are identified as
concerns. Bickman and Rog (2008) suggested that
data analysis should begin immediately after each
interview and continue interpretive analysis until
completion of the study. In a qualitative study, the
sampling plan used by the researcher can have an
inherent potential for bias. Purposive, convenience
and theoretical sampling strategies may produce a
biased sample (Bodgan & Biklen, 2006). Primarily,
the researcher must be aware of potential limitations
of the study and honestly share them with the readers
(Collet-Klingenberg, & Kolb (2011). Lastly, the
researcher’s personal world view and individual
biases are contributing factors that may influence the
study. It is necessary to be cognizant of these factors
and guard against interjecting bias within the study.
CONCLUSION
In summary, grounded theory is an approach that
allows important concepts to emerge out of the data
(Strauss & Corbin, 2008). The approaches and
strategies described in this paper help demonstrate
through the process of grounded theory; meaning is
created through the generation of data. Glaser and
Strauss explain “an insight, whether borrowed or
original, is of no use to the theorist unless he converts
it from being simply an anecdote to being an element
of theory (1967, p. 254). There are creative and
innovative ideas forming and evolving in the minds
of educators. I feel the challenges that educators
meet are not the lack of great ideas, but the lack of
taking the time to listen to the ideas, asking more
questions, comparing these thoughts with other ideas,
pondering and sorting through these meanings, and
then researching and writing these conclusions.
REFERENCES
Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook
of applied social research methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative
research for education: An introductory to theory
and methods. (5th
ed.). Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Collet-Klingenberg, L., & Kolb, S.M. (2011).
Secondary and transition programming for 18-21 year
old students in rural Wisconsin, Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 30(2), 19-27.
Conrad, C., Neumann, A., Haworth, J. G., & Scott, P.
(1993). Qualitative research in higher education:
Experiencing alternative perspective and approaches.
Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Research design: Qualitative
and quantitative approaches. (2nd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005).
Handbook of qualitative research. (3rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery
of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Kolb, S.M. & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (2003). Critical
social skills for adolescents with high incidence
disabilities: Parental perspectives. Exceptional
Children 69(2), 163-179.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews:
Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing
(2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of
grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of
Management Inquiry, 5, 239-246.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994).
Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new
methods. (2nd
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded theory and social
process: A new direction for leadership research.
The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 85-106.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative
methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of
qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. (3rd
ed.).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to
qualitative research methods: A guidebook and
resource. (3rd
ed.). New York: Wiley

Grounded Theory and the Constant Comparative Method

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Grounded Theory and the Constant Comparative Method (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Grounded Theory and the Constant Comparative Method