Grounded theory aims to develop an explanation of a process from close engagement with data. Researchers begin analysing while collection is still under way, compare cases, write analytic memos, and seek further material that can develop or challenge emerging categories.

It is more than identifying themes in a set of interviews. Its distinctive ambition is an explanatory account, with later research decisions shaped by the analysis rather than by a sample and question list that remain fixed throughout.

Let the emerging explanation guide the next investigation

Consider an illustrative study of how employees decide whether to report a system error. Early accounts may suggest that people assess whether reporting will help them or create additional work. The researcher can then seek cases where reporting was welcomed, discouraged, or ignored, using the differences to develop the explanation.

This is theoretical sampling: gathering material because of what it can contribute to an emerging category. Kathy Charmaz discusses that strategy in her account of constructivist grounded theory. It differs from choosing a statistically representative cross-section of employees.

Comparison continues between incidents, accounts, and developing concepts. A memo might explore when “avoiding extra work” means protecting scarce time and when it means avoiding responsibility. The next interview can investigate that distinction instead of merely collecting another example of the original label.

Choose and describe the methodological approach

Grounded theory has several traditions, with differences in how they understand the researcher’s role, prior theory, and analytic procedure. State the approach being used rather than combining terms from different traditions without explanation.

Researchers do not arrive without knowledge or assumptions. Examine how that position influences the questions and interpretation, and keep the reasoning visible. The goal is not to pretend that an explanation emerged untouched by judgement.

Use the name only when the work supports it

A fixed set of interviews followed by broad topic coding may be a useful qualitative study without constituting grounded theory. Similarly, borrowing constant comparison does not mean the full methodology was followed.

Report what was actually done, including how analysis changed collection and how the resulting explanation relates to the evidence. If the project only needs a focused account of recurring experiences, thematic analysis may be a more appropriate choice. Selecting the method for its purpose gives the reader a clearer basis for judging the findings than selecting the most ambitious methodological label.