Grounded Theory Methodology

Using Grounded Theory in A Grounded Theory Way-1  

The role of a psychologist, as defined by the American Psychological Association, is to promote mental health and well-being through research, practice, and advocacy. For those of us with a social justice orientation, this mission demands engaging in research that enhances our understanding of historically minoritized populations. Our work seeks to name and explore the psychological experiences that remain untold.

In recent years, qualitative methods have gained recognition for their ability to capture the complexities of social contexts and the interactions between intersecting identities. This trend spans the psychological sciences, from counseling psychology to social psychology. For instance, in social psychology, the field’s traditional emphasis on quantitative and experimental designs has been criticized for its reductionist approach. This focus often failed to capture the intricate interplay of identities and social contexts, resulting in research that predominantly serves WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations. Consequently, there has been a growing advocacy for incorporating qualitative methodologies within psychological science.

Among qualitative methodologies, grounded theory stands out for its potential to unearth the stories of the most marginalized and convey their nuances rather than reducing and erasing them. It is very unfortunate, however, that despite such potential within psychological science, grounded theory is also one of the most frequently misunderstood and misapplied methodologies by psychological researchers (Conlon et al., 2020). The frequent misinterpretation and improper use of this methodology not only diminish its effectiveness but also contribute to the community’s lack of access to understanding their stories through psychological science. This is a profound disservice to the voices we, as researchers, are committed to amplifying.

Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology that aims to construct theories on less understood phenomena through the inductive generation of theory based on participant data. Its defining feature, and what allows grounded theory to create new theories, is the iterative process of collecting and analyzing data through theoretical sampling. Here, the words “iterative” and “theoretical” are not just verbiage. They represent the very essence of grounded theory, where data collection and analysis are intertwined in a continuous, cyclical process (Flick, 2018). Unlike other linear research models where data collection and analysis take place sequentially, in grounded theory, they occur simultaneously and circularly to best understand the less-known phenomena at hand.

Consider a grounded theory study exploring the experiences of transgender and nonbinary (TNB) individuals who have experienced relational trauma with parental figures. Researchers start by interviewing a few TNB individuals about their experiences with relational trauma and healing. Early analysis might reveal that some TNB individuals find healing through distancing from their parents and building their own community. Guided by these findings, researchers seek out more TNB individuals who have either experienced significant healing by distancing from their parents and creating chosen family. This helps to understand the specific dimensions and conditions of the healing experience. Researchers continue to collect and analyze data, each time refining their understanding and theory about how TNB individuals heal from relational trauma. Through this iterative process, grounded theory allows researchers to develop a detailed, nuanced theory that accurately reflects the complexities of the participants’ experiences. This methodology is particularly powerful for exploring less understood phenomena and giving voice to marginalized groups.

However, due to a lack of comprehensive training in many graduate programs and the broader emphasis on quantitative methods, this critical and defining process in grounded theory, the theoretical sampling phase, is often overlooked in grounded theory studies. This oversight is critical because it undermines the core of grounded theory, reducing its effectiveness in capturing the depth and nuance of marginalized voices.

Some might say that this process of theoretical sampling is too time-consuming. However, in our pursuit of efficiency and productivity, how many stories have we missed and erased? Grounded theory, when properly applied, challenges us to prioritize depth and nuance over speed. It compels us to slow down, listen intently, and engage deeply with the data.

As psychological researchers, we have a responsibility to ensure that our methodologies do not inadvertently silence the very voices we aim to amplify. Grounded theory offers a powerful tool for uncovering and understanding the experiences of underserved populations. However, to truly harness its potential, we must adhere to its principles, embracing the iterative and immersive nature of the methodology. Only then can we hope to bring the most untold stories to light, fulfilling our mission as psychologists and advocates for social justice.

References

Conlon, C., Timonen, V., Elliott-O’Dare, C., O’Keeffe, S., & Foley, G. (2020). Confused About Theoretical Sampling? Engaging Theoretical Sampling in Diverse Grounded Theory Studies. Qualitative Health Research, 30(6), 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319899139

Flick, U. (2018). Doing grounded theory: Key components, process and elements. In Doing Grounded Theory. In Doing Grounded Theory (pp. 17–30). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716658

Using Grounded Theory in A Grounded Theory Way-2

What is Grounded Theory?

Grounded theory, initially developed by Glaser & Strauss (1967) and further refined by scholars such as Charmaz (2006), offers a systematic yet flexible approach to qualitative inquiry. Its primary strength lies in its capacity to generate theory inductively from data, making it particularly well-suited for exploring under-researched areas. The most recent development in this methodological lineage is critical grounded theory, which incorporates elements of critical theory, addressing power dynamics, social justice issues, and broader sociopolitical contexts in the analysis (Charmaz, 2017).

Key features of grounded theory include an iterative approach to data collection and analysis, employing sampling methods wherein data collection and analysis occur concurrently (Charmaz, 2006). This allows researchers to refine their focus and pursue emerging themes as they arise, facilitating a more dynamic and responsive research process. The constant comparative method provides a rigorous framework for identifying patterns and relationships within data. This method involves systematically comparing incidents, categories, and concepts as they emerge, fostering a nuanced understanding of psychological phenomena (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). These features enable researchers to develop theoretical insights that are firmly grounded in empirical data, yet flexible enough to account for the complexity of social life.

Critical-Constructivist Grounded Theory in Action: A Case Study 

This paper discusses how incorporating grounded theory, particularly its critical constructivist variant, into psychological research can significantly enhance our ability to account for the intricate interplay between individuals and their social environments. To illustrate the application of this methodology, a case study employing critical constructivist grounded theory to understand relational trauma with parental figures among transgender and non-binary (TNB) individuals is provided. This example demonstrates how psychologists can effectively engage with critical constructivist grounded theory to uncover and articulate previously untold narratives, particularly those of marginalized populations.

Step 1: Initial Sampling. In the initial sampling stage, we were mindful to invite TNB participants from various socioeconomic and cultural locations as we started to build our understanding of the phenomenon. While it’s common to recruit primarily from online venues, we recognize the importance of being aware of which venues we are accessing. It is crucial to carefully consider which audience the researchers would be capturing by posting recruitment flyers in certain venues, as most communities tend to attract specific demographic groups.

It is important to make efforts to post in places that not only reach white folks but also BIPOC folks, and older individuals. Without this careful consideration, the sample would likely be majority white, younger, college-educated TNB people (Riggle et al., 2005). A theory derived only from these perspectives would significantly differ from one that integrated diverse voices. When resources allow, we strongly encourage researchers to reach out to community centers and venues where TNB people who do not have access to the internet or who feel less inclined to create community via online spaces can be reached.

Step 2: Purposive Sampling. Once we distributed our screening surveys in these various venues, we received responses containing demographic information. At this stage, we made a conscious and critical effort to recruit folks with diverse social locations, ensuring our emerging theories would contain diverse voices, not just those of certain groups. We selected 3-4 people at a time for interviews so that we could concurrently conduct analysis and sampling per the grounded theory methodology. This approach allowed the analysis to inform subsequent sampling, a key aspect of the iterative process in grounded theory.

Throughout this process, we prioritized clear, transparent, and warm communication with our participants, sharing the intricacies of the grounded theory research process. We took care to explain that our approach involved analyzing each interview immediately after it occurred, which meant there would be some lag time between interviews. We openly shared that this lag could sometimes extend up to a year between the first and last interviews in our purposive sampling phase. We were committed to nurturing a sense of community throughout the study. To this end, we maintained regular, friendly contact with all our screening survey participants, not just those selected for interviews. We sent periodic updates about our progress, shared relevant resources, and offered insights into our research process. This ongoing dialogue helped foster a sense of connection and involvement among our participants. Our efforts to build a warm, inclusive community around the research proved invaluable. Not only did it enrich the study experience for our participants, but it also laid a strong foundation for the theoretical sampling phase that followed. The trust and rapport we established made participants more open to further engagement, ultimately enhancing the depth and quality of our research.

Step 3: Interview. During the interview phase, we prioritized creating a safe environment for our participants, given the sensitive nature of our research on relational trauma and healing among TNB people. Both interviewers were TNB community members, with one being a trans person of color. Participants noted that this representation enhanced their sense of safety, underscoring the value of representative research teams when working with marginalized populations.

We implemented a structured debrief at the end of each interview, explaining our rationale, offering psychoeducation on complex trauma, discussing TNB healing and joy, and providing a curated resource list. We also mailed each participant a book of their choice from our reading list, in addition to their stipend. This approach ensured participants’ emotional well-being, contributed to community building, and made the research process more reciprocal. By sharing knowledge and resources, we aimed to create a research experience that was both informative for researchers and empowering for participants.

Step 4: Theoretical Sampling. As our theory began to emerge after analyzing data from seven participants, we entered the theoretical sampling phase. We distributed a paid survey to all participants who responded to the initial screening survey to identify participants with specific experiences needed to further explicate our emerging theory. The survey included questions such as “My parent(s) have worked to repair our relationship from the past trauma,” with response options ranging from strongly disagree to agree. We also provided optional text entry fields for participants to briefly share their experiences of parental relationship repair. We also asked, “To what extent have you experienced healing from your relational trauma with parental figures?” to identify participants who had achieved healing through various means. From this process, we identified eight additional participants whose experiences could explicate the emerging theory. It is crucial to note that our approach diverged from earlier forms of constructivist grounded theory in an important way. In our application of grounded theory, we expanded the focus beyond participants’ experiences to also include their sociocultural locations. While traditional approaches often concentrate solely on experiences, we deliberately considered both participants’ experiences AND their sociocultural identities. This dual focus ensured that our explicating theories reflected both experiences and sociocultural contexts, enhancing the richness and applicability of our findings.

Step 5: Returning the Knowledge Back to the Community. To bridge the gap between research and community, we included a collaborative zine project as part of our research, aiming to ensure our trauma research remained relationship-centered and complete the loop of a study in a community-focused manner. We reached out to all study participants, including those who only completed the initial screening survey, inviting them to be part of creating a collective zine.

This inclusive approach allowed us to honor every participant’s contribution to the research process.

We invited participants to voluntarily share their healing journeys through various creative expressions - art pieces, doodles, poetry, or any medium that resonated with them. This open invitation fostered a sense of community and shared experience among participants.

The zine is composed of participant artwork and writing, interwoven with study results explained in accessible language. We included a curated list of resources and suggested readings to support ongoing healing. In addition, to capture the essence of our emerging theory visually, we collaborated with a nonbinary artist who shared similar experiences, creating five illustrations.

We then distributed the zine to both participants and community members so that the knowledge from the study can be shared within the community. Participants who contributed artwork received multiple copies to share within their networks. Every person who engaged with our study at any point, even if only through the initial screening survey, received a personal copy. We also made digital versions freely available to the broader community, clinicians, and fellow researchers, hoping to foster understanding and support within and beyond the TNB community.

To conclude, the integration of grounded theory, particularly its critical constructivist variant, into counseling psychology offers a powerful means to enhance contextual understanding and theory building in the field. As demonstrated through the case study on relational trauma among transgender and non-binary individuals, this approach allows researchers to delve deep into complex social phenomena, accounting for diverse experiences and intersectional identities that may be overlooked by traditional quantitative methods. By employing iterative data collection and analysis, purposive and theoretical sampling, and a commitment to returning knowledge to the community, counseling psychologists can develop more nuanced, context-sensitive theories that reflect the lived experiences of marginalized populations. This integration not only addresses the limitations of conventional approaches but also promotes a more inclusive, ethical, and socially responsive research paradigm. 

References

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941

Charmaz, K. (2017). The Power of Constructivist Grounded Theory for Critical Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE Publications. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910275376502121

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing Company.

Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Reedy, C. S. (2005). Online surveys for BGLT research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n02_01

Scholtz, S. E., de Klerk, W., & de Beer, L. T. (2020). The Use of Research Methods in Psychological Research: A Systematised Review. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.00001