The main question I have is whether you are integrating your data collection and analysis together, which would be essential for grounded theory. If you are planning to code the data after you collect it, that would not fit, and would be more like thematic analysis.

Hi, grounded theory has its own data analysis approach including those coding methods you mentioned. It means you don’t need to bring other data analysis methods such as content analysis to your research project. But most importantly, like David noted, in grounded theory, they use a constant comparison method, which refers to the ongoing cross-checking between data collection, data analysis, theoretical sampling. In other words, right after you gathered your first set of data, you will analyze to inform your sampling of next participants

Sincerity is the most important and relevant aspect of the methodology. You did well. You describe all the proceedings in collecting and analyzing the data to a great extent. Much of the theoretical framework must emerge from the research in Ground Theory. Thus, as a more qualitative approach, flexibility is inherent to the interpretative method.

Qualitative research can be flexible and hybrid. Being consistent in terminology and use will assist readers. While you will not conduct a classical or proper grounded theory, as you have a conceptual framework and seem to not have an iterative process, theoretical sampling, or theoretical saturation, you are welcome to use methods and ideas from grounded theory. Adopting and adapting grounded theory--or any method--are two acceptable areas. Just be intentional, logical, and transparent.

David C. Coker In my experience, grounded theory researchers can be highly protective of their method, with little tolerance for "adopting and adapting grounded theory." So, while I personally agree that methods should be flexible and open to further development, it is still important to think about how reviewers will judge your methods. So, "grounded theory" cannot just mean anything, and straying too far from the standard approach is likely to create problems.

While calling a method grounded theory might be a problem, constant comparison, open coding, axial coding, etc., are commonly used in many qualitative research methods beyond grounded theory. Instead of chasing names, my suggestion is to be flexible and open. Hybridity is an option.

David C. Coker Yes, hybrid methods are meaningful option, but you also have to be careful what you label your options. If you call something grounded theory, then you can expect to be reviewed by someone who is an expert in grounded theory, which will have consequences.

David L Morgan Absolutely. I apologize about this statement not being clearer: "While you will not conduct a classical or proper grounded theory, as you have a conceptual framework and seem to not have an iterative process, theoretical sampling, or theoretical saturation, you are welcome to use methods and ideas from grounded theory." Most grounded theories I have peer reviewed are "grounded theory lite" (Braun and Clarke's idea, not mine).

I'd be remiss, though, if others have not stretched grounded theory beyond its original intent, missing many key criteria. I still feel they are valuable, like the following article: Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qualitative Report, 17, 56.

Thank you for pushing for clarity.

Hello, don't forget to read my latest study "Feminism and Feminine Leadership in Organizations: Document Analysis of the New Testament". The study offers first ever document analysis of the complete canon on the New Testament. Please visit:

http://www.ejst.tuiasi.ro/Files/110/2025-21-1-6-Anwar.pdf

You're asking a very thoughtful and important methodological question—and you're on the right track overall. However, there are a few terminological clarifications and alignment issues that would help strengthen your thesis design.

Here’s a breakdown addressing each component:

1. Using a Conceptual Framework + Grounded Theory

Issue: Grounded theory traditionally aims to build theory from data, not from a pre-imposed conceptual structure. So, starting with a fixed conceptual framework may appear contradictory to the purist grounded theory approach (especially Glaserian GT).

However, your approach is not invalid. Many contemporary researchers use a constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz) or a modified grounded theory that allows prior frameworks as sensitizing concepts—not as strict hypotheses.

Your approach is fine if you clarify that:

• Your conceptual framework informs your research questions and interview design,
• But you remain open to new categories and theories emerging from the data,
• The framework is not used to test a theory, but to guide exploration.

Recommended phrasing:

“This study adopts a constructivist grounded theory approach, using the conceptual framework as a sensitizing lens to guide initial inquiry, while remaining open to emergent theoretical constructs.”

2. Grounded Theory vs. Content Analysis

Issue: You mention you're doing “content analysis under the guidance of grounded theory” — this may confuse reviewers, as content analysis and grounded theory are different methods.

• Content analysis typically refers to a descriptive, often quantitative approach to coding frequencies and themes in text.
• Grounded theory, on the other hand, is an inductive, interpretive process used to develop theory from coded data.

Suggested fix:

• Drop the term “content analysis” unless you mean you're counting the frequency of themes.
• Say instead that you are using grounded theory methods for qualitative data analysis (e.g., open coding, axial coding, selective coding).

3. Clarifying the Flow of Your Research Design

From what you’ve described, your logical flow is sound:

This is entirely valid, as long as:

• You acknowledge existing literature, but
• Emphasize your goal is theory development, not just theory application.

Final Recommendations:

• Replace “content analysis” with “grounded theory coding techniques” unless you are doing frequency-based analysis.
• Specify you are using constructivist or modified grounded theory to allow integration of pre-existing knowledge.
• Make sure your framework is presented as flexible and exploratory, not deductive.

Kwan Hong Tan When you reprint an answ from an AI please ci your source

Although developing or constructing theories based on any frameworks can benefit from G.T only as an analytical tool for data analysis, it will not certainly lead to theory discovery, which grounded researchers are interested in.

Seemingly, in this thesis, grounded theory is utilized as an analytical approach to data analysis. Therefore, it cannot be consider as a G.T research strategy design in the form of grounded theory in the current situation due to the incompatibility (impurities, contamination, and bias in the research data) of the thesis with grounded theory research design.