I think these are two different research traditions. In particular, Grounded Theory advocates the inter-connected collection and analysis of data throughout the research process, while Thematic Analysis doesn't start coding until all the data have been collected.

In their 2006 article , Braun & Clarke referred to TA as a sort of Grounded Theory "lite," but I don't think that the GT community would accept that.

Grounded theory does not base the conclusions on a known established theory .So data can be collected from various data points and coded and you could come up with your own theory .Thematic analysis could start with a predefined theory in mind.

Jaspreet Kaur Braun & Clarke have revised their preferred version of Thematic Analysis somewhat since their original 2006 statement. Now, they personally advocate for what they call Reflexive TA, which does not start with predetermined theory.

You can read more about this their website:

https://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/thematic-analysis.html

David L morgan & Jaspreet Kaur. Very well taken what you have specified. Though grounded theory is a separate tradition, sometime I belive that it can be incoporated as an overarching rule set alongside narrative analysis or/and TA. Some have tried this... please refer..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1473325010362330&ved=2ahUKEwjJjMebxMTpAhVTdCsKHTLpDGwQFjAOegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw01CpWUoXT3vlOe4X5EKzP-

I would tend to agree mostly with Dr. Morgan's description. I would also add that the process of grounded theory is to separate -maybe isolate- bits of data that have meaning to you as the researcher through the coding process. And, thematic analysis is putting together bits of coding which are similar into themes with meaning. However, since grounded theory is not a linear process analysis is taking place while data gathering is still occurring. That the analysis is of a thematic nature fits well into this process for me personally.

In addition to the thoughts from Jaspreet Kaur, Brad Castle adding to David L Morgan thematic analysis may be applied to compare/contrast peer reviewed theoretic literature alongside researcher literature review to help situate grounded theory research that highlights emerging and/or new thought to a research topic. This is one way to incorporate the two different approaches that may compliment a current research design.

Using the mixed methodology approach I am formulating a proposal triangulating ethnography with Systematic qualitative evaluation reviews—mixed method of integrating qualitative evidence with evaluation evidence (supported by Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative & Implementation Methods Group: Cochrane intervention reviews on the effectiveness of health intervention. I believe both grounded theory and theoretical analysis with phenomenology are useful for blending contextual meaning-making that builds on existing theory while at the same time filling in gaps through emerging theory. My rationale is:

Grounded Theory—a rigorous set of qualitative procedures, constant comparison and emerging concepts that develop empirical indicators useful for producing inductive formal theory for further exploration

Phenomenology—examines core values of shared experiences useful for understanding disconfirming evidence

Thematic Analysis—a generalization of identifying relationships useful for answering research questions

What are my limitations?

B.E.I. Johnson I'm not sure whether most mixed methods researchers would consider a systematic qualitative evaluation to be a separate method, and if so, they would consider it to be a qualitative method. Hence, you would be doing multi-method rather than mixed methods research.

With regard to Grounded Theory, most of the original research done by Glaser and Strauss was ethnographic, so that could be a sensible combination. However, if you start from your systematic review as the basis for your ethnographic observation, that would not be consistent with the theory generating goal of GT, which begins with as few preconceptions as possible.

Phenomenology, however, is something quite different, and I do not understand what it has to do with disconfirming evidence. As for thematic Analysis, the classic version of this approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) does not begin coding until after data collection is complete. This would be incompatible with Grounded Theory, and probably with most approaches to ethnography, which require the constant production of field notes during observation.

As a general recommendation, I think you should concentrate on limiting rather than expanding the range of methods you use. In particular, you should be clear on exactly what you want to accomplish, and then concentrate of the method that would be suited to those goals. If that method does indeed have obvious limitations with regard to your goal, that would be a motivation of consider other methods that could help minimize those limitations.

Thank you David L Morgan for your discussion on this novel idea. I believe Phenomenology purpose is "to identify phenomena through how they are perceived by the actors in a situation" (Lester, 1999:1). Through group exploration including discussion of phenomena, reducing discrepancies will be significant. This method also compliments grounded theory since both approaches are participant centered allowing for new knowledge to fill in old gaps. Thus the reason for thematic analysis is to blend the systematic review purely for identifying current knowledge within the parameters of comparison during endline thematic analysis. Even though I fully appreciate correct language and will most definitely use the terminology multimethod as opposed to mixed method I must admit I have not identified a clear delineated difference in meaning.

I think the purposes of phenomenology go much deeper than "identifying phenomena" and how they are perceived. Virtually every qualitative method pursues those broad goals, but phenomenology has its own specialized purposes and means for doing so.

The idea of generating new knowledge to "fill in old gaps" is also something that all exploratory versions of qualitative research do, but grounded theory and thematic analysis do it in different ways. I doubt if any serious grounded theorist would consider their approach to be compatible with thematic analysis.

Once again, I would urge you to concentrate on whichever method is most relevant to addressing your research goals, rather than trying to combine so many divergent approaches to qualitative research.

I'd agree with David L. Morgan, as I inevitably do, but your definition of phenomenology needs some attention as it is a much misunderstood term in research methods, which as a field of study frequently regrets its origins in continental philosophy. The distinctive focus of phenomenology is not to identify phenomena as outside the mind (noumenon), but distorted by perception, but to regard the perception itself as the "phenomenon". The focus is not then on reducing distortions in perception to achieve a more accurate view of the external phenomenon, but to focus on the workings of mind and consciousness in the production of the "phenomenon" as reality. Whilst the nuances involved here are many and differences of approach abound, the key difference is in the way that they assume human consciousness works and the centrality they give to this in their analyses. If you look at grounded theory and thematic analysis from this perspective, the differences are clearly incompatible (beyond the common assumption that building theory from data is possible). David's advice to stick closely to the research problem and its goals and use the most appropriate approach (to which I'd add the very personal consideration of how you really want to spend three demanding years) is one you'd be well advised to follow. If you dig a bot deeper into the conceptual and philosophical underpinning of the methods you are considering, a lot of problems resolve themselves, and you also get a more intuitive feeling of which ways of working are more comfortable for you. There's nothing worse than discovering once you are past the point of no return that you no longer believe in the core tenets of the method to which you are committed.

David L Morgan and Stephen Andrew Linstead Thank you very much for your feedback, it is not wasted on me as I am paying attention, learning and applying the knowledge in a pay it forward manner. I am challenged with the task of sampling a very hidden population to get their perception of their lived experience that will inform policy makers and service providers the hidden populations perception of relevant legislation, entity programs, services and resources--all while using innovative qualitative research design and methodological processes that will estimate more accurate counts of incidence & prevalence of population in addition to valid measurements of success/failure for programs/services of entities and evaluations of replicating & generalizing data findings, hidden population and entities. I appreciate your sharing.

Because I can relate to the value of both grounded theory as in the now and thematic analysis as in the established I believe they may compliment each other in a novel manner much like the negative and positive poles on a battery. Both are necessary for a complete circuit although completely opposite. Perhaps in this manner the multi-approach may be used to compare and contrast what is known, what is theorized, and what is perception through diverse experts of lived experience to package a unique qualitative/quantitative study like battery filler between positive and negative findings. This research is participant centric.

I think there's a general point that is somehow missing previous answers and may be useful here. Grounded theory and thematic analysis are instruments with very different conceptual nature. Grounded theory is a general epistemological approach, thematic analysis is a methodology, if not a specific method. The first defines how you approach a research (in short, you do not test hypotheses, but search for theories emerging from your data). The second is an instrument to analyse data, and can be done both through a grounded perspective or with pre-coded instruments guided by hypotheses. So I would argue that they cannot be "integrated", as if you were integrating qualitative and quantitative metohds. You can certainly use thematic analysis in a grounded theory approach, by letting themes emerge from the reading.

Samitha Udayanga Absolutely yes.

Simone Tulumello Thank you for the additional lens. In line with your comment, " You can certainly use thematic analysis in a grounded theory approach, by letting themes emerge from the reading." worked well in my senior thesis approach. Although my findings on Medical Wellbeing for Homeless Throwaway Youth were from a sample too small to be considered transferable they are replicable and for the most part consistent with prior findings.

Thank you for the question! And thank you for the answers! I agree with Simone Tulumello that these two refer to different 'conceptual/analytical sphere' - if I may call it this way. I am far from being an expert on this but maybe in an attempt to grounding theories (plural) we link different concepts at various level of abstractions (?) when categorising our data/ field notes/ findings.

Prathiwi W. Putri Grounded Theory is a very specific approach to qualitative research that was originally developed by Anselm Strauss & Barney Glaser (1967). A more recent reference would be to the work of Kathy Charmaz (2014).

Thanks David L Morgan I will look at it more carefully. I have been dealing with the so-called grand theories and with postcolonial thoughts attempting to make it closer to diverse realities different to which the 'original' theories were abstracted. But I also wonder if any of us is 'theory innocent' - we will always carry particular understanding in seeing the field. It won't be purely 'empirical'. So this is my question when reading the sources of GT. Thanks for mentioning the bib.

I was so impressed with explanations forwarded by prof. Simone Tulumello as "I think there's a general point that is somehow missing previous answers and may be useful here. Grounded theory and thematic analysis are instruments with very different conceptual nature. Grounded theory is a general epistemological approach, thematic analysis is a methodology, if not a specific method. The first defines how you approach a research (in short, you do not test hypotheses, but search for theories emerging from your data). The second is an instrument to analyze data, and can be done both through a grounded perspective or with pre-coded instruments guided by hypotheses. So I would argue that they cannot be "integrated", as if you were integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. You can certainly use thematic analysis in a grounded theory approach, by letting themes emerge from the reading". I hope, his explanation answered your question full.

Totally agree with Simone Tulumello "You can certainly use thematic analysis in a grounded theory approach, by letting themes emerge from the reading". We also use TA in a GT approach. Take a look here:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00205/full

I am not at all clear about what Simone Tulumello means by saying that Grounded Theory (GT) is a "general epistemological approach." Epistemology is the branch of the philosophy of knowledge that addresses question about what can be known, and as such it has little to say about how to collect and analyze data. But GT from its earliest days has been dedicated to issues about collecting and analyzing data.

In particular, GT advocates integrating the collection and analysis of data, so that both your data sources and the questions you pursue evolve over the course of the project. This is very different from Braun and Clarke's (2006) version of thematic analysis, which begins only after all the the data have been collected.

Hello Samitha; from what i gather Braun and Clarke are the heroins of TA and wrote a 2006 paper that refrences exactly this question (spolier alert, they'd no be too happy with you trying combine the two); I stongly suggest you give it a read.

Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, 77-101, DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Cheers.

Thematic analysis is used in a Grounded Theory approach, where themes emerge from the reading. I approach research dissertation without any preconceived theoretical ideas or lens about the subject under analysis. I employ Grounded Theoretical approach, which is also exploratory approach, a useful, general and flexible strategy for approaching and anaysing data in complex areas.

Simply, my own approach is to utilize grounded theory as the design and thematic analysis as the mechanism by which I go about analyzing the data turned up from the grounded theory inquiry.

Thematic Analysis is a specific technique originally developed by Braun and Clarke (2006), which differs from GT in several ways. Most importantly, GT integrates the data collection and analysis procedures throughout the research process, while TA does not analyze the data until data collection is concluded.

In addition, GT has a set of specific coding procedures, starting with open (or initial) coding and moving to axial (or theoretical) coding, whereas TA is much less detailed about its coding procedures.

Great discussion. Just an amateur question: why David L Morgan and other respectful members refer to Braun and Clarke (2006) as the developers of TA, whereas there were much earlier comprehensive publications on it. For example, Braun and Clarke (2006, p.22) claims themselves that " Boyatzis (1998) provides a much more detailed account of thematic analysis."

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998) as a . Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.

Braun and Clarke (2006) acknowledged that they were mostly providing a "brand name" for what was already one of the most common approaches to qualitative analysis. They did cite Boyatzis (1998) as an important source for their work, but having read both, I find the 6-step approach of Braun and Clarke to be much more accessible. In fact, my reading is that Braun and Clarke mostly cited Boyatzis as a way to add legitimacy to their own approach, because there really is little direct overlap between his approach and theirs.

My ultimate sense of the situation is that many researchers were looking for a label for their procedures, and Braun and Clarke gave them just what they needed. And once their work became a prominent reference for this approach, it has gained further momentum.

David L Morgan thanks again for recommending the reading list. I have been using some neomarxist approaches but trying to grounding the theories in a way it incorporates more culturally embedded categories. This has been the spirit of neomarxist scholars anyhow to refuse or correct the earlier more orthodox Marxist scholars. I found that this is not at all in opposition to grounded theory. After reading Charmaz (I still have to expand my reading, still), I find that GD not at all theory-neutral. However I still wondering what is referred ,theoretical categories' in GD. Do you have maybe some examples of scholarly articles in this topic? also maybe if this is different with the roles of theories in thematic analysis? Many thanks and also thanks to others not mentioned in person.

In my opinion, the majority of Grounded Theory advocates insist on a "theory neutral" stance where theoretical conclusions come from the data themselves, with a minimal impact of prior assumptions. Charmaz does allow "sensitizing concepts," but these stop far short of theory. She also argued for Symbolic Interactionism, which was her own theoretical background, but there has not been any general movement toward giving SI a special place in Grounded Theory.

I am not aware of any literature devoted to these issues, but you might look in the second edition of the Handbook of Grounded Theory by Charmaz and Bryant. I have written briefly about some of these topics in:

Article Pragmatism as a Basis for Grounded Theory

many thanks David for replying. I appreciate it much

sorry David L Morgan , I've only now noticed your reply to me. Epistemology is indeed the science of what can be known and how, and with epistemological approach I mean different understandings of what and how to get to know. And, quite obviously, methodological approaches are always, if often loosely, connected to epistemological stances - not by chance positivist epistemologies are more often associated with quantitative methods, while qualitative methods are more often associated with epistemological approaches that are critical of positivism.

In this sense, I understand GT to be much more about how to make sense of data than about specific methods - and this is even more evident when GT theorists argue for "theory neutral" stances, which is a (quite extreme, to be honest) epistemological perspective. That's why, concretely, GT works more as a general epistemological approach to how you get to know things than as a methodological design

Since grounded theory puts such a heavy emphasis on methods for collecting and analyzing data, I would treat it as, at most, in the realm of methodology, i.e. statements about how to produce knowledge. In contrast, epistemology addresses questions related to nature of knowledge, i.e., what it is possibility to know within a given set of ontological assumptions.

But all of that assumes that one buys the traditional approach to the philosophy of knowledge, which as a pragmatist I do not. In the second edition of her book, Charmaz made substantial movement toward a pragmatist position, but in my opinion she did not go far enough.

Article Pragmatism as a Basis for Grounded Theory