In fact, I would consider Grounded Theory a research approach (or design, or gender) and not an analysis technique...

One of the most common analysis technique associated to Grounded Theory might be constant comparison method.

Thanks for answering. Well, I agree too, can you share the reference for this.

Yes, I consider that grounded theory can be considered as a research approach. This is the teminology that I used in my PhD thesis.

Very best wishes for your PhD.

@mary please advise me on what analysis technique would cover the constant comparison and memos by applying grounded theory as research approach?

Hello Sana Malik

Initially, in grounded theory, data is collected inductively, using data collection, coding, categorising and analysing data to develop your theory, moving from the specific to the general. There is then the deductive phase when you move from the general findings to develop specific theory. This cycle does not necessarily go round only once.

See Fig 5.5 in this article:

Fernández, W. D. (2004, July). The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design. In Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and Criticising (Vol. 1, pp. 43-59).

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ea0f/a0d87b2ed203f33a82a6d739cd87daba54bc.pdf

This article might also be helpful; search for 'inductive' and 'deductive':

Gasson, S. (2004). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In The handbook of information systems research (pp. 79-102). IGI Global.

Chapter Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspecti...

Is this helpful?

All the best,

Mary

As a broad approach to research, grounded theory is something that needs to be in place and used from the beginning of the project. As such, it is not something that can be used only during the analysis phase. In particular, grounded theory uses coding throughout the data collection, rather than waiting until all the data has been collected.

Nearly all qualitative analysis relies on some form of coding, so that is not unique to grounded theory. Instead, the most common approach that applies coding after data collection is thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Nor'Aini Yusof and Ruhizal Roosli

I fully agree with David L. Morgan. What I have learnt about QL research leads me to affirm that Grounded Theory is a method (sometimes I have found in literature the term approach). Instead, for example, the interview is the technique through which you can collect your data in GT. A tool, for example, is the sheet where you have written the interview questions. See: Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2012). Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods. Sage.

So, we can conclude that grounded theory is the research methodology while thematic analysis is the technique which helps us in identifying categories and their properties grounded in the data, through coding (initial, focused and theoretical coding)

Please correct me if I am wrong!

Sana, I had the same challenge when I did my PhD because some literature refer to GT as an approach, a paradigm, a method, a methodology, a research strategy, a technique and some even referred to the "Grounded Theory research design". What I did was to indicate the confusion created from the literature and then created a framework applicable to my study where I indicated where I place it. The framework was used to standardise the various concepts because the confusion is not only about GT but also for other concepts. I supported my framework with the literature and then informed the reader that whenever I refer to the specific concepts that is what it means and that it is where it fits into the framework. There is in my view no absolute correct answer but you need to make a choice and defend/explain the choice to the reader. I hope this will be of assistance.

Hello: Agree with all about GT being a research method. Here's a few of citations for texts to access:

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.

Clarke, A. E. (2017). Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn. Sage

Start here.

David

There are so many references such as Creswell, Yin etc

I strongly encourage sticking w/ original authors, the original conceptualizers of various approaches to GT, than reading another author's interpretation of the original author's work. Once the initial conceptual differences are understood then one can more easily decipher another's book chapter, or the numerous articles out there that accurately, or inaccurately, summarize someone else's work. Though I use Creswell and Poth, I don't like their conceptualization of some qual methods- I tell my doc students to go to the original sources and we'll talk, seek understanding, then try to make sense of other's interpretations of the original works.

Qualitative research has a number of different "approaches" such as Grounded Theory, Phenomenology, Narrative, etc. As you can see, I prefer to call these approaches, rather than traditions or methodologies or strategies, etc. Both I certainly agree that you will find all of those labels being used.

Regardless of the label, the key thing is to distinguish things at this broader level from specific methods or techniques for collecting and analyzing data.

Thank you for the wonderful insights. Well, i have this clarity that Grounded theory is broadly considered as research approach or methodology. I can relate with Petrus Cornelius Bester that literature at some points labels grounded theory different from thematic analysis and content analysis. But at some points, it says that grounded theory can be driven through thematic analysis.

Then what coding would be called? if it is not a analysis technqiue as per my supervisors are asking me when i mentioned to them "qualitative analysis through coding"

Thematic Analysis has been recognized as its own approach to qualitative analysis since the work of Brown & Clarke (2006), and it is quite different from Grounded Theory. Because TA is based on coding, it might match what you are doing.

As for coding, I suppose it could be labelled a procedure (something more specific than a method), which is used in many forms of qualitative analysis.

For last week, I have been studying to label my analysis process with recognized analysis technique for qualitative data. For this, I also put the discussion on this question on ResearchGate and received many good replies to it. One of the respondents mentioned that Grounded theory covers the constant comparison method as a whole. I searched this terminology with its application in grounded theory and found very helpful articles. 

The CCM (constant comparison Method) or CCA (Constant Comparison analysis) covers the analysis technique which I have been employing in my analysis process, but somehow I couldn't have been able to label it in official terms. Constant comparison analysis (having its own set of systematic steps) in fact has also led me to cross-resource analysis as well. I have attached the articles for your reference as well. 

By this, i close this question as well! Thank you for your time and suggestions!

Thank you for sharing

First, Grounded Theory is not itself actually a method; rather, it uses methods to collect data.

It can be considered a methodology in that one can that one can study and discuss how to implement it; methodology is the study of methods; you could call this 'taking the Grounded Theory approach'.

More generally, one can also take a quantitative approach to research, or a qualitative approach---and I suppose, a mixed-methods approach.

As one can see from the above posts, much research terminology is debated; thus, with your use of it, just be transparent---make it clear what you actually mean.