In my opinion, they are two distinct methods with very different histories. In particular, grounded theory traces much of its background to American theories of Symbolic Interactionism, while phenomenology is based in European philosophy. This also leads to the former paying more attention to social processes, while the later emphasizes individual's lived experiences.

With regard to data collection and analysis, a lot depends on which version of grounded theory and which version of phenomenology you are talking about. For example, Smith's Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis uses procedures that are reasonably similar to Charmaz's Constructivist Grounded Theory, although the goals would be different. In contrast, Glaser's version of grounded theory would have very little in common with van Manen's version of phenomenology.

Ellyn - David is correct. They are distinct and separate - other than they cluster under the qualitative paradigm. They can be combined within, perhaps, a qualitative multi-method approach - but that would not be conventional and would require someone with a very in-depth knowledge of both to 'triangulate' the two methodologies.

To be simpler, both fall under the qualitative paradigm, but grounded theory puts emphasis on data; that is to say you begin with data collection and generate your theory from there. There is also less emphasis on literature review. The method is most useful when breaking new ground. Whatever result you obtain is grounded in the data that you collect. Whereas phenomenology, I think emphasizes on qualitative data collection through the lived experiences of the researcher.

So unlike what Dean Whitehead say, I think it depends on what emphasis is made in the study. If there are theories and literature available around the subject, but you are bent on investigating the lived experiences of your participants, then phenomenology is the best, but if there are no previous studies on the subject, no literature, no theory, then grounded theory is the best design for you.

Thank you for your comments; they are appreciated.

I agree that both methods have separate histories, distinctive approaches to data collection and analysis, and that individual versions of grounded theory may result in different outputs. That being said, it seems as though the “second generation” grounded theory, for instance Charmaz's Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) and Clarke’s Situational Analysis (SA), has evolved from an emphasis on social process/action to social ecology/situation. As a result, the emphasis on analysis of the situation seems is much closer to phenomenology’s emphasis on the lived experience.

As an example, Charmaz provides an overview of an interview process in Constructed Grounded Theory and an approach to analyzing the resulting data that utilizes a process similar to Braun and Clarke’s Thematic Analysis, which they maintain stands apart from philosophical and conceptual assumptions as a universal set of procedures. They also emphasize an unbiased search for themes and the need for reflexivity, which can be found in grounded theory. Apart from Charmaz and Braun and Clarke, today many agencies and academic institutions require a full literature review as part of an initial submission to PhD programs, in grant applications, etc. no matter the methodology, which directly counters classical grounded theory.

Thus, has the true difference between the two methodologies become the emphasis the researcher incorporates into the study as evident in Edmore Chijoko’s comments? If that’s the case, isn’t it possible to incorporate both into one study that stresses the “lived experiences” of the participants as well as the researcher’s perspective (as noted through their reflexive comments), while still pursuing a “novel” approach to a subject that’s not been researched previously, which results in theory generation?

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I'll limit my comments to the methods-oriented issues. In particular, Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis is completely distinct from either grounded theory or phenomenology.

With regard to grounded theory, even though Braun and Clarke (2006) call their method "Grounded Theory light," I doubt that most theorists would accept it as even that. Most notably, it says nothing about the interviewing process, and concentrates only on the analysis of the text from completed data collection. This is quite different from every version of grounded theory, which all insist on moving back and forth between data collection and data analysis, starting with the beginning of the project.

Second, all versions of grounded theory go beyond an "unbiased search for themes" in their process of theory building. Terms such as "axial coding" describe specific techniques for how one goes about creating theoretically oriented "categories." In addition, several versions of grounded theory such as Glaser's demand the choice of a core category that inter-relates the other aspects of the theory.

With regard to phenomenology, Braun and Clarke's methods are indeed free from any philosophical assumptions, but that would separate them from all versions of phenomenology. Also, phenomenology typically gives explicit instructions about what aspects of a phenomenon to attend to, in a specific sense of what "lived experience" means within this tradition. So almost all version of phenomenology bear little resemblance to the highly generic approach of Braun and Clarke. (I say "almost all" because there are some similarities with Smith's Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis -- but others from this field, such as Max van Manen, claim that Smith's approach is not really phenomenology.)

So, the observation that most qualitative researchers use some version of themes to discuss some version of lived experience glosses over the specific techniques for theory development in grounded theory and the specific meaning of lived experience in phenomenology. At some root level, there are and should be similarities across all forms of qualitative analysis, but beyond that, it is important to recognize that different traditions can be very different indeed .

In your case, in brief, grounded theory is an approach to your qualitative data analysis. This approach to data analysis can take place within some strategy of research, such as phenomenology research design to complement the process of research.

Incorporating both strategies in the same research sounds to me like flipping between both sides of the same coin- there will be no methodological identity in the end. I believe there is a common denominator in all qualitative inquiries after all; social constructivism. It's unlike they are totally different strategies because they belong to the same tradition. There are commonalities in both designs, but the beginning and ends of the research are the ones that differ. Same methods for collecting and analysing data can be used in both, e.g. interviewing and thematic analysis, but where the researcher begins from zero conceptualisation of the problem is the case for Grounded theory. Whatever themes and concepts that arise, emerge from the iterative data collection and analysis (useful for longtudinal studies). The emphasis on theory development is compensatory in nature in that the study begins with none in the 1st place. However, where existing theories and literature are cited, it can be justified simply out of the need to place the study in some frame of a body of knowledge.

In practical terms we may think of grounded theory as a suitable design to be used when conducting a needs analysis for an intended intervention where the researcher begins by making observations or asking questions and then start to find meaning out of the data; themes, concepts and theory building, all emergent in the observations and responses given to questions asked.

These are all interesting points. Thanks to all for answering and replying to the initial question and for clarifying your point of view with regard to the follow up questions.

Ellyn Lester - Thank you for your question. Phenomenology as a qualitative approach that emphasis subjectivity rather than objectivity. It focuses on description more than analysis and interpretation rather than measurement. Phenomenology focuses on how life is experienced. It does not explain the causes of things but tries to describe how things are experienced.

Grounded theory is an approach dedicated to generating theories. It is not concerned with descriptive accounts of subject matters or testing theories. I do not think that they present or represent the same thing. Each of them has its unique characteristics and uses in research for specific purposes.