Yes, everyone is correct. Grounded theory is developed out of your research/data. However, qualitative research does not have to be theory driven either, nor do you need a theory to drive your research question. Rather than theory, all one really needs is a hypothesis that you are going to test through an empirical investigation. If you have observed gaps, then those gaps become the research questions. If you choose to analyze the data through a theoretical framework afterwards to provide a deeper interpretation of your data, great. But it's not necessary. The data is useful on its own terms.

See my paper, 'Changing Representations of Women in Popular Culture' as example of theory driven qualitative research. However, note that the study could have been done with no theory, analysis, or interpretation, just a straight up content analysis driven by a research question based on an observation.

Good luck,

Guy

Dear Preety,

as the analysis of qualitative material tends to be rather descriptive without a theoretical lens that helps to explain the results, a theory to guide your analysis is preferrable. Futhermore, as you are aware of, the results of a qualitative study are not generalizable to a larger population but rather offer the possibility of theoretical generalisations. And to be able to do that you will need a theory.

Grounded theory is rather a methodology of how to combine "data" and theory and should not be mistaken as a theretical lens through which you analyse your material.

Good luck,

Therese Asplund

Yes, everyone is correct. Grounded theory is developed out of your research/data. However, qualitative research does not have to be theory driven either, nor do you need a theory to drive your research question. Rather than theory, all one really needs is a hypothesis that you are going to test through an empirical investigation. If you have observed gaps, then those gaps become the research questions. If you choose to analyze the data through a theoretical framework afterwards to provide a deeper interpretation of your data, great. But it's not necessary. The data is useful on its own terms.

See my paper, 'Changing Representations of Women in Popular Culture' as example of theory driven qualitative research. However, note that the study could have been done with no theory, analysis, or interpretation, just a straight up content analysis driven by a research question based on an observation.

Good luck,

Guy

Hi Preety,

I agree with the others in this thread that grounded theory offers a good way to organize and analyze your data and, later, develop a small 't' theory that is applicable only to your study group and/or site. However, Attride-Stirling's thematic network analysis offers a simpler method of analysis that also provides for wider resonance of the findings and analyses; this is especially helpful for a novice qualitative researcher since it avoids the need for the iterative process required in grounded theory.

While it is preferable to have a theory that will aid in guiding your inquiry, qualitative research can also be theory-building rather than theory-testing. This is based on the fact that from our observations we can develop empirical generalizations followed by the building of theories (see Kuhn, 1962; Wallace, 1971); theory testing starts with theories and moves through creating hypotheses and back to observations, generalizations, and theory (with the cycle starting once again).

Those gaps which you observed can form the basis to create a primary research question and number of secondary questions (or hypotheses if you choose to use them). Your academic discipline should provide you with a number of theories that can help you to either develop theory-informed questions or help you to make meaning (i.e., explain, predict, and/or falsify) your findings. The challenge is finding the existing theory that offers the best fit or developing a new theory/integrated theory. As noted by both Justyna and Gary, your data collection (research methods and design) will be driven by your research questions.

A lot of the answers to the posed question add additional insight. I woud like to add the following comments:

1. Grounded theory enables a researcher to develop "substantive theory", not formal theory,

2. A qualitative research strategy is not really a matter of choice. All depends on the overarching question being asked? I cannot see a WHY type question lending itself to a qualitative treatment using grounded theory. It certainly requires a quantitative type of method,

3. In the absence of a theoretical lens to guide your enquiry, I guess you can use grounded theory which, according to its proponents also offers the possiblity to a researcher to start from a "tabula rasa".