Mollukutty:  There are times when it is useful to think about "What should be" and pragmatically "what is." I personally have no problem with what Wolcott (1990) wrote.  If he or I were your reviewer, then no practical issues would arise.  When we are new to a field, it is not as easy to consider the following practical issues.  What journals might you be targeting?  What is commonly done in these journals?  You can see who the editors are.  You might be able to find some of their work.  You are not going to know who your reviewers will be.  The editors may know people in the area themselves.  If they do not, they may look at your citations in an effort to find an appropriate reviewer.  They may check your literature review.  They might also look overall at the citations, and not be concerned if the citation came from the discussion section toward the end of the article.  If the journal you are interested in normally has a literature review of a certain length, you probably should provide something similar.  If you were a reviewer, would you care if you were cited up front as a guiding work, or in the back as a work you learned was relevant later?  Ideally, I would say try to describe in your article what actually was the case.  If you knew about certain works up front and were guided by them, say do.  If you learned about certain works later, or noted later these works helped, cite them accordingly in that place in your article. Let me share one personal experience. I was doing inductive work.  I did a general introduction to the subject, described my case material and then analyzed what I found using theories I learned via my fieldwork were relevant.  A reviewer told me to make the front of the paper look like deductive work, with the theory set forth at length up front.  This reviewer was selected by an editor at a prestigious journal.  Would you distort reality and comply to get your paper published, or resist and take the risk of rejection?  I resisted making this change and made all of the other changes that were requested.  I got a lengthy letter from  a new editor with many more changes he wanted.  I made all of them.  Perhaps he wanted to see if I was a prima donna, or if I was sincere about this issue.  The paper did get published in the inductive form I desired.  This being said, many reviewers may be positivists, or have seen the theory up front so many times, this is what they expect.  You will have to decide what is pragmatically in your best interests.  This of course is easier if you know what journals interest you.

Bruce

Thank you Bruce Fortado.

Really helpful answer. Thank you for sharing from practical point of view from your experience. It's true  many reviewers are positivists. As you shared our personal conviction is very important.  Thank you 

Thank you Michael Annear .

It was helpful. Theoretically I know it is okay in grounded theory. But practically  how others consider it especially when many reviewers are positivist, was my difficulty. Any way, I am happy to know there are people really considers grounded theory in the real and practical sense. 

My favorite answer to most questions in qualitative research is "it depends" and I think that holds true, here. I appreciate our colleagues' ideas here and I also want to add, "What seems to work best with the way you want to present your study? What is the best way to tell the story you want to tell?" Maybe you'll present some literature in the beginning and some later.....

Thank you Lisa Fontes for taking interest in my question. 

It helps to remember that Wolcott was an ethnographer, so if you are undertaking an in-depth study of a single site (or a comparison of several sites), then you might want to wait on a detailed literature review, until after you have studies your site(s) in depth. With regard to "nesting," I think he means that you do need to justify your overall research question, which requires one familiarity with the broader literature

In Discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss both advocated for doing the literature review later in the study and admitted that the researcher did not enter the field as a completely "blank slate." Since then, there has been increasing acceptance in GT for doing early literature reviews. I have attached a useful paper on the subject.

I would like to approach this question from the point of view of a consumer of research. To motivate me to read a paper it is important that you convince me of the problem you are addressing or the contribution that you are making early on in the paper. You begin building credibility by couching your contribution in terms of prior research which means referring to the existing literature to set the scene.

Throughout the paper I need to be convinced that you have considered existing research in whatever area you are discussing, methods, problem area, your findings etc. and it gives points of reference to the reader. Personally I like to have that positioned at the appropriate section of the paper rather than in a dedicated literature review section because it gives the evidence or support  'just in time' - just as I am beginning to think about it and want it.

If this improves the readability of your paper and if it meets the reader's needs as they arise, it is likely to be well received.

I think you can strike a balance in a qualitative study.   Some purist actually claim, no review. Others state , it does not matter.  In my opinion, for grounded theory do a preliminary one, and them add to it after you have collected and analyzed the data. After all you arrived at the theory.

David L Morgan, Susan Christine Lambert and Thomas Christ,

I am very happy to interact with you all. Thank you for considering my question. Your views, sharing of knowledge and experiences enriched me. It helps me to justify my position. Thank you

David L Morgan,

Thank you very much. Your sharing and more over, the article was of high relevance for me. I am happy to interact with people who have rich experience in research.

With warm regards

Mollykutty P.V

I just thought I would quickly point out that grounded theory is (traditionally) a positivist methodology… Remember, both Glaser and Strauss (despite their subsequent split) speak of grounded theory as a discovery process: the “theory” exists; is universal (goes beyond the context, well according the Glaser anyway) and through the rigour of the GT method: we can find it.  Although many people cite grounded theory as a qualitative endeavour, it is important to distinguish its positivist heritage from the interpretivist approach some take in the modern incarnations.

Viewing the researcher as a blank slate is one of the most prevalent misconceptions regarding grounded theory. While it is the case that grounded theorists’ reject grand theory, this is not the same as disregarding the extant literature (Suddaby 2006, Charmaz 2011). As a constructivist, I enjoy Charmaz’s (2011) description of the grounded theorist as theoretically agnostic rather that theoretically ignorant.

The misnomer regarding the role of existing literature relates to the need for grounded theorists to remain open minded during the data collection and analysis phases of their project. As explained by Suddaby, (2006:635) the danger of existing theory is that it may “force the researcher into testing hypotheses, either overtly or unconsciously, rather than directly observing”. If you are an open-minded person then the choice is yours. I however, am known to put on my blinders, so I prefer to do my reviews later.

When considering the role of the literature, my suggestion to you is to consider what version of grounded theory you are using. There are 5 key camps that I see in the grounded theory literature that you could explore:

• The original Glaser & Strauss (1967)
• Glaserian grounded theory
• Straussian grounded theory (The version most of us think of)
• Constructivist grounded theory (the work of Charmaz and others); and
• Post-modern grounded theory (see Clarke 2003)

When making your decision, consider your particular field as this will impact the acceptable frameworks for grounded theory. Some disciplines favour the Corbin and Strauss framework, others prefer the original. No matter what approach you use, it is vital that you make it clear which approach you are taking and stick to the conventions outlined in that camp’s literature. (Otherwise, I suggest the use of a qualifying label " modified grounded theory").

Another thing to consider is why you are taking a grounded theory approach. Typically we say that grounded theory is appropriate when there isn’t a theory; which in the modern context is highly unlikely, or when there is too much theory. In either case, I think it is important to justify why you are using a grounded theory methodology, and in my opinion, that would require some engagement with the existing literature.

So, like many above have said… it depends on your topic, your field and, ultimately, what you can argue is best. The practical reality of qualitative research (particularly if taking an inductive approach) is that even if you were to do a comprehensive review of the literature before you collect data – it is likely that you will have to revisit this once you start to understand your participants.

Cheers

Ryan

PS - as a reviewer of a grounded theory submission, I would be much more interested in your coding processes than when you did your literature review. Coding is ultimately the defining feature of a grounded theory inquiry.

 PSS- Some references you might find useful (only because I did – I’m sure you have read more than 1 or 2 of these already. I think that the Suddaby paper is particularly useful in the design phase - especially in terms of understanding what editors expect when you use the word "grounded theory"):

Charmaz, K., (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2011) ‘Grounded theory methods in social justice research’. IN Denzin and Lincoln,  Handbook of Qualitative Research (4th ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA

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

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Glaser, B. G., (1978) Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: University of California Press

Glaser, B. G., (1990) Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: University of California Press

Glaser, B. G. (2002) “Constructivist grounded theory”. Forum qualitative sozialforschung/Forum qualitative social research online [Online Journal], 3 (3), http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Adeline

Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded Theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions (Working Paper No. WP006/99. Retrieved from the University of Wolverhampton website http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/11403

Hood, J. C. (2007). Orthodoxy vs. power: The defining traits of grounded theory. The Sage handbook of grounded theory, 151-164.

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.

Hi Ryan Bruce Gould,

With gratitude I note these lines. Research gate has given this opportunity to interact with experts and people who are really considering research seriously as life passion. Thank you very much. As you said I had gone through three of these references only.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Adeline

Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded Theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions (Working Paper No. WP006/99. Retrieved from the University of Wolverhampton website http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/11403

 Any way I need time to understand more. Thank for tour kind support. 

Mollykutty

I totally agree with Susan. I would only like to add that I am still slightly puzzled by the whole idea of a separate "literature review" that can be more or less arbitrarily placed in a thesis. This always sounds to me as if the major function of this chapter is to document that you have read many publications. I always try to explain to students that what they have read is hopefully relevant to their study, so it goes into the introduction to argue the gap in knowledge that is to be closed, in the approach chapter to construct the theoretical background and methodology, and in the discussion and conclusion to contextualise findings and talk back to existing research. To me, a separate chapter "literature review" indicates incomplete functional integration of the literature in the argument of the thesis.

I think a literature review is important for any research.  The critique of others work not only contextualises the reader to your position, but also gives the reader an opportunity to use this insight into the researchers' perspective to gain a deeper insight into the results (both the researchers and the readers interpretation of the researchers' results).  

In my area of study (War Veterans and Families) a literature review is imperative as most of the papers on my topic are from the USA, and many papers indicate that the USA military and the UK military are totally different (this could be because they are, or because the results of UK based research is totally different to the results from the USA).  So to read the USA studies deployment has a significant impact on most every part of a war veterans' life, whereas the UK researchers tend to suggest that there is no significant impact on war veterans lives post deployment.

It is important for the reader of my research to know this otherwise they may be reading the references of the my study out of context.  It is also important in my area of research as a critical lit rev can point out where civilian and non-war experienced researchers can misinterpret war veteran data (as often happens), therefore it is important for the reader to understand that the misinterpretation of data may affect the results of the papers that I may reference, giving them an opportunity to assess the validity of the papers in the Lit Rev...these are simply my thoughts and my opinions...  

There is a big difference between when you do the literature review versus where you place it in the write-up. A lot early writing in Grounded Theory advocated not doing the lit review until later in the fieldwork, but I have never seen an article using GT that put the review after the results.