Cited by 644Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsSociology and Education Studies

Methodological issues in grounded theory

Open access
Cutcliffe, John R.·2000·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Examination of the qualitative methodological literature shows that there appear to be conflicting opinions and unresolved issues regarding the nature and process of grounded theory. Researchers proposing to utilize this method would therefore be wise to consider these conflicting opinions. This paper therefore identifies and attempts to address four key issues, namely, sampling, creativity and reflexivity, the use of literature, and precision within grounded theory. The following recommendations are made. When utilizing a grounded method researchers need to consider their research question, clarify what level of theory is likely to be induced from their study, and then decide when they intend to access and introduce the second body of literature. They should acknowledge that in the early stages of data collection, some purposeful sampling appears to occur. In their search for conceptually dense theory, grounded theory researchers may wish to free themselves from the constraints that limit their use of creativity and tacit knowledge. Furthermore, the interests of researchers might be served by attention to issues of precision including, avoiding method slurring, ensuring theoretical coding occurs, and using predominantly one method of grounded theory while explaining and describing any deviation away from this chosen method. Such mindfulness and the resulting methodological rigour is likely to increase the overall quality of the inquiry and enhance the credibility of the findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01430.x

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cutcliffe, J. R.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Cutcliffe, John R.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-06
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
1476-1484
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2165793557
Cited by
642
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 42
FWCI
5.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CORE Scholar (Wright State University) (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of Bioresource Management (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sociology and Education Studies
Keywords
grounded theory, qualitative research methodology, sampling, creativity, reflexivity, tacit knowledge, methodological quality, nursing research
MeSH terms
Humans, Nursing, Nursing Theory, Nursing Methodology Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review