“Using QSR‐NVivo to Facilitate the Development of a Grounded Theory Project: An Account of a Worked Example”
Open accessAbstract
This paper demonstrates how the software package QSR‐NVivo can be used to faciitate a grounded theory approach. Recent research evidence has questioned the methodological quality of many studies that claim to utilise grounded theory. This paper argues that qualitative data analysis software can be used to encourage good quality grounded theory research by facilitating many of the key processes and characteristics associated with this approach. To achieve this, the paper identifies a number of grounded theory characteristics, common to all revisions of the methodology. It then describes the development of a recent study, which examined how people successfully maintain long‐term physical activity behaviour change. The purpose of this is to demonstrate how different functions of QSR‐NVivo may be used in conjunction with the key grounded theory characteristics. In summary, QSR‐NVivo is a powerful tool that, if used appropriately, can facilitate many aspects of the grounded theory process from the design and early sampling procedures, through to the analysis of data, theoretical development and presentation of findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Transcripts and fieldwork notes were imported into QSR-NVivo for line-by-line coding to identify relevant themes and develop conceptual categories.
“By using 'constructivist grounded theory' in the analysis of the interview transcripts (Charmaz 2014, 13), transcripts and fieldwork notes are imported into a software tool QSR-NVivo for facilitating line-by-line coding, to identify relevant themes and to develop conceptual categories (see Hutchison, Johnston, and Breckon 2010).”
From Desire for Self-healing (2017) · cites this paper as Hutchison, Johnston, and Breckon 2010
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,636 · see citing works
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277 · see citing works
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136 · see citing works
The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781848607941 · Cited by 2,798 · see citing works
The problem of appraising qualitative research
Dixon-Woods, M. (2004) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.008714 · Cited by 653 · see citing works
Orthodoxy vs. Power: The Defining Traits of Grounded Theory
Hood, J. C. (2007) · The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory · doi:10.4135/9781848607941.n7 · Cited by 248 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Since it was first described by Glaser and Strauss (1967), its popularity has increased significantly (Hood, 2007).”
BackgroundGrounded Theory-Based Research within Exercise Psychology: A Critical Review
Hutchison, A. J., Johnston, L., & Breckon, J. (2011) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780880903304527 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Can AI chatbots help retain customers? Impact of AI service quality on customer loyalty
Chen, Q., Lu, Y., Gong, Y., & Xiong, J. (2023) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-09-2021-0686 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Hatcher, A. M., Woollett, N., Pallitto, C. C., Mokoatle, K., Stöckl, H., MacPhail, C., Delany‐Moretlwe, S., & García‐Moreno, C. (2014) · Journal of the International AIDS Society · doi:10.7448/ias.17.1.19233 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Al-Eisawi, D. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221113551 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Qi, M., Dai, X., Zhang, B., Li, J., & Liu, B. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15043274 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Lau, N.-S. (2017) · Asian Medicine · doi:10.1163/15734218-12341395 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hutchison, A. J., Johnston, L. H., & Breckon, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hutchison, Andrew John
- ORCID
- Breckon, Jeff David
- Venue
- International Journal of Social Research Methodology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 283-302
- ISSN
- 1364-5579 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5300
- OpenAlex
- W2060620220
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 39.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Social Research Methodology (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
- SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) (submittedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- grounded theory, qualitative data analysis software, methodological quality, exercise behavior change, theory development, software functions
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