Cited by 424Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsData Analysis and ArchivingQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

“Using QSR‐NVivo to Facilitate the Development of a Grounded Theory Project: An Account of a Worked Example”

Open access
Hutchison, Andrew John, Johnston, Lynne Halley, Breckon, Jeff David·2010·International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1080/13645570902996301

Cites

7 of 7 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hutchison, A. J., Johnston, L. H., & Breckon, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Hutchison, Andrew John
Venue
International Journal of Social Research Methodology
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
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