CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 197Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and MethodsBusiness Strategies and Management Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice

Bryant, Antony·2017·Oxford University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199922604.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract The book is addressed to investigators with some knowledge of and familiarity with research methodswho are keen to learn more about the grounded theory method [GTM]. The method is located against general research issues, such as the nature of doctoral and other research, discussions on epistemology and ontology, and the initial motivations for undertaking a specific research project. The key features of GTM are discussed and exemplified using numerous examples taken from several of the author’s many successful PhD students. The focus is on distinguishing the core and essential features of the method, from those that can be regarded as “accidental.” The author’s concept of Methodological Sensitivity is introduced to explain how insightful research is often dependent on researchers’ adapting one or more methods to their specific project and context. The grounded theory method is illustrated through several examples taken from PhD theses supervised by the author; also the derivation of a grounded theory is drawn from more than 100 published GTM papers. The book includes chapters devoted to discussions of the concept of abduction and abductive logic, now seen as central to GTM, set against an overview of different forms of reasoning—i.e. induction and deduction. Other chapters include personal accounts of GTM-in-use by four successful PhD candidates and a guide that summarizes ways in which issues around GTM can be taken into account and addressed both by researchers (not only PhD students) and by assessors and evaluators (PhD examiners, journal editors, reviewers, and those refereeing research proposals).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199922604.001.0001

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bryant, A.
Corresponding author
Bryant, Antony
ORCID
Bryant, Antony
Venue
Oxford University Press eBooks
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Published
2017-01-29
DOI
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199922604.001.0001
OpenAlex
W4229483819
Cited by
197
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
FWCI
17.31
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
Keywords
methodological sensitivity, abduction, abductive reasoning, induction and deduction, epistemology, ontology, doctoral research, research supervision, research evaluation, research proposal evaluation

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