Grounded theory for geeks
Abstract
Grounded Theory (GT) is gaining popularity as research method in Software Engineering; however, it is still not widely understood. We present some patterns based on the use of GT to study Software Engineering contexts including our own experiences of applying classic GT in an attempt to make it more accessible for Software Engineering researchers (aka 'geeks').
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?
Current grounded theory guidelines in software engineering do not cover the reporting process.
“However, this guidance does not extend to reporting GT studies.”
From Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2016) · cites this paper as [44]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 25 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-10-21
- Pages
- 1-17
- OpenAlex
- W2159030789
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (publishedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- grounded theory
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
