Cited by 89Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsEducational Research and Methods

Glaser or Strauss? Considerations for selecting a grounded theory study

Howard-Payne, Lynlee·2016·South African Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Originally developed by Glaser and Strauss, grounded theory is a useful research method for researchers aiming to generate novel theory as it emerges from data gathered and analysed. However, this method is not utilised extensively, and when it is applied, it often leaves researchers confused as to its utility. This article addresses the origins of grounded theory while also informing readers of some of the difficulties regarding this research method. These difficulties arise as a result of the fundamental contentions presented by Glaser and Strauss in their theoretical and methodological divorce from each other and their original grounded theory approach. Illustrative examples of the issues related to the selection of a grounded theory method are presented in relation to a study that relied on the Straussian grounded theory approach to account for the meanings of HIV prophylactic Voluntary Medical Adult Male Circumcision in South Africa.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0081246315593071

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • SGT offers numerous tools to assist with data analysis, such as the coding paradigm to guide the construction of theory and the conditional/consequential matrix to elucidate broad contextual factors.

    “In addition, SGT offers numerous tools to assist with data analysis, such as the coding paradigm to guide the construction of theory and the conditional/consequential matrix to elucidate broad contextual factors (Cooney, 2010; Howard‐Payne, 2016).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Howard‐Payne, 2016

  • One common mistake encountered in pharmacy and healthcare literature is that the theory developed from the data analysis is often not included in the resulting research report.

    “However, one common mistake encountered in pharmacy and healthcare literature is that the theory developed from the data analysis is often not included in the resulting research report. 5”

    From Research and scholarly methods: Thematic analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [5]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Howard-Payne, L.
Affiliations
University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
Corresponding author
Howard-Payne, Lynlee
Venue
South African Journal of Psychology
Published
2015-07-03
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
50-62
ISSN
0081-2463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2254089441
Cited by
88
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3
FWCI
26.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
South African Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss, theory generation, research methodology selection, HIV prophylaxis, male circumcision, South Africa

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