Grounded theory sampling: The contribution of reflexivity
Abstract
This paper explores the value of reflexivity for Glaserian grounded theory methodology, using examples drawn from experiences recruiting a sample for a doctoral research project. Reflexivity is highly relevant for grounded theory research due to its foundations in symbolic interactionism. In this study, reflexivity facilitated the identification of factors influencing sample recruitment at a process and a personal level. It provides a vehicle for the identification of the impact of self on the research relationship. Glaser’s (1978, 1992) early works situated personal experience within theoretical sensitivity, and as data to be included within constant comparative analysis method. His later writings (Glaser, 2001) explicitly reject reflexivity as a distraction from the data, seeing constant comparative analysis as having the ability to expose researcher effects on the data. He does not explore researcher influences on study recruitment. The analysis presented here suggests that the impact of the researcher at this stage of a project needs to become part of the research record(data) to ensure that its impact can be explored through constant comparative analysis. Reflectivity provides a framework through which this may be achieved.
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?
Classical grounded theory rejects reflexivity.
“Classical grounded theory is clear about its rejection of reflexivity, claiming that it could be a distraction from focusing on the data (Neill, 2006).”
From A GROUNDED THEORY EXPLORATION OF WELLBEING FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN FORCIBLY DISPLACED AS A RESULT OF TRAUMA CAUSED BY CONFLICT, BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE OF PARTICIPANTS LIVING IN UGANDA (2025) · cites this paper as Neill, 2006
Cites
“Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity
Finlay, L. (2002) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973202129120052 · Cited by 1,937 · see citing works
Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of Glaser and Strauss
Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7489(03)00113-5 · Cited by 837 · see citing works
Enhancing the Rigor of Grounded Theory: Incorporating Reflexivity and Relationality
Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973201129119082 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity
McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x · Cited by 374 · see citing works
The Validity of Divergent Grounded Theory Method
Amsteus, M. N. (2014) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940691401300133 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Neill, S. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Northampton (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Neill, Sarah J.
- ORCID
- Neill, Sarah J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Nursing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 253-260
- ISSN
- 1361-4096 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-9871
- 1744-988X
- OpenAlex
- W2108789312
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 9.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of research in nursing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative research in health
- Keywords
- reflexivity, grounded theory, sample recruitment, symbolic interactionism, research relationships, doctoral research
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