The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Open accessAbstract
An updated and revised edition of Corbin and Strauss’ popular handbook on grounded theory, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd edition), remains a classic in qualitative research. This third edition, one of the most readable and practical explorations of grounded theory available, is a must-read for any graduate student or researcher interested in using grounded theory for qualitative research. Corbin and Strauss have laid out their volume in a manner that easily walks any beginning (or experienced) researcher through the grounded theory approach to data collection, analysis, and reflection. The combination of both writing about the process and demonstrating it with actual research study examples works very well for reinforcing how to “make sense out of masses of qualitative data” using grounded theory (pp. ix-x). A classic, it should remain on the shelves of researchers for years to come. What Corbin and Strauss’ revised edition is not, however, is a guide to the basics of all qualitative research. It is important to realize when reading this book that there are both subtle and explicit differences between various qualitative research methods. The strength of this book is that it stays focused on exploring a grounded theory approach to qualitative research and does not try to incorporate other qualitative methodologies into the text. Contrary to its title, however, the Basics of Qualitative Research does not delve deeply into other commonly used qualitative methodologies. The author(s) acknowledge this issue when they state: I am not an expert in other methods . . . each method has its own theoretical foundation, purpose and procedures for collecting and analyzing data. Quality quantitative research can be done using all of the different methods as long as the user is true to the method. (p. 326)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cited by
A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069231205789 · Cited by 2,243
Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?
Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2018) · Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning · doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019 · Cited by 1,984
Qualitative descriptive methods in health science research
Colorafi, K. J., & Evans, B. (2016) · HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal · doi:10.1177/1937586715614171 · Cited by 1,423
McDonald, N., Schoenebeck, S., & Forte, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359174 · Cited by 1,206
What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Weber, M. B. (2019) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732318821692 · Cited by 1,162
Metadata
- Authors
- Wuetherick, B.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education
- Publisher
- University of Alberta Libraries
- Published
- 2010-01-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0318-9090 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1615506555
- Cited by
- 8,311
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 412.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.21225/d5g01t
- The paper
- Wuetherick, B. (2010). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education. https://doi.org/10.21225/d5g01t
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.