The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Coding Process and Its Challenges
Open accessAbstract
Coding is the core process in classic grounded theory methodology. It is through coding that the conceptual abstraction of data and its reintegration as theory takes place. There are two types of coding in a classic grounded theory study: substantive coding, which includes both open and selective coding procedures, and theoretical coding. In substantive coding, the researcher works with the data directly, fracturing and analysing it, initially through open coding for the emergence of a core category and related concepts and then subsequently through theoretical sampling and selective coding of data to theoretically saturate the core and related concepts. Theoretical saturation is achieved through constant comparison of incidents (indicators) in the data to elicit the properties and dimensions of each category (code). This constant comparing of incidents continues until the process yields the interchangeability of indicators, meaning that no new properties or dimensions are emerging from continued coding and comparison. At this point, the concepts have achieved theoretical saturation and the theorist shifts attention to exploring the emergent fit of potential theoretical codes that enable the conceptual integration of the core and related concepts to produce hypotheses that account for relationships between the concepts thereby explaining the latent pattern of social behaviour that forms the basis of the emergent theory. The coding of data in grounded theory occurs in conjunction with analysis through a process of conceptual memoing, capturing the theorist’s ideation of the emerging theory. Memoing occurs initially at the substantive coding level and proceeds to higher levels of conceptual abstraction as coding proceeds to theoretical saturation and the theorist begins to explore conceptual reintegration through theoretical coding.
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
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x · Cited by 841
Thinking about the Coding Process in Qualitative Data Analysis
Elliott, V. (2018) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560 · Cited by 746
“There are, however, some useful ideas in the grounded theory approach to coding which are more broadly applicable in qualitative research such as coding is the “conceptual abstraction of data” (Holton, 2011, p. 265).”
Thornberg, R. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 · Cited by 668
The place of the literature review in grounded theory research
Dunne, C. (2011) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930 · Cited by 488
Metadata
- Authors
- Holton, J. A.
- Venue
- The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications Ltd
- Published
- 2007
- Pages
- 265-289
- OpenAlex
- W2486569932
- Cited by
- 1,001
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 54.18
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The Coding Process and Its Challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781848607941.n13
- The paper
- Holton, J. A. (2007). The Coding Process and Its Challenges. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941.n13
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.