This document provides an overview of grounded theory as a qualitative research methodology. It discusses key concepts of grounded theory including that it is used for theory generation rather than verification, relies on induction rather than deduction, and aims to systematically discover theory from data as concepts emerge. The document reviews grounded theory processes such as open coding, selective coding, sorting memos, and writing up findings. It also discusses criteria for evaluating grounded theories and the potential applicability of grounded theory for design research problems that have a significant social dimension.

1. Grounded
Theory
and
Design
Mithat Konar, M.Sc.
26 December 2008

2. The TRVTH

3. Grounded Theory
Research requires a hypothesis.
Research requires a “problem”.

4. “When you can measure what you are
speaking about, and express it in numbers, you
know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in
numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and
unsatisfactory kind.”
-Lord William Thompson Kelvin
(1824-1907)

5. Grounded Theory
knowledge = science
science = verification
knowledge = science = verification

6. The truth

7. Grounded Theory
Research does not require a hypothesis.
Research does not require a “problem”.
Research requires a purpose.

8. Grounded Theory
knowledge > science
science > verification
knowledge > science > verification

9. Grounded Theoryknowledge
science
verification
circles are not to scale

10. Grounded Theory
• Grounded Theory is a qualitative research
methodology
• Designed to help social scientists generate
theory
• Is not “hypothesis” and “problem” oriented

11. Grounded Theory and Design
The Appeal of Grounded Theory
Grounded Theory Concepts
Applicability in Design
Application Example
History in Brief

12. History in Brief

13. History in Brief
• Began development at the Department of
Sociology and the Bureau of Applied Social
Research at Columbia University in the 50’s
and 60’s (Glaser, 1992).
• Formalized in the 1967 monograph The
Discovery of Grounded Theory by Barney
Glaser and Anselm Strauss.

14. History in Brief
• Glaser and Strauss later diverged in their
view of GT (Glaser, 1992).
• Glaser's view of GT remained closer to the
initial emergent ideals (Glaser, 1992) (Dick, 2005).
• The remainder of this presentation is based
on Glaser's view of GT.

15. The Appeal of Grounded
Theory

16. The Appeal of Grounded
Theory
• GT echoes the values of many designers
• GT “throws out the book” in developing theory
• Aims find what “works best” in a given situation

17. The Appeal of Grounded
Theory
• GT's epistemology similar to user studies in
interaction design.
• Both rely on inductive analysis of data to
generate useful abstractions.

18. The Appeal of Grounded
Theory
• Useful in developing understanding of the
social dimensions of
• designed artifacts
• design activity
• design discipline

19. Grounded Theory
Concepts

20. Grounded Theory
Concepts
• GT's important aspects
• Used for theory generation rather than theory
verification
• Based on induction rather than deduction

21. Generation vs.
verification
• Classic scientific method formalizes half of
the scientific endeavor:
• the verification of theory
• through observation and measurement
(Ackoff, et al., 1962).

22. Generation vs.
verification
• GT attempts to formalize the other half:
• the generation of theory

23. Generation vs.
verification
• Grounded theory is “the systematic discovery
of theory from data as the concepts emerge
and integrate.”
• “[GT's] yield is just hypotheses!”
• “Testing or verificational work ... is left to
others interested in these types of research
endeavor.” (Glaser, 1992)

24. Generation vs.
verification
• GT was a particular response to a particular
need in a particular context
• “Big man” theories in the 1960s and 1970s.
• “Until [researchers] proceed with a bit more
method their theories will tend to end up
thin, unclear in purpose, and not well
integrated” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
• However, the issue of theory generation vs.
verification is universal.

25. Grounded Theoryknowledge
science
verification
circles are not to scale
theory generation
inductive methods
grounded theory

26. Inductive vs. deductive
theory
• GT is based on “hard study of much data,”
and produces theory which is strongly
supported observation.
• “Logically deduced theories based on
ungrounded assumptions ... can lead their
followers far astray” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
• How many angels on the head of a pin?

27. Inductive vs. deductive
theory
• Another problem with logico-deductive
methods: exampling
• Finding examples to support your theory after
the theory has been developed
• Can create an illusion of proof

28. Inductive vs. deductive
theory
• An advantage of inductive theory generation:
longevity
• “Theory based on data can usually not be
completely refuted by more data or replaced by
another theory.
“Since it is too intimately linked to data, it is
destined to last despite its inevitable modification
and reformulation” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

29. Grounded Theory
Concepts
• GT is an emergent methodology.
• Emergent here means generating theory that
emerges from collected data.
• Is not used to mean new (e.g. Hesse-Biber & Leavy (2006)).
• Many emergent methodologies exist.
• GT is one of the most rigorous.

30. Grounded Theory
Process

31. Sorting
Selective coding
Open coding
Phase Output
Categories and properties
Stops when theoretically saturated
and core category appears.
Additional coding around core
category
Integration of emergent concepts
around core category
The theory
Communicable form of theoryWriteup
Sorted “database” of memos
showing emergence of theory
Grounded Theory Process

32. Sorting
Selective coding
Open coding
Phase Output
Categories and properties
Stops when theoretically saturated
and core category appears.
Additional coding around core
category
Integration of emergent concepts
around core category
The theory
Communicable form of theoryWriteup
Sorted “database” of memos
showing emergence of theory
Grounded Theory Process

33. Open coding
• GT starts with open coding.
• The researcher enters the open coding
phase with no preconceptions about what is
to be found or what is to be studied.
• Starting open coding with an open mind is
critical.

34. Open coding
• The analyst’s job during open coding is to
collect and analyze data to produce
• Categories
•a high level abstraction of the patterns observed in
the data
• Properties
•conceptual characteristics of a category

35. Open coding
• Data collection is typically performed through
direct observation and unstructured
interviews with the members of the social
group under study.
• However, any form of data, including
quantitative data, is valid if it permits the
goals of open coding to be reached.

36. Open coding
• The ultimate aim of open coding is to identify
a core category for further study.
• Open coding will produce a number of
categories, associated properties, and
theoretical codes connecting them.
• Eventually, a dominant category will emerge, and
this category will become the basis for the next
phase of the study (Glaser 1992).

37. Open coding
• Concepts employed in open coding include:
• Constant comparative analysis
• The memo
• Theoretical sampling

38. Open coding
• Constant comparative analysis
• Continually reflecting on previous coding
incidents to inform present incident
• For each incident, identify
•categories and properties suggested in the data
•theoretical codes that connect these to other
categories and properties or other concepts.
• Used throughout the whole GT process

39. Open coding
• Memo
• When you have spent some time working with a
category and have some theoretical insights,
stop coding and record a memo.
• The standard medium for the recording of
constant comparative analysis

40. Open coding
• Theoretical sampling
• Used during open coding and selective coding
• Conventional sampling techniques try to employ
randomization so as to produce a representative
sample of a group under study.
• Theoretical sampling composes sample groups
based on where to go to get the next relevant
piece of data.

41. Open coding
• Theoretical sampling
• “The basic question in theoretical sampling ... :
what groups or subgroups does one turn to next
in data collection? And for what theoretical
purpose?” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

42. Open coding
• Theoretical saturation
• Is achieved when additional sampling fails to
yield useful insights.
• There is an element of subjectivity in deciding
that something is theoretically saturated.
• You can never know whether the next interview
will yield a useful insight.

43. Open coding
• Open coding summary
• The output of the open coding phase is
•The identification of a core category for further study
•that has emerged through the saturation of
theoretically sampled data
•and has been analyzed by the constant comparative
method.

44. Sorting
Selective coding
Open coding
Phase Output
Categories and properties
Stops when theoretically saturated
and core category appears.
Additional coding around core
category
Integration of emergent concepts
around core category
The theory
Communicable form of theoryWriteup
Sorted “database” of memos
showing emergence of theory
Grounded Theory Process

45. Selective coding
• Selective coding begins when a core
category has been found.
• Selective coding limits itself to
• “only those variables that relate to the core
variable,
• in sufficiently significant ways to be used in a
parsimonious theory” (Glaser, 1992).

46. Selective coding
• Uses constant comparative analysis and
theoretical sampling.
• Over time, observations will integrate and
your theory will emerge.

47. Selective coding
• “Integration is simply the emergent
connection between categories and
properties based on theoretical codes, and it
just happens, because the world is
integrated and we are discovering the world
—not creating it!” (Glaser, 1992).

48. Sorting
Selective coding
Open coding
Phase Output
Categories and properties
Stops when theoretically saturated
and core category appears.
Additional coding around core
category
Integration of emergent concepts
around core category
The theory
Communicable form of theoryWriteup
Sorted “database” of memos
showing emergence of theory
Grounded Theory Process

49. Sorting
• Sorting the memos that one has taken during
open and selective coding.
• Intended to produce a structured, coherent
and integrated packaging of the recorded
ideas.

50. Sorting
Selective coding
Open coding
Phase Output
Categories and properties
Stops when theoretically saturated
and core category appears.
Additional coding around core
category
Integration of emergent concepts
around core category
The theory
Communicable form of theoryWriteup
Sorted “database” of memos
showing emergence of theory
Grounded Theory Process

51. Writing up
• The structure of the write-up, “just emerges
from sorting memos.”
• “ ...the analyst starts with no idea of an
outline and thereby lets the concepts outline
themselves through emergence.”
• “When the sorting of all the memos is done,
it is just obvious when to write and what to
write about and how to present the
integrated picture” (Glaser, 1992).

52. Writing up
• In contrast to many verificational and
non-emergent and methodologies, it is not
possible to construct a GT report outline
ahead of time.
• The structure of the report emerges as part
of a “just-in-time” process, when it is needed
and no earlier.

53. Evaluation Criteria
• The criteria for judging GT research is
different from that of verificational methods.
• The output of a grounded theory process is
scientific theory, and it needs to be judged as
scientific theory.

54. Evaluation Criteria
• Basic requirements for good theory (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967):
• Parsimony of variables and formulation
• Scope in the applicability of the theory to a wide
range of situations

55. Evaluation Criteria
• Additional requirements:
• Fit
• Work
• Relevance
• Modifiability

56. Evaluation Criteria
• Fit
• “The categories must be readily (not forcibly)
applicable to and indicated by the data under
study” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
• “If a grounded theory is carefully induced ... its
categories and their properties will fit the realities
under study” (Glaser, 1992).

57. Evaluation Criteria
• Work
• “[The theory] must be meaningfully relevant to
and be able to explain the behavior under study”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
• “If a grounded theory works it will explain the
major variations in behavior ... with respect to
the processing of the main concerns of the
subjects (Glaser, 1992).

58. Evaluation Criteria
• Relevance
• “If it fits and works the grounded theory has
achieved relevance” (Glaser, 1992).

59. Evaluation Criteria
• Modifiability
• The theory itself should not be written in
stone ..., it should be readily modifiable when
new data present variations in emergent
properties and categories (Glaser 1992).

60. Evaluation Criteria
• Verifiability is not a criterion!
• However:
• “The theory should provide clear enough
categories and hypotheses so that crucial ones
can be verified in present and future research;
• they must be clear enough to be readily
operationalized in quantitative studies when
these studies are appropriate” [emphasis added] (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967).

61. Evaluation Criteria
• Furthermore:
• If and when verification fails or new data become
available through other means, “[a] theory is
neither verified nor thrown out, it is modified to
accommodate by integration the new concepts”
(Glaser, 1992).

62. Applicability in Design

63. Applicability in Design
• GT was developed for use in sociology.
• Can it be used in design and design
research?

64. Applicability in Design
• GT's domain:
• “Grounded theory methods are not bound by
either discipline or data collection … its methods
work quite well for analyzing data within the
perspective of any discipline [and] it is a useful
methodology for multidisciplinary studies”
[emphasis original] (Glaser, 1992).

65. Applicability in Design
• GT's domain:
• “Sociologists and other social psychologists are
not the only researchers who use ... grounded
theory.” (Glaser, 1992).

66. Applicability in Design
• However:
• “One property of grounded theory must be
clearly understood: The theory can be developed
only by professionally trained sociologists, but
can be applied by either laymen or sociologists”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

67. Applicability in Design
• Huh?

68. Applicability in Design
• GT is directly applicable over a wide range of
disciplines as long as the subject to be
investigated has a strong social aspect.
• Adapting GT’s inductive methodology to
non-social situations requires extension to
what Glaser presents.

69. Applicability in Design
• GT in design
• Usable directly in research on “human behavior
in organizational, group, and other social
interactions.”
• A more general use of GT in design is
problematic.

70. Applicability in Design
• GT in design
• Requires clear understanding of what constitutes
theory in the area to which it will be adapted
• Standards of “theory” in design research are not
very clear (e.g., Friedman (2003) and Gray & Malins (2004)).

71. Applicability in Design
• GT in design
• GT recommends itself as a method through
which research problems can be discovered.
• It has not been developed as a tool to support
research where the problem has been identified
beforehand.

72. Applicability in Design
Using GT to understand the issues faced by
female designers working in Turkey: good
• Has large social component
• “Problems” not yet defined

73. Applicability in Design
Using GT to develop a model of automotive
dashboard control locations based on class
differences: probably not the best choice
• Issue marginally social
• Problem is well defined

74. Applicability in Design
• Summary
• GT is “the systematic discovery of theory from
data as the concepts emerge and integrate using
the constant comparative method as an
inductive device” (Glaser, 1992).
• Can be used directly in design research in
problems that have a significant and general
social dimension.

75. Applicability in Design
• Summary
• Is adaptable to a wider range of design research
problems if researcher has clear standards
regarding the kind of theory he or she is trying to
construct.
• If the research has already acquired some focus,
further modification to the process will be
required.

76. Applicability in Design
• Summary
• The adopter must not inadvertently transform the
methodology into one of data forcing (as Glaser
accuses Strauss of doing (Glaser, 1992))
• or otherwise turn out a methodology that is
something other than an emergent, inductive
process.

77. Application Example

78. Application Example
• My thesis' research question:
• Why are women such reluctant consumers of
non-portable music reproduction equipment?

79. Application Example
• Methodology for my thesis
• Adapted from Grounded Theory
•GT satisfies need for an emergent method
•GT's inductive aspect was very attractive

80. Application Example
• Problems with GT for my study:
• The “research question” is not a social
process.
•Solution
• Use different approaches to data taking
• Use different theoretical codes

81. Application Example
• Problems with GT for my study:
• The “research question” is already defined.
•Solution
• No need for open coding
• Begin directly with selective coding

82. Application Example
• The resulting methodology:
• “Emergent, inductive triangulation” using
•Sketch analysis
•Unstructured interviews
•Repertory grids
•Observations from literature

83. Application Example
• Sketch analysis
• Participants were asked to sketch their ideal
fantasy system.
•Inspired from Brunner, Bennet, & Honey's “Fantasy
Sketching” approach to participation (2000)
•Results were coded using an original semiological
framework

84. Application Example
• Unstructured interviews
• Used here to complement understanding of
sketches and provide additional inductive cues

85. Application Example
• Construction of repertory grids
• The repertory grid is an evaluation methodology
developed to support George Kelley's Personal
Construction Theory (Tindall, 1994).
• Original intent was personality analysis, but it
suggests itself as a means for general value
analysis as well.

86. Application Example
• Observations from literature
• Credible data from the literature were
incorporated into the inductive process.

87. Application Example
• Data was coded only for gender
• Other codings may be possible (age, musical
preferences, etc.)

88. Application Example
• Participant requirements (theoretically
sampled):
• At least slightly technologically informed
• Ability to think hypothetically and conceive
hypothetical solutions
• Ability to express those ideas in sketch form
• Some concept of discretionary spending
• Balance of male and female participants

89. Application Example
• Emergent participant profile
• Designers
• Design academics
• Graduate design students

90. Application Example
• Result
• An original emergent methodology
• that is not GT
• but it is based on GT concepts and epistemology

91. References
Ackoff, R. L., Gupta, S. & Minas, J. S., 1962. Scientific Method:
Optimizing Applied Research Decisions, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.
Bierut, M., 2005. On (Design) Bullshit, Design Observer: Writings About
Design and Culture, online,
<http://www.designobserver.com/archives/002559.html> (4 January
2007).
Borgatti, S., ND. Introduction to Grounded Theory, online,
<http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm> (30 April 2006).
Brunner, C., Bennett, D. T. & Honey, M., 2000. Girl games and
technological desire, in The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and
Learning, pp. 168-183, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.

92. References
Dick, B., 2005. Grounded Theory: A Thumbnail Sketch, Action Research
Resources website,
<http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html> (30 April
2006).
Friedman, K., 2003. Theory construction in design research: criteria
approaches and methods, Design Studies, 24(6), 507-522,
<http://w3.msi.vxu.se/~per/DVM752/Friedman.pdf> (20 April 2006).
Gill, R. & Grint, K., 2000. Introduction, in The Gender-Technology
Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research, pp. 1-28, Eds. Gill, R. &
Grint, K., Josey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago.

93. References
Glaser, B. G., 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley.
Glaser, B. G. (Ed.), 1996. Gerund Grounded Theory: The Basic Social
Process Dissertation, Sociology Press, Mill Valley.
Gray, C. & Malins, J., 2004. Visualizing Research: A Guide to the
Research Process in Art and Design, Ashgate Publishing Limited,
Aldershot.
Haig, B. D., 1995. Grounded theory as scientific method, in Philosophy of
Education 1995, Ed. Neiman, A., Philosophy of Education Society,
address unknown,
<http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/95_docs/haig.html> (30
April 2006).

94. References
Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (Eds.), 2006. Emergent Methods in Social
Research, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.
Kinach, B. M., 1995. Grounded theory as scientific method: Haig-inspired
reflections on educational research methodology, in Philosophy of
Education 1995, Ed. Neiman, A., Philosophy of Education Society,
location unknown,
<http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/95_docs/kinach.html> (30
April 2006).
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research.
Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park.

95. References
Tindall, C., 1994. Personal construct approaches, in Qualitative Methods in
Psychology: A Research Guide, pp. 72-90, Eds. Banister, P., Burman,
E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. & Tindall, C., Open University Press,
Maidenhead.