Overview
Grounded theory (GT) has split into several versions since Glaser and Strauss introduced it in 1967. Classic or Glaserian GT uses open, selective and theoretical coding and warns against forcing data into preconceived frames. Straussian GT, developed by Strauss and Corbin, introduced open, axial and selective coding and a coding paradigm of conditions, actions/interactions and consequences. Constructivist GT, associated with Charmaz, uses initial, focused and theoretical coding and treats the theory as co-constructed by researcher and participants.
Many studies say 'grounded theory' but mix vocabulary from all three, or use GT labels for what is really thematic analysis. We help you pick a version that fits your epistemology, use its procedures consistently and show examiners the analytic moves — coding, comparison, memoing, theoretical sampling — that make it grounded theory.
We act as an analytic mentor: reviewing your line-by-line codes and memos, questioning categories, helping you define properties and dimensions, and helping you diagram relationships until a core category and theoretical model are visible. The coding and the theory remain your work.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Doctoral candidates using grounded theory as their main methodology
- Master's students who need to justify a GT-informed approach
- Nursing, education, management and social work researchers developing process or practice models
- Researchers whose examiners or reviewers questioned whether their study is 'really' grounded theory
Common problems we help with
- You have hundreds of open codes and no idea how to reduce them to categories
- You are unsure whether to use axial coding or Charmaz's focused coding
- Your 'theory' looks like a list of themes without relationships between concepts
- You recruited everyone at once and now need to explain theoretical sampling honestly
- You claim saturation but cannot show how you judged it
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Choosing and justifying a GT version (Glaserian, Straussian or constructivist) aligned with your research paradigm
- Feedback on initial or open coding: gerunds, in-vivo codes, level of abstraction, avoiding premature theorizing
- Support for axial coding (Strauss and Corbin's paradigm model) or focused coding (Charmaz), as appropriate
- Category development: properties, dimensions and relationships, with constant comparison across incidents and cases
- Memo-writing coaching and review of your analytic memos
- Theoretical sampling and saturation planning, and help describing what actually happened in your study
- Diagramming the core category and theoretical model
- CAQDAS setup for GT workflows (memos, code hierarchies, network views)
Not included
- Coding your interviews and building a theory for you to submit
- Presenting a thematic analysis as grounded theory to satisfy an assumption about prestige
- Writing your findings, theory or discussion chapter
- Claiming saturation that the data do not support
What you receive
- Methodological alignment note
- A short summary of the GT version you are using, its coding stages and key sources, with pointers on consistent vocabulary.
- Coding and memo feedback
- Written comments on samples of your codes and memos, with suggestions for raising the level of abstraction and comparing across cases.
- Category development worksheet
- A structured template for recording each category's properties, dimensions, conditions and links to other categories.
- Model review
- Feedback on your draft theoretical diagram and core category, including gaps where more data or comparison is needed.
- Methods section review
- Tracked comments on how you describe coding, sampling, memoing and saturation.
How it works
Methodology check
We confirm GT suits your question (usually a process or social mechanism) and agree which version you will follow.
Early coding review
You code your first interviews; we review your codes and memos and discuss what to ask in the next interviews.
Comparison and categories
Across several sessions we work through category building, constant comparison and theoretical sampling decisions.
Integration
You draft the core category and model; we test it with you against the data and review how you present it.
Grounded theory versions and techniques
- Classic / Glaserian GT
- Open and selective coding followed by theoretical coding using coding families; strong emphasis on emergence and delaying the literature review.
- Straussian GT (Strauss & Corbin)
- Open, axial and selective coding; axial coding relates categories through a paradigm of conditions, actions/interactions and consequences. Later editions with Corbin softened the procedural emphasis.
- Constructivist GT (Charmaz)
- Initial, focused and theoretical coding; gerund-based line-by-line coding; theory as an interpretive rendering shaped by the researcher's standpoint.
- Constant comparison
- Comparing incident with incident, incident with category and category with category to refine properties and boundaries.
- Memo-writing
- Ongoing analytic notes that record ideas about codes and categories and form the raw material of your theory.
- Theoretical sampling and saturation
- Selecting further data to develop emerging categories, and judging theoretical, not just data, saturation.
Open, axial, selective: whose terms are these?
'Open, axial and selective coding' is the Strauss and Corbin sequence. Glaser rejected axial coding as forcing, and Charmaz uses initial, focused and theoretical coding. Mixing these terms in one methods section signals confusion to an examiner. We help you use one vocabulary consistently or explain carefully why you are adapting it.
- Glaser: open → selective → theoretical coding
- Strauss & Corbin: open → axial → selective coding
- Charmaz: initial → focused → theoretical coding
From categories to a theory
A grounded theory explains a process or a social phenomenon: it names a core category and shows how other categories relate to it under different conditions. We help you move from descriptive categories to explanatory relationships through diagramming, asking questions such as 'under what conditions does this happen?' and 'what are the consequences for participants?', and checking each relationship against your memos and data.
Being honest about sampling and saturation
In practice, ethics approvals and timelines often limit true theoretical sampling. Rather than overclaiming, we help you describe what you actually did — for example, adjusting interview questions to explore emerging categories — and how you judged that categories were sufficiently developed for your purposes.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative memo feedback
A fictional doctoral researcher using constructivist GT to study how early-career teachers decide whether to stay in the profession shared a focused code and memo. The content below is invented.
Researcher's focused code
'Calculating sustainability' — participants weigh workload against the meaning they get from the job.
Feedback
This is a promising category because it names an action, not a topic. The memo describes what participants weigh but not when calculating starts or stops. Compare the three participants who describe a 'breaking point' with those who do not: what conditions differ? That comparison may reveal properties such as timing and visibility of support.
Suggested next step
Add two interview prompts on moments of re-evaluation, and write a memo comparing 'calculating sustainability' with your earlier code 'protecting identity'. They may be dimensions of one category.
Illustrative example only; the study, codes and advice are fictional and show the style of feedback, not a real client's work.
What you’ll need to provide
- Research question, methodology notes and ethics approval constraints on sampling
- Anonymized transcripts or field notes, starting with the first few
- Your codes, memos and diagrams in whatever form you keep them
- Supervisor or reviewer feedback on your GT approach
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- Number of transcripts and coding rounds you want feedback on
- Length of the mentoring period (GT is iterative and often spans months)
- Whether you need methodology alignment only or support through theory integration
- Review of methods and findings chapters
Turnaround depends on
- Your data collection schedule, since GT interleaves collection and analysis
- How quickly memos and codes are shared between sessions
- Examiner or submission deadlines
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Is my study really grounded theory?
If your aim is to generate an explanatory theory of a process, and you are using constant comparison, memoing and some form of theoretical sampling, probably yes. If you want to describe themes across interviews, thematic analysis may be a better and more honest fit. We help you decide before examiners ask.
Should I read the literature before analyzing?
Views differ by version. Glaser advised delaying it; Strauss and Corbin and Charmaz accept earlier engagement with sensitizing concepts. Your university may also require a literature review first. We help you explain your position.
Can you help in NVivo or ATLAS.ti?
Yes. Both support memos, code hierarchies and visual models. ATLAS.ti's network views and NVivo's maps are useful for diagramming categories.
How many interviews do I need?
Grounded theory does not set a number in advance; sample size follows the development of categories. In practice, dissertations often plan a range and justify the final number by the depth of categories. We help you plan and justify it.
Will my data stay confidential?
Yes. Share anonymized transcripts only, check that your ethics approval permits third-party support, and we can sign a confidentiality agreement.