Themes Are Not Theory Understanding Theory Development in Grounded Theory
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Grounded theory studies increasingly report themes as their principal findings, despite claiming a grounded theory methodology. This article clarifies why themes and theory are not interchangeable analytic outcomes. Drawing on Glaserian classic grounded theory (GCGT), it distinguishes thematic analysis, which develops patterns of shared meaning through coding and interpretation, from the constant comparative method of analysis, which generates an integrated theory through coding, comparison, and conceptualization. The article traces how conceptualization, category development, and theoretical coding combine to produce a theory that explains a main concern in a substantive area, in contrast to the descriptive or interpretive accounts produced by thematic analysis. It offers researchers practical questions for evaluating whether their analysis is developing themes or generating theory. The distinction matters because reporting themes when a study claims a grounded theory methodology signals a mismatch between stated method and analytic outcome, and it supports more accurate and methodologically consistent reporting of grounded theory research.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open-access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 21(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke's approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56, 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: Theoretical coding. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.