ABSTRACT
Grounded theory is distinctive among qualitative research methods in that its goal is the development of substantive theory, that is, theory that accounts for a human behavior within a particular social context (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967).1 Through constant comparative analysis of data from interviews, observations, documents and/or images, researchers conceptually construct what is most problematic and the social-psychological process by which the problem is addressed. The analytic outcome goes beyond descriptive themes or the recounting of individual narratives to the articulation of a theoretical scheme in which key concepts are identified and defined, and the relationships among them delineated. While some grounded theories are reported in terms of a core category, more commonly they are written as basic social psychological processes (BSP), that is, a core category with at least two sequential stages. Vital to their usefulness is the naming of factors or conditions that influence variation in the core category or BSP, not just by their presence or absence, but also by their degree or intensity (Wuest, 2012). Conditions that influence variation are diverse and may include individual attributes such as age or family history, relational factors such as conflict, support, services and resources, and/or structural influences such as poverty or discrimination. Thus, a grounded theory is a substantive theory that accounts for the heterogeneity in how a basic social process unfolds for individual people in different contexts and suggests possibilities for action that previously may have been invisible (Glaser, 1978; Swanson, 2001). Substantive theory helps us transcend our finite grasp of the specific through its potential transferability to other situations (Glaser, 1978). “Analytic generalization and theoretical transferability are the bases for utility in grounded theory research” (Sandelowski, 2004, p. 1371).
