Grounded theory and thematic analysis are two of the most widely used qualitative research methods for making sense of interview, survey, or observational data. Grounded theory builds a brand-new explanatory theory directly from the data, while thematic analysis identifies and reports the patterns of meaning, or themes, running through it.
Key Takeaways
- GT: Grounded Theory generates a new theory from data using systematic, iterative coding such as line-by-line coding and constant comparative analysis.
- TA: Thematic Analysis identifies patterns of shared meaning, or themes, within data.
- Which to choose: GT suits areas with limited prior research; TA suits broader research questions and theme identification.
| Feature | Grounded Theory | Thematic Analysis (Reflexive Approach) |
|---|---|---|
| Aim | Aims to develop a new theory grounded in real-world data. | To identify patterns in the data that are significant or intriguing and utilize these themes to address the research question. |
| Focus | Delves deeper into the data to develop an explanatory theory of a social process. | Focuses on identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns of shared meaning (themes) within data. |
| Process | The process is inductive (data-driven). Data is collected and analyzed concurrently until theoretical saturation is reached, which means that no new insights can be gained. | The process can be either inductive or deductive (theory-driven). The process is iterative, allowing researchers to refine codes and themes as their understanding of the data evolves. |
| Output | A well-defined and integrated theory that explains a social process or scheme associated with a phenomenon | A set of themes and an understanding of the relationship between them. Themes should tell a story about the data. |
| Role of Theory | Theory emerges inductively from the data. The use of pre-existing literature is generally discouraged. | Can be either theory-driven (deductive) or data-driven (inductive). Researchers need to be explicit about the theoretical assumptions shaping the analysis. |
| Role of Researcher Subjectivity | Acknowledged but minimized in objectivist approaches. Explicitly acknowledged and considered a valuable resource in constructivist approaches. | Acknowledges that the researcher’s subjectivity, theoretical assumptions, and interpretative framework inevitably shape the identification and interpretation of themes. |
| Coding | May involve different levels of coding, moving from initial line-by-line coding to more selective, integrative, or focused coding. Constant comparative analysis, a strategy of comparing data segments, codes, and categories to make sense of the data, is a core technique. | Data does not need to be segmented for analysis, not all data needs to be coded, and coding can be as fine-grained or coarse as needed to address the research aims. Codes can be semantic (descriptive) or latent (interpretive). |
| When to Use | When little is known about a phenomenon and the goal is to develop a new theory. Particularly useful when investigating social processes. | Can be used for various purposes, including exploring, describing, comparing, or explaining data. Particularly useful for beginning researchers, for time-sensitive projects, and for exploring questions focused on meaning and experience. |
1. Research Aims
Grounded theory (GT) and thematic analysis (TA) are both qualitative research methods, but their aims differ significantly.
- The choice between GT and TA depends on the research question and the overall goal of the research.
- If the aim is to develop a new explanatory theory grounded in data, particularly when there is limited pre-existing research, GT is the more appropriate choice.
- If the goal is to explore and understand patterns of meaning within a data set without necessarily generating a new theory, TA is a suitable approach.
Grounded Theory
The primary aim of grounded theory is to develop a new theory that explains a social process or phenomenon.
It aims to understand how something happens, the factors that influence it, and the consequences of those actions and interactions.
Thematic Analysis
In contrast, the aim of thematic analysis is to identify, analyze, and report patterns of shared meaning (themes) within a data set.
TA doesn’t seek to generate a new theory; instead, it focuses on providing a rich, detailed, and insightful account of the data.
- TA can be used to explore, describe, compare, or explain data, and it can be applied inductively, deductively, or a combination of both.
- The focus is on identifying patterns of meaning across the data set and developing themes that capture the essence of what participants are saying.
Thematic Analysis Informed by Grounded Theory (TAG)
Although the aims of GT and TA are distinct, researchers can use selected techniques from GT to enhance thematic analysis (Chapman, Hadfield, & Chapman, 2015).
This hybrid approach is called thematic analysis informed by grounded theory (TAG). It uses key GT strategies to build a more robust, nuanced understanding of the data (O’Callaghan, Dwyer, & Schofield, 2024).
TAG doesn’t aim to produce a formal grounded theory. Instead, it borrows GT techniques such as constant comparative analysis and coding to create a rich, detailed interpretation of the data.
TAG findings are not grounded theory. That distinction matters, because grounded theory requires a full, rigorous application of all its procedures, not just a few borrowed techniques.
2. Focus
- The key difference in focus lies in the depth and type of interpretation.
- GT delves deeper into the data to develop an explanatory theory of a social process.
- TA, while insightful, primarily focuses on identifying and reporting themes.
- TAG aims to create richer thematic analyses by incorporating select GT techniques.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory (GT) develops a theory that explains a social process or phenomenon. It goes beyond description. GT explains why things happen, not just what happens.
This theory is grounded in the data. It comes from systematic analysis of real observations, not ideas imposed on the data beforehand. Unlike deductive research, which tests hypotheses fixed before the study, GT lets the theory arise from the data itself.
GT keeps the richness and complexity of qualitative data. It builds a theory that applies more broadly to social phenomena.
Its purpose is not simply to describe the data. It aims to explain and predict social behavior too.
That theory should stay grounded in the data, with clear conceptual categories relevant to the area of study.
Thematic Analysis
Thematic Analysis (TA) identifies, analyzes, and reports patterns of shared meaning, or themes, within data.
TA aims to provide a rich, detailed account of the data, often interpreting several aspects of the research topic at once.
TA can work at two levels. Semantic themes stay close to what participants explicitly said; latent themes interpret meanings that are not directly stated.
Either way, the focus is on developing themes that capture the essence of what participants are saying or doing, giving a comprehensive understanding of the data.
Thematic Analysis Informed by Grounded Theory (TAG)
TAG utilizes some GT principles and techniques to enhance the depth and rigor of TA.
It adopts a constructivist paradigm, recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed and shaped by the researcher’s perspective.
However, TAG does not aim to develop a formal grounded theory; its focus remains on identifying and analyzing themes within data.
3. Process
While both grounded theory and thematic analysis use coding and identify themes, there are key differences:
- Data Collection and Analysis: Grounded theory involves concurrent data collection and analysis, while thematic analysis typically analyzes data after collection.
- Theory Generation: Grounded theory aims to generate a new theory, while thematic analysis focuses on identifying and reporting themes.
- Inductive vs. Deductive: Grounded theory is primarily inductive, while thematic analysis can be both inductive and deductive.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory was developed to generate a new theory grounded in the data. The process involves simultaneously collecting and analyzing data. Here is a breakdown of the steps:
- Data Collection: Researchers gather data through interviews, focus groups, and observations, constantly taking reflexive notes.
- Coding: Researchers use three types of coding:
- Open coding: Assigning initial codes to data segments that represent an idea.
- Axial coding: Identifying a central theme or code that links all other codes.
- Selective coding: Developing a narrative based on the axial coding to generate the grounded theory.
- Theoretical Sampling: Researchers collect data from various sources to confirm or refute the emerging theory.
- Data Saturation: Researchers continue collecting data until no new information emerges, indicating the theory is comprehensive.
Thematic Analysis Process
Thematic analysis involves identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data.
The process is flexible, and can be either inductive (data-driven) or deductive (theory-driven).
Thematic analysis is typically broken down into six steps:
- Familiarization: Immersing oneself in the data to get a general sense of it.
- Coding: Assigning codes to data segments relevant to the research question.
- Searching for Themes: Comparing and contrasting codes to identify potential themes.
- Reviewing Themes: Refining the identified themes, merging similar ones, and ensuring distinctness.
- Defining and Naming Themes: Clearly defining the meaning and scope of each theme and assigning concise labels.
- Report Writing: Presenting the findings, supporting themes with data excerpts, and discussing their significance.
Two points of contemporary debate sit alongside these six steps. Braun and Clarke (2019), the method’s originators, now caution against saying themes “emerge” from the data.
That language implies themes are waiting to be discovered, when reflexive TA treats them as actively generated by the researcher’s interpretation.
The debate has a real stake. Braun and Clarke (2021) argue that data saturation, GT’s traditional stopping rule, is a poor fit for reflexive TA.
They prefer theoretical sufficiency instead: coding continues until the analysis gives a rich, coherent answer to the research question, not until a fixed point where “no new themes” appear.
Thematic Analysis Informed by Grounded Theory (TAG)
Some researchers use a combination of grounded theory and thematic analysis, called thematic analysis informed by grounded theory (TAG).
TAG draws on key GT strategies like:
- Constant comparison: Continuously comparing data to identify patterns and refine codes and themes.
- Coding, category, and thematic development: Moving from basic codes to broader categories and then to overarching themes.
- Memo-writing: Recording thoughts and insights about the data during analysis.
- Inductive analysis: Letting the data guide the development of codes and themes, although some deductive analysis can be incorporated.
TAG produces thematic findings that are rooted in data and offer a detailed understanding of the research topic, but they are not a full-fledged grounded theory.
4. Output
- The final output of a thematic analysis is a report that identifies and describes the key themes within the data, offering insights into the research topic.
- The final output of a GT study is a new, middle-range theory that explains a social process or phenomenon.
Grounded Theory
The final product of a grounded theory (GT) study is a well-defined and integrated theory that explains a social process or scheme associated with a phenomenon.
This theory is not meant to explain everything. Instead, it should provide a middle-range theory that focuses on one specific aspect of society or a particular event.
Examples of middle-range theories include explanations of how people deal with anxiety in social situations or how teachers handle misbehaving students.
- The theory developed through GT should explain how something happens, including the factors that influence it and the consequences of those actions.
- It aims to go beyond mere description and provide a framework for understanding and predicting behavior within a specific social context.
Thematic Analysis
The output of thematic analysis (TA) is the identification, analysis, and reporting of patterns of shared meaning (themes) within a data set.
It aims to organize and describe the data in a meaningful way, highlighting the most salient and interesting aspects of what participants are saying.
TA may or may not be guided by a pre-existing theoretical framework and can be used to address a variety of research questions.
- The output is typically presented as a set of themes with supporting data extracts that illustrate each theme.
- The analysis focuses on communicating the essence of the data and providing insights into the participants’ perspectives and experiences.
Thematic Analysis Informed by Grounded Theory (TAG)
The output of TAG is similar to that of TA in that it focuses on identifying and analyzing themes within data.
However, TAG incorporates specific techniques from GT, such as constant comparative analysis and coding, to enhance the depth and rigor of the analysis.
This approach allows researchers to develop a more nuanced understanding of the data and identify relationships between themes.
- While TAG doesn’t result in the development of a formal grounded theory, it generates a richer and more detailed thematic analysis than standard TA.
- The findings are typically reported in a similar format to TA, with themes, categories, and supporting data extracts presented to illustrate the key patterns in the data.
5. Role of Theory
- The primary focus of TA is to identify patterns of meaning (themes) within the data. It is not concerned with developing a theory.
- GT prioritizes generating a new theory from the data.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory (GT) aims to develop a new theory that emerges from the data. This inductive approach lets the data shape the theory, rather than imposing a pre-existing framework on it.
Researchers begin with a general research question. The data then guides how the theory develops.
They avoid pre-conceived notions and existing literature so those ideas cannot influence their findings, letting the theory emerge organically from the data instead.
Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis (TA) focuses on identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns of shared meaning (themes) within a data set.
It doesn’t aim to create a new theory; instead, it focuses on providing a rich and detailed account of the data.
TA can be more flexible in its approach to theory.
It can be used inductively to generate themes directly from the data, deductively to test pre-existing theories, or a combination of both.
Researchers using TA might use pre-existing theoretical frameworks to guide their analysis, but this is not a requirement.
Thematic Analysis Informed by Grounded Theory (TAG)
TAG occupies a middle ground between GT and TA. It borrows key strategies from GT, such as coding, constant comparison, and iterative data analysis, to deepen the thematic analysis.
It stops short of a full grounded theory. TAG’s focus stays on identifying and analyzing themes, not building a new explanatory theory.
TAG typically operates within a constructivist paradigm, acknowledging that the researcher’s perspective shapes the research process.
While TAG incorporates elements of GT, it stops short of a full theory. The output is themes, not an explanation. Each theme is well defined and supported by evidence from the data.
Summary Table
| Method | Role of Theory | Aim |
|---|---|---|
| Grounded Theory | Inductive; theory emerges from data; existing literature used cautiously, especially in the Glaserian approach | Generate a new theory that explains a social process or phenomenon |
| Thematic Analysis | Flexible; can be inductive, deductive, or a combination; pre-existing theoretical frameworks can guide analysis but are not required | Identify, analyze, and report patterns of shared meaning (themes) |
| TAG | Utilizes GT strategies to enhance TA; typically constructivist; doesn’t aim to develop a formal GT | Produce a rich and nuanced thematic analysis |
6. Role of Researcher Subjectivity
- GT and TAG strive to minimize researcher bias through rigorous data analysis techniques.
- Reflexive TA embraces the researcher’s perspective as a valuable asset, utilizing reflexivity and transparency to account for its influence.
- All three methods acknowledge that complete objectivity is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in qualitative research.
- The key lies in understanding how subjectivity might influence the research process and taking steps to mitigate potential biases.
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory (GT), first developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), acknowledges the researcher’s influence but aims to minimize its impact on the emergent theory.
The goal is a theory grounded in the data, not the researcher’s preconceptions. GT encourages theoretical sensitivity: researchers stay aware of their own biases and how these might shape the research.
The classic Glaserian approach treats this as a discipline. It emphasizes an inductive process where the theory emerges from the data, not a framework imposed beforehand.
Charmaz (2006) later developed a constructivist variant of GT. It treats the resulting theory as co-constructed by researcher and participants, not simply discovered. Methods such as constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling help ground the theory in the data either way.
Even so, critics argue that completely eliminating the influence of prior knowledge and the researcher’s own perspective is impossible.
Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis (TA) acknowledges the researcher’s role in shaping the research process and outcomes, particularly in reflexive TA.
Reflexive TA embraces the researcher’s subjectivity as a valuable resource in interpreting the data and developing themes.
It emphasizes reflexivity, where researchers critically examine their own assumptions, experiences, and potential biases to understand how they might influence the analysis.
Transparency is also crucial, where researchers clearly document the decisions made throughout the research process, allowing others to assess the potential for bias.
Thematic Analysis Informed by Grounded Theory (TAG)
TAG, like GT, aims to minimize researcher bias by utilizing systematic data analysis procedures.
However, TAG also acknowledges the constructivist perspective, recognizing the researcher’s role in shaping the interpretation of the data.
TAG researchers strive for reflexivity, recognizing their assumptions can impact the analysis.
Summary Table
| Method | Role of Researcher Subjectivity |
|---|---|
| Grounded Theory | Acknowledges influence but aims to minimize it; encourages theoretical sensitivity; uses techniques like constant comparison and theoretical sampling to ground the theory in the data; complete objectivity is debated. |
| Thematic Analysis | Especially in reflexive TA, embraces researcher subjectivity as a valuable resource; emphasizes reflexivity and transparency in acknowledging and accounting for potential biases; the researcher’s perspective is seen as integral to the analysis. |
| TAG | Aims to minimize bias through systematic analysis; acknowledges the constructivist perspective, recognizing the researcher’s role in interpretation; strives for reflexivity to understand and account for the influence of assumptions. |
7. Coding
Key Takeaways
- GT emphasizes a systematic and iterative approach with multiple levels of coding to develop a theory grounded in the data.
- TA offers more flexibility, with different coding approaches depending on the type of TA being conducted.
- TAG combines elements of both methods, utilizing a systematic and inductive coding process to enhance the depth and rigor of thematic analysis. Understanding these distinctions is essential for researchers to select the most appropriate method for their research goals.
Grounded Theory
In Grounded theory (GT), coding is a systematic and iterative process used to develop a theory grounded in the data.
The coding process in GT is characterized by:
- Line-by-line coding: This involves analyzing data line by line to identify and label concepts and ideas relevant to the research question.
- Constant comparative analysis: This method involves continually comparing new data to previously coded data to identify patterns, refine codes, and develop categories.
- Emergent codes: Codes are not predetermined but emerge from the data as the researcher analyzes it. This inductive approach ensures the theory is grounded in the data.
- Multiple levels of coding: GT typically involves several stages of coding, progressing from initial or “open” coding to more focused or selective coding as the analysis develops.
Thematic Analysis
In TA, coding is used to identify patterns of shared meaning (themes) within a data set.
Unlike GT, TA offers more flexibility in its approach to coding, and the specific coding method used depends on the type of TA being conducted.
- Coding reliability TA prioritizes objectivity and utilizes predetermined themes or codes. This approach often involves multiple researchers coding data independently to assess inter-coder reliability.
- Reflexive TA adopts a more organic approach where codes are developed inductively from the data. Researchers in reflexive TA embrace their subjectivity in shaping the coding process.
- Codebook TA combines elements of both approaches, using a codebook developed from initial data analysis to guide the coding process.
Thematic Analysis Informed by Grounded Theory (TAG)
TAG coding procedures are similar to GT, emphasizing a systematic and iterative approach.
- TAG utilizes constant comparative analysis and coding to identify patterns and develop categories.
- It adopts a predominantly inductive approach, where codes emerge from the data.
- TAG employs analyst-created descriptive codes assigned to text segments, similar to open coding in GT.
| Feature | Grounded Theory | Thematic Analysis | TAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose of Coding | Develop a theory grounded in the data | Identify patterns of shared meaning (themes) | Enhance the depth and rigor of thematic analysis |
| Approach to Coding | Systematic and iterative; line-by-line coding; constant comparative analysis; emergent codes; multiple levels of coding | Can be inductive, deductive, or a combination; specific approach varies depending on the type of TA being conducted (coding reliability, reflexive, or codebook) | Systematic and iterative; constant comparative analysis; predominantly inductive; analyst-created descriptive codes similar to open coding in GT |
| Role of Researcher | Acknowledges researcher influence but aims to minimize it; theoretical sensitivity is crucial | Acknowledges researcher subjectivity, especially in reflexive TA; reflexivity and transparency are emphasized | Aims to minimize bias through systematic analysis but acknowledges the constructivist perspective and the researcher’s role in interpretation |
| Role of Existing Literature | Discouraged in Glaserian GT; acknowledged in Straussian GT and used in later stages to explain relationships between categories | Can be used to inform the analysis but not required | Not explicitly discussed in source material |
8. When to Use
The decision hinges on the research question and the researcher’s goals and experience.
Grounded theory is best suited for:
- Developing a new theory to explain a social process or phenomenon when existing theories are insufficient.
- Research where little is known about a phenomenon.
- Studies aiming for a high level of rigor and theoretical depth.
Thematic analysis is more suitable when:
- The goal is to identify and analyze patterns of shared meaning (themes) within a data set, without necessarily developing a new theory.
- Researchers are exploring a broad research question or seeking a more flexible and accessible approach to qualitative data analysis.
- The researcher’s experience level is a factor, as TA can be easier for novice researchers to grasp than the complexities of GT.
Thematic analysis informed by grounded theory (TAG) is beneficial when:
- Researchers want to enhance the rigor and depth of their thematic analysis by incorporating systematic procedures from GT.
- The research question focuses on understanding a social phenomenon and developing a rich descriptive account.
- A mixed methods approach is desired, as TAG can be theoretically framed by pragmatism, allowing for the integration of diverse data types.
Reading List
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201-216.
Chapman, A. L., Hadfield, M., & Chapman, C. J. (2015). Qualitative research in healthcare: an introduction to grounded theory using thematic analysis. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, 45(3), 201-205.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.
O’Callaghan, C., Dwyer, J., & Schofield, P. (2024). Thematic analysis informed by grounded theory (TAG) in healthcare research: foundations and applications. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1-28.
