●Grounded Theory와 Qualitative Content Analysis의 유사점과 차이점 분석을 통한 혼동 줄이기

Grounded Theory와 Qualitative Content Analysis의 유사점과 차이점 분석을 통한 혼동 줄이기

Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences

Ji Young Cho Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA

Eun-Hee Lee Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea

Introduction

Using an appropriate research method for inquiry is critical to successful research. Grounded theory and qualitative content analysis share similarities. Both are based on naturalistic inquiry that entails identifying themes and patterns and involves rigorous coding. They are both used to analyze and interpret qualitative data; however, the similarities and differences in grounded theory and qualitative content analysis have not been clarified in the literature (Priest, Roberts, & Woods, 2002), nor have they been consistently considered.

To illustrate, both have been considered equivalent approaches to interpret qualitative data (e.g., Priest et al., 2002). 

• Grounded theory was treated as a research methodology, and content analysis as a method (e.g., Crotty, 2003); 
• furthermore, grounded theory was considered a theoretical framework and content analysis a research method of textual data analysis (e.g., Patton, 2002). 
• Qualitative content analysis was considered a strategy for the analysis of qualitative descriptive studies (Sandelowski, 2000) and a technique with overtones(함축) of other research methods, such as ethnographic and grounded theory (Altheide, 1987). 
• Qualitative content analysis was unknown as a research method until recently, especially in English-speaking countries, because of the dominance of quantitative content analysis (Schreier, 2012).

Moreover, a researcher’s approach purportedly following grounded theory actually seems closer to qualitative content analysis or other methods (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003; Suddaby, 2006). Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) cited the discrepancy between “method claims and the actual use of methods” (p. 905) in research papers. Novice researchers, especially students who want to conduct qualitative research, are often confused by the characteristics of the two as result of the lack of comparative references. Some researchers who stated they had used grounded theory actually used qualitative content analysis, which incorporates some procedures of grounded theory, such as open coding or memoing (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003).

Thus, the purpose of this paper is to clarify ambiguities about the characteristics of grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. Using our own research as examples, we have discussed the similarities and differences in the two in the following six areas:

• a) background and philosophical basis,
• b) unique characteristics of each method,
• c) goals and rationale of each method,
• d) data analysis process,
• e) outcomes of the research, and
• f) evaluation of trustworthiness of research.

We have also discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each. Through this paper, we expect to provide knowledge that can assist novice researchers in the selection of appropriate research methods for their inquiries.

Research Goals and Rationale for Using a Specific Method

A researcher who uses grounded theory aims to generate a substantive theory that will explain a phenomenon in a specific context and suited to its supposed use. The emphasis in grounded theory is theory development (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Thus, grounded theory is appropriate when no theory exists or when a theory exists that is too abstract to be tested, but it is not appropriate for the test of a theory or generation of knowledge from objective reality (Martin & Turner, 1986; Suddaby, 2006).

In contrast, a researcher who uses qualitative content analysis aims to “systematically describe the meaning” of materials in a certain respect that the researcher specified from research questions (Schreier, 2012, p. 3). Although both grounded theory and qualitative content analysis follow coding processes, content analysis does not focus on finding relationships among categories or theory building; instead, it focuses on extracting categories from the data.

Two research examples appear below in order to explain and demonstrate the rationale of using one or the other of the methods. The examples are from the dissertations written by the authors of this paper.

Data Analysis Process

Data analysis in grounded theory and data analysis in qualitative content analysis share similarities in that both involve a systematic coding process. They entail coding, finding categories and theme(s); however, the procedure is different. Specifically, data collection and analysis are parallel in grounded theory, and the procedure is neither linear nor sequential. The amount of data for analysis is based not on availability but on saturation. Moreover, in grounded theory, because of the nature of theoretical sampling, theory generated from the data actually guides the decision about what kinds of data are appropriate for subsequent data collection.

Another difference is that qualitative content analysis entails a data reduction process by focusing on selected aspects of data. Data reduction is achieved by limiting “analysis to those aspects that are relevant with a view to your research question” (Schreier, 2012, p. 7). This difference relates to the nature of grounded theory, which requires a high degree of interpretation and transformation of data. Sandelowski (2000) argued that qualitative content analysis entails analyzing qualitative descriptive studies that are data-derived and the least interpretative compared to other approaches to qualitative analysis because “there is no mandate to re-present the data in any other terms but their own” (Sandelowski, 2000, p. 338). Sandelowski also argued that qualitative descriptive studies require researchers to “stay closer to their data and to the surface of words and events” than grounded theory (p. 336).

In a brief explanation, the analysis process in..

• grounded theory involves 
• concept labelling, 
• categorizing, 
• identifying core categories, 
• finding relations among categories, and 
• generating a theory from such relationship. 

The analysis process in 

• qualitative content analysis comprises 
• selecting the unit of analysis, 
• categorizing and 
• finding themes from categories.

Research Outcomes

The research outcome of grounded theory is a substantive theory that is “suited to its supposed uses” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 3). Substantive theory is developed and generated through interplay with data collected in actual research. It is different from higher level general theory because general theory is achieved from deductive approaches (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). It consists of plausible and conceptually dense relationships among concepts and sets of concepts. The nature of a substantial theory is provisional and has the potential to be extended “to a more elaborative substantive theory or to formal theories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1994, p. 282).

The research outcome of qualitative content analysis is the meaning of qualitative material formatted as categories or themes that answer the research questions. The use of qualitative content analysis yields a set of priority categories that cover the data instead of developing a new theory by identifying the relationships among codes and categories.

In research on classifying the findings in qualitative studies, Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) argued that the findings of grounded theory require a greater transformation of the data and that qualitative content analysis is less transformative. They argued that qualitative descriptive study, which uses qualitative content analysis strategy, has lowest level of abstraction as a topical survey and that grounded theory has one with highest levels of transformation of the thematic description of the original data. They defined the main characteristics of topical survey as “the reduction of qualitative data in ways that remained close to those data as given” (pp. 910–911); but in thematic description, authors “imported concepts or themes to reframe a phenomenon, event, or case” (p. 911).

Summary of Comparison of Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis

In terms of similarities in grounded theory and qualitative content analysis, both methods are based on naturalistic inquiry. Data can be collected from multiple channels, such as interviews, observations, documents, and visual materials. In addition, both methods follow the systematic procedure of data analysis. By means of the coding process, the researcher seeks codes and categories. Especially in inductive content analysis and grounded theory, researchers seek themes from data analysis; moreover, to enhance the trustworthiness of research, criteria for measuring the quality of qualitative research methods can be used in addition to specific criteria for each method.

In terms of differences, grounded theory emerged from the field of sociology, but qualitative content analysis originated in communication and linguistics. The philosophical basis of grounded theory lies in social interactionism and a reaction to positivistic view of science, but qualitative content analysis is the result of a reaction to quantitative content analysis to understand the meaning of the context. Their characteristics and data analysis procedures differ. The final result of a grounded theory study is a substantive theory, and that of qualitative content analysis is a list of categories and themes. In grounded theory, a substantive theory that surpasses a list of codes is highly important. Grounded theory analysis yields more than data reduction, abstraction, and core categories; it generates a substantive theory that can explain the phenomenon. Use of qualitative content analysis yields a set of priority categories that cover the data instead of a new theory developed by identifying the relations among codes.

Evaluation of Trustworthiness and Quality of Research

Grounded Theory

Corbin and Strauss (1990) suggested the following as evaluation criteria for grounded theory: 

• rigor in the coding and research process, 
• quality of concepts, 
• systematic relatedness among concepts, 
• conceptual density, 
• range of variations and specificity, 
• significance of theoretical findings, and 
• theoretical sensitivity (pp. 18–19).

Findings using grounded theory should have conceptual density; that is, categories should be theoretically dense, richly dimensional, and tightly linked with one another (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Developed theory from research using grounded theory should be judged in terms of “the range of variations and the specificity with which they are analyzed in relation to the phenomena that are their source” (p. 18). Theoretical sensitivity denotes the researcher’s sensitivity to the theory and to “the subtleties of actions/interactions” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 19).

In addition to these criteria specific to grounded theory, criteria for overall qualitative research methodology can be also used for enhancing the quality and trustworthiness of the research. Triangulation via the use of multiple and different data sources, perspectives, sites, and theories is one of the basic strategies. In Study 1, Cho employed data triangulation, theory triangulation, and methodological triangulation. She used a variety of data sources from observation, interviews, and visual material evidence. Because of the lack of an established theory on the pedagogy of aesthetics, she brought multiple theories from architectural history and theory, philosophy, psychology, and education to interpret the observed phenomena. She also used multiple case studies with the grounded theory approach.

From among Maxwell’s (1996) proposed methods for validity testing, Cho used intensive, long-term involvement in the research site, thick and rich description of phenomena, presentation of negative or discrepant information, and use of peer debriefing. Long-term participants help researchers “rule out spurious associations and premature theories” (Maxwell, 1996, p. 110). Her research involved one year of data collection, consisting of weekly observations of the research site; and as a result, a thick and rich description was achieved. She also reported the reality without distortion, including conflicting views ascertained through interviews of students and instructors.

Qualitative Content Analysis

No evaluation criteria have been specifically designed for qualitative content analysis, but overall qualitative research criteria can be applicable. Credibility (truth value), transferability (applicability), and dependability (consistency) have been used to evaluate the trustworthiness of the qualitative inquiry (Guba, 1981) and are applicable for both grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. To measure trustworthiness of qualitative content analysis, these concepts are still validly used (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

In order to increase the credibility of the findings of a study, several strategies can be used, such as triangulation, member checking, showing representative quotations, and peer debriefing. In Study 2, Lee employed multiple methods for triangulation, such as interviews with residents, family members, and staff members as well as observation, document reviews, and drawings. The objective of triangulation is to diminish researcher bias in the data and the likelihood of misinterpretation when checking the findings against various data sources and perspectives. Graneheim and Lundman (2004) suggested the selection of “the most suitable meaning unit” (p. 110) and the capacity of categories and themes to cover data as the other strategies for credibility.

To facilitate transferability, researchers provide “background data to establish [the] context of [the] study and detailed description of [the] phenomenon in question to allow comparisons to be made” (Shenton, 2004, p. 73). Dependability can be enhanced via an audit trail that includes all records, notes on methodology, and documents produced and corrected during the research procedure.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis

Several strengths and weaknesses in the use of grounded theory and qualitative content analysis were identified from literature and critical reflection of the authors' research processes.

The strengths of utilizing grounded theory are as follows:

• (1) When the researcher makes an inquiry when no relevant theory exists, grounded theory gives the researcher a creative approach without confining him or her to an already existing realm of theory (Suddaby, 2006).
• (2) It allows the researcher to look at phenomena with new eyes and from new perspectives without restriction within already existing hypotheses.
• (3) It allows the researcher to understand phenomena holistically.
• (4) Compared to other qualitative research method, it has a better defined procedure in the coding process.

The weaknesses of grounded theory are as follows:

• (1) Because of the number of variations in the original grounded theory text, novice researchers experience confusion in conducting their research. Researchers need to conduct their research with understanding of different coding processes from different versions.
• (2) It does not provide a predefined research sampling process. In order to achieve saturation in theoretical sampling, the researcher must exercise stringent theoretical sensitivity in the data analysis process.
• (3) It is not an effective process in terms of time and energy because of the labor-intensive coding process. Although the researcher follows a rigorous coding process, he or she may not find any substantial theory.
• (4) Because of theoretical sampling and saturation, anticipating the length of the research period is difficult (Goulding, 2002).

The strengths of qualitative content analysis are as follows:

• (1) It leads to understanding of social reality or phenomena through interpretation of a variety of verbal or written recorded communication materials.
• (2) It allows the researcher to process large quantities of data.
• (3) It is flexible in that the data can be verbal or visual and sampled from other sources as well as collected by the researcher (Schreier, 2012)
• (4) If the main sources of data are written text, it is an unobtrusive method because no unwanted interaction effects occur between participants and researchers (Kondracki et al., 2002).

The weaknesses of qualitative content analysis are as follows:

• (1) It may not be appropriate for open explorative research (Ehnert, 2008).
• (2) It can be a labor-intensive and time-consuming process, and the coding scheme becomes quite complex (Kondracki et al., 2002).
• (3) Because of a lack of established analysis procedure, novice researchers experience confusion in conducting their research.

---

Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences

Ji Young Cho, Kent State UniversityFollow
Eun-Hee Lee, Hanyang UniversityFollow

Abstract

Although grounded theory and qualitative content analysis are similar in some respects, they differ as well; yet the differences between the two have rarely been made clear in the literature. The purpose of this article was to clarify ambiguities and reduce confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis by identifying similarities and differences in the two based on a literature review and critical reflection on the authors’ own research. Six areas of difference emerged: (a) background and philosophical base, (b) unique characteristics of each method, (c) goals and rationale of each method, (d) data analysis process, (e) outcomes of the research, and (f) evaluation of trustworthiness. This article provides knowledge that can assist researchers and students in the selection of appropriate research methods for their inquiries.

Keywords

Data Analysis, Grounded Theory, Qualitative Content Analysis, Qualitative Research, Research Method

Recommended Citation

Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1-20. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss32/2