Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 3–21 | Cite as

Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria

  • Juliet M. Corbin
  • Anselm Strauss


Using grounded theory as an example, this paper examines three methodological questions that are generally applicable to all qualitative methods. How should the usual scientific canons be reinterpreted for qualitative research? How should researchers report the procedures and canons used in their research? What evaluative criteria should be used in judging the research products? We propose that the criteria should be adapted to fit the procedures of the method. We demonstrate how this can be done for grounded theory and suggest criteria for evaluating studies following this approach. We argue that other qualitative researchers might be similarly specific about their procedures and evaluative criteria.


Social Psychology Qualitative Research Social Issue Research Product Qualitative Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agar, M. (1986). Speaking of Ethnography. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Barley, S. (1986). “Technology as an occasion for structuring” evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments.”Administrative Science Quarterly 31, 78–108.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H. (1970). Sociological Work: Method and Substance. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.Google Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1931). “Science without concepts.”American Journal of Sociology 36, 515–533.Google Scholar
  5. Burgess, R. (ed.) (1982).Field Research: A Source Book and Field Manual. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (1983). “The Grounded Theory Method: An Explication and Interpretation.” In R. Emerson (ed.)Contemporary Field Research. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 109–126.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1916).Essays in Experimental Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature Chicago: Open Court. Fielding, N. and Fielding J. 1986.Linking Data. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Glaser, B. (1978).Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  11. Gortner, S., and Schultz, P. (1988). “Approaches to nursing science methods.”Image 20, 22–23.Google Scholar
  12. Hammersley, M., and Atkinson, P. (1983).Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, E. (1971).The Sociological Eye. Chicago: Aldine, 1971. Reprinted, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, J. (1975).Doing Field Research. N.Y.: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kidder, L. (1981). “Qualitative research and quasi-experimental frameworks.” In M. Brewer and B. Collings (eds.).Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Kirk, J. and Miller, M. (1986).Reliability, Validity and Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Kuhn, T. (1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  18. Le Compte, N., and Goetz, J. (1982). “Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research.”Review of Educational Research 52, 31–60.Google Scholar
  19. Mead, George H. (1934).Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Park, R., and Burgess, E. (1921).An Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Popper, K. (1959).The Logic of Scientific Discovery. N.Y.: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Sandelowski, M. (1986). “The problem of rigor in qualitative research.”Advances in Nursing Science.8, 27–37.Google Scholar
  23. Strauss, A. (1970). “Discovering New Theory from Previous Theory.” In T. Shibutani (ed.)Human Nature and Collective Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Strauss, A. (1987).Qualitative Analysis. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990).Basic of Grounded Theory Methods. Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1989). “Tracing Lines of Conditional Influence: Matrix and Paths.” Paper delivered at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Society, San Francisco, California, August 13.Google Scholar
  27. Strauss, A., Fagerhaugh, S., Suczek, B., and Wiener, C. (1985).The Social Organization of Medical Work. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliet M. Corbin
    • 1
  • Anselm Strauss
  1. 1.Department of Social and Behavioral SciencesUniversity of California at San FranciscoSan Francisco

Personalised recommendations