Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 487–513 | Cite as

Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development



Grounded Theory is a research method that generates theory from data and is useful for understanding how people resolve problems that are of concern to them. Although the method looks deceptively simple in concept, implementing Grounded Theory research can often be confusing in practice. Furthermore, despite many papers in the social science disciplines and nursing describing the use of Grounded Theory, there are very few examples and relevant guides for the software engineering researcher. This paper describes our experience using classical (i.e., Glaserian) Grounded Theory in a software engineering context and attempts to interpret the canons of classical Grounded Theory in a manner that is relevant to software engineers. We provide model to help the software engineering researchers interpret the often fuzzy definitions found in Grounded Theory texts and share our experience and lessons learned during our research. We summarize these lessons learned in a set of fifteen guidelines.


Empirical software engineering research Grounded theory Qualitative research Theory generation 



The authors would like to thank the Scrum Alliance and the Agile Alliance for their generous support of this research.


  1. Adolph S, Hall W, Kruchten P (2008) A methodological leg to stand on: lessons learned using grounded theory to study software development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 conference of the center for advanced studies on collaborative research: meeting of minds.Google Scholar
  2. Annells M (1996) Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical Perspectives, Paradigm of Inquiry, and Postmodernism. Qual Health Res 6(3):379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartels A, Holmes BJ, Lo H (2006) US Slowdown In 2007 Will Dampen The $1.6 Trillion Global IT Market. Forrester Research. Retrieved from,7211,40451,00.html
  4. Benoliel JQ (1996) Grounded Theory and Nursing Knowledge. Qual Health Res 6(3):406–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boehm, B. W. (1984). Software Engineering Economics. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 10(1)Google Scholar
  6. Boehm BW, Clark B, Horowitz E, Westland C, Madachy R, Selby RW (1995) Cost models for future software life cycle processes: COCOMO 2.0. Ann Softw Eng 1(1)Google Scholar
  7. Booch G, Rumbaugh J, Jacobson I (1998) The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, SageGoogle Scholar
  9. Cockburn A (2002) Agile Software Development Joins the "Would-Be" Crowd. Cutter IT J 15(1)Google Scholar
  10. Cockburn A (2003) People and Methodologies in Software Development. University of Oslo, OsloGoogle Scholar
  11. Cockburn A, Highsmith J (2001) Agile software development, the people factor. Computer 34(11):131–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman G, Conner O (2007) Using Grounded Theory to Understand Software Process Improvement: A Study of Irish Software Product Companies. Inf Softw Technol 49(6)Google Scholar
  13. Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Curtis W, Krasner H, Shen V, Iscoe N (1987) On building software process models under the lamppost. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  15. Dey I (1999) Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Diaz M, Sligo J (1997) How software process improvement helped Motorola. Softw IEEE 14(5):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dittrich Y, John M, Singer J, Tessem B (2007) For the Special Issue on Qualitative Software Engineering Research. Inf Softw Technol 49(6):531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyba T, Moe NB, Arisholm E (2005) Measuring software methodology usage: challenges of conceptualization and operationalization.Google Scholar
  19. Emerson R, Fretz R, Shaw L (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitzgerald B (1998) An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Inf Manage 34(6):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gasson S (2003) Rigor In Grounded Theory Research: An Interpretive Perspective On Generating Theory From Qualitative Field Studies. In M. Whitman & A. Woszczynski (Eds.), Handbook for Information Systems Research Hershey PA: Idea Group PublishingGoogle Scholar
  22. Glaser BG (1965) The Constant Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Soc Probl 12(4):436–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glaser BG (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Glaser, BG (1992) Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Glaser BG (1998) Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  26. Glaser B (2001) The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Sociology Press, Mill ValleyGoogle Scholar
  27. Glaser B, Holton J (2004) Remodeling Grounded Theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research in Nursing & Health 5(2), Retrieved from
  28. Glaser B, Strauss A (1965) Awareness of Dying. Adline, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  30. Glass RL, Vessey I, Ramesh V (2002) Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Inf Softw Technol 44(8):491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall WA, Callery P (2001) Enhancing the Rigor of Grounded Theory: Incorporating Reflexivity and Relationality. Qual Health Res 11(2):257–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harter DE, Krishnan MS, Slaughter SA (2000) Effects of Process Maturity on Quality, Cycle Time, and Effort in Software Product Development. Manage Sci 46(4):451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoda R, Noble J, Marshall S (2010) Organizing self-organizing teams. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1Google Scholar
  34. Hughes J, Jones S (2004) Reflections on the use of Grounded Theory in Interpretive Information Systems Research. Electronic J Bus Res MethodsGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones C (2000) Software Assessments, Benchmarks, and Best Practices. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  36. Krishnan MS, Kriebel CH, Kekre S, Mukhopadhyay T (2000) An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Quality in Software Products. Manage Sci 46(6):745–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lazerfeld P, Wagner T (1958) The Academic Mind: Social Scientist in a Time of Crisis. Free Press, Glencoe, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  38. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  39. Lister T, DeMarco T (1987) Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. Dorset House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Marshall M (1996) Sampling for Qualitative Research. Family Practice 13(6)Google Scholar
  41. Martin A, Biddle R, Noble J (2009) XP Customer Practices: A Grounded Theory. Paper presented at the Agile Conference, 2009. AGILE '09Google Scholar
  42. Matavire R, Brown I (2008) Investigating the use of "Grounded Theory" in information systems research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technologyGoogle Scholar
  43. McCallin AM (2003) Designing a grounded theory study: some practicalities. Nurs Crit Care 8(5):203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morse J (2001) Situating Grounded Theory Within Qualitative Inquiry. In: Schreiber RS, Stern PN (eds) Using Grounded Theory in Nursing. Springer Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Mulhall A (2003) In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 41(3):306–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sawyer S, Guinan PJ (1998) Software development: processes and performance. IBM Syst J 37(4):552–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schreiber RS, Stern PN (2001) Using Grounded Theory in Nursing. Springer Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Seaman CB (1999) Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering Research. IEEE Trans Software Eng 25(4):557–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaw M (2003) Writing Good Software Engineering Research Papers: Minitutorial. IEEE Trans Softw EngGoogle Scholar
  51. Simon H (1947) Administrative Behaviour. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Singer J, Vinson NG (2002) Ethical issues in empirical studies of software engineering. Softw Eng IEEE Trans 28(12):1171–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sjoeberg DIK, Hannay JE, Hansen O, Kampenes VB, Karahasanovic A, Liborg NK et al (2005) A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering. Softw Eng IEEE Trans 31(9):733–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strauss A (1987) Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Grounded Theory Procedure and Techniques. Sage Publications, Basics of Qualitative ResearchGoogle Scholar
  56. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Second EditionGoogle Scholar
  57. Urqhart C (2001) An Encounter With Grounded Theory: Tackling the Practical and Philosophical Issues. In: Trauth E (ed) Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. IGI Global, Hershey, PAGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitworth E, Biddle R (2007) The Social Nature of Agile Teams. Paper presented at the AGILE 2007Google Scholar
  59. Zannier C, Melnik G, Maurer F (2006) On the success of empirical studies in the international conference on software engineering. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 28th international conference on Software engineeringGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.School of NursingUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations