Debunking Grounded Theory Misconceptions

Roy Suddaby’s 2006 editorial in the Academy of Management Journal, “What Grounded Theory Is Not”, remains one of the most cited guides for qualitative management researchers. Its central argument is simple: grounded theory is widely used but often misunderstood, and many manuscripts that claim to use it apply something else under its name. Suddaby organises his critique around six common misconceptions and closes with criteria that reviewers can use to judge whether a study is genuinely grounded.

Historical and philosophical foundations

Glaser and Strauss (1967) developed grounded theory as a reaction against the positivist paradigm that dominated social research. They rejected “grand theory” and the assumption that social science could uncover universal laws of behaviour in the same way as the natural sciences. Instead, theory should emerge from close engagement with data about how people actually act and interpret their worlds.

Suddaby traces this stance to American pragmatism, especially Charles Sanders Peirce, and to early symbolic interactionists such as George Herbert Mead and Charles Cooley. From this tradition comes the idea that knowledge is not an external reality waiting to be discovered but emerges from the interaction between actors and their interpretations of the world.

Two techniques express this position: constant comparison and theoretical sampling. Both break positivist norms. Data collection and analysis happen at the same time, and the researcher decides what to sample next on the basis of the emerging theory rather than an a priori hypothesis.

Misconception 1: Grounded theory is an excuse to ignore the literature

The idea that researchers should enter the field as a “blank sheet” is, in Suddaby’s view, both impossible and harmful. Researchers cannot erase what they know, and research without any prior orientation tends to be unstructured and hard to interpret. Glaser and Strauss themselves saw substantive theory, grounded in a specific area, as a strategic link to formal theory. The real danger of prior literature is not contamination but the premature forcing of data into existing categories. Suddaby suggests drawing on several substantive areas and treating the elaboration of existing theory as a legitimate aim.

Misconception 2: Grounded theory is the presentation of raw data

Many studies present long quotations and themes that read as obvious or trite. Suddaby distinguishes grounded theory from phenomenology. Phenomenology aims to convey the rich, subjective lifeworld of participants; grounded theory aims to lift those experiences to a conceptual level and make theoretical statements about relationships between concepts. Category saturation, reached through sustained constant comparison, is the main check on this process. Leaving the field too early produces descriptive findings rather than theory.

Misconception 3: Grounded theory is theory testing, content analysis or word counts

Suddaby warns against “methodological slurring”, the use of interpretive methods to answer questions built on realist assumptions. Testing pre-existing hypotheses with grounded theory is an ontological contradiction. Emerging constructs are, however, continually checked against new observations, and content analysis or word counts can play a limited supporting role, as long as researchers recognise the positivist assumptions behind frequency counts. He also notes the presentation problem: journals often require a linear theory, methods, results structure that hides the iterative reality of grounded theory work, and authors should explain this tension openly.

Misconception 4: Grounded theory is a routine application of formulaic technique

A “neurotic overemphasis on coding” and the mechanical use of procedures can produce categories detached from both data and research question. Glaser’s notion of theoretical sensitivity captures the creative, interpretive skill that no software can replace. Suddaby acknowledges the tension between Glaser’s emphasis on creativity and Strauss and Corbin’s more prescriptive procedures, while noting that Strauss and Corbin also cautioned against rote application.

Misconception 5: Grounded theory is perfect

Suddaby criticises a fundamentalist drift in which purists promote rigid rules that do not match the pragmatic reality of research. Saturation, for example, is a judgement based on experience and the quality of the emerging theory, not a fixed number of interviews. At the heart of the method lies abduction, Peirce’s pragmatic middle ground between induction and deduction, in which a flash of insight suggests a new explanation that is then checked against the data.

Misconception 6: Grounded theory is easy

The apparent simplicity of the method hides how demanding it is. Strong grounded theory requires immersion in the data and an intimate, enduring relationship with the empirical site. This brings two consequences: researchers must reflect continually on their own assumptions, and the best work often comes from long-term commitment to one research area, as in the work of Karl Weick or of Hinings and Greenwood.

What rigorous grounded theory looks like

Suddaby’s final concern is the use of the label “grounded theory” as cover for having no transparent method at all. A rigorous study shows a clear link between research question and method, describes how theoretical sampling and constant comparison were carried out, demonstrates theoretical sensitivity, and builds a convincing bridge between data and emergent concepts. For health management researchers using qualitative designs, the editorial is a useful checklist for both writing and reviewing grounded theory studies.

APA Reference:

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.