Integrating Grounded Theory

David Coghlan; Mary Brydon-Miller

doi:10.4135/9781446294406

Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index

Return to Entries

Integrating Grounded Theory

Edited by:
David Coghlan
&
Mary Brydon-Miller
In:The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research
Chapter DOI:https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294406.n188
Subject:Anthropology, Political Science and International Relations, Sociology

Request Permissions

Show page numbers Hide page numbers

Although Grounded Theory and action research are distinct approaches, they have been effectively integrated by action researchers, who recognized their compatibility and their respective strengths and limitations. This entry explains the logic for integrating Grounded Theory and action research, highlights the benefits and challenges of this integration and describes three main approaches for bringing them together. The first approach uses Grounded Theory in action research to add rigour to the data analysis and theory construction, the second approach integrates Grounded Theory and action research sequentially to maximize the benefits associated with their exclusive use and the third approach calls for flexible reciprocal borrowing of methods, techniques and skills between action research and Grounded Theory.

The Logic for Integrating Grounded Theory and Action Research and Potential Challenges

Steinar Kvale's distinction between craftsmanship, communicative and pragmatic validity captures the benefits of integrating action research and Grounded [Page 450]Theory. Communicative validity refers to testing the validity of knowledge through a dialogue, pragmatic validity considers the relevance of the knowledge for action and change and craftsmanship validity focuses on the quality of the research. While action research claims that the first two types of validity are strong, it has been criticized for lacking rigour. Thus, Grounded Theory's main attraction for action researchers is the credibility that comes with its well-regarded data analysis and theory development processes. Similarly, action research has well-developed participatory processes, and its orientation towards developing relevant knowledge can complement the relatively weak communicative and pragmatic validity of Grounded Theory.

This integration is possible as both approaches view theory development as an emergent process and rely on deductive and inductive thinking. In Grounded Theory, this thinking is the responsibility of the researcher, and while the process may include checking the interpretation of data with participants, it is not as participatory as in action research. Participatory processes, as well as practical requirements and local considerations, may constrain the scope of theory development in action research and limit it to the substantive level. However, as the work of Latha Poonamallee demonstrates, the integration of Grounded Theory and action research can facilitate the development of both substantive and formal theories. Similarly, although Grounded Theory is not essentially about action, the substantive theories generated by Grounded Theory can have practical utility and can provide direction for action and change.

With these considerations in mind, three main ways for integrating Grounded Theory and action research have been developed.

Applications