Coding in Grounded Theory: Codes, Categories and Concepts

Conceptualisation of data is the foundation of grounded theory. Conceptualisation, of going beyond description to explain what is happening in the social processes underlying behaviour, is achieved through coding.

Depending on the iteration of grounded theory to which you align, the taxonomies of coding are many and various, though can generally be understood as comprising three levels across three phases of coding. The three levels of coding in grounded theory are codes, categories and concepts. The three phases of coding are initial, intermediate and advanced.

Three Levels of Coding: Codes, Categories and Concepts

A code can be understood as a word or descriptor assigned to label a section of data so that it’s possible to look for emerging patterns, ideas or related content. A category can be understood as a group of similar or related codes. Depending on your chosen iteration of grounded theory, categories may be described as having sub-categories, or use the term category interchangeably with the term concept. A concept can be understood as providing an abstracted understanding of a phenomenon.

Three Phases of Coding: Initial, Intermediate and Advanced

Initial coding can be characterised as fracturing the data, breaking it into its smallest parts, often through line-by-line coding, and then labelled with a code. Depending on the iteration of grounded theory you prescribe to, you may encounter classifications such as open, axial or selective coding in this phase of the coding process. Intermediate coding is the identification of properties and dimension, that is, the characteristics and variations of codes, and the patterns and relations between codes during category development. Finally, advanced coding is the use of techniques such as diagramming and storylines to facilitate the integration of the grounded theory. Advanced coding involves the connecting of categories to provide a coherent and comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon.

While iterations of grounded theory and associated taxonomies may vary, the levels and phases of coding listed above are common to all. It is through these coding activities that conceptualisation of data is achieved, facilitating an explanatory understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

If you found The Grounded Theorist useful, please consider making a one-off or monthly donation. Thank you.

References

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2023). Grounded theory: a practical guide (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2019). The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory. SAGE Publications Ltd.          

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

Theoretical Saturation in Grounded Theory

Theoretical saturation can be described as the point at which, through a process of concurrent data collection and analysis, no new concepts or categories are introduced. Once a category is theoretically saturated it is not necessary to continue to theoretically sample for comparison data, further data no longer sparking new insights or revealing new properties or dimensions of established categories and codes. The grounded theory can be considered theoretically saturated.

Theoretical saturation is a key factor in building a comprehensive, convincing and integrated theory, one in which an explanatory pattern in and of the data is present. The theoretical categories in a saturated theory are conceptually well developed, and categories and codes are well articulated and integrated. The conceptual density achieved through theoretical saturation is characterised by the depth, richness and interconnectedness of the grounded theory.

While theoretical saturation is characterised by no new data driven insights, properties or dimensions occurring, an alternative view exists. Theoretical sufficiency emphasises the adequacy and comprehensiveness of a theory developed from the data rather than a theory saturated to the maximum possible extent.

Achieving theoretical saturation is the criterion by which theoretical sampling can end and attention can shift to focusing on enabling conceptual integration of categories.

If you found The Grounded Theorist useful, please consider making a one-off or monthly donation. Thank you.

References

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2023). Grounded theory: a practical guide (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.         

Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: guidelines for qualitative inquiry. Academic Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Holton, J. A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 265-290). SAGE Publications Ltd.                         

Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 147-149.      

Morse, J. M. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. SAGE Publications Ltd.           

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE.   

Wiener, C. (2007). Making teams work in conducting grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 293-310). SAGE.     

Constant Comparative Analysis in Grounded Theory

Constant comparative analysis is an iterative analytical process connecting all aspects of a research project. Primarily associated with grounded theory, constant comparative analysis is part of the concurrent data collection and analysis method, and commences with the first instance of data gathering. Data are initially compared within a single data set before comparing new data with existing data. Codes are compared with codes, and gradually grouped into categories of similar and related codes.

Constant comparative analysis is superficially similar to the iterative nature of thematic analysis, a method that tends to be more structured in its approach to coding and theme development, focusing on identifying and interpreting patterns and meanings in the data. However, the emphasis on continuous comparison and refinement of categories and concepts facilitated by constant comparative analysis, undertaken with the intention of developing a fully integrated theory or model, results in a higher level of abstraction than other forms of data analysis.

Constant comparative analysis aims to facilitate the development and refinement of concepts and categories grounded in the data. Using a combination of inductive and abductive analysis the researcher engages in ongoing acts of decision-making, and is encouraged to challenge and refine their theory. It is the combined use of inductive and abductive processes which are believe to account for the conceptual leaps achieved through constant comparative analysis. While seeking to ensure the complexity of the data are represented, successively more abstract conceptualisations of the data are created. In constant comparative analysis, patterns are recognised and extrapolated from the detailed description of individual cases to a generalised and abstracted conceptualisation of a phenomenon.

If you found The Grounded Theorist useful, please consider making a one-off or monthly donation. Thank you.

References

Birks M and Mills J. (2023) Grounded theory: a practical guide, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Braun V and Clarke V. (2013) Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners, London: Sage.

Bryant A and Charmaz K. (2007) The SAGE handbook of grounded theory, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Charmaz K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory, London: Sage.

Glaser BG and Strauss AL. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine.