Rigour and grounded theory
General Previous     Next

Rigour and grounded theory

Adeline Cooney Senior lecturer, School of nursing and midwifery, National University of Ireland, Galway

Aim This paper explores ways to enhance and demonstrate rigour in a grounded theory study.

Background Grounded theory is sometimes criticised for a lack of rigour. Beck (1993) identified credibility, auditability and fittingness as the main standards of rigour for qualitative research methods. These criteria were evaluated for applicability to a Straussian grounded theory study and expanded or refocused where necessary. The author uses a Straussian grounded theory study (Cooney, In press) to examine how the revised criteria can be applied when conducting a grounded theory study.

Review methods Strauss and Corbin (1998b) criteria for judging the adequacy of a grounded theory were examined in the context of the wider literature examining rigour in qualitative research studies in general and grounded theory studies in particular. A literature search for ‘rigour’ and ‘grounded theory’ was carried out to support this analysis.

Conclusion Criteria are suggested for enhancing and demonstrating the rigour of a Straussian grounded theory study. These include: cross-checking emerging concepts against participants’ meanings, asking experts if the theory ‘fit’ their experiences, and recording detailed memos outlining all analytical and sampling decisions.

Implications for research practice The criteria identified have been expressed as questions to enable novice researchers to audit the extent to which they are demonstrating rigour when writing up their studies. However, it should not be forgotten that rigour is built into the grounded theory method through the inductive-deductive cycle of theory generation. Care in applying the grounded theory methodology correctly is the single most important factor in ensuring rigour.

Nurse Researcher. 18, 4, 17-22. doi: 10.7748/nr2011.07.18.4.17.c8631

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Accepted: 12 July 2010

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now

Or