Abstract
For those employing grounded theory as a research methodology, the issue of how and when to engage with existing literature is often problematic, especially for PhD students. With this in mind, the current article seeks to offer some clarity on the topic and provide novice grounded theory researchers in particular with advice on how to approach the issue of the literature review in grounded theory. This is done by reviewing the origins of grounded theory, exploring the original stance taken by the founders of the methodology with regard to the literature review, tracking how this position has changed over time, outlining the rationale associated with specific positions and discussing ideas for reconciling opposing perspectives. Coupled with this, the author draws on his own experience of using grounded theory for his PhD research to explain how extant literature may be used and discusses how the nature of engagement with existing literature may impact upon the overall written presentation of a grounded theory study.
Notes
1. Glaser argued that the version of grounded theory proposed by Strauss and Corbin (Citation1990), specifically the analytical stage referred to as ‘axial coding’, forced the data into preconceived categories, which went against the fundamental idea of the methodology (Charmaz,Citation2006; Walker & Myrick, Citation2006). As a result, he refused to recognise it as grounded theory, but instead termed it ‘full conceptual description’ (Glaser, Citation1992, p. 122). For a detailed analysis of the differences between Glaser’s perspective on grounded theory and that of Strauss, see Walker and Myrick (Citation2006).
2. Melia (Citation1996, p. 369) raises a similar question: ‘When does a method change its name? (When the jet was developed, was it still a plane?)’
3. Hesse‐Biber (Citation2007, p. 326) offers an example of an exercise in reflective thinking.
4. For example, many Irish students reported engaging with German students in order to get help with their German language projects.