Abstract
Background: Grounded theory has evolved to become one of the most prominent qualitative approaches in social science research. However, this methodology has been adopted in a variety of ways across the engineering education landscape, reflecting and amplifying debates surrounding the nature and quality of grounded theory research. This can be problematic for novice researchers and those new to the methodology and may potentially limit its application and theoretical contributions to the field. Purpose: In this theoretical manuscript, we reflect on the evolution of grounded theory and its core tenets to implore engineering education to think about the ways we can collectively conceptualize, interpret, and implement this methodology. By gaining a greater understanding of the paradigmatic underpinnings and practices of grounded theory, scholars in engineering education will be better equipped to assess the affordances and limitations of this approach and identify when, why, and how it is appropriate for implementation in their work. Scope: First, we discuss the historical and paradigmatic underpinnings of three grounded theory traditions: classic, pragmatic, and constructivist grounded theory. Second, we describe the difference between implementing grounded theory methodology versus applying grounded theory methods. Third, we compare and clarify points of confusion often encountered in conducting grounded theory studies. Lastly, we offer a reconceptualized perspective of grounded theory and implications for expanding its use in the engineering education community. Discussion/Conclusions: We encourage engineering education researchers to position grounded theory as a living methodology that not only generates new theory, but also bridges past and current research by deepening methodological and theoretical connections across contexts. Reconceptualizing grounded theory allows us to more intentionally account for evolving cultural nuances that influence the engineering education experience as to further broaden participation in the field and the impacts of our work.
Highlights
Grounded theory has evolved to become one of the most prominent qualitative approaches in social science research
Trained as a student under Strauss, Charmaz was influenced by his symbolic interactionist perspective and iterative research approaches. These influences were reflected in constructivist grounded theory, which maintained the basic components of Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) classic version yet acknowledged individual agency in making meaning associated with constructivism
While grounded theory has been applied to a variety of research contexts and fields, the core tenet of this methodology remains the same: to conceptualize social phenomena through inductive, systematic, and comparative approaches that are guided by and grounded in participant experience
Summary
Grounded theory has evolved to become one of the most prominent qualitative approaches in social science research. Some researchers have ascribed to the toolkit approach by applying grounded theory methods to investigate a topic (e.g., Anthony et al, 2007; Johnson-Glauch & Herman, 2019) while others utilize the methodology without claiming the development of a generalizable theory (e.g., McNeill et al, 2016; Walther et al, 2011) This variation demonstrates a vast array of grounded theory adaptations implemented within engineering education literature; questions still loom regarding what constitutes a high-quality grounded theory study versus a poorly designed qualitative study posing as a grounded theory (Baker et al, 1992; Bello, 2015; Suddaby, 2006). The most common forms of grounded theory traditions are summarized in Table 1 and further described
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
