Abstract

More than 50 years ago, Glaser and Strauss constructed the grounded theory methodology to develop substantive and formal data-based theories. Recently, grounded theory methodology was used to construct a macro-level theory. Grounded theory is a rigorous methodology for generating theory grounded in data by incorporating its intellectual engine: compare-and-contrast and abductive reasoning. Whenever one of these data analysis processes is engaged, so is the other. However, there needs to be a systematic means to assess the quality of grounded theory's method of data analysis. This paper aims to start the conversation among methodologists and practitioners by recommending three criteria for assessing how rigorously the methodology was engaged by incorporating abductive discoveries, results of variation-finding, and Tilly’s comparison framework —individualizing, variation-finding, universalizing, and encompassing comparison. Examples from Forde’s macro-level grounded theory will be used to demonstrate the significance of specifying a systematic constant comparison approach, variation-finding, and abductive discoveries.