Doing the Literature Review in Grounded Theory studies (2 dilemmas)

Grounded Theory research doesn’t require a “blank mind,” but it does demand tight control over how prior knowledge shapes analysis. Earlier versions of Grounded Theory treated previous knowledge as something to avoid; newer approaches increasingly accept that researchers inevitably bring concepts from reading and experience. The key distinction is between using prior knowledge as a starting point—enough to critically frame what needs studying—and using it as a template to force data into pre-existing theories. In the example of a study on Polish migrants’ English language identity in Scotland, the researcher built the initial construct of “English language identity” through reading across psychology, social psychology, and social linguistics, drawing connections among ideas like self-concept and self-esteem. During data collection and analysis, however, additional reading stopped to reduce the risk of later theories steering interpretation. The researcher also used reflexive memoing to track how earlier concepts might influence coding and conceptual development, explicitly entering analysis with a “blank mind” and avoiding the use of literature-derived frameworks as models for what to look for.

That approach doesn’t eliminate the literature—it changes when and how it’s used. After developing the emerging explanation from the data, the researcher returned to the literature using a constant comparison logic: newly formed concepts were compared not only with more data, but also with what others had already described. The result was not a sense of failure or discouragement when similar concepts appeared under different names. Instead, finding overlaps strengthened the credibility of the findings, because the concepts that were “grounded in the data” had later been supported by prior work. The takeaway is practical: similarity to existing scholarship can validate the analysis, especially when the researcher can show that the concepts were not imported during initial coding.

A second dilemma follows from a common misconception about timing: many people assume the literature review must be written only after the Grounded Theory analysis, once new concepts are fully developed. Earlier Grounded Theory traditions sometimes encouraged postponing the literature review until after analysis, but that expectation collides with academic realities. Students are typically required to submit proposals or early reports, demonstrate familiarity with the literature, and justify a research gap before fieldwork begins. In practice, the literature review often has to be drafted early, then revised later.

Using the same English language identity example, the researcher had already written a literature review before the final conceptual framework emerged. Once the analysis produced new concepts, the literature review was revisited and restructured so that the newly identified constructs appeared as if they had been part of the original framing. That can raise a concern that the study looks less inductive than it was. The response is methodological transparency: if the methodology chapter clearly explains the sequence—how concepts were developed from data and only later integrated into the literature review—readers can understand that the final write-up reflects an iterative process rather than a pre-planned fit to existing theories.