Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: A Detailed Review

This paper critically examines grounded theory and qualitative content analysis, aiming to clarify the ambiguities and reduce confusion surrounding these two qualitative research methods. Through a literature review and reflection on their own research experiences, the authors identify six key areas of difference: background and philosophical base, unique characteristics, goals and rationale, data analysis process, research outcomes, and evaluation of trustworthiness. The analysis highlights the distinct features of constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling in grounded theory, contrasting them with the systematic coding and theme identification processes in qualitative content analysis. By elucidating these differences, the paper provides valuable guidance for researchers, particularly novice researchers, in selecting the most appropriate research method for their specific inquiries, ultimately contributing to more rigorous and informed qualitative research practices. The study also acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each approach.

The Qualitative Repor
Volume 19| Number 32 Article 2
8-11-2014
Reducing Confusion about Grounded Th
Qualitative Content Analysis: Similaritie
Differences
Ji Young Cho
Kent State University, [e-mail]
Eun-Hee Lee
Hanyang University, [e-mail]
Follow this and additional works at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr
Part of the Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Co
the Social Statistics Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclu
Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [e-mail].
Recommended APA Citation
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similari
Differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1-20. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss32/2

Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitat
Analysis: Similarities and Differences
Abstract
Although grounded theory and qualitative content analysis are similar in some respects, they
the differences between the two have rarely been made clear in the literature. The purpose o
clarify ambiguities and reduce confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analy
identifying similarities and differences in the two based on a literature review and critical refl
authors’ own research. Six areas of difference emerged: (a) background and philosophical ba
characteristics of each method, (c) goals and rationale of each method, (d) data analysis proc
of the research, and (f) evaluation of trustworthiness. This article provides knowledge that ca
researchers and students in the selection of appropriate research methods for their inquiries.
Keywords
Data Analysis, Grounded Theory, Qualitative Content Analysis, Qualitative Research, Researc
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 L
This article is available in The Qualitative Report: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/

The Qualitative Report 2014 Volume 19, Article 64, 1-20
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf
Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative
Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences
Ji Young Cho
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA
Eun-Hee Lee
Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
Although grounded theory and qualitative content analysis are similar in some
respects, they differ as well; yet the differences between the two have rarely
been made clear in the literature. The purpose of this article was to clarify
ambiguities and reduce confusion about grounded theory and qualitative
content analysis by identifying similarities and differences in the two based on
a literature review and critical reflection on the authors’ own research. Six
areas of difference emerged: (a) background and philosophical base, (b)
unique characteristics of each method, (c) goals and rationale of each method,
(d) data analysis process, (e) outcomes of the research, and (f) evaluation of
trustworthiness. This article provides knowledge that can assist researchers
and students in the selection of appropriate research methods for their
inquiries. Keywords: Data Analysis, Grounded Theory, Qualitative Content
Analysis, Qualitative Research, Research Method
Introduction
Using an appropriate research method for inquiry is critical to successful research.
Grounded theory and qualitative content analysis share similarities. Both are based on
naturalistic inquiry that entails identifying themes and patterns and involves rigorous coding.
They are both used to analyze and interpret qualitative data; however, the similarities and
differences in grounded theory and qualitative content analysis have not been clarified in the
literature (Priest, Roberts, & Woods, 2002), nor have they been consistently considered.
To illustrate, both have been considered equivalent approaches to interpret qualitative
data (e.g., Priest et al., 2002). Grounded theory was treated as a research methodology, and
content analysis as a method (e.g., Crotty, 2003); furthermore, grounded theory was
considered a theoretical framework and content analysis a research method of textual data
analysis (e.g., Patton, 2002). Qualitative content analysis was considered a strategy for the
analysis of qualitative descriptive studies (Sandelowski, 2000) and a technique with
overtones of other research methods, such as ethnographic and grounded theory (Altheide,
1987). Qualitative content analysis was unknown as a research method until recently,
especially in English-speaking countries, because of the dominance of quantitative content
analysis (Schreier, 2012).
Moreover, a researcher’s approach purportedly following grounded theory actually
seems closer to qualitative content analysis or other methods (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003;
Suddaby, 2006). Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) cited the discrepancy between “method
claims and the actual use of methods” (p. 905) in research papers. Novice researchers,
especially students who want to conduct qualitative research, are often confused by the
characteristics of the two as result of the lack of comparative references. Some researchers
who stated they had used grounded theory actually used qualitative content analysis, which

2 The Qualitative Report 2014
incorporates some procedures of grounded theory, such as open coding or memoing
(Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003).
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to clarify ambiguities about the characteristics of
grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. Using our own research as examples, we
have discussed the similarities and differences in the two in the following six areas:
a) background and philosophical basis,
b) unique characteristics of each method,
c) goals and rationale of each method,
d) data analysis process,
e) outcomes of the research, and
f) evaluation of trustworthiness of research.
We have also discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each. Through this paper, we expect
to provide knowledge that can assist novice researchers in the selection of appropriate
research methods for their inquiries.
Background and Philosophical Basis
Grounded Theory
The term grounded theory was introduced in The Discovery of Grounded Theory
(1967) by Glaser and Strauss as “the discovery of theory from data—systematically obtained
and analyzed in social research” (p. 1). Instead of verification of theories, they introduced a
research method to arrive at a “theory suited to its supposed uses” contrasting with a “theory
generated by logical deduction from a priori assumptions” (p. 3). According to Strauss and
Corbin (1994) it is “a general methodology, a way of thinking about and conceptualizing data”
(p. 275).
The Grounded Theory Institute, run by Glaser, one of the founders of grounded theory,
defined it as follows:
Grounded Theory is an inductive methodology. Although many call Grounded
Theory a qualitative method, it is not. It is a general method. It is the
systematic generation of theory from systematic research. It is a set of rigorous
research procedures leading to the emergence of conceptual categories. . . .
Grounded Theory can be used with either qualitative or quantitative data.
(Grounded Theory Institute, 2013)
According to Crotty (2003), methodology is “the strategy, plan of action, process or design,”
and method is “the techniques or procedures used to gather and analyze data” (p. 3); however,
based on its founders’ definitions, grounded theory works as a method as well as a
methodology.
The proposal of grounded theory was a reaction to positivism, which followed a
scientific falsification and verification. Glaser and Strauss (1967) suggested that a researcher
can achieve a theory that is meaningful in certain contexts from observations and the
observers’ consensus (Suddaby, 2006). Grounded theory involves the “use of an intensive,
open-ended, and iterative process that simultaneously involves data collection, coding (data
analysis), and memo-writing (theory building)” (Groat & Wang, 2002, p. 181).
The conceptual orientation of grounded theory resembles that of symbolic
interactionism (Priest et al., 2002), which is based on the belief that “human beings are acting

Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee 3
rather than just responding beings and that human action is purposeful and based on the
meanings that the individual has for them” (Nusbaum & Chenitz, 1990). Inherent in the
symbolic interactionism is the position that “meaning is negotiated and understood through
interactions with others in social processes” (Starks & Trinidad, 2007, p. 1374).
After Glaser and Strauss’ introduction, grounded theory developed in several
directions with variations (Tan, 2010). To illustrate, Glaser emphasized openness and
creativity in interpretation of data, whereas Strauss and Corbin emphasized rigorous and
prescriptive routines in data analysis (Tan, 2010). Glaser (1992) criticized Strauss and
Corbin’s approach as forcing data and too prescriptive, and Glaser’s approach was criticized
as too open and difficult for novice researchers to follow (Buckley & Warning, 2009). In
addition to those two approaches, Charmaz (2006) suggested a social interaction approach in
using grounded theory that emphasized the researcher’s interaction and involvement with
participants in constructing theory. Although the origin was from sociology, grounded theory
has been actively used in many disciplines, such as psychology, anthropology, education,
social work, and nursing (Strauss & Corbin, 1994).
Qualitative Content Analysis
The early definition of content analysis shows that it started as a quantitative research
method: “a research technique for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of
the manifest content of communication” (Berelson, 1952, p. 18). Content analysis is
described as a method to classify written or oral materials into identified categories of similar
meanings (Moretti et al., 2011). These categories represent either explicit or inferred
communication (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Abrahamson (1983) asserted that content analysis
can be fruitfully used to examine virtually any kind of communication materials, including
“narrative responses, open-end survey questions, interviews, focus groups, observations,
printed media such as articles, books, or manuals” (as cited in Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p.
1278). Because researchers can engage in data collection with or without direct contact with
persons studied, it can be an unobtrusive method.
Content analysis was first used as an analytic technique at the outset of the 20th
century for analysing textual materials from hymns, newspaper and magazine articles,
political speeches, advertisements, and folktales and riddles (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Harwood
& Garry, 2003). It was primarily used as a quantitative research method to analyze “the
content of media text to enable similar results to be established across a group of text coders”
(Priest et al., 2002, p. 35).
The quantitative approach in content analysis was criticized, however, because it
often simplified and distorted meaning as a result of breaking down text into quantifiable
units in the analytic process. Kracauer (1952) advocated a qualitative approach to content
analysis, in which meanings and insights can be derived from the text more holistically. That
critique led finally to the development of qualitative content analysis by application of the
systematic use of a category system (Mayring, 2000; Priest et al., 2002). Qualitative content
analysis can be referred to as “a research method for subjective interpretation of the content
of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or
patterns” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278). It is “a method for systematically describing the
meaning of qualitative material” (Schreier, 2012, p. 1).

4 The Qualitative Report 2014
Unique Characteristics in Each Method
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory has two unique characteristics: constant comparative analysis and
theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Constant comparative analysis entails an
iterative process of concurrent data collection and analysis, which involves “the systematic
choice and study of several comparison groups” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 9). The
researcher does not wait until data are completely collected to begin data analysis; instead,
data collection and analysis occur simultaneously so that the analyzed data guides subsequent
data collection. During the data analysis process, an incident should be compared and
contrasted with other incidents (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Researchers need to make
comparisons between empirical data and concept, between concept and categories, among
data, among categories, and among “different ‘slices of data’ in order to reach higher levels
of abstraction and advance with the conceptualization” (Gregory, 2010, p. 7).
The purposes of comparative analysis are to obtain accuracy of evidence in the
conceptual category and to establish the generality of a fact. In addition, one can achieve two
major requirements of theory:
1) parsimony of variables and formulation and
2) scope in the applicability of the theory to a wide range of situations”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 111).
Theoretical sampling is “the process of collecting data for comparative analysis”
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 9), which means insight from initial data collection and analysis
leads to subsequent data collection and analysis. It involves “recruiting participants with
differing experiences of the phenomenon so as to explore multiple dimensions of the social
processes under study” (Starks & Trinidad, 2007). During analysis, researchers must be
theoretically sensitive to the data analysis that guides them toward what to do next.
Qualitative Content Analysis
One unique characteristic of qualitative content analysis is the flexibility of using
inductive or deductive approaches or a combination of both approaches in data analysis.
Second is the ability to extract manifest and latent content meaning.
First, qualitative content analysis is flexible in the use of inductive and deductive
analysis of data depending on the purpose of one’s studies (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The key
difference between the two approaches centers on how initial codes or categories are
developed. An inductive approach is appropriate when prior knowledge regarding the
phenomenon under investigation is limited or fragmented (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In the
inductive approach, codes, categories, or themes are directly drawn from the data, whereas
the deductive approach starts with preconceived codes or categories derived from prior
relevant theory, research, or literature (Cavanagh, 1997; Kondracki, Wellman, & Amundson,
2002). The deductive approach is appropriate when the objective of the study is to test
existing theory or retest existing data in a new context.
Second, coding in qualitative content analysis can attend to the manifest as well as the
latent content meaning of communications. Whereas manifest content means the researcher
codes the visible and surface content of text, latent content means that the researcher codes
the underlying meaning of the text (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Often the researcher
wishes to reach beyond the manifest content of the text and analyze latent content (Potter &

Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee 5
Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). Schreier (2012) argued qualitative content analysis is suitable for
data that require some degree of interpretation.
Research Goals and Rationale for Using a Specific Method
A researcher who uses grounded theory aims to generate a substantive theory that will
explain a phenomenon in a specific context and suited to its supposed use. The emphasis in
grounded theory is theory development (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Thus, grounded theory is
appropriate when no theory exists or when a theory exists that is too abstract to be tested, but
it is not appropriate for the test of a theory or generation of knowledge from objective reality
(Martin & Turner, 1986; Suddaby, 2006).
In contrast, a researcher who uses qualitative content analysis aims to “systematically
describe the meaning” of materials in a certain respect that the researcher specified from
research questions (Schreier, 2012, p. 3). Although both grounded theory and qualitative
content analysis follow coding processes, content analysis does not focus on finding
relationships among categories or theory building; instead, it focuses on extracting categories
from the data.
Two research examples appear below in order to explain and demonstrate the
rationale of using one or the other of the methods. The examples are from the dissertations
written by the authors of this paper.
Study 1: Using Grounded Theory
The sample research using grounded theory done by Cho (2011) is a study of the
process of aesthetic education in architectural design studios, titled Pedagogy of Aesthetics: A
Study of Three Architectural Design Studios (2011). Interested in how aesthetics (discussion
of beauty) is handled in architectural design studios, she wanted to understand the process of
aesthetic education holistically, this is, what contributes to that education process and how
each component of the process relates and interacts with the other components. It was a broad
and open inquiry instead of a specified one made from a certain perspective or angle.
Little discussion, dialogue, or debate about the pedagogy of aesthetics in architectural
design is available in the literature even though aesthetics is one of the central issues in the
field (Johnson, 1994). Neither aesthetics nor pedagogy was commonly discussed in
architectural education (Johnson, 1994; Ochsner, 2000). The grounded theory approach
seemed appropriate because no theory exists regarding the pedagogy of aesthetics; thus, her
research was intended to generate a theory from comparative analysis of educational context.
If her research question was not intended to generate a theory but to identify the components
of the pedagogy of aesthetics, she might have used qualitative content analysis instead of
grounded theory.
Sample selection was a key essential element for the research. What context is most
appropriate for the researcher to discover phenomena regarding the process of aesthetics?
She, therefore, decided to collect data using purposeful sampling, which involves “selecting
information-rich cases strategically and purposefully” (Patton, 2002, p. 243). Three
instructors’ design studios were selected based on two criteria: (a) winning at least one
teaching award from their respective universities and (b) recommendation by each school’s
administrator for their ability to help students produce design outcomes of high aesthetic
quality.
Data were obtained from multiple sources, such as observations of the three design
studios once a week for one academic semester per studio; interviews with the three

6 The Qualitative Report 2014
instructors, their 40 students, and the three administrators; and students' design outcome
material reviews.
Study 2: Using Qualitative Content Analysis
Lee, the other author of this article, was interested in understanding of the overall
features of physical, social, and organizational environments of U.S. nursing homes where
many Korean American elders live. She was also interested in the residents’ particular needs,
preferences, and levels of satisfaction regarding the nursing home environment. If her
research question had not been to identify the residents’ needs, preferences, and levels but to
understand what occurs in that context and how each need influences the residents’ lives and
to generate a theory explaining those relationships, she might have used grounded theory
instead of qualitative content analysis.
Three Case Studies of Korean American Nursing Homes was the title of Lee’s
dissertation (2010). Korean American elders are one of the fastest increasing Asian groups in
the United States, and they add to the growing cultural and linguistic diversity of the older
population. In spite of their continuous and rapid demographic increase, Lee found a dearth
of research regarding the living experiences of older Korean American nursing home
residents, their particular needs and preferences, and the environment provided by nursing
homes in the United States. Thus, she selected three nursing homes for Korean American
residents on the East Coast as research sites to identify their physical, social, and
organizational features in order to increase their cultural appropriateness and thus improve
their quality of life.
Her two research questions were
(1) What are the physical, social, and organizational features of the environment
of nursing homes for Korean American elders living in the United States?
(2) What are the particular needs, preferences, and levels of satisfaction of
Korean American residents regarding the physical, social, and organizational
features of the environment of nursing homes?
Data were collected from in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 26 Korean American
residents, six family members, and five staff members. In addition, observations, document
review, and field notes enriched and complemented the primary data. The participants were
selected among those who
a) were Korean Americans, aged 55 and older, who resided in a nursing
home and
b) had the cognitive ability to understand and answer questions.
Qualitative content analysis is frequently employed “to answer questions such as
what, why and how, and the common patterns in the data are searched for” by using a
consistent set of codes to organize text with similar content (Heikkilä & Ekman, 2003, p.
138). Lee used both deductive and inductive approaches to qualitative content analysis. The
former was used to identify the overall physical, social, and organizational features of each
nursing home by applying existing theory and prior categories. The latter was used to identify
needs, preferences, and levels of satisfaction of Korean American elders in nursing homes.

Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee 7
Data Analysis Process
Data analysis in grounded theory and data analysis in qualitative content analysis
share similarities in that both involve a systematic coding process. They entail coding,
finding categories and theme(s); however, the procedure is different. Specifically, data
collection and analysis are parallel in grounded theory, and the procedure is neither linear nor
sequential. The amount of data for analysis is based not on availability but on saturation.
Moreover, in grounded theory, because of the nature of theoretical sampling, theory
generated from the data actually guides the decision about what kinds of data are appropriate
for subsequent data collection.
Another difference is that qualitative content analysis entails a data reduction process
by focusing on selected aspects of data. Data reduction is achieved by limiting “analysis to
those aspects that are relevant with a view to your research question” (Schreier, 2012, p. 7).
This difference relates to the nature of grounded theory, which requires a high degree of
interpretation and transformation of data. Sandelowski (2000) argued that qualitative content
analysis entails analyzing qualitative descriptive studies that are data-derived and the least
interpretative compared to other approaches to qualitative analysis because “there is no
mandate to re-present the data in any other terms but their own” (Sandelowski, 2000, p. 338).
Sandelowski also argued that qualitative descriptive studies require researchers to “stay
closer to their data and to the surface of words and events” than grounded theory (p. 336).
In a brief explanation, the analysis process in grounded theory involves concept
labelling, categorizing, identifying core categories, finding relations among categories, and
generating a theory from such relationship. The analysis process in qualitative content
analysis comprises selecting the unit of analysis, categorizing and finding themes from
categories.
Grounded Theory
Data analysis in grounded theory was originally introduced by Glaser and Strauss
(1967) as a method of constant comparative analysis; they proposed that constant
comparative analysis consists of “explicit coding and analytic procedures” (p. 102) and
suggested the following four procedures of data analysis:
1) comparing incidents applicable to each category,
2) integrating categories and their properties,
3) delimiting the theory, and
4) writing the theory (p. 105).
Corbin and Strauss (1990) explained coding as the process of concept labelling and
categorizing. They considered the concept as a “basic unit of analysis” (p. 7). Concepts with
the same phenomena can be grouped into a category (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Coding is also
described as “categorizing segments of data with a short name that simultaneously
summarizes and accounts for each piece of data” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 43) and as “the pivotal
link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data” (p.
46). Through coding, the researcher seizes the meaning of the data.
Along with the evolution of grounded theory, different versions of coding processes
were proposed. Glaser (1978, 1992) suggested two stages of coding as substantive coding
(consisting of open coding and selective coding) and theoretical coding. Corbin and Strauss
(1990) suggested three stages of coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding.
Charmaz (2006) also proposed three stages: initial coding, focused coding, and theoretical

8 The Qualitative Report 2014
coding. Harry, Sturges, and Klingner (2005) summarized the following six stages as the
analysis level of grounded theory approach: open coding, conceptualizing categories,
developing themes, testing the themes, interrelating the explanations, and delineating the
theory.
Open coding is “the initial step of theoretical analysis that pertains to the initial
discovery of categories and their properties” (Glaser, 1992, p. 39). It is “the interpretive
process by which data are broken down analytically” (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 12). Open
coding includes comparison of incident with other incidents in terms of similarity and
differences, giving conceptual labels to incidents, and grouping those concepts together into
categories (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
Axial coding is a process of exploring the relationships among categories (Strauss,
1987). In axial coding, researchers relate categories with their subcategories, test the
relationships against data, and test the hypothesis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Selective coding
refers to the process by which researchers select one or more core categories intended to
generate a story that connects the categories. Glaser’s (1978) theoretical coding is a process
of theorizing the relationships among substantial codes. At the end of the analysis, a theory, a
set of theoretical propositions, is generated (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
In Charmaz’s (2006) coding process, initial coding is similar to open coding, during
which the researcher develops categories of information. Focused coding is a process
designed to narrow initial codes down to frequent and important codes. Theoretical coding, a
process used to find relationships between codes and categories, has the potential to result in
a theory (Charmaz, 2006).
Study 1: Using Grounded Theory
In Study 1, data collection and analysis were parallel. During observation, Cho wrote
memos of her impressions of important discussions and issues. As soon as she obtained a
certain amount of data, she transcribed and read them. Data analysis in Study 1 followed
Corbin and Strauss’ (1990) coding processes.
First, Cho transcribed observation and interview data throughout the data collection
period, rereading the transcribing data until acquiring a sense of the direction for analysis.
Second, she coded the transcription of incidents line by line and labelled certain concepts
common to them (open coding). She set aside codes unrelated to her research questions as
well as those that appeared infrequently, and then she tried to find relationships among codes
(axial coding). Through those processes, she identified the most significant and frequent
codes (selective coding). Using the multisourced data, she coded interviews with students,
interviews with instructors and administrators, and observations separately.
Third, Cho carried out visual material analysis of students’ design outcomes, such as
drawings, sketches, and models, to understand the interaction between instructors and
students as related to students’ design development in terms of aesthetics. The visual material
analysis was conducted to develop, revise, and verify already found codes and categories
from interviews and observations.
Fourth, once she found codes and categories from each design studio, she conducted a
cross-case analysis among the three studios. The three cases were analyzed to determine
whether any common features of pedagogy of aesthetics arose among the three studios.
Searching for common patterns and themes, Cho discovered seven categories from instructor
interviews, six from student interviews, and six from observations.
Fifth, the discovered codes and categories were compared with one another to
determine the relationships among the different data types. Comparisons of the observation

Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee 9
data with the visual material as well as the interview data with observations were conducted.
Through this process she modified and finalized the categories. Finally, Cho developed core
themes and relationships into a theory that explains the process and the pedagogy of
aesthetics in the architectural design studio.
Because Study 1 was a multicase study consisting of three cases, different levels of
analysis emerged: within case analysis, within same data source analysis, and cross-case
analysis. Figure 1 shows the data analysis procedures of the grounded theory approach.
Figure 2 shows data analysis procedures within and cross case analysis applied to Study 1.
Figure 1. Data analysis procedure of grounded theory method.
Figure 2. Data analysis procedure of within and cross-case analysis.
Note: Int means interview, obs means observation, and vis means visual material reviews.
Qualitative Content Analysis
Compared to grounded theory, the procedures required in qualitative content analysis
have not been well articulated in the literature (Cavanagh, 1997); however, Mayring’s (2000)
steps have provided clarification. Mayring proposed two different procedures for qualitative
content analysis according to researchers’ approaches: inductive category development and
deductive category development. Inductive category development consists of

10 The Qualitative Report 2014
a) the research question,
b) the determination of category and levels of abstraction,
c) the development of inductive categories from material,
d) the revision of categories,
e) the final working through text, and
f) the interpretation of results.
In deductive category development, the second and third steps are different:
b) theoretical-based definitions of categories, and
c) theoretical-based formulation of coding rules (Mayring, 2000, pp. 4–5).
Overall, the process of data analysis includes the following core steps: selecting the
unit of analysis, creating categories, and establishing themes. Selecting the units of analysis is
an important initial step as a means to reduction. Researchers should decide which data will
be analyzed by focusing on a selected aspect of material depending on the research questions.
They may be a part of or all the text data, such as transcripts of interviews, observation, and
drawings.
Creating categories is a means to compress a large number of texts into fewer content-
related categories. A category refers to items “with similar meaning and connotations”
(Weber, 1990, p. 37). It must be “mutually exclusive and exhaustive” (Crowley & Delfico,
1996, p. 20), and no data should fall between two categories or be placed in more than one
category. In addition, enough categories to accommodate important contents must be created.
Researchers should determine how best to categorize data because data often lack a single
meaning or interpretation (Cavanagh, 1997).
Establishing a theme is “a way to link the underlying meanings together in categories”
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2004, p. 107). The concept of a theme has multiple interpretations:
It is a way to describe a structural unit of meaning essential to present qualitative results
(Streubert & Carpenter, 1995); a recurring regularity identified within or cutting across
categories (Polit & Hungler, 1999); and “an expression of the latent content of the text”
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2004, p. 107).
Study 2: Using Qualitative Content Analysis
In Study 2, to answer the first research question—What are the overall features of the
physical, social, and organizational environments of Korean American nursing homes for
residents with different cultural backgrounds?—Lee used a deductive approach to qualitative
content analysis. She began by selecting units of analysis, which included whole interview
transcripts, field notes, documents, and floor plans of the facilities.
Next, she determined and defined three main categories—physical, social, and
organizational features—derived from the Integrative Model of Place (IMP) proposed by
Calkins and Weisman (1999), a proper model to examine the environment of long-term care
facilities. According to the IMP, “a setting is composed of a complex system of relationships
among four distinct dimensions: individual, social context, organizational context, and
physical setting” (Calkins & Weisman, 1999, p. 133). Among the four, three were used in
Study 2 (social, organizational, and physical setting). The three categories were divided into
subcategories (e.g., public spaces, interaction/relationship with staff, and services). She coded
all text that appeared to describe the physical, social, and organizational features according to
the predetermined categories. Some categories were revised, removed, and added during this