GROUNDED THEORY: CREATIVITY AND COMPLEX COMMUNICATION
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4011-4021
Abstract
Researching social reality, human interactions and their contextual, spatial and temporal dynamics requires a dialogue between the objective and subjective dimensions of knowledge. Among the various qualitative research strategies, grounded theory offers the possibility of reconciling both dimensions and interpreting the complexities of human experiences and social realities through an inductive and comparative methodology. This possibility is not achieved without challenges, since different factors — such as the researcher's capacities for observation and interpretation, along with their own biases and preconceived ideas — are embedded in the dynamics of the reality or interaction being studied. This article begins by articulating the contribution of complex thinking to discussions on the ontological, epistemological and axiological dimensions of grounded theory. Recognising the creative nature of the complexity paradigm, the article extends the argument to the place of the creative act across different methodological moments that the convergence between grounded theory and complexity has to offer, providing the researcher with greater freedom to explore the dynamics of inquiry. In keeping with the systematic, creative and interactive research process underlying grounded theory, the article concludes with a brief overview of complementary data collection methods that integrate and merge verbal and non-verbal communication. This integration can be achieved through the use of audiovisual methods, such as video recording, promoting the emergence of additional layers of meaning and a deeper shared understanding between the researcher and the research subject, thereby enhancing validity and depth and facilitating the creation of knowledge.
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2026 New Trends in Qualitative Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
openAccess
openAccess
Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2003, October). Rethinking transformative learning and the concept of “critical reflection” through the paradigm of complexity. 5th International Transformative Learning Conference: Transformative Learning in Action: Building Bridges Across Contexts and Disciplines, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2008). Three generations of complexity theories: Nuances and ambiguities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00411.x
Buck, R., & VanLear, A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbal behavior. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 522–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02560.x
Bull, P. (2001). State of the art: Nonverbal communication. The Psychologist, 14, 644–647.
Cassell, J., McNeill, D., & McCullough, K.-E. (1999). Speech–gesture mismatches: Evidence for one underlying representation of linguistic and nonlinguistic information. Pragmatics & Cognition, 7(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.7.1.03cas
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
Chiovitti, R., & Piran, N. (2003). Rigour and grounded theory research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44(4), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0309-2402.2003.02822.x
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. Academic Press.
DuFon, M. A. (2002). Video recording in ethnographic SLA research: Some issues of validity in data collection. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 40–59. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/10125-25142/
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system: A technique for the measurement of facial movement. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695–727). SAGE Publications.
Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867
Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction.
Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522759810197587
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. SAGE Publications.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1982). Sound-image data records for research on social interaction: Some questions and answers. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124182011002002
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE Publications.
Guillemette, F. (2006). L’approche de la grounded theory: Pour innover? Recherches Qualitatives, 26(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.7202/1085397ar
Jones, R., & Noble, G. (2007). Grounded theory and management research: A lack of integrity? Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 2, 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640710778502
Kuhn, T. (2009). A estrutura das revoluções científicas. Guerra e Paz.
Lee, R. (2003). Métodos não interferentes em pesquisa social. Gradiva.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Luckerhoff, J., & Guillemette, F. (2011). The conflicts between grounded theory requirements and institutional requirements for scientific research. The Qualitative Report, 16(2), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1062
Marta, R. (2016). Investigação em serviço social: O futuro no presente. Reflexões em torno do processo de construção de conhecimento científico português. Trabajo Social Global. Revista de Investigaciones en Intervención Social, 6(10), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.30827/tsg-gsw.v6i10.4084
Marta, R. (2025a). Poetic epistemological turbulence: Towards an interactive framework for social work knowledge construction. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-08-2025-2071
Marta, R. (2025b). Transdisciplinarity: Reimagining improvisation, creativity and complexity. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101913
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986229
McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92, 350–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.350
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.
Montuori, A. (2006). The quest for a new education: From oppositional identities to creative inquiry. ReVision, 28(3), 4–20.
Montuori, A. (2013). Complexity and transdisciplinarity: Reflections on theory and practice. World Futures, 69(4–6), 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2013.803349
Montuori, A. (2024). Complexity and creativity. In J. Kociatkiewicz & M. Kostera (Eds.), How to do social science that matters (pp. 124–139). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035314546.00018
Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Hampton Press.
Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland Earth: A manifesto for the new millennium. Hampton Press.
Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N., & Collins, K. (2010). Innovative data collection strategies in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 696–726. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1171
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370170
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). SAGE Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. SAGE Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2017). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 273–285). SAGE Publications.
Tsourvakas, G. (1997). Multi-visual qualitative method: Observing social groups in mass media. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1997.2018
Tulku, T. (1987). Love of knowledge. Dharma
Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305285972