Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Methodological study demonstrates a structured selective coding protocol in a software ecosystem case study, suggesting improved systematization of grounded theory development.
Grounded theory is a qualitative research method in which researchers develop theoretical schemes based on data. During in-depth studies of grounded theory, particularly with regard to the search for mechanisms to apply the selective coding technique, no systematic protocol or process could be found in the literature to guide this step. This suggests an absence of formalized processes or protocols for this coding procedure. This study proposes a methodology for conducting the selective coding stage of grounded theory. This is justified by the fact that providing this protocol to the academic community will enable researchers to follow a set of procedures for performing selective coding. This work therefore aims to present a methodology for executing the selective coding process based on analytical outputs generated in open and axial coding. To this end, a literature review was conducted to identify relevant studies, explore the associated concepts, analyze case studies, and develop the proposed methodology. The result of this study is a methodology for executing the selective coding of grounded theory, based on a case study of the adoption of a Brazilian software ecosystem focused on educational management. This method stands out for its presentation of: the systematization of a process for researchers to follow, eliminating the need to define what is important or necessary for selective coding; the use of selective coding analytical tools in a logical sequence based on phases not yet found in the literature; positive and favorable results were obtained in the theoretical validation phase of the case study, meaning that the methodology successfully achieved Grounded Theory’s ultimate goal of constructing a theoretical scheme recognized by the research participants as a faithful and reasonable explanation of their experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vasconcelos et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: