Multiple Case-Based Straussian Grounded Theory

Standard Straussian grounded theory is typically conducted within a single site or case. The multiple case-based variant deliberately conducts the same open, axial, and selective coding process across two or more purposively selected cases, then performs an explicit cross-case comparison to integrate findings into a theory with broader scope. The core analytic procedures are identical; the design adds structured replication logic borrowed from multiple case study methodology.

There is no fixed number. The guiding principle is theoretical saturation: you add cases until new cases stop producing new theoretical insights. In practice, two to four cases are common in published studies; more than six to eight is rare and usually justified only when theoretical replication across a wide range of conditions is the goal. The cases must be selected purposively, not for convenience.

Yes — qualitative data management software is helpful for organizing transcripts and codes from multiple cases side by side, running queries across cases, and storing analytic memos. However, the intellectual work of constant comparison, category development, and cross-case integration must be done by the researcher. Software manages data; interpretation belongs to the analyst.

The two approaches overlap significantly. Comparative grounded theory emphasizes the explicit comparison of two or more groups or settings as the primary analytic strategy from the outset. Multiple case-based Straussian grounded theory foregrounds the Straussian coding procedures (open, axial, selective coding using the paradigm model) and treats the multiple case design primarily as a replication logic to strengthen and extend the emergent theory. The difference is mainly one of emphasis: analytic strategy versus design structure.

Theoretical replication means deliberately selecting cases that differ on a dimension you predict will affect the phenomenon, so that if the theory holds across those contrasting cases it gains credibility, or if it does not hold you learn the boundary conditions. For example, if you are theorizing workplace mentoring, you might select one case in a hierarchical organization and one in a flat-structure organization to test whether the mentoring process differs by power structure.