A critical review of grounded theory and thematic analysis in qualitative research: A way forward for qualitative Researchers

This study proceeds with a critical view of Grounded Theory (GT) and Thematic Analysis (TA) as possible bases for qualitative research, intending to make their philosophical underpinnings, methodological procedures, practical application, and ongoing relevance clearer. The purpose is to help researchers decide between methods through consideration of the epistemological assumptions, analytic procedures, and usage trends in GT and TA. It looks at the strengths, weaknesses, and practical considerations of each method, while maintaining a view of what gaps remain and giving suggestions for improved practice. Methodologically, the paper critically synthesizes the literature to trace GTs' and TA's development, use, positioning in epistemology, and their considerations regarding the research method. It examines peer-reviewed documents, including the original texts and more recent developments in constructivist GT and reflexive TA. The main differences are elaborated in terms of data collection, coding, theoretical expectations, and applicability to digital tools and interdisciplinary research. Findings reveal that GT provides an orderly and rigorous framework for theory generation through the processes of iterative coding, theoretical sampling, and constant comparison. However, the GT approach continues to remain mired in terms of epistemological uncertainty, difficulties in attaining complete theoretical saturation, which demands high methodological skill on the part of the practitioner. TA, in contrast, offers rather straightforward and flexible techniques to pinpoint patterns that could be contrasted across different data sets. TA's reflexive and codebook types are suitable for different analytic needs; however, TA suffers from risks of superficial interpretations, inconsistent theme development, and lack of methodological transparency. The review contributes to qualitative methodology by embracing the comparative viewpoint to shed light upon the philosophical and procedural discrepancies between GT and TA, thus guiding researchers toward an informed selection of methods. It further highlights the need for improvement in epistemological clarity, digital literacy, and reflexive practice to build more rigorous analyses. The paper proceeds to suggest ways to combine GT and TA in mixed-methods designs as a step toward theoretically and methodologically coherent innovation. In sum, the review acts as a call to responsible methodological pluralism to move qualitative research forward in current times.