ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Grounded theology: a co-constructivist "two books" approach to qualitative research.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Grounded Theology (GT) is derived from the sociological research methodology Grounded Theory, originally developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. GT aims to discover or construct theological frameworks that are firmly rooted in empirical data, achieved through systematic data collection and rigorous comparative analysis. While GT offers flexibility in its approach, it remains a complex and structured methodology. What sets GT apart is its integration of the "Two Books" theory, which posits that God reveals Himself through both the Book of Scripture (Special Revelation) and the Book of Nature (General Revelation). GT uniquely integrates insights from empirical observation of the natural world and theological reflection on scriptural texts, enabling researchers to construct frameworks grounded in both scientific and spiritual data. Successful application requires researchers to have a thorough understanding of GT's conceptual foundations, discourse, and practical processes, as well as the interplay between these two complementary sources of revelation. Objective: To present a contemporary research framework for GT applicable to behavioral, sociological, and theological contexts. The framework supports researchers in structuring and conducting qualitative investigations that are methodologically sound and contextually relevant. The article adapts grounded theory methods through a sequenced approach involving empirical qualitative analysis, theological interpretation, and spiritual discernment. Worked examples and explanations of grounded theory concepts are provided to illustrate their relationship to GT and to ensure methodological transparency in developing rigorous, reproducible, and actionable theological frameworks. Results: The article provides a comprehensive overview of GT, supplemented by graphical and tabular representations of the processes and methods utilized in qualitative research. The framework is depicted through a diagrammatic model of the research design process, offering a clear visual guide for novice GT researchers and facilitating understanding of the methodology's key steps and components. Conclusion: GT is a rigorous yet adaptable research framework suitable for both novice and experienced researchers interested in exploring social phenomena, particularly those grounded in qualitative data. GT research findings and recommendations have the potential to inform policy and advance knowledge, particularly in domains that address moral and ethical issues and decision-making in high-stakes environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.