Grounded+Theory+Notes

 Grounded theory is a research methodology in which data regarding a central phenomenon is collected, systematically coded, conceptualized, categorized and developed into a theory.
 * Grounded Theory **

**//Figure 2 (Adapted from Creswell Chapter 13, 2011; Wikipedia, 2012 and Graham, 2012 )//**

Grounded theory

Grounded theory is a popular research methodology that is evolving to account for a range of ontological and epistemological underpinnings. Constructivist grounded theory has its foundations in relativism and an appreciation of the multiple truths and realities of subjectivism. Undertaking a constructivist enquiry requires the adoption of a position of mutuality between researcher and participant in the research process, which necessitates a rethinking of the grounded theorist's traditional role of objective observer. Key issues for constructivist grounded theorists to consider in designing their research studies are discussed in relation to developing a partnership with participants that enables a mutual construction of meaning during interviews and a meaningful reconstruction of their stories into a grounded theory model. []

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia []

==== Grounded theory (GT) is a systematic methodology in the social sciences involving the generation of theory from data.[1] It is mainly used in qualitative research, but is also applicable to quantitative data.[2]]] **Grounded theory** (GT) is a systematic methodology in the [|social sciences] involving the generation of theory from data. [|[1]] It is mainly used in [|qualitative research], but is also applicable to quantitative data. [|[2]] ==== ==== ] Grounded theory is a research method, which operates almost in a reverse fashion from traditional research and at first sight may appear to be in contradiction to the [|scientific method]. Rather than beginning with a hypothesis, the first step is data collection, through a variety of methods. From the data collected, the key points are marked with a series of //codes//, which are extracted from the text. The codes are grouped into similar //concepts// in order to make them more workable. From these concepts, //categories// are formed, which are the basis for the creation of a //theory//, or a reverse engineered [|hypothesis]. This contradicts the traditional model of research, where the researcher chooses a [|theoretical framework], and only then applies this model to the phenomenon to be studied. [|[3]] ====

Four stages of analysis

 * ~ **Stage** ||~ **Purpose** ||
 * //Codes// || Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data to be gathered ||
 * //Concepts// || Collections of **codes** of similar content that allows the data to be grouped ||
 * //Categories// || Broad groups of similar **concepts** that are used to generate a //theory// ||
 * //Theory// || A collection of explanations that explain the subject of the research ||

Split in methodology
Since their original publication in 1967, Glaser and Strauss have disagreed on how to conduct grounded theory, resulting in a split in the theory between [|Straussian] and [|Glaserian] paradigms.

Strauss's approach
Generally speaking, grounded theory is an approach for looking systematically at (mostly) qualitative data (like transcripts of interviews or protocols of observations) aiming at the generation of [|theory]. Sometimes, grounded theory is seen as a qualitative method, but grounded theory reaches farther: it combines a specific style of research (or a paradigm) with [|pragmatic] theory of action and with some methodological guidelines.

Glaser's approach
The Glaserian strategy is not a qualitative research method, but claims the dictum "all is data". This means that not only interview or observational data but also surveys or statistical analyses or "whatever comes the researcher's way while studying a substantive area" (Glaser quote) can be used in the comparative process as well as literature data from science or media or even fiction. Thus the method according to Glaser is not limited to the realm of qualitative research, which he calls "QDA" (Qualitative Data Analysis). QDA is devoted to descriptive accuracy while the Glaserian method emphasizes conceptualization abstract of time, place and people. A grounded theory concept should be easy to use outside of the substantive area where it was generated.

Differences
Grounded theory according to Glaser emphasizes [|induction] or emergence, and the individual researcher's creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Strauss is more interested in validation criteria and a systematic approach.


 * Glaser, B **
 * All is data ** is a fundamental property of GT which means that everything that gets in the researcher’s way when studying a certain area is data. Not only interviews or observations but anything is data that helps the researcher generating concepts for the emerging theory. Field notes can come from informal interviews, lectures, seminars, expert group meetings, newspaper articles, Internet mail lists, even television shows, conversations with friends etc.


 * Open coding ** or **substantive coding** is conceptualizing on the first level of abstraction. Written data from field notes or transcripts are conceptualized line by line. In the beginning of a study everything is coded in order to find out about the problem and how it is being resolved. The coding is often done in the margin of the field notes. This phase is often tedious since you are conceptualizing all incidents in the data, which yields many concepts.

So the **theoretical codes** just as **substantives codes** should emerge from the process of constantly comparing the data in field notes and **memos**.


 * Memoing **
 * Theoretical memoing ** is "the core stage of grounded theory methodology" (Glaser 1998). "Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about substantive codes and their theoretically coded relationships as they emerge during coding, collecting and analyzing data, and during memoing" (Glaser 1998).

In the next step memos are sorted, which is the key to formulate the theory for presentation to others.
 * Sorting **


 * Writing **
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Writing up **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> the sorted memo piles follows after sorting, and at this stage the theory is close to the written GT product.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">GT according to Glaser gives the researcher freedom to generate new concepts explaining human behavior. These rules makes GT different from most other methods using qualitative data.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">No pre-research literature review, no taping and no talk **


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">No pre-research literature review. **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Studying the literature of the area under study gives preconceptions about what to find and the researcher gets desensitized by borrowed concepts. The literature should instead be read in the sorting stage being treated as more data to code and compare with what has already been coded and generated.


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">No taping. **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Taping and transcribing interviews is common in qualitative research, but is counterproductive and a waste of time in GT which moves fast when the researcher delimits her data by field-noting interviews and soon after generates concepts that fit with data, are relevant and work in explaining what participants are doing to resolve their main concern.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">No talk. **<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Talking about the theory before it is written up drains the researcher of motivational energy. Talking can either render praise or criticism, and both diminish the motivational drive to write memos that develop and refine the concepts and the theory (Glaser 1998).

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Grounded theory according to Glaser emphasizes [|induction] or emergence, and the individual researcher's creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Strauss is more interested in validation criteria and a systematic approach.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Differences **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">Strauss's approach <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Generally speaking, grounded theory is an approach for looking systematically at (mostly) qualitative data (like transcripts of interviews or protocols of observations) aiming at the generation of [|theory]. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> Sometimes, grounded theory is seen as a qualitative method, but grounded theory reaches farther: it combines a specific style of research (or a paradigm) with [|pragmatic] theory of action and with some methodological guidelines. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Important concepts of grounded theory are categories, codes and codings. The research principle behind grounded theory is neither [|inductive] nor [|deductive], but combines both in a way of [|abductive reasoning]. This leads to a research practice where data sampling, data analysis and theory development are not seen as distinct and disjunct, but as different steps to be repeated until one can describe and explain the phenomenon that is to be researched. This stopping point is reached when new data does not change the emerging theory anymore. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">In an interview that was conducted shortly before Strauss' death (1994), he named three basic elements every grounded theory approach should include (Legewie/Schervier-Legewie (2004)). These three elements are: <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Grounded theory according to Glaser emphasizes [|induction] or emergence, and the individual researcher's creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Strauss is more interested in validation criteria and a systematic approach.
 * § //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Theoretical sensitive coding //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">, that is, generating theoretical strong concepts from the data to explain the phenomenon researched;
 * § //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">theoretical sampling //<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">, that is, deciding whom to interview or what to observe next according to the state of theory generation, and that implies starting data analysis with the first interview, and writing down memos and hypotheses early;
 * § <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">the need to //compare// between phenomena and contexts to make the theory strong.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Differences **

= **Additional Resources:** =


 * [[image:http://c1.wikicdn.com/i/mime/32/application/pdf.png width="32" height="32" link="http://eder603.wikispaces.com/file/view/111suddaby-groundedtheory-AMJ2006.pdf"]] [|111suddaby-groundedtheory-AMJ2006.pdf] || [[image:http://c1.wikicdn.com/i/mime/32/application/pdf.png width="32" height="32" link="http://eder603.wikispaces.com/file/view/erosion+of+a+method.pdf"]] [|erosion of a method.pdf] ||
 * [[image:http://c1.wikicdn.com/i/mime/32/application/pdf.png width="32" height="32" link="http://eder603.wikispaces.com/file/view/Grounded+Theory+as+a+Family+of+Methods.pdf"]] [|Grounded Theory as a Family of Methods.pdf] || [[image:http://c1.wikicdn.com/i/mime/32/application/pdf.png width="32" height="32" link="http://eder603.wikispaces.com/file/view/Generating+grounded+theory.pdf"]] [|Generating grounded theory.pdf] ||