School of Busienss and Design Research Seminar on on Grounded Theory

Last Wednesday, 19 May, I gave a seminar on 'Introduction to Grounded Theory Research Methodology' at our School of Business and Design's weekly research seminar series.

About 20 people attended, including the Head of School, Professor Dr DP Dash, and my second supervisor Dr Peter Yu.

Although the session was supposed to be 30 minutes of presentation followed by 30 minutes of Q&A/Discussion, I went over time as there was quite a fair bit that I had planned to present.

I gave an outline presentation on the origins of GT, its main tenets, the various versions, a run through on how it works, as well as some of the problems and difficulties of doing GT research.

The audience found some parts of GT methodology somewhat difficult to understand or accept, among them the idea of entering the field without a prior research framework or hypothesis, the lack of a predetermined research question and the lack of a literature review in the immediate area. Related to this is the idea of induction as opposed to deduction which became a point of discussion during the session.

Although time constraints did not permit much discussions, there were a couple of very interesting questions and issues raised by DP.

He suggested that a research method cannot be described as fully inductive nor deductive as they are likely to incorporate both aspects in some way, and provided a helpful illustration.  I agree with this as the coding process in GT involves first induction of concepts, and then deduction via the theoretical sampling technique.

DP also raised an interesting question about the nature and reliability of GT products.

He illustrated by giving a hypothetical scenario of a devastating earthquake in a backward area of a poor country.  When a GT research is conducted to ask the people there of the event, they attribute it to a supernatural cause, that is, of mother goddess turning over her back and causing the quake.

The question was, whether this GT finding can be acceptable.

Obviously, such a substantive theory will not integrate with broader and established theories (especially the natural sciences).

I thought about this for a couple days and I do believe that in such as case, the GT results would still constitute a legitimate understanding of the concerns of the people in the area, despite it being 'unscientific.'

DP later commented that this is a good example of this being a 'theory for' rather than a 'theory of' something (social science as opposed to natural science).  In other words, it is a 'workable' and 'usable' theory in that it still provides understanding of the concerns of people in a substantive area from which actions can be taken  in the context of the beliefs, values and behavior of the people in that area.

Another question that was raised is whether TESTING is required for my project.  A Glaserian GT product is a hypothesis that is ready for further testing by other more conventional means (ie quantitative research).  DP wonders if a PhD project like this should incorporate a testing of the theory.  I have to consult with my supervisors on this.


I should also mention that Peter Yu had in the previous week given a criticism of the GT methodology in the seminar session.  I was not in attendance but we did have some lively discussions later.  Thus, I guess it was fitting that I was able to make a presentation of the GT  methodology, although I think it should have been done before it was criticized!


At any rate, I am grateful for the intellectual discourse that emerged as a result of these sessions, especially to Pete and to DP.  They raised many interesting points and they have kept me on my toes.

Below are the Powerpoint slides that I used for the presentation.


Introduction to Grounded Theory Research Seminar

Progress Update 4

I am still writing up my Research Design document.  I am a slow writer, as you can see.  It's been over a month, and I have come up with about 15 pages in all so far. 

It is now mostly done.  I just need to touch up and hopefully it will be completed in a few days' time.

It has been good to get words out on paper, in my opinion, even though I had wanted this done way earlier.  I think it is alright, because the writing process made me think a lot more and consider many things I had not thought of previously.

Interestingly, it has made me even more eager to get started.  I had doubts about Grounded Theory (still do), but I think I am more sure than before this is something In want to do, and that the Glaserian version is what I will be going with.

The one big thing that has really jumped out at me has been the idea of CONCEPTUALIZATION.

Glaser's method is steeped in the abiltiy of the researcher to conceptualize, that is to elevate data to the conceptual level.  I think this, more than anything, clinches the Glaserian model for me.

I understand it is a difficult skill, and Glaser (among others) have warned about the difficulties that novice researchers (like me) may face undertaking a conceptualization effort like this.  But I also have had more than one person advise me that is it is not challenging enough, it is probably not worth doing it.  Strauss' method is descriptive, which meshed with my original thoughts about this project, but now I think the real value is to be able to draw some conceptual results from this study.  So in a sense, some of the original ideas that I had going into this project has been somewhat altered.

So I think this is going to be a key thing for my PhD study.  The opportunity to learn to conceptualize, through this project.

It also means I will need to work on my THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY training.  I have pulled together some references and resources on these and I will be going through them soon.

I am excited, and I can't wait to start.

At the same time, there is also a number of things to take care of, which I had blogged about in the previous UPDATE, so I will attend to those items before I enter the field.

I will try to integrate the Research Design into a Proposal and I hope to get that out of the way as soon as possible.

My wife and daughter are taking a one-week trip to Singapore in June (Gawai).  I will miss them, but it will also free me up to work without distraction.

Starting A Blogshop, When Someone Obtain A Good Key Word Domain?

 From: http://www.eml-buzz.com/starting-a-blogshop-when-someone-obtain-a-good-key-word-domain/

Starting A Blogshop, When Someone Obtain A Good Key Word Domain?

Friday, April 30th, 2010 at 4:36 pm   

 

Start a Blogshop, should a blogger secure a domain?

It is easy to start a blogshop on the established blogging internet sites. Is it good to set up on a blog site? There are pros and cons for doing so. However do note that blogs do have terms and conditions and you must adhere to their policies. And bloggers and especially blog shop owners are at the whim of the blogging sites. The reason is you don’t own the domain you are using.

It’s similar to at a push cart sale, you do not own the push cart space.

This is same as a push cart sale. The open space in the shopping mall is opened for you to sell your wares using your push cart. However if one day the shopping centre has other activities and they may ask you to move places. You stand to lose your regular customers. The retail center operator allowing your push cart position doesn’t care as they have boosted the diversity and hence the shopping experience. You and many others built their businesses and the shopping mall’s popularity but now, They do not need you, but you need them.

In terms of the internet, it is same as you getting a good blogging URL. But it is not yours. You are making a priceless Online “Real estate” for someone else.

Why its good to grow your own internet real estate

As you weblog often for marketing dollars or market things on your BLOG or if you produce articles, you want to help to make sure that you own the “real estate”. As you build a lot of content material and turn out to be progressively more established, you would like to know that you can stay there and carry on to do small business. Your potential clients must know where to look for you.

Buy a real useful Domain name?

Much has been said about Google or Yahoo not relying on domain name to rank their searches. Although it is most likely true that The search engines and Yahoo has diminished the value of domain on ranking the search results, because of this, for example, www.paulho.ws may rank top and on page 1 for a search search such as “Build a blogshop“.

But on top of that, world wide web has also gotten more competitive. Even while domain names play a minor part in the ranking for the keywords by search engines such as google, increasingly more websites are competing for reasonably competitive key words.

Blogshops on page 1 as opposed to Blogshops on page 3 of a search key-phrases

So therefore, whatever added Advantage from a good and related domain name plays a huge part in DRAWING traffic to your online blogshop. That could be the difference between page 1 and page 3. And in terms of traffic, that is often the difference between 300 visitors a day and 3 visitors a day.

And YES, the difference is that stark.

For those who are concerned of technologies, here is an elegant way to buy a domain and begin a site in just under 5 minutes!

A lot of high quality domains are now obtainable on the .ws website domain extension. A person can nevertheless get good domains and start a blogshop that attracts website visitors and traffic.

Read realistic things to know about the topic of internet marketing – please make sure to read the web page. The time has come when proper info is truly within your reach, use this opportunity.