I have been working on this for a loooooong time now, and I think I should put this up. (It is the reason I have not updated the blog as much, as most of the writing has moved to this blog).
It is not completed yet, so it is sort of an outline at the moment with some gaps to fill. I will continue to fill out the various sections as I read along on GT methodology.
My reading is now thematic. I had started by reading GT in general, understanding the whole and how the parts relate. Now I am reading according to the various elements like Theoretical Sampling, Coding, etc. and concentrating on the two key works underpinning the Classic GT- Discovery of GT and Theoretical Sensitivity. As I am reading for depth, I am re-reading some parts and going through more slowly and thoughtfully to see how each of the elements bear on my blogshops project.
I hope this draft of my research design can serve as a platform for other tasks I will have to get to soon, notably the PROPOSAL and a paper (or two) that I hope to be able to write for a conference or a journal.
Click on the image for a better read.
Grounded Theory Methodology for Blogshop Research Design (3) Draft 1
Showing posts with label Grounded Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Grounded Theory. Show all posts
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
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
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
Friday, March 26, 2010
Philosophy of Research Methodologies
I think it is important to get clarity on some of the philosophical basis of the various research methodologies, including and in particular the ones that are tied with Grounded Theory (GT).
As I grapple with the question of which version of GT to use, it seems (from readings of the literature and from advice from the Methodspace forums) that my choice of GT method should stem from my philosophical perspectives.
Mills, et al (2006) say this: "To ensure a strong research design, researchers must choose a research paradigm that is congruent with their beliefs about the nature of reality. Consciously subjecting such beliefs to an ontological interrogation in the first instance will illuminate the epistemological and methodological possibilities that are available."
So it is pretty clear I need to get this sorted out for myself. These are not easy questions to answer, because, as Mills et al (2006) continue: "We do not quickly or easily reach any sort of conclusion or resolution about our own view of the nature of truth and reality. We are all influenced by our history and cultural context, which, in turn, shape our view of the world, the forces of creation, and the meaning of truth. Often these underlying assumptions about the world are unconscious and taken for granted."
Here are some critical issues to lay out and examine.
Epistemology
Epistemology refers to the nature of knowledge. What is or can be known, and what cannot be known. How can something be known. It addresses the following:
Epistemology and Methodolgy
Both deal with how we come to know- while Epistemology is the philosophy of how we come to know, Methodology is concerned with the methods and how we study phenomenon.
Thus, methodology should arise from an epistemological orientation. This mean the methods and design of the research project should follow how I see the world and how I understand (and want) to arrive at knowledge.
Theories of Knowledge
These addresses the question of how knowledge is acquired. There are 3 schools, and it seems that constructivism has become quite popular lately.
1. Empiricism
Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception that enables observation of evidences, in the formation of ideas.
Scientific research method dictates that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world to ascertain the validity of what should be hailed as knowledge. Quantitative research analysis fits in here very well.
2. Rationalism
Knowledge is innate and not derived from experience, that is, knowledge is derived from brain-power, or 'intuitive'
3. Constructivism
Constructivism is a research paradigm that denies the existence of an objective reality, “asserting instead that realities are social constructions of the mind, and that there exist as many such constructions as there are individuals (although clearly many constructions will be shared)” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 43).
Constructivism is relativistic- knowledge is "constructed" in as much as it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience.
Relativists claim that concepts such as rationality, truth, reality, right, good, or norms must be understood “as relative to a specific conceptual scheme, theoretical framework, paradigm, form of life, society, or culture . . . there is a non-reducible plurality of such conceptual schemes” (Bernstein, 1983, p. 8).
Basically, these ideas argue on whether reality is objective- does it exist independent of the people who perceive it (including objective truth that is separated from personal beliefs) or whether reality is heavily conditioned on the people who perceived it (if I close my eyes, does the world go away?).
In constructivist research, the subjective interrelationship between the researcher and participant is important in the co-construction of meaning (Hayes & Oppenheim, 1997; Pidgeon & Henwood, 1997).
Researchers, in their “humanness,” are part of the research endeavor rather than objective observers, and their values must be acknowledged by themselves and by their readers as an inevitable part of the outcome (Appleton, 1997; de Laine, 1997; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Stratton, 1997).
Paradigms for Qualitative Research
Post-positivism
The Research Methods Knowledge Base has a very good explanation of post-positivism, which is copied below:
Postpositivists believe that human knowledge is based not on unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations, but rather upon human conjectures. As human knowledge is thus unavoidably conjectural, the assertion of these conjectures is warranted, or more specifically, justified by a set of warrants, which can be modified or withdrawn in the light of further investigation.
Post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty.
Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal!
Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on what's happening in reality.
(For a GT research, triangulation would mean imposing a quantitative type exercise to validate the results of the GT process).
The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on.
Post-positivists reject the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives!
Thus, objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual, it is inherently a social phenomenon. It is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each other's work. We never achieve objectivity perfectly, but we can approach it.
(This reminds me of DIALECTICAL THINKING which my supervisor Peter Yu mentioned to me just a couple of days ago, and whose ONE-DOT THEORY is based on. A little on DIALECTICS at the bottom).
Constructivists
Most post-positivists are constructivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is fallible, our constructions must be imperfect.
So what is meant by objectivity in a post-positivist world? Positivists believed that objectivity was a characteristic that resided in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it 'really' is.
"Data do not provide a window on reality. Rather, the ‘discovered’ reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural, and structural contexts” (Charmaz, 2000).
There is an underlying assumption that the interaction between the researcher and participants “produces the data, and therefore the meanings that the researcher observes and defines.” Following Charmaz, researchers need to go beyond the surface in seeking meaning in the data, searching for and questioning tacit meanings
about values, beliefs, and ideologies (Mills et al, 2006).
2. Interpretivist research
Interpretivism sounds a lot like constructivism, in my opinion. The assumption for interpretive research is that knowledge is gained, or filtered, through social constructions such as language, consciousness, and shared meanings (Klein & Myers, 1999). This means that things like language and symbols go a long way to decide how we come to understand things.
In addition to the emphasis on the socially constructed nature of reality, interpretive research acknowledges the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is being explored, and the situational constraints shaping this process.
3. Critical research
Epistemological Influences of GT development
Glaser’s (1978, 1998) position assumes an objective external reality, a neutral observer who discovers data and an objectivist rendering of the data. Therefore Glaser’s position is often perceived as close to traditional positivism (Charmaz 2000 ). Slide 9
Much of the debate surrounding the various GT methods revolve around their respective epistemological leanings.
Glaser’s (1978, 1998) position assumes an objective external reality, a neutral observer who discovers data and an objectivist rendering of the data. Therefore Glaser’s position is often perceived as close to traditional positivism (Charmaz 2000 ). Slide 9
Charmaz attains a constructivist position, and there are still others whose GT versions follow developments away from the traditional positivist stance.
Glaser appears to insist that the term Grounded Theory applies to his original conception (1967) with Strauss and elaborated in his later publications.
He argues that the Strauss and Corbin, Charmaz and the other versions are not GT per se, but forms of Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA).
Orders of Thinking
All these can get complicated and for me thus far, they raise a whole lot more questions than answers in many instances.
Recently, my supervisor Peter Yu brough to my attention DIALECTICAL THINKING, so I looked it up.
It has to do with ORDERS of THINKING.
We can be DOGMATIC, PLURALISTIC OR DIALECTIC in our thought.
Being dogmatic essentially means to an extreme rigidity of thought, or to buy into an idea so much that we have determined not to agree with anything else.
Pluralistic thinking is one step away from dogmatism in that although a person is sold on the belief system he has subscribed to, he is open to the idea that other belief systems can be okay for other people, as culture and other conditions provide different contexts.
Being dialectical, on the other hand, refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives. It considers that change is a given, meaning everything is in a flux and that situations are often complicated. It is a form of analytical reasoning that tries to reconcile difficult and contradictory information and situations in the most efficient and logical manner.
I see it as a sort of "Half the distance to the goal-line" idea in American football.
The pursuit of absolute truth and knowledge is never ending because there will always be questions, conflicts and controversies.
Hence, being dialectical means we should never claim that we have all the right answers, because there might be other ways of doing things that are better and more 'correct' than what we presently know.
Thus, it is necessary to keep checking and learning to try to get closer to the goal-line (although we admit we will never really reach it in absolute objective terms).
My Thoughts
As I ponder all these, I realize that one does not have to commit himself to a specific paradigm, and to declare that all our thoughts, beliefs, behavior and the way we relate to the world around us are invariably determined by any one such type of philosophy.
I think that we can be objectivist with some things, pragmatic and constructivist in others.
We can be dogmatic about certain things which we are convinced to have transcendent and objective truth (religious faith, perhaps) and are non-negotiable.
But in other things, our behavior may indicate our pluralistic thinking and our pragmatism toward those areas, like in our dealings with others and in our work.
Thinking about these things can be really exhausting (it can consume your waking hours and invade your dreams).
The advise to first know WHO YOU ARE and what values you are aligned to before undertaking this project is a good and necessary one, but I think it is impossible to pursue it to its conclusion as it will take too long.
It has certainly started a spark in me and ignited an interest in self-discovery in this area, but this is heavy-duty stuff and I know I will come to complete grips with or resolve it in the near future.
So, instead of trying to find out WHO I really I am in terms of these paradigms for the sake of coming up with the research design, I think a more feasible approach is to decide to EMBRACE the epistemological paradigm that is matched to the research orientation.
So this is what I shall do.
I shall decide on the choice of a GT method based on its merits and I shall fit my epistemological to it.
I choose the Glaserian/Orthodox GT to obtain an abstract conceptualization (not description) of the substantive area to be studied.
Glaserian GT recognizes an objective reality. As a researcher, I will not co-construct people's reality, but I will collect data about their lives and concerns in an objective manner. I will not impose my knowledge and beliefs in any way, but I will stay neutral and independent.
In such a manner, the data shall dictate the research. Conceptual understandings shall emerge according to the data.
Now, on to Research Design.
References:
Appleton, J. (1997). Constructivism: A naturalistic methodology for nursing inquiry. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(2), 13-22.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Laine, M. (1997). Ethnography: Theory and applications in health research. Sydney, Australia: Maclennan and Petty.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hayes, R.,&Oppenheim, R. (1997). Constructivism: Reality is what you make it. In T. Sexton&B. Griffin (Eds.), Constructivist thinking in counseling practice, research and training (pp. 19-41). New York: Teachers College Press.
Klein, H., & Myers, M., (1999), “A Set of Principals for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol 23, No 1, pp 67-94.
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), Article 3. Retrieved [date] from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/mills.pdf
As I grapple with the question of which version of GT to use, it seems (from readings of the literature and from advice from the Methodspace forums) that my choice of GT method should stem from my philosophical perspectives.
Mills, et al (2006) say this: "To ensure a strong research design, researchers must choose a research paradigm that is congruent with their beliefs about the nature of reality. Consciously subjecting such beliefs to an ontological interrogation in the first instance will illuminate the epistemological and methodological possibilities that are available."
So it is pretty clear I need to get this sorted out for myself. These are not easy questions to answer, because, as Mills et al (2006) continue: "We do not quickly or easily reach any sort of conclusion or resolution about our own view of the nature of truth and reality. We are all influenced by our history and cultural context, which, in turn, shape our view of the world, the forces of creation, and the meaning of truth. Often these underlying assumptions about the world are unconscious and taken for granted."
Here are some critical issues to lay out and examine.
Epistemology
Epistemology refers to the nature of knowledge. What is or can be known, and what cannot be known. How can something be known. It addresses the following:
- What is knowledge?
- How is knowledge acquired?
- What do people know?
- How do we know what we know?
- What is truth?
- How is knowledge produced?
Epistemology and Methodolgy
Both deal with how we come to know- while Epistemology is the philosophy of how we come to know, Methodology is concerned with the methods and how we study phenomenon.
Thus, methodology should arise from an epistemological orientation. This mean the methods and design of the research project should follow how I see the world and how I understand (and want) to arrive at knowledge.
Theories of Knowledge
These addresses the question of how knowledge is acquired. There are 3 schools, and it seems that constructivism has become quite popular lately.
1. Empiricism
Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception that enables observation of evidences, in the formation of ideas.
Scientific research method dictates that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world to ascertain the validity of what should be hailed as knowledge. Quantitative research analysis fits in here very well.
2. Rationalism
Knowledge is innate and not derived from experience, that is, knowledge is derived from brain-power, or 'intuitive'
3. Constructivism
Constructivism is a research paradigm that denies the existence of an objective reality, “asserting instead that realities are social constructions of the mind, and that there exist as many such constructions as there are individuals (although clearly many constructions will be shared)” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 43).
Constructivism is relativistic- knowledge is "constructed" in as much as it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience.
Relativists claim that concepts such as rationality, truth, reality, right, good, or norms must be understood “as relative to a specific conceptual scheme, theoretical framework, paradigm, form of life, society, or culture . . . there is a non-reducible plurality of such conceptual schemes” (Bernstein, 1983, p. 8).
Basically, these ideas argue on whether reality is objective- does it exist independent of the people who perceive it (including objective truth that is separated from personal beliefs) or whether reality is heavily conditioned on the people who perceived it (if I close my eyes, does the world go away?).
In constructivist research, the subjective interrelationship between the researcher and participant is important in the co-construction of meaning (Hayes & Oppenheim, 1997; Pidgeon & Henwood, 1997).
Researchers, in their “humanness,” are part of the research endeavor rather than objective observers, and their values must be acknowledged by themselves and by their readers as an inevitable part of the outcome (Appleton, 1997; de Laine, 1997; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Stratton, 1997).
Paradigms for Qualitative Research
Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) suggest three categories, based on the underlying research epistemology- positivist, interpretive and critical.
1. Positivist research
The basic affirmations of Positivism are (1) that all knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the "positive" data of experience, and (2) that beyond the realm of fact is that of pure logic and pure mathematics.
Positivism assumes that reality is objective. It is empirically-based and can be described by measurable properties which are independent of the observer (researcher) and his instruments. Positivist studies generally attempt to test theory, in an attempt to increase the predictive understanding of phenomena.
Grounded theory as originally conceived by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is rooted in the notion that comparing observations among cases enables theory to emerge- this means it has a strong positivist-objectivist anchor in that it presumes reality external to the researcher can be objectively discovered, characterized, and reported.
Post-positivism
The Research Methods Knowledge Base has a very good explanation of post-positivism, which is copied below:
Postpositivists believe that human knowledge is based not on unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations, but rather upon human conjectures. As human knowledge is thus unavoidably conjectural, the assertion of these conjectures is warranted, or more specifically, justified by a set of warrants, which can be modified or withdrawn in the light of further investigation.
Post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty.
Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal!
Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on what's happening in reality.
(For a GT research, triangulation would mean imposing a quantitative type exercise to validate the results of the GT process).
The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on.
Post-positivists reject the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives!
Thus, objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual, it is inherently a social phenomenon. It is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each other's work. We never achieve objectivity perfectly, but we can approach it.
(This reminds me of DIALECTICAL THINKING which my supervisor Peter Yu mentioned to me just a couple of days ago, and whose ONE-DOT THEORY is based on. A little on DIALECTICS at the bottom).
Constructivists
Most post-positivists are constructivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is fallible, our constructions must be imperfect.
So what is meant by objectivity in a post-positivist world? Positivists believed that objectivity was a characteristic that resided in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it 'really' is.
"Data do not provide a window on reality. Rather, the ‘discovered’ reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural, and structural contexts” (Charmaz, 2000).
There is an underlying assumption that the interaction between the researcher and participants “produces the data, and therefore the meanings that the researcher observes and defines.” Following Charmaz, researchers need to go beyond the surface in seeking meaning in the data, searching for and questioning tacit meanings
about values, beliefs, and ideologies (Mills et al, 2006).
2. Interpretivist research
Interpretivism sounds a lot like constructivism, in my opinion. The assumption for interpretive research is that knowledge is gained, or filtered, through social constructions such as language, consciousness, and shared meanings (Klein & Myers, 1999). This means that things like language and symbols go a long way to decide how we come to understand things.
In addition to the emphasis on the socially constructed nature of reality, interpretive research acknowledges the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is being explored, and the situational constraints shaping this process.
3. Critical research
Critical research focuses on opposing, critiquing and confronting the status quo.
nStrauss and Corbin argue for unbiased data collection, a set of technical procedures and the need for verification, implying their belief in an objective external reality.
n However, Strauss and Corbin have since moved away from traditional positivism to a more relativist-pragmatic perspective through their acknowledgment that respondents views of reality may conflict with their own (See Strauss and Corbin 1998).
Much of the debate surrounding the various GT methods revolve around their respective epistemological leanings.
nStrauss and Corbin argue for unbiased data collection, a set of technical procedures and the need for verification, implying their belief in an objective external reality.
nHowever, Strauss and Corbin have since moved away from traditional positivism to a more relativist-pragmatic perspective through their acknowledgment that respondents views of reality may conflict with their own (See Strauss and Corbin 1998).Charmaz attains a constructivist position, and there are still others whose GT versions follow developments away from the traditional positivist stance.
Glaser appears to insist that the term Grounded Theory applies to his original conception (1967) with Strauss and elaborated in his later publications.
He argues that the Strauss and Corbin, Charmaz and the other versions are not GT per se, but forms of Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA).
Orders of Thinking
All these can get complicated and for me thus far, they raise a whole lot more questions than answers in many instances.
Recently, my supervisor Peter Yu brough to my attention DIALECTICAL THINKING, so I looked it up.
It has to do with ORDERS of THINKING.
We can be DOGMATIC, PLURALISTIC OR DIALECTIC in our thought.
Being dogmatic essentially means to an extreme rigidity of thought, or to buy into an idea so much that we have determined not to agree with anything else.
Pluralistic thinking is one step away from dogmatism in that although a person is sold on the belief system he has subscribed to, he is open to the idea that other belief systems can be okay for other people, as culture and other conditions provide different contexts.
Being dialectical, on the other hand, refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives. It considers that change is a given, meaning everything is in a flux and that situations are often complicated. It is a form of analytical reasoning that tries to reconcile difficult and contradictory information and situations in the most efficient and logical manner.
I see it as a sort of "Half the distance to the goal-line" idea in American football.
The pursuit of absolute truth and knowledge is never ending because there will always be questions, conflicts and controversies.
Hence, being dialectical means we should never claim that we have all the right answers, because there might be other ways of doing things that are better and more 'correct' than what we presently know.
Thus, it is necessary to keep checking and learning to try to get closer to the goal-line (although we admit we will never really reach it in absolute objective terms).
My Thoughts
As I ponder all these, I realize that one does not have to commit himself to a specific paradigm, and to declare that all our thoughts, beliefs, behavior and the way we relate to the world around us are invariably determined by any one such type of philosophy.
I think that we can be objectivist with some things, pragmatic and constructivist in others.
We can be dogmatic about certain things which we are convinced to have transcendent and objective truth (religious faith, perhaps) and are non-negotiable.
But in other things, our behavior may indicate our pluralistic thinking and our pragmatism toward those areas, like in our dealings with others and in our work.
Thinking about these things can be really exhausting (it can consume your waking hours and invade your dreams).
The advise to first know WHO YOU ARE and what values you are aligned to before undertaking this project is a good and necessary one, but I think it is impossible to pursue it to its conclusion as it will take too long.
It has certainly started a spark in me and ignited an interest in self-discovery in this area, but this is heavy-duty stuff and I know I will come to complete grips with or resolve it in the near future.
So, instead of trying to find out WHO I really I am in terms of these paradigms for the sake of coming up with the research design, I think a more feasible approach is to decide to EMBRACE the epistemological paradigm that is matched to the research orientation.
So this is what I shall do.
I shall decide on the choice of a GT method based on its merits and I shall fit my epistemological to it.
I choose the Glaserian/Orthodox GT to obtain an abstract conceptualization (not description) of the substantive area to be studied.
Glaserian GT recognizes an objective reality. As a researcher, I will not co-construct people's reality, but I will collect data about their lives and concerns in an objective manner. I will not impose my knowledge and beliefs in any way, but I will stay neutral and independent.
In such a manner, the data shall dictate the research. Conceptual understandings shall emerge according to the data.
Now, on to Research Design.
References:
Appleton, J. (1997). Constructivism: A naturalistic methodology for nursing inquiry. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(2), 13-22.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
de Laine, M. (1997). Ethnography: Theory and applications in health research. Sydney, Australia: Maclennan and Petty.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hayes, R.,&Oppenheim, R. (1997). Constructivism: Reality is what you make it. In T. Sexton&B. Griffin (Eds.), Constructivist thinking in counseling practice, research and training (pp. 19-41). New York: Teachers College Press.
Klein, H., & Myers, M., (1999), “A Set of Principals for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol 23, No 1, pp 67-94.
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), Article 3. Retrieved [date] from
http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/pdf/mills.pdf
Orlikowski, W.J. & Baroudi, J.J. "Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions", Information Systems Research (2) 1991, pp. 1-28.
Pidgeon, N., & Henwood, K. (1997). Using grounded theory in psychological research. In N. Hayes (Ed.), Doing qualitative analysis in psychology (pp. 245-273). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Grounded Theory Workshop
I attended a Grounded Theory workshop on Friday 19 March at Taylor's University College in KL.
It was jointly organized by Taylor's and Grounded Theory Institute in Mill Valley, California.
The speaker was Dr. Andy Lowe, a fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute and a personal friend of Barney Glaser, the co-founder of the original Grounded Theory.
The session covered the basics of 'What is Grounded Theory', where Dr Lowe took some time to explain the formation of Grounded Theory by Glaser and Anselm Strauss. He spoke at some length on the background of Glaser and Strauss, and the influences toward the development of the theory.
The part that I found most useful was the practical sessions where participants were given a 10-page transcript and were given the chance to do a simple Substantive Coding exercise.
This is the area that I had been having problems trying to understand by reading articles and other material off the Internet. I am glad we had a chance to do this as it enabled me to see the application of CODES, CONCEPTS, CATEGORIES, PROPERTIES, and INDICATORS,
It also cast some clarity on the use of THEORETICAL SAMPLING, THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY, THEORETICAL MEMOS, and the use of the LITERATURE in Grounded Theory.
Time was limited so I cannot say that every crucial question I had going into the workshop was addressed. For instance, I wished we would have worked more on CONSTANT COMPARISON, to see how substantive data can evolve into the realm of theory, but we only saw disconnected examples. This seems to be an area of contention by GT critics, and it would have been good to see the mechanics of the EMERGENCE that is at the heart of the GT method.
There was a strong emphasis on PROCESS, not units of analysis, and EMERGENCE and not forcing of the data.
Overall though, I would say I have a much better picture now how this methodology would be applied in my project.
The workshop was presented from a strictly Glaserian perspective, which was a little unfortunate as I had some questions regarding the Straussian and the more constructivist views that were not answered. (The speaker, despite his claim of not being an evangelist of orthodox GT, appeared irritated when asked about the other GT variants so I decided not to pursue this).
At this point, I do feel that I am leaning more toward using the Glaserian model. Aside from epistemological reasons (which gets more confusing because it is not as clear cut as it seems the more I read into this), I think that the outcome of the study is an important consideration as these approaches will yield different forms of 'theory'.
The Straussian model, with its rigid Axial Coding paradigm will result in 'description', as opposed to the abstract conceptualization of the Glaserian method. In my blogshops project, my interest goes beyond providing a description of the blogshop phenomenon. I would like to get into the 'why's', that is, why people make blogshops. Thus, in my mind, I feel that a Glaserian treatment is probably more appropriate at this point.
Still, I will take a close look at Charmaz, just to be sure I know what it is all about before I make the final decision to go with Glaser.
Another important thing I picked up was the advise NOT TO USE TAPE RECORDINGS, FIELD NOTES and COMPUTER SOFTWARES. Dr Lowe was quite adamant about this, although my understanding is that this is a matter of preference. Still, I will have to take this advise into consideration.
He was equally adamant about short 10-15 minute interviews that are more like conversations, to get people to be more natural and truthful. He advised doing a multiple of such short conversations. Good idea, but I can forsee some practical problems if I am going to interview people in Singapore and West Malaysia.
Dr Lowe mentioned the need of the researcher to declare at the onset of the project, his prior-knowledge of the substantive area. In GT, the dactum "ALL IS DATA" means that it is possible to interview yourself if you have some knowledge in the area of research, and to treat it as data for analysis and comparison. This sounds strange, but I might just have to do this somehow.
A very significant thing I learned was the need to have THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY, which is described as being attuned to the various coding paradigms that are at the disposal of the Glaserian GT researcher to do turn substantive codes into theory. Prior to the workshop, my understanding of theoretical sensitivity was the understanding of a wide area of the literature, but apparently, this means something else. So this will be my immediate priority.
The last item is probably the most interesting one, which is the advise to enter the field as soon as possible! The rational is that this will guard against pre-conception of ideas and biases. What this means to me is that I shall need to start looking into the data gathering processes as soon as possible.
It was jointly organized by Taylor's and Grounded Theory Institute in Mill Valley, California.
The speaker was Dr. Andy Lowe, a fellow of the Grounded Theory Institute and a personal friend of Barney Glaser, the co-founder of the original Grounded Theory.
The session covered the basics of 'What is Grounded Theory', where Dr Lowe took some time to explain the formation of Grounded Theory by Glaser and Anselm Strauss. He spoke at some length on the background of Glaser and Strauss, and the influences toward the development of the theory.
The part that I found most useful was the practical sessions where participants were given a 10-page transcript and were given the chance to do a simple Substantive Coding exercise.
This is the area that I had been having problems trying to understand by reading articles and other material off the Internet. I am glad we had a chance to do this as it enabled me to see the application of CODES, CONCEPTS, CATEGORIES, PROPERTIES, and INDICATORS,
It also cast some clarity on the use of THEORETICAL SAMPLING, THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY, THEORETICAL MEMOS, and the use of the LITERATURE in Grounded Theory.
Time was limited so I cannot say that every crucial question I had going into the workshop was addressed. For instance, I wished we would have worked more on CONSTANT COMPARISON, to see how substantive data can evolve into the realm of theory, but we only saw disconnected examples. This seems to be an area of contention by GT critics, and it would have been good to see the mechanics of the EMERGENCE that is at the heart of the GT method.
There was a strong emphasis on PROCESS, not units of analysis, and EMERGENCE and not forcing of the data.
Overall though, I would say I have a much better picture now how this methodology would be applied in my project.
The workshop was presented from a strictly Glaserian perspective, which was a little unfortunate as I had some questions regarding the Straussian and the more constructivist views that were not answered. (The speaker, despite his claim of not being an evangelist of orthodox GT, appeared irritated when asked about the other GT variants so I decided not to pursue this).
At this point, I do feel that I am leaning more toward using the Glaserian model. Aside from epistemological reasons (which gets more confusing because it is not as clear cut as it seems the more I read into this), I think that the outcome of the study is an important consideration as these approaches will yield different forms of 'theory'.
The Straussian model, with its rigid Axial Coding paradigm will result in 'description', as opposed to the abstract conceptualization of the Glaserian method. In my blogshops project, my interest goes beyond providing a description of the blogshop phenomenon. I would like to get into the 'why's', that is, why people make blogshops. Thus, in my mind, I feel that a Glaserian treatment is probably more appropriate at this point.
Still, I will take a close look at Charmaz, just to be sure I know what it is all about before I make the final decision to go with Glaser.
Another important thing I picked up was the advise NOT TO USE TAPE RECORDINGS, FIELD NOTES and COMPUTER SOFTWARES. Dr Lowe was quite adamant about this, although my understanding is that this is a matter of preference. Still, I will have to take this advise into consideration.
He was equally adamant about short 10-15 minute interviews that are more like conversations, to get people to be more natural and truthful. He advised doing a multiple of such short conversations. Good idea, but I can forsee some practical problems if I am going to interview people in Singapore and West Malaysia.
Dr Lowe mentioned the need of the researcher to declare at the onset of the project, his prior-knowledge of the substantive area. In GT, the dactum "ALL IS DATA" means that it is possible to interview yourself if you have some knowledge in the area of research, and to treat it as data for analysis and comparison. This sounds strange, but I might just have to do this somehow.
A very significant thing I learned was the need to have THEORETICAL SENSITIVITY, which is described as being attuned to the various coding paradigms that are at the disposal of the Glaserian GT researcher to do turn substantive codes into theory. Prior to the workshop, my understanding of theoretical sensitivity was the understanding of a wide area of the literature, but apparently, this means something else. So this will be my immediate priority.
The last item is probably the most interesting one, which is the advise to enter the field as soon as possible! The rational is that this will guard against pre-conception of ideas and biases. What this means to me is that I shall need to start looking into the data gathering processes as soon as possible.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Grounded Theory- Difference between Glaser's and Strauss' versions
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss came up with the concept of Grounded Theory in their classic 1967 book 'The Discovery of Grounded Theory'.
Later, however, Glaser (1992) disagreed with Strauss' (with Corbin) 1990 efforts to expand the theory, 'Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques', by saying that Strauss and Corbin had misrepresented Grounded Theory. He criticized their work as a forced and preconceived full conceptual description.
Some view the whole Glaser-Strauss dichotomy as a binary opposition, but others saw it as a natural spin-off as the theory evolved and developed from its original tenets (Mills, et al, 2006).
From there various forms of GT has emerged, including a constructivist version of it (Charmaz, 2000)
Here are some comparisons between Glaser's and Strauss' versions:
Notes:
References:
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, J, Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006), 'The development of constructivist grounded theory.' International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 5, no. 1, 8 March 2010, p. Article 3,
Later, however, Glaser (1992) disagreed with Strauss' (with Corbin) 1990 efforts to expand the theory, 'Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory, Procedures and Techniques', by saying that Strauss and Corbin had misrepresented Grounded Theory. He criticized their work as a forced and preconceived full conceptual description.
Some view the whole Glaser-Strauss dichotomy as a binary opposition, but others saw it as a natural spin-off as the theory evolved and developed from its original tenets (Mills, et al, 2006).
From there various forms of GT has emerged, including a constructivist version of it (Charmaz, 2000)
Here are some comparisons between Glaser's and Strauss' versions:
Glaser/Classic GT | Strauss & Corbin/Evolved GT | |
Ontological and Epistemological positions | · Objective reality (‘real’ reality) | · Relativism (truth is enacted) |
Influence on Methodologies | · Positivist | · Relativist pragmatism · Between post-positivism and constructivism · Interpretive of perspectives and voices of people |
Research Methodologies | · All is data- qualitative + quantitative data | · Qualitative research, QDA (Qualitative Data Analysis) |
Theoretical sensitivity | · No pre-determined thoughts · No pre-existing hypotheses/ bias · Researchers immerse in emerging data to raise theoretical sensitivity · Blank slate when entering a field of inquiry | · Various techniques (1) to enhance researcher sensitivity during analysis and to stimulate reflection about the data at hand · Theorising is… constructing from data an explanatory scheme that systematically integrates various concepts through statements of relationship · theories are “interpretations made from given perspectives as adopted/researched by researchers |
Literature reviews | · A need not to review any of the literature in the substantive area under study… to avoid… contaminating, constraining, inhibiting, stifling, or impeding the researcher’s analysis of codes emergent from the data · the data is an entity separate from both participant and researcher | · Engaging proactively with the literature from the beginning of the research process · Interweave the literature throughout the process of evolved grounded theory as another voice to contribute to the researcher’s theoretical reconstruction · to provide examples of similar phenomena that can “stimulate thinking about properties or dimensions that can be used to examine the data · “nontechnical” literature, such as reports and internal correspondence are potential sources of data, providing information, in particular, about the context within which the participant operates, for example, their employing organization |
Coding and Diagramming | · Three forms of codes- open, theoretical, and constant comparative (2) · 18 coding families to draw on to develop conceptual analysis | · Complex coding methods as strategies to examine the interface between structure and process · Focused on one particular coding family, the “6Cs,” ie the causes, consequences, and conditions affecting categories identified by the researcher · Later simplified their paradigmatic framework ie AXIAL CODING (3) · Conditional/consequential matrix- to expand the dimensions of analytic work (4) · Intensive use of diagramming (5) |
Identifying the Core Category | · The dichotomy between emergence and construction continues in the identification of the core category; “it always happens that a category will emerge from among many and ‘core out’ ” of its own accord. | · Selective coding- identifying the core category to acknowledge the role of the researcher as the author of a theoretical reconstruction. (7) · Researchers describe their “gut sense” about the subject matter of the research · Acknowledges the reconstruction of the participants’ stories (8) by the researcher and the fulfillment of their obligation to “give voice—albeit in the context of their own inevitable interpretations” |
Outcomes | · Conceptualization abstract of people, time and place | · Descriptive accuracy |
Notes:
(1). Examples- questioning, the flip-flop technique,far-out comparisons; these techniques are tools for the researcher to draw on in the act of theory development.
(2) Open coding is the initial step of theoretical analysis, developing codes from the data. This form of coding ends when it locates a core category.
Theoretical codes are “conceptual connectors” that develop relationships between categories and their properties
Constant comparative coding describes the method of constant comparison that
imbues both open and theoretical coding.
(3) AXIAL CODING- to ask questions about conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences of categories, thus making links between the ideas being conceptualized from the data; to provoke thinking about the relationships between categories and their properties and dimensions.
(4) Conditional/consequential matrix- “an analytic device to help the analyst keep track of the interplay of conditions/consequences and subsequent actions/interactions and to trace their paths of connectivity.” Using the matrix, the researcher is able to locate an interaction that appears repeatedly in the data and then trace the linkages from this through the micro and macro conditions that might influence it. This allows the researcher to reconstruct the original data in such a way that its broader context becomes apparent.
(5) Diagramming- Initially, in the coding process, logic diagrams such as flowcharts are used. When undertaking higher level analysis, researchers use both the conditional/consequential matrix and integrative diagramming, illustrating the complex interplay between the different levels of conditions.
(6) Axial Coding and Conditional Matrix are NOT constraints to theory construction but are tools for reconstructing a grounded theory that is both dense and significantly analytical, as well as representative of structure and process
(7) Core category- central point of a GT, which integrates all of that theory’s various aspects; explores the centrality of the story, the narrative rendering of the analysis, to the eventual development of the core or central category
(8) The story line is the final conceptualization of the core category, and as such, this “conceptual label” must fit the stories/data it represents.
(9) The researcher as co-producer/researcher as author, has the following roles:
- to “add . . . a description of the situation, the interaction, the person’s affect and [their] perception of how the interview went”
- to immerse themselves in the data in a way that embeds the narrative of the participants in the final research outcome, through the use of coding language that is active in its intent and that “helps to keep that life in the foreground”
- include raw data in their theoretical memos …memos should become more complex and analytical to keep the participant’s voice and meaning present in the theoretical outcome
- writing as a strategy- using a writing style that is more literary than scientific in intent.
- analytical in writing but style of writing needs to be evocative of the experiences of the participants
- researcher’s voice need not “transcend experience but re-envis[age] it . . . bring[ing] fragments of fieldwork time, context and mood together in a colloquy of the author’s several selves—reflecting, witnessing, wondering, accepting—all at once”
References:
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, J, Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006), 'The development of constructivist grounded theory.' International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 5, no. 1, 8 March 2010, p. Article 3,
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Why use Grounded Theory method for this project?
I think I need to convince myself (I am in the midst of reading the literature on Grounded Theory, and I am finding that it is one tough nut to crack!) why a Grounded Theory approach is needed for this project!
Stern (1994) the strongest case for the use of grounded theory is in investigations of relatively uncharted water, or to gain a fresh perspective in a familiar situation.
1. This blogshop project is based on the question of "Why are people turning blog software that is intended for personal publishing into online retail spaces?", which is a good candidate for a qualitative method approach as it will allow the social phenomenon of blogshops to be studied in depth.
2. As there is very little previous study on blogshops, it is an opportunity to ground the project in data, to allow theory to emerge from the data rather than to engage in a verification exercise that uses a proxy-theory, that is the testing of existing hypothesis is not the main concern in this project.
3. Also, the vast majority of research in the field of e-commerce have employed quantitative methods- for example, the use of cluster and factor analyses to categorize online retail types. It is hoped that applying a different research approach here would make a worthwhile contribution.
4. Grounded Theory provides for many forms of data collection, including interviewing and observations which are methods that will be utilized in this project.
5. Grounded theory seeks to construct theory about issues of importance in peoples’ lives (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This resonates very well with this blogshop study which will not just look at blogshops as business entities but their owners, buyers and partners as well.
References:
Stern, Phyllis Noerager. 1994. Eroding Grounded Theory. In Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (Morse, Janice M. editor), Sage Pub., - ed., pp. 210-223.
Stern (1994) the strongest case for the use of grounded theory is in investigations of relatively uncharted water, or to gain a fresh perspective in a familiar situation.
1. This blogshop project is based on the question of "Why are people turning blog software that is intended for personal publishing into online retail spaces?", which is a good candidate for a qualitative method approach as it will allow the social phenomenon of blogshops to be studied in depth.
2. As there is very little previous study on blogshops, it is an opportunity to ground the project in data, to allow theory to emerge from the data rather than to engage in a verification exercise that uses a proxy-theory, that is the testing of existing hypothesis is not the main concern in this project.
3. Also, the vast majority of research in the field of e-commerce have employed quantitative methods- for example, the use of cluster and factor analyses to categorize online retail types. It is hoped that applying a different research approach here would make a worthwhile contribution.
4. Grounded Theory provides for many forms of data collection, including interviewing and observations which are methods that will be utilized in this project.
5. Grounded theory seeks to construct theory about issues of importance in peoples’ lives (Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This resonates very well with this blogshop study which will not just look at blogshops as business entities but their owners, buyers and partners as well.
References:
Stern, Phyllis Noerager. 1994. Eroding Grounded Theory. In Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (Morse, Janice M. editor), Sage Pub., - ed., pp. 210-223.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)