Striking a Balance between Program Requirements and GT Principles: Writing a compromised GT proposal...

Sherry L. Xie, Ph.D. Candidate Abstract Glaser’s term “compromised GT proposal” (2001, p.114) refers to the type of Grounded Theory (GT) proposal that is written in order to conform to the requirements of a standardized qualitative research proposal. A GT proposal needs only to supply information on the area of interest, the data source and a statement of method to the effect that the researcher begin to collect, code and analyse the data and let the theory emerge. Thus, the proposal may only occupy “a page or two” (Glaser, 2001, p. 111). Whilst being consistent with the methodology, a GT proposal sometimes has to give way to the format specified by a PhD program or committee even though the format was not defined for a GT proposal and in some areas, conflicts with GT principles; for example, the format may require a literature review. This short paper reports on my experience of writing a compromised GT proposal as a first-time GT researcher. It describes how both Glaser’s advice on writing compromised GT research proposals and the characteristics of the substantive area of the proposed research were used to satisfy program requirements while still maintaining GT fundamentals. The Program Requirements for Research Proposal As a PhD student at the School of Library, Archives, and Information Studies (SLAIS), my area of research is archival and information studies, which traditionally does not have disciplinespecific or preferred research methodologies. Students may select any of the social science research methodologies as long as they justify the selection for their dissertation projects. My selection of GT is based on three grounds: first, it is evident that there are no theories existing in the substantive area which I am interested in; second, I have been conducting deductive (i.e., theory-testing) research for all my research projects and I consider my dissertation project a good opportunity to practice inductive research; third, based on my past research experiences, I trust that I am theoretically sensitive and capable of generating concepts and hypotheses. The requirements of writing a research proposal in my school are contained in the PhD Handbook of Policies and Procedures, which explains the purpose of defending the research proposal (Table 1), lists the required contents of the proposal (Table 2), and explains that: “A well-designed proposal should provide the basis for the first two or three chapters of the final dissertation. In most cases, the proposal should be at least 30 pages long” (SLAIS, 2005). Table 1: Purposes of the Defence – to ensure that the student has a clear understanding of the research he/she proposes to conduct, – to ensure that all Committee members have a clear conception of the research proposed, – to reach agreement on the methodology to be followed for the dissertation research, and – to ensure that all Committee members formally approve of the student’s topic and research plan. Table 2: The Contents of a Proposal – Title page, with student’s name, working title, and names of Committee members – Table of contents – Introduction, including an explanation of the Research Question – Literature review – Methodology – Information on issues relating to ethical review and their resolution, if applicable – Planning information – Timeline, itemized budget, if applicable, any other appropriate planning information – Reference list While not as constraining as some proposal formats, students are required to demonstrate to the committee the breadth and depth of their knowledge about the research subject (i.e., literature review, research questions), the suitability of...

Data Analysis: Getting conceptual

Helen Scott, Ph.D. Abstract This paper will track my battle to ‘get conceptual’ in the production of a Grounded Theory. It will discuss early attempts at creating substantive codes through the process of open coding which, despite my best efforts, merely produced descriptive codes. It will illustrate the process by which these descriptive codes became more conceptual, earning the title of substantive code and how their presentation in essay form produced a perfect example of ‘conceptual description’. It will then describe the slow dawning of the purpose of ‘theoretical codes’ as organisers of substantive codes and the emergence of a Grounded Theory. Open Coding: The mechanics The substantive population1 of my study is adult online distance learners whose main concern (in descriptive terms) is finding the time to study. The process which addresses this concern is the ‘temporal integration of connected study into a structured life’ (Scott, 2007 a, b). An overview of the theory and its structure is offered in the Appendix to this paper. Participants were located all over the world, therefore most of the data for the study was collected online using email or chat2. Typically, the first emailed response from each person was the most detailed response with perhaps one or two emails received in reply to follow up questions. I would print and read the email or chat transcript for an overview. If I felt that I could understand what the participant was telling me, I started coding, otherwise I waited until subsequent emails or chat sessions improved my understanding. When open coding I had a piece of paper in front of me which asked: • What category does this incident indicate? • What property of what category does this incident indicate? • What is the participant’s main concern? (Glaser, 1998, p. 140) I asked these questions of every incident that I perceived and I wrote the codes in the margin. In addition, I used coding cards and wrote the indicators3 in full on the appropriate coding card(s) and referenced the indicator both on the printed, coded document and on the coding card. As a reference number, I used the initial of the person plus the incident number e.g. J-10. Coding to cards was cumbersome and time consuming but it helped me to get a feel for the process and to feel in control of my data. Actually I had too much control of my data; since I could record each and every code, the number of codes soon spiralled out of control. Thus the rhythms built into the method could not operate allowing the undesirable state of ‘full coverage’ over parsimony. Had I only coded in the margins, the relevant might have emerged more quickly, by the process of forgetting that which did not pattern out. Not yet understanding this, I would write the name of the code at the top of the card and in the body of the card write the reference number and the indicator. This was reassuring; as the cards became fuller, I could compare incident to incident easily. I could see how codes grew and became saturated. I could compare codes with codes and indicators between codes. I could see codes metamorphose into other codes and see the dimensions of codes emerge either across cards or within a card. For example, the coding card ‘Compliance’ listed indicators of ‘high compliance’ and ‘minimal compliance’. Indicators of ‘reducing compliance’ emerged, then ‘non compliance’ and then there were degrees of ‘non...

Demystifying Theoretical Sampling in Grounded Theory Research

Jenna Breckenridge BSc(Hons),Ph.D.Candidate and Derek Jones, PhD, BA (Hons), Dip COT Abstract Theoretical sampling is a central tenet of classic grounded theory and is essential to the development and refinement of a theory that is ‘grounded’ in data. While many authors appear to share concurrent definitions of theoretical sampling, the ways in which the process is actually executed remain largely elusive and inconsistent. As such, employing and describing the theoretical sampling process can present a particular challenge to novice researchers embarking upon their first grounded theory study. This article has been written in response to the challenges faced by the first author whilst writing a grounded theory proposal. It is intended to clarify theoretical sampling for new grounded theory researchers, offering some insight into the practicalities of selecting and employing a theoretical sampling strategy. It demonstrates that the credibility of a theory cannot be dissociated from the process by which it has been generated and seeks to encourage and challenge researchers to approach theoretical sampling in a way that is apposite to the core principles of the classic grounded theory methodology. Introduction With the introduction of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss (1967) challenged the prevailing hypothetico-deductive method of theory verification, questioning the gulf that existed between abstract theory and empirical research. They advocated that a theory developed in direct response to immediate problems under investigation would ultimately be more relevant to the studied area than any pre-existing theory. Thus proffered as a potential means of bridging the theory-practice divide, it is perhaps of little surprise that the grounded theory method has been embraced widely by the health professions. Grounded theory offers healthcare researchers a systematic and interpretive means of generating a theory from data that has the potential to explain, interpret and guide practice. However, a review of healthcare literature would suggest that while many authors profess to using grounded theory, they may only appear to have ‘borrowed’ a particular aspect of the method, most commonly the constant comparative approach to data analysis (Draucker et al 2007). Furthermore, ‘grounded theory’ studies have been criticised for possessing a somewhat “mystical” (Melia 1997 p.33) quality whereby: a sleight of hand produces a list of ‘themes’, and we are invited to take it on trust that theory somehow emerges from the data without being offered a step by step explanation of how theoretical insights have been built up (Barbour 2001 p.1116). Ultimately, this inconsistent application of grounded theory and the ambiguous way in which grounded theory studies are often presented within healthcare literature can pose several challenges to novice researchers. Without being able to refer to useful exemplars of grounded theory studies it is difficult to understand and prepare for the practicalities of carrying out one’s own grounded theory research. Similarly, when using grounded theory studies as evidence in practice or as part of a literature review it is difficult to ascertain the credibility of the research if the product cannot be linked explicitly with the process. This article has been written in response to the challenges faced by the first author whilst writing a classic grounded theory proposal, particularly in relation to theoretical sampling. As an active and ongoing process that controls and directs data collection and analysis, theoretical sampling is pivotal in ‘building up theoretical insights’. However, while many authors appear to share concurrent definitions of theoretical sampling, the ways in which the process is actually executed remain largely elusive and inconsistent. The purpose of this article is thus to...