Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory With the help of the computer ([email protected])

Agenda  Grounded theory – background, characteristics and relevance today  Discussions about your theories and experiences  Grounded theory – strengths and weaknesses  Reflections and additional examples of how to use NVivo in the research process (Love & Peter)

Historic background of GT  A reaction against the prevalent ideal in the USA in the 60’s  At that time two research approaches were dominating  Verification studies, quantitative based on positivistic ideals  Grand theories without empirical connections (e.g. Parsons)

 Grounded theory must be understood as a reaction against these dominating research paradigms. Differences are maximized and the method appears as extreme  The method also reflects a romantic ideal of originality and individuality which is in

Relevance for contemporary management research  Scandinavian management research is often problem driven. It has its roots in practice  Glaser & Strauss are often quoted in dissertations but are seldom used rigorously  GT has links to other methodological traditions which take the empirical material seriously - such as ethnography and ANT

Foundations of GT  Pragmatism – usefulness as important criterion  Idiographic point of departure  Qualitative focus  Focus on exploration  Sensitizing concepts in constant change  Focus on social actions  Closeness to the empirical material

Some key aspects of GT  Suggests the use of a broad range of different and rich data  Coding as a central aspect of analysis  Create categories with properties from data

 The power of comparison  Different people, different points in time, different categories…

 Theoretical sampling  Minimizing and maximizing differences in two steps

 From categories to substantial (focusing on an empirical phenomenon) and formal (focusing on a theoretical phenonenon) (Based on Alvesson & Sköldberg, 1994) grounded theories

What is a good grounded theory?  Fit with data  Works in explaining the phenomenon  Has relevance through analytic explanations of important problems and processes in the empirical setting  Is durable through flexibility

(Charmaz, 2000)

Steps in developing a grounded theory 1. Develop categories 

Use data available to develop labeled categories that fit data closely

2. Saturate categories 

Accumulate examples of a given category until is is clear what future instances would be located in this category

3. Abstract definitions 

Abstract a definition of the category by stating in a general form the criteria for putting further instances into this category

4. Use the definitions 

Use definitions as a guide to emerging features of importance in further field work and as a stimulus to theoretical reflection

Turner (1981; Baserad på Glaser & Strauss)

Steps in developing a grounded theory 1.

Exploit categories fully 

2.

Note, develop and follow up links between categories 

3.

Note relationships and develop hypotheses about the links between the categories

Consider the conditions under which the links hold 

4.

Examine any apparent or hypothesized relationships and specify the conditions

Make connections, where relevant to existing theory 

5.

Be aware of additional categories suggested by those you have produced, their inverse, their opposite, more specific and more general instances

Build bridges to existing work at this stage rather than at the outset of the research

Use extreme comparisons to the maximum to test emerging relationships

Turner Baserad på Glaser Strauss)  (1981;Identify the key& variables

and dimensions and see whether the relationship holds at the extremes of these variables

Your reflections - GT strengths  Makes analysis traceable and easier to refine  Increases reliability and validity by proposing a rigorous process  Helps deal with the generalizability issue in qualitative research  Provides theories that fit data  Enables new insights  Requires and experienced and ”broad” researcher

Your reflections - GT weaknesses/risks  Cannot be entirely theory free  The process/coding restricts the interpretive process  Time consuming  Theories become very local  How is prior knowledge incorporated?  Concept definition is a challenge

Critique against GT  Difficult to get beyond the ”common sense” level of analysis. Reveals surface structures but misses the underlying deep structures  Data can never be free of theory  Over reliance on a mechanical coding process  A positivistic flavor which does not fit the focus on qualitative data Based on Alvesson & Sköldberg (1994)