Grounded Theory Method

Ghazala Yasmeen

1
 Grounded theory methodology

Grounded theory is an inductive technique of theory

building to interpret and explain phenomenon
through data collection.
It is appropriate way to analyze a massive set of
qualitative data.
It is systematic way of collecting and analyzing data
to establish the bases for a theory derived
inductively.
Theory emerges from the data rather than vice versa

2
 Origins

This approach was initially developed Barney Glaser

and Anselm Straus (1967) in their book: Awareness of
Dying while working jointly on the health sciences in
the School of Nursing, University of California San
Francisco . To sport their presented method of research,
they argued the need of new method to generate theory
from data.
G&S advocated explaining phenomena by developing
theories from research grounded in data rather than
deducing testable hypotheses from existing theories
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 4 emphasis in original)

3
 Theoretical Sampling &
Saturation
Theoretical sampling is concerned to collection of data and its
direction to gathering further samples which moves to develop a
theory (S&C, 1990; G&S, 1967; Douglas, 2003).

Data collection continues till the generation of concepts,

categories and incidents and ends with the saturation of all
categories (G&S, 1967; Glaser, 1978; (S&C, 1990, 1998).

There is not preplanned sample size. It remain to be expended till

losing the interest from data Data analysis and data collection
proceed together

In grounded theory, concepts emerged from data analysis are

basis of analysis. So sampling with theoretical significance
depends upon concepts which affect emerging theory (Bloor &
Wood, 2006).

4
 Constant Comparison
Constant comparison method is a process to identify the
variation in categories and considered as core element in
grounded theory (Charmez, 2006).

Cases under a particular category are compared continuously

with other cases of data with same category to evaluate the
effectiveness and feasibility of categories (Urquhart, 2001,
2013).

The constant comparative method plays a supportive role to

the subsequently generated theory.
Maintain close connection between categories (codes) and
data
Compare data coded in the same way (same category) to
develop a theoretical elaboration.

5
Memos

Memos are theoretical write up of thoughts and

ideas about the codes and their existing relationship
which can be consist on word, sentence or
paragraph (Glaser, 1987).
Memos are reflections and annotations of the data
lies between coding and writing stage of research
(Charmaz, 2012).
These should be attached with notes, discussions,
documents and codes by mentioning dates
(Charmaz, 2014).

6
Sources of Data

All is Data

7
Grounded Theory Approaches

Classical Grounded Theory by Glaser

Straussian Approach of Grounded Theory

Constructivist Grounded Theory by Charmaz

8
Classical/Glasserian Grounded theory

A general Grounded Theory Method with original

coding conventions
Theory should emerge by constant comparison,
not forced. Emergent.
Natural emergence of theory to be Discovered
from data
A process of discovering pre-existing
phenomenon and their relationship
Focused on objectivity of Data by avoiding
researchers personal biasness and interpretation

9
Straussian GT Approach

Highly systematic and rigorous process of data

analysis
Focused on Creation of theory rather then
discovery
Prescriptive is to develops categories

neither inductive nor deductive, but combines

both in a way of abductive reasoning

10
Constructivist GT Approach

Theory construction with co-creating role of

researcher & participants
More interpretative, intuitive and impressionistic
coding structure

Believe on Constructivist Paradigm & Symbolic

Interactionism
Attends to language and action

Examines how experience is constructed and

structures are erected

11
 Difference b/w Classical,
Straussian & Constructivist
GT approach
Glaserian/Classical Straussian Approach Constructivist/Charmaz
Grounded Theory of Grounded Theory Grounded Theory
Paradigm Positivism or Post- Interpretive and more Constructivism &
atic positivism associated with Symbolic Interactionism
Difference Realist ontology/ Symbolic Interactionism approach between
s Critical realest ontology Relativist ontology positivist and postmodern
Objectivist epistemology Subjective epistemology Relativist ontology
Subjectivist epistemology

Formulati No research question in Enter in research field Remain focused on some

on of starting of research with some research questions of inquiry
Research procedure questions
Questions Emerging theory, with Forcing the theory, with
neutral questions structured questions

Use of No use of literature in No hard and fast rule. Like Straussian

Literature beginning of research Literature can be used approach, begin with the
and avoid forcing the at any phase of review of literature but
data research with the difference of time
Beginning with general Having a general idea of and approach
wonderment (an empty where to begin Compile a lit review 12
Analysis Coding is less rigorous, a
procedure constant comparison of
incident to incident, with
neutral questions and
categories and properties
evolving. Take care not to
over- conceptualize, crafted at the time. Codes
identify key points
Two coding phases or
types, simple (fracture the
data then conceptually
group it) and substantive
(open or selective, to
produce categories and
properties)
Credibility, The credibility of the
Verification theory, or verification, is
& Procedure derived from its grounding
of Validity in the data
Focus on four criteria
Fit
Relevance
Work
Modifiability
Coding is more rigorous Emphasis on
and defined by technique. intensive interviews
The nature of making Use three types of
comparisons varies with coding: open coding,
the coding technique. focused coding and
Labels are care-fully theoretical coding
are derived from micro-
analysis which consists of
analysis data word-by-
word
Three types of coding,
open, axial and selective
The credibility of the Two criteria
theory comes from the Credibility supported
rigor of the method by empirical data
Two sets of criteria Originality
Research process
Empirical grounding of
finding
13
Theory Create a descriptive Conceptual description It create a explanatory
theory (description of theory that should
Development of a situations) emerge from the data
conceptual theory The theory is interpreted with the active
The theory is grounded by an observer engagement of
in the data Data is structured to researcher and
Data reveals the theory reveal the theory participants. Result can
be presented as a story

Theoretical Theoretical sensitivity Theoretical sensitivity Theoretical sensitivity

sensitivity comes from immersion comes from methods comes from
in the data and Tools interpretation, intuition
and participants
Basic A basic social process Basic social processes Should focus on
social should be identified need not be identified meaning, action and
processes process in social context
Role of The researcher is The researcher is active Researcher as a co-
Researche passive, exhibiting producer of data jointly
r disciplined restraint with participants
Regarded by some as Regarded by some as a Regarded by some as a
the only true GTM form of qualitative data form of qualitative data
analysis (QDA) analysis (QDA)

14
Data Analysis in Straussian
GTM

An Example of developing a Conceptual

Framework of
Agency Service Relation

15
 Research Objectives &
Questions
Research Objectives

1.To develop a conceptual framework for agency service relation

2.To criticize the existing agency relation

3.To identify the role of employer and employee as resource

holder and resource integrating service actors.

Research Questions
RQ: How agency relation between employee and employer can
be described as agency service relation?
SQ 1 Are employer and employee both resource holders and
resource integrating actors?
SQ 2 Is service (application of operant resources) a basis of
contract between employer and employee?
SQ 3 Does realized value depend on mutually co-creative effort
of employer and employee?

16
 Extant and Elicited Data
Extant data source is more concerned with data collection as data is
gathered from document, newspapers or blogs. While elicited data
source is focused on generation of data as data is generated by
transcribing interviews or focus group discussion.

In Elicited Data sources, Human interaction is involved in data

generation. In extant data source, researcher is not involved in data
formation and no interaction exist with that context.

All elicited data become document or text on one stage.

Human interaction is associated with sensorial experience. In

generating data from elicited source, researcher has sensorial
awareness about the source of data which helps to contextualize
data. While in extant source, researcher has less interaction and
sensorial experience which lead to less awareness about the context
of data

17
Spectrum of Extant Data &
Elicited Data

18
 Contextual Positioning of Extant
Data
Researcher and participant interaction is basic difference
between extant or elicited source or data collection and data
generation.
While generating data through elicited source, a researcher
can develop a deep understanding about the positioning of
data for analysis.
Positioning and context of data is concerned with asking the
questions concerned to who, what, when, where, why and
how.
In contrast, researcher involved in data collection through
extant source is deprived of context of data that is needed to
position extant data for analysis.
To bridge this gape it is need to collect extant data through
systematic and reflexive way of collecting data source with
its associated information to position data for analysis rather
than simple process of collecting articles (Ralph, Birks &
Chapman, 2014).

19
 Questions for establishing Contextual Positioning of Extant Data
Purpose Questions
Who To Identify Who participated in conceiving, supporting, shaping, writing,
editing, and publishing the text?
Who was its production intended to benefit?
What To Define What stated or assumed purposes does it serve?
What specific value does this text bring to the current study?
What are the parameters of the information?
When To Chronicle When was the document conceived, produced, updated?
What is the documents intended lifespan?
To what extent are the issues that influenced and informed the
production of this document relevant to the temporal context
of the current study?

Where To Locate Where was the document produced?

Where is the document intended for use?
Where is the document positioned in respect of sociological
context?
Why To Rationalize Why would the text be used?
Why, if at all, is the text unique, reliable, and consistent?
How To Explain How (if at all) do the authors of the text propose it be used?
How is the text written?
How is the document achieving its purpose?
20
Sequential series of stages

Three stages (in Strauss and Corbin)

1. Open coding - a procedure for
developing categories of information
2. Axial coding - a procedure for
interconnecting the categories
3. Selective coding - a procedure for
building a story that connects the
categories producing a discursive
set of theoretical propositions.

21
 Open Coding
Open coding is an interpretive process which is
involved with breaking down data to examine closely
and deeply to extract concepts and compare similarities
and differences (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Strauss &
Corbin, 1998).
Initial or open codes start with empty mind and without
predetermined thinking
Open coding start with first collected piece of data and
continue along with the process of data collection.
It is concerned with interpretation and analysis of data
rather than description (Boadu & Sorour, 2015).

22
Category Sub Key Concepts
Categories
Value Value proposal; offering value; proposal acceptance or
Proposition rejection: perceived value; expected value

Value Co- outcome of resource integration; something that is

creation always co-created through the interaction of
individuals or firms; relational value.; greater value on
goal convergence; greater value in cooperative
Value behavior; interest alignment and collective behavior
has greater utility;

Value in context; value depend on context;

Context

Value in Value added; value embedded in goods; value

Use derived after use; arises from experience

Value in value-in-exchange; value comes from exchange;

Exchange 23
 2. Axial Coding
Axial coding is mainly involved with reconstruction of data
and identification the relationship between categories and
properties which help to explain phenomenon (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

During the process of axial coding, research remain

engaged in four tasks: categories lay out, development of
the paradigm model, establishing relationship between
categories and subcategories and relating core category
with other (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

The paradigm model is used to establish relationship

between codes, concepts and categories by identifying
causal, intervening and contextual conditions of
phenomenon, practices and strategies and associated
consequences (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
24
Look for
Causal conditions = what influences the
central phenomenon, events, incidences,
happenings
Phenomenon = the central idea, event,
happening, incident about which a set of
actions or interactions are directed at
managing, handling or to which the set of
actions is related.
Strategies for addressing the
phenomenon. Purposeful, goal oriented.
Context - locations of events.

25
Look for
Intervening conditions - that shape,
facilitate or constrain the strategies
that take place within a specific
context.
Action/Interaction - strategies devised
to manage, handle, carry out, respond
to a phenomenon under a set of
perceived conditions
Consequences - outcomes or results of
action or interaction, result from the
strategies
26
 An Example of The Paradigm
Model
Paradigm Key Concepts Sub Categories
Causal Conditions Need for service Dependency, specialized knowledge
exchange and skills, rare and differentiated
operant resources,

Phenomenon Agency service relation

Contextual Service Context Perception of greater value, service
Conditions contract, value proposition, service
interaction

Intervening Institutions and Value & belief systems,

Conditions institutional Institutional logics
arrangements,
Action/ Interaction Service system practices Resource integration practices,
Strategies and processes non-pecuniary / non-financial incentives,
service governance mechanism

Consequences Value co-creation Mutual benefits;, reciprocal service

exchange, relationship, experience,
learning; knowledge sharing; 27
 3. Selective Coding
In the phase of selective coding, categories are
combined, integrated and refined to form a story line to
describe the phenomenon.
Mian objective of selective coding to identifying the core
category and formation of story line (Corbin and
Strauss, 2008)
Core category is high level of abstraction (Glaser,
1978). Core category is phenomenon, taking central
position in the paradigm model that is explained in term
of describing its relationship with other categories of
paradigm model and used to connect other categories
(Howell, 2000)

28
 Propositions
1. Need for service exchange (reciprocal exchange of operant resources)
leads service actors (employers and employees) to establish service
contract and service relation

2. Agency service relationship among service actors depend upon service

proposal and perception of achieving greater value through collaboration
rather than individual efforts

3. Institutions and institutional arrangements facilitate and mitigate the

impact of agency service relation and strengthen the service governance
mechanism in an organization and facilitate the process of value co-
creation

4. Consequences of service system practices leads to improved agency

service relation and strengthen the service contract through realization of
service exchange, mutual befits, delivered value and learning experience

5. Value is created with the mutual resource integrating efforts of all involved
service actors and realized through desired service exchange.

29
Agency Service Relation
Framework