[ ] p2-6
[ ] p4-21
We used grounded theory methodology to investigate social processes in private dental practices in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This grounded theory study builds on a previous Australian Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) called the Monitor Dental Practice Program (MPP) [ 27 ]. We know that preventive techniques can arrest early tooth decay and thus reduce the need for fillings [ 28 - 32 ]. Unfortunately, most dentists worldwide who encounter early tooth decay continue to drill it out and fill the tooth [ 33 - 37 ]. The MPP tested whether dentists could increase their use of preventive techniques. In the intervention arm, dentists were provided with a set of evidence-based preventive protocols to apply [ 38 ]; control practices provided usual care. The MPP protocols used in the RCT guided dentists to systematically apply preventive techniques to prevent new tooth decay and to arrest early stages of tooth decay in their patients, therefore reducing the need for drilling and filling. The protocols focused on (1) primary prevention of new tooth decay (tooth brushing with high concentration fluoride toothpaste and dietary advice) and (2) intensive secondary prevention through professional treatment to arrest tooth decay progress (application of fluoride varnish, supervised monitoring of dental plaque control and clinical outcomes)[ 38 ].
As the RCT unfolded, it was discovered that practices in the intervention arm were not implementing the preventive protocols uniformly. Why had the outcomes of these systematically implemented protocols been so different? This question was the starting point for our grounded theory study. We aimed to understand how the protocols had been implemented, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process. We hoped that such understanding would help us to see how the norms of Australian private dental practice as regards to tooth decay could be moved away from drilling and filling and towards evidence-based preventive care.
Figure Figure1 1 illustrates the steps taken during the project that will be described below from points A to F.
Study design . file containing a figure illustrating the study design.
Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact . This shows the influence of symbolic interactionism, a social psychological approach focused on the meaning of human actions [ 39 ]. Grounded theory studies begin with open questions, and researchers presume that they may know little about the meanings that drive the actions of their participants. Accordingly, we sought to learn from participants how the MPP process worked and how they made sense of it. We wanted to answer a practical social problem: how do dentists persist in drilling and filling early stages of tooth decay, when they could be applying preventive care?
We asked research questions that were open, and focused on social processes. Our initial research questions were:
• What was the process of implementing (or not-implementing) the protocols (from the perspective of dentists, practice staff, and patients)?
• How did this process vary?
In our experience, medical researchers are often concerned about the ethics oversight process for such a flexible, unpredictable study design. We managed this process as follows. Initial ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Sydney. In our application, we explained grounded theory procedures, in particular the fact that they evolve. In our initial application we provided a long list of possible recruitment strategies and interview questions, as suggested by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We indicated that we would make future applications to modify our protocols. We did this as the study progressed - detailed below. Each time we reminded the committee that our study design was intended to evolve with ongoing modifications. Each modification was approved without difficulty. As in any ethical study, we ensured that participation was voluntary, that participants could withdraw at any time, and that confidentiality was protected. All responses were anonymised before analysis, and we took particular care not to reveal potentially identifying details of places, practices or clinicians.
Grounded theory studies are characterised by theoretical sampling, but this requires some data to be collected and analysed. Sampling must thus begin purposively, as in any qualitative study. Participants in the previous MPP study provided our population [ 27 ]. The MPP included 22 private dental practices in NSW, randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. With permission of the ethics committee; we sent letters to the participants in the MPP, inviting them to participate in a further qualitative study. From those who agreed, we used the quantitative data from the MPP to select an initial sample.
Then, we selected the practice in which the most dramatic results had been achieved in the MPP study (Dental Practice 1). This was a purposive sampling strategy, to give us the best possible access to the process of successfully implementing the protocols. We interviewed all consenting staff who had been involved in the MPP (one dentist, five dental assistants). We then recruited 12 patients who had been enrolled in the MPP, based on their clinically measured risk of developing tooth decay: we selected some patients whose risk status had gotten better, some whose risk had worsened and some whose risk had stayed the same. This purposive sample was designed to provide maximum variation in patients' adoption of preventive dental care.
One hour in-depth interviews were conducted. The researcher/interviewer (AS) travelled to a rural town in NSW where interviews took place. The initial 18 participants (one dentist, five dental assistants and 12 patients) from Dental Practice 1 were interviewed in places convenient to them such as the dental practice, community centres or the participant's home.
Two initial interview schedules were designed for each group of participants: 1) dentists and dental practice staff and 2) dental patients. Interviews were semi-structured and based loosely on the research questions. The initial questions for dentists and practice staff are in Additional file 1 . Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. The research location was remote from the researcher's office, thus data collection was divided into two episodes to allow for intermittent data analysis. Dentist and practice staff interviews were done in one week. The researcher wrote memos throughout this week. The researcher then took a month for data analysis in which coding and memo-writing occurred. Then during a return visit, patient interviews were completed, again with memo-writing during the data-collection period.
Coding and the constant comparative method.
Coding is essential to the development of a grounded theory [ 15 ]. According to Charmaz [[ 15 ], p46], 'coding is the pivotal link between collecting data and developing an emergent theory to explain these data. Through coding, you define what is happening in the data and begin to grapple with what it means'. Coding occurs in stages. In initial coding, the researcher generates as many ideas as possible inductively from early data. In focused coding, the researcher pursues a selected set of central codes throughout the entire dataset and the study. This requires decisions about which initial codes are most prevalent or important, and which contribute most to the analysis. In theoretical coding, the researcher refines the final categories in their theory and relates them to one another. Charmaz's method, like Glaser's method [ 13 ], captures actions or processes by using gerunds as codes (verbs ending in 'ing'); Charmaz also emphasises coding quickly, and keeping the codes as similar to the data as possible.
We developed our coding systems individually and through team meetings and discussions.
We have provided a worked example of coding in Table Table2. 2 . Gerunds emphasise actions and processes. Initial coding identifies many different processes. After the first few interviews, we had a large amount of data and many initial codes. This included a group of codes that captured how dentists sought out evidence when they were exposed to a complex clinical case, a new product or technique. Because this process seemed central to their practice, and because it was talked about often, we decided that seeking out evidence should become a focused code. By comparing codes against codes and data against data, we distinguished the category of "seeking out evidence" from other focused codes, such as "gathering and comparing peers' evidence to reach a conclusion", and we understood the relationships between them. Using this constant comparative method (see Table Table1), 1 ), we produced a theoretical code: "making sense of evidence and constructing knowledge". This code captured the social process that dentists went through when faced with new information or a practice challenge. This theoretical code will be the focus of a future paper.
Coding process
Raw data | Initial coding | Focused coding | |
---|---|---|---|
Q. What did you take into account when you decided to buy this new technology? What did we... we looked at cost, we looked at reliability and we sort of, we compared a few different types, talked to some people that had them. Q. When you say you talked to some people who were they? Some dental colleagues. There's a couple of internet sites that we talked to some people... people had tried out some that didn't work very well. Q. So in terms of materials either preventive materials or restorative materials; what do you take in account when you decide which one to adopt? Well, that's a good question. I don't know. I suppose we [laughs] look at reliability. I suppose I've been looking at literature involved in it so I quite like my own little research about that, because I don't really trust the research that comes with the product and once again what other dentists are using and what they've been using and they're happy with. I'm finding the internet, some of those internet forums are actually quite good for new products. | Deciding to buy based on cost, reliability Talking to dental colleagues on internet sites Comparing their experiences Looking at literature Doing my own little research Not trusting research that comes with commercial products Talking to other dentists about their experiences | |
Throughout the study, we wrote extensive case-based memos and conceptual memos. After each interview, the interviewer/researcher (AS) wrote a case-based memo reflecting on what she learned from that interview. They contained the interviewer's impressions about the participants' experiences, and the interviewer's reactions; they were also used to systematically question some of our pre-existing ideas in relation to what had been said in the interview. Table Table3 3 illustrates one of those memos. After a few interviews, the interviewer/researcher also began making and recording comparisons among these memos.
Case-based memo
This was quite an eye opening interview in the sense that the practice manager was very direct, practical and open. In his accounts, the bottom line is that this preventive program is not profitable; dentists will do it for giving back to the community, not to earn money from it. I am so glad we had this interview; otherwise I am not sure if someone would be so up front about it. So, my question really is, is that the reason why dentists have not adopted it in other practices? And what about other patients who come here, who are not enrolled in the research program, does the dentist-in-charge treat them all as being part of the program or it was just an impression from the interview and what I saw here during my time in the practice... or will the dentist continue doing it in the next future? |
I definitely learned that dentistry in private practice is a business, at the end of the day a target has to be achieved, and the dentist is driven by it. During the dentist's interview, there was a story about new patients being referred to the practice because the way they were treating patients now; but right now I am just not sure; I really need to check that... need to go back and ask the dentist about it, were there any referrals or not? Because this would create new revenue for the practice and the practice manager would surely be happy about it. On the other hand, it is interesting that the practice manager thinks that having a hygienist who was employed few months ago is the way to adopt the preventive program; she should implement it, freeing the dentist to do more complex work. But in reality, when I interviewed the hygienist I learned that she does not want to change to adopt the program, she is really focused on what she has been doing for a while and trust her experience a lot! So I guess, the dentist in charge might be going through a new changing process, different from what happen when the MPP protocols were first tried in this practice; this is another point to check on the next interview with the dentist. I just have this feeling that somehow the new staff (hygienist) is really important for this practice to regain and maintain profit throughout the adoption of preventive protocols but there are some personality clashes happening along the way. |
We also wrote conceptual memos about the initial codes and focused codes being developed, as described by Charmaz [ 15 ]. We used these memos to record our thinking about the meaning of codes and to record our thinking about how and when processes occurred, how they changed, and what their consequences were. In these memos, we made comparisons between data, cases and codes in order to find similarities and differences, and raised questions to be answered in continuing interviews. Table Table4 4 illustrates a conceptual memo.
Conceptual memo
In these dental practices the adaptation to preventive protocols was all about believing in this new approach to manage dental caries and in themselves as professionals. New concepts were embraced and slowly incorporated into practice. Embracing new concepts/paradigms/systems and abandoning old ones was quite evident during this process (old concepts = dentistry restorative model; new concepts = non-surgical approach). This evolving process involved feelings such as anxiety, doubt, determination, confidence, and reassurance. The modification of practices was possible when dentists-in-charge felt that perhaps there was something else that would be worth doing; something that might be a little different from what was done so far. The responsibility to offer the best available treatment might have triggered this reasoning. However, there are other factors that play an important role during this process such as dentist's personal features, preconceived notions, dental practice environment, and how dentists combine patients' needs and expectations while making treatment decisions. Finding the balance between preventive non-surgical treatment (curing of disease) and restorative treatment (making up for lost tissues) is an every moment challenge in a profitable dental practice. Regaining profit, reassessing team work and surgery logistics, and mastering the scheduling art to maximize financial and clinical outcomes were important practical issues tackled in some of these practices during this process. |
These participants talked about learning and adapting new concepts to their practices and finally never going back the way it was before. This process brought positive changes to participants' daily activities. Empowerment of practice staff made them start to enjoy more their daily work (they were recognized by patients as someone who was truly interested in delivering the best treatment for them). Team members realized that there were many benefits to patients and to staff members in implementing this program, such as, professional development, offering the best care for each patient and job satisfaction. |
At the end of our data collection and analysis from Dental Practice 1, we had developed a tentative model of the process of implementing the protocols, from the perspective of dentists, dental practice staff and patients. This was expressed in both diagrams and memos, was built around a core set of focused codes, and illustrated relationships between them.
We have already described our initial purposive sampling. After our initial data collection and analysis, we used theoretical sampling (see Table Table1) 1 ) to determine who to sample next and what questions to ask during interviews. We submitted Ethics Modification applications for changes in our question routes, and had no difficulty with approval. We will describe how the interview questions for dentists and dental practice staff evolved, and how we selected new participants to allow development of our substantive theory. The patients' interview schedule and theoretical sampling followed similar procedures.
We now had a detailed provisional model of the successful process implemented in Dental Practice 1. Important core focused codes were identified, including practical/financial, historical and philosophical dimensions of the process. However, we did not yet understand how the process might vary or go wrong, as implementation in the first practice we studied had been described as seamless and beneficial for everyone. Because our aim was to understand the process of implementing the protocols, including the conditions and consequences of variation in the process, we needed to understand how implementation might fail. For this reason, we theoretically sampled participants from Dental Practice 2, where uptake of the MPP protocols had been very limited according to data from the RCT trial.
We also changed our interview questions based on the analysis we had already done (see Additional file 2 ). In our analysis of data from Dental Practice 1, we had learned that "effectiveness" of treatments and "evidence" both had a range of meanings. We also learned that new technologies - in particular digital x-rays and intra-oral cameras - had been unexpectedly important to the process of implementing the protocols. For this reason, we added new questions for the interviews in Dental Practice 2 to directly investigate "effectiveness", "evidence" and how dentists took up new technologies in their practice.
Then, in Dental Practice 2 we learned more about the barriers dentists and practice staff encountered during the process of implementing the MPP protocols. We confirmed and enriched our understanding of dentists' processes for adopting technology and producing knowledge, dealing with complex cases and we further clarified the concept of evidence. However there was a new, important, unexpected finding in Dental Practice 2. Dentists talked about "unreliable" patients - that is, patients who were too unreliable to have preventive dental care offered to them. This seemed to be a potentially important explanation for non-implementation of the protocols. We modified our interview schedule again to include questions about this concept (see Additional file 3 ) leading to another round of ethics approvals. We also returned to Practice 1 to ask participants about the idea of an "unreliable" patient.
Dentists' construction of the "unreliable" patient during interviews also prompted us to theoretically sample for "unreliable" and "reliable" patients in the following round of patients' interviews. The patient question route was also modified by the analysis of the dentists' and practice staff data. We wanted to compare dentists' perspectives with the perspectives of the patients themselves. Dentists were asked to select "reliable" and "unreliable" patients to be interviewed. Patients were asked questions about what kind of services dentists should provide and what patients valued when coming to the dentist. We found that these patients (10 reliable and 7 unreliable) talked in very similar ways about dental care. This finding suggested to us that some deeply-held assumptions within the dental profession may not be shared by dental patients.
At this point, we decided to theoretically sample dental practices from the non-intervention arm of the MPP study. This is an example of the 'openness' of a grounded theory study potentially subtly shifting the focus of the study. Our analysis had shifted our focus: rather than simply studying the process of implementing the evidence-based preventive protocols, we were studying the process of doing prevention in private dental practice. All participants seemed to be revealing deeply held perspectives shared in the dental profession, whether or not they were providing dental care as outlined in the MPP protocols. So, by sampling dentists from both intervention and control group from the previous MPP study, we aimed to confirm or disconfirm the broader reach of our emerging theory and to complete inductive development of key concepts. Theoretical sampling added 12 face to face interviews and 10 telephone interviews to the data. A total of 40 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 were recruited. Telephone interviews were of comparable length, content and quality to face to face interviews, as reported elsewhere in the literature [ 40 ].
After theoretical sampling, we could begin coding theoretically. We fleshed out each major focused code, examining the situations in which they appeared, when they changed and the relationship among them. At time of writing, we have reached theoretical saturation (see Table Table1). 1 ). We have been able to determine this in several ways. As we have become increasingly certain about our central focused codes, we have re-examined the data to find all available insights regarding those codes. We have drawn diagrams and written memos. We have looked rigorously for events or accounts not explained by the emerging theory so as to develop it further to explain all of the data. Our theory, which is expressed as a set of concepts that are related to one another in a cohesive way, now accounts adequately for all the data we have collected. We have presented the developing theory to specialist dental audiences and to the participants, and have found that it was accepted by and resonated with these audiences.
We have used these procedures to construct a detailed, multi-faceted model of the process of incorporating prevention into private general dental practice. This model includes relationships among concepts, consequences of the process, and variations in the process. A concrete example of one of our final key concepts is the process of "adapting to" prevention. More commonly in the literature writers speak of adopting, implementing or translating evidence-based preventive protocols into practice. Through our analysis, we concluded that what was required was 'adapting to' those protocols in practice. Some dental practices underwent a slow process of adapting evidence-based guidance to their existing practice logistics. Successful adaptation was contingent upon whether (1) the dentist-in-charge brought the whole dental team together - including other dentists - and got everyone interested and actively participating during preventive activities; (2) whether the physical environment of the practice was re-organised around preventive activities, (3) whether the dental team was able to devise new and efficient routines to accommodate preventive activities, and (4) whether the fee schedule was amended to cover the delivery of preventive services, which hitherto was considered as "unproductive time".
Adaptation occurred over time and involved practical, historical and philosophical aspects of dental care. Participants transitioned from their initial state - selling restorative care - through an intermediary stage - learning by doing and educating patients about the importance of preventive care - and finally to a stage where they were offering patients more than just restorative care. These are examples of ways in which participants did not simply adopt protocols in a simple way, but needed to adapt the protocols and their own routines as they moved toward more preventive practice.
There are a number of important assurances of quality in keeping with grounded theory procedures and general principles of qualitative research. The following points describe what was crucial for this study to achieve quality.
1. All interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed in detail and the transcripts checked against the recordings.
2. We analysed the interview transcripts as soon as possible after each round of interviews in each dental practice sampled as shown on Figure Figure1. 1 . This allowed the process of theoretical sampling to occur.
3. Writing case-based memos right after each interview while being in the field allowed the researcher/interviewer to capture initial ideas and make comparisons between participants' accounts. These memos assisted the researcher to make comparison among her reflections, which enriched data analysis and guided further data collection.
4. Having the opportunity to contact participants after interviews to clarify concepts and to interview some participants more than once contributed to the refinement of theoretical concepts, thus forming part of theoretical sampling.
5. The decision to include phone interviews due to participants' preference worked very well in this study. Phone interviews had similar length and depth compared to the face to face interviews, but allowed for a greater range of participation.
1. Detailed analysis records were kept; which made it possible to write this explanatory paper.
2. The use of the constant comparative method enabled the analysis to produce not just a description but a model, in which more abstract concepts were related and a social process was explained.
3. All researchers supported analysis activities; a regular meeting of the research team was convened to discuss and contextualize emerging interpretations, introducing a wide range of disciplinary perspectives.
We developed a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and analysed the variation in this process in different dental practices. Transferring evidence-based preventive protocols into these dental practices entailed a slow process of adapting the evidence to the existing practices logistics. Important practical, philosophical and historical elements as well as barriers and facilitators were present during a complex adaptation process. Time was needed to allow dentists and practice staff to go through this process of slowly adapting their practices to this new way of working. Patients also needed time to incorporate home care activities and more frequent visits to dentists into their daily routines. Despite being able to adapt or not, all dentists trusted the concrete clinical evidence that they have produced, that is, seeing results in their patients mouths made them believe in a specific treatment approach.
This paper provides a detailed explanation of how a study evolved using grounded theory methodology (GTM), one of the most commonly used methodologies in qualitative health and medical research [[ 8 ], p47]. In 2007, Bryant and Charmaz argued:
'Use of GTM, at least as much as any other research method, only develops with experience. Hence the failure of all those attempts to provide clear, mechanistic rules for GTM: there is no 'GTM for dummies'. GTM is based around heuristics and guidelines rather than rules and prescriptions. Moreover, researchers need to be familiar with GTM, in all its major forms, in order to be able to understand how they might adapt it in use or revise it into new forms and variations.' [[ 8 ], p17].
Our detailed explanation of our experience in this grounded theory study is intended to provide, vicariously, the kind of 'experience' that might help other qualitative researchers in medicine and health to apply and benefit from grounded theory methodology in their studies. We hope that our explanation will assist others to avoid using grounded theory as an 'approving bumper sticker' [ 10 ], and instead use it as a resource that can greatly improve the quality and outcome of a qualitative study.
GTM: grounded theory methods; MPP: Monitor Dental Practice Program; NSW: New South Wales; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
All authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design of this study. AS carried out data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. SMC made substantial contribution during data collection, analysis and data interpretation. AS, SMC, RWE, and AB have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/128/prepub
Initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff.
Questions added to the initial interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the initial interview schedule
Questions added to the modified interview schedule for dentists and dental practice staff . file containing questions added to the modified interview schedule
We thank dentists, dental practice staff and patients for their invaluable contributions to the study. We thank Emeritus Professor Miles Little for his time and wise comments during the project.
The authors received financial support for the research from the following funding agencies: University of Sydney Postgraduate Award 2009; The Oral Health Foundation, University of Sydney; Dental Board New South Wales; Australian Dental Research Foundation; National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant 632715.
ON YOUR 1ST ORDER
By Laura Brown on 14th February 2024
Developed in the 1960s by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, grounded theory research became a widely used qualitative research approach in a very short period of time. It offers researchers a qualitative research approach in various disciplines.
If you have chosen a qualitative approach for your dissertation methodology , GT research should be your first choice to analyse your data. It allows theories to emerge organically from the data which makes it exceptionally relevant for in-depth study.
Before we move forward on how to conduct a grounded theory approach in qualitative research, we need to dig a bit more into the theory itself.
In simple terms, Grounded Theory is like an adventure where you explore and understand things based on what you discover in your study. There are basically three key parts of this approach.
Instead of starting with a set idea or plan, you should begin with an open mind. You are required to collect information and let patterns and ideas emerge naturally.
This means you are always looking at new information and comparing it with what others have collected already. It is like putting puzzle pieces together to see the bigger picture.
Imagine you are choosing what to study next based on what you have already learned. This will help you dig deeper and gather the right pieces of information to build a strong understanding.
As we dive into each of these aspects, you will see how they work together to create a method that allows you to uncover new insights without preconceived notions. This understanding is the foundation for successfully using grounded theory in your dissertation journey.
GT research is not just a set of procedural steps but it is a dynamic journey where you play the lead role in unwinding the complexity of a phenomenon. Let’s walk through each stage together to grasp the true essence of this research.
Your journey begins with crafting thoughtful and incisive research questions that serve as the compass for the study. These questions are not arbitrary, they are the seeds from which your entire research landscape will sprout.
You should meticulously sculpt these inquiries to capture the core of the phenomenon under investigation. It is like setting the stage for a captivating play, where each question is a protagonist, ready to reveal its part in the unfolding narrative.
Once you have placed the questions, you should focus your shift to gathering the raw materials which are obviously data. This is not a haphazard gathering, it is a strategic pursuit. Researchers employ an arsenal of research methods, ranging from interviews to observations, to gather a mosaic of perspectives.
It is like going on a treasure hunt, seeking the gems that will later be meticulously examined and pieced together. The richness of the data you have collected lays the foundation for the depth of insights that will emerge.
With data in hand, the next step involves the art of coding and analysis. You should think of it as deciphering a cryptic message. Researchers meticulously sift through the data, assigning codes to chunks of information.
These codes act as the building blocks, paving the way for patterns and connections to emerge. The analysis is not a mechanical task, it is a dance with the data, an intricate waltz where researchers and information move in tandem, revealing the nuanced story hidden within the numbers and words.
As the narrative unfolds, the need for depth and complexity intensifies. Theoretical sampling, the next step, is akin to selecting characters for a drama sequel. Researchers purposefully choose additional participants or data sources to delve deeper into emerging patterns.
It is not a random selection but a strategic move to enrich the storyline. Each new addition contributes a layer of meaning, where you can turn the research into a symphony of voices and experiences.
The final act of this research journey you must follow is the development of categories. These are not arbitrary classifications, they are the threads that weave the entire narrative into a coherent tapestry. Researchers organise the codes into meaningful categories, providing structure and clarity.
Picture it as arranging puzzle pieces, where each category is a distinct section of the complete picture. The categories not only summarise findings but also lay the groundwork for future studies, contributing to the broader scholarly conversation.
Grounded theory is not linear research but a dance of intellect and exploration. From formulating questions to developing categories, each step is an integral part of the choreography.
Alright, now that we have got the basics of qualitative grounded theory research, let’s talk about some down-to-earth tips that will surely help you navigate the twists and turns of grounded theory like a pro.
Think of this like tuning into the subtle vibes of your data. Stay open, be receptive to what it is telling you. It is not about sticking rigidly to a plan but sensing the nuances. Imagine you are picking up on the unsaid, the whispers amidst the data noise. Trust your instincts; they are your best guide in this expedition.
Here is a golden nugget: be as flexible as a yoga instructor doing a backbend. Your research design is not carved in stone. If your data takes you on a detour, go with it. Embrace the unexpected. It is the detours that sometimes lead to the most fascinating discoveries. Think of it like a road trip where the unplanned stops end up being the highlight.
Data can feel like standing in front of a buffet with too many options. The key here is not to devour everything at once. Take it one bite at a time. Organise your data, and categorise it neatly. Think of it like sorting a messy room where you would not tackle the whole mess at once, right? Break it down, and suddenly it becomes manageable.
Alright, remember to pay attention to the little details, be prepared to take unexpected turns, and do not let too much data stress you out. Grounded theory is kind of like a dance, and these tips along with our dissertation writing service will help you move smoothly through each part of it.
Let’s quickly peek into some groundbreaking studies that used grounded theory.
These studies showcase the power of grounded theory research examples to uncover stories within social phenomena. These studies were not just academic exercises, they brought real-world insights which allowed us to learn about the importance of communication in families facing illness, and how acknowledging informal hierarchies can boost workplace collaboration. These examples prove that grounded theory is not just theory, it is a practical tool for understanding and improving real-life situations.
Now that you have gone through the complete journey of grounded theory, let’s recap it quickly. We began with questions, collected data like treasures, and pieced it together through coding and analysis. Theoretical sampling filled in the gaps, and category development transformed findings into a coherent narrative.
If you are looking forward to using GT research, remember, it is a unique adventure. Focus on the uncertainties, play with the data, and let the process unfold. Grounded theory is not just a methodology, it is a dynamic journey that can lead to profound discoveries. Trust the process, and you will find yourself at the helm of groundbreaking research.
Laura Brown, a senior content writer who writes actionable blogs at Crowd Writer.
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
jesus tapia
After reading this chapter, you will have an understanding of: the aims and objectives of grounded theory methodology the basic principles that underpin grounded theory methodology the methodological procedures associated with grounded theory, including techniques for gathering and analysing data and ways of presenting the fi ndings the different versions of grounded theory that are available and the debates that have given rise to their emergence grounded theory's limitations In addition, you will be able to: locate grounded theory epistemologically and understand (1) what kind of knowledge it aims to produce, (2) what kinds of assumptions it makes about the world, and (3) how it conceptualizes the role of the researcher in the research process Grounded theory was originally developed by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. They were unhappy about the way in which existing theories dominated sociological research. They argued that researchers needed a method that would allow them to move from data to theory, so that new theories could emerge. Such theories would be specific to the context in which they had been developed. They would be 'grounded' in the data from which they had emerged rather than rely on analytical constructs, categories or variables from pre-existing theories. Grounded theory, therefore, was designed to open up a space for the development of new, contextualized theories. MGH083_ch07.indd 69 4/25/13 1:48 PM
Amal Jabali-Kassem
In social research, the choice of research methodology depends on the pursued research aim and objectives. Social investigators utilize qualitative methods if interested in understanding human behavior patterns in specific situations and contexts (Newman, 2013). Qualitative researchers also assume a dynamic, social, and negotiated reality, which finds reflection in the informant’s perspective. When concerned with facts about social phenomena, social researchers prefer quantitative methodology. In this case, they assume a fixed, objective, and measurable perspective (Newman, 2013).
Mark G Bound, Ph.D.
Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal
Agnes Higgins
Grounded theory research students are frequently faced with the challenge of writing a research proposal and using a theoretical framework as part of the academic requirements for a degree programme. Drawing from personal experiences of two PhD graduates who used classic grounded theory in two different universities, this paper highlights key lessons learnt which may help future students who are setting out to use grounded theory method. It identifies key discussion points that students may find useful when engaging with critical audiences, and defending their grounded theory thesis at final examination. Key discussion points included are: the difference between inductive and deductive inquiry; how grounded theory method of data gathering and analysis provide researchers with a viable means of generating new theory; the primacy of the questions used in data gathering and data analysis; and, the research-theory link as opposed to the theory-research link.
Being new to grounded theory the onus to understand the methodology and the various versionscan be daunting.Learning and understanding the differences between grounded theories methodologies can be as much a learning of one's own research philosophy and this philosophy is often the deciding factor in methodology selection. Learning the different methodologies is a difficult journey as terminology often sounds similar to the novice researcher, but only by exploring the differences can the researcher rationalize their own choice. This paper offers the new researcher a view into the confusing world of grounded theory, where common terms are usedbut the secret lies in understanding the philosophy of the researcher and the topic of discovery. Glaser was correct, the answer is in the data, but you need to understand the philosophy of the method and if it matches your philosophy of research.
Space and Culture, India
Venkat Pulla
This paper discusses Grounded Theory, which is one of the newer methodologies becoming popular with social researchers since its evolution in the late 1960s. The paper discusses the principles and processes of the Grounded Theory and then explores the nature of codes, coding process and the concept of saturation. It then goes on to discuss the pros and cons, arguments for and against the use of Grounded Theory methodology in social research and explores the applicability of this methodology in producing sound theoretical basis for practice. Selected narratives from the author’s recent studies are used to explain the processes of Grounded Theory methodology.
Iris Vessey
Dr. Kurt K . McKenzie
Aytül Kasapoğlu
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Jason Vickers
Vivian Martin
IOER INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH JOURNAL
IOER International Multidisciplinary Research Journal ( IIMRJ) , Elinesa Ebona Abamonga
Journal Space and Culture, India Open access Journal
Erika C . Burt
SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks
Anne Kovalainen
Devajit Mohajan
Journal of Social …
Dayang Hjh Tiawa
Dr Yashpal D Netragaonkar
Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends
Cathy Urquhart
Shahid Khan
SAGE Open Medicine
Ylona Chun Tie
Nurse researcher
Nehemiah Mavetera
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Louis Farber
Sofia Morales
Jurnal Keperawatan Padjadjaran
HENNY MEDIANI
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
George Shava
Sheng Villamor
Qualitative Report
Mohamed El-Hussein
Additional notes, collections.
James W. Jones, Ed.D.
Doctoral students wanting to use grounded theory as a methodological approach for their dissertation often face multiple challenges gaining acceptance of their approach by their committee. This paper presents the case that the author used to overcome these challenges through the process of eliminating other methodologies, leaving grounded theory as the preferred method for the desired research issue. Through examining the approach used successfully by the author, other doctoral students will be able to frame similar arguments justifying the use of grounded theory in their dissertations and seeing the use of the method continue to spread into new fields and applications. This paper examines the case built for selecting grounded theory as a defensible dissertation approach. The basic research issue that I wanted to investigate was how practitioners in an applied field sought information in their work ; in other words, how they researched. I further narrowed the investigation down to a more specific field, but the paper presented here is left in broader form so that other students can see the approach in more general terms.
“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable , must be the truth?” … Sherlock Holmes to Watson in The Sign of the Four (Doyle, 1950, p. 163)
Like many other doctoral students aspiring to use grounded theory for their dissertations, I had a graduate committee comprised of members who had never supervised a dissertation that used grounded theory and whose members had never done grounded theory themselves. As there were no other faculty members on campus who were experts in the approach, and because a dissertation exclusively using grounded theory had never been done on that campus, I had to fill the role of both educator and sales representative for the approach.
For me, the key to being successful in this approach was to show how grounded theory was not just one possible approach for the desired purpose of the study, but in fact the only appropriate methodology. I moved from broad research issues down to more focused examples, eliminating all the “impossible” (as Holmes put it), eventually leaving grounded theory as the only acceptable choice for the study.
I deliberately selected texts and references that had been used in previous courses with the committee members as it was felt that they would make relevant exemplars. The intent was to use resources that the committee members were familiar with and already trusted in order to make the case, so that the argument could be kept focused on the methodology rather than the references. Other references that were similar in research intent were also used to illustrate the acceptability in the academic community of the approach, albeit in other disciplines. This resulted in a more limited but focused literature review than might be used in other instances, but one that was intended to be more persuasive.
Research has been defined as “the formal, systematic application of the scientific and disciplined inquiry approach to the study of problems” (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p.3). Just as there are many different types of problems, there are consequently many different types of research methodologies used to investigate them. Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) see the research problem and how to investigate it as intimately intertwined, “The identification of the problem and the choice of methodology may be seen as an interactive process, with each influencing the other” (p. 46). Selecting the appropriate methodology for a research problem is therefore much like selecting the right tool out of your toolbox; you might be able to get the job done with screwdriver, but it will not be as effective or efficient if you really needed a hammer all along.
There are several important factors to consider when selecting a methodology. Madsen (1992) states, “Once you have set forth the research problem…you must set forth precise steps you propose to take to answer your question and solve your problem” (p. 68). Sogunro (2002) describes this process:
When faced with the question of which method to choose in conducting research…the following factors are important for consideration: matching research purposes and questions with methods; depth of study of phenomena; availability of resources (money, time, etc [sic]); availability of supporting literature; ‘knowledge pay off’ (i.e., which approach will produce more useful knowledge); and ‘style’ or preference for a method….and so forth. (p. 8)
Note that the first factor Sogunro (2002) advises us to consider is the research purpose. The purpose of the research will drive the rest of the process of selecting an appropriate methodology. Merriam and Simpson (2000) posit, “Ultimately the value or purpose of research in an applied field is to improve the quality of practice of that discipline” (p. 7). While this lofty goal of improving practice may indeed be the ultimate goal of the researcher, contributing aspects must be examined as well.
First, whose practice is the researcher interested in improving? For the given case of examining how practitioners seek information, the answer to this question may have dramatic effects in the selection of an appropriate methodology. For example, if the researcher was the manager of practitioners and ultimately only wanted to improve the practice of the practitioners directly under his or her charge, this would be a very important consideration. In this case, an action research approach might be most appropriate, since “its purpose is to obtain knowledge that can be applied directly to a particular situation” and does not require hypothesis formulation, extensive procedural planning, or experimental condition control (Merriam & Simpson, 2000).
On the other hand, if the researcher is an information manager at a particular firm who is considering subscribing to an improved online search service, action research may not be the most appropriate choice. Instead, the information manager might really only want to know how much practitioners currently use the current package to evaluate whether or not an upgrade would be worthwhile. In this case, evaluation or evaluation research might be appropriate where a decision will be made based on the systematic collection and analysis of data (Boulmetis & Dutwin, 2005; Gay & Airasian, 2003).
In addition to whose practice the researcher is interested in improving, the researcher must consider the intended audience for the research. In the examples discussed above, the action researcher or the evaluation researcher may or may not be interested in preparing and/or presenting the results to anyone else. It may simply be a separate project undertaken in the course of other duties, or it may be formalized in a report to upper management for approval. On the other hand, a pragmatic academic may want to publish the findings in peer reviewed journals that require more rigorous and/or replicable methodological treatments. This too would influence the researcher’s definition of the ultimate purpose for the investigation. Dissertations related to an applied field may want to appeal to audiences in both industry and academia.
The preferences and skills of the researcher must also be honestly evaluated (Brause, 2000; Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). If the researcher dislikes interacting with people, methodologies that use interviews may not be desirable. If the researcher dislikes statistical analysis, a quantitative approach may be unsuitable. Besides simple likes and dislikes, acknowledgement of skills and preferences towards certain methods may be given and evaluated. For example, if the researcher has extensive experience in correlational research but another approach is warranted, new and/or additional skills may have to be obtained.
There are also other practical considerationsl. As mentioned previously by Sogunro (2002), the resources available, particularly money and time, must be considered. There are at least two related aspects of time that might affect the researcher in the selection of a methodology: the time that the results are required or desired and the time that it will take to produce them. As Glatthorn and Joyner (2005) state, “In general, qualitative studies take more time than quantitative ones. Ethnographic studies are especially time-sensitive” (p. 46). If the researcher needs the results in a month, this will clearly limit the choice of methodologies or preclude the proper conduct of the study altogether.
With the above considerations in mind, the researcher begins to be guided towards certain methodologies and away from others. For the purposes of this paper, it will be assumed that there are no overriding constraints on methodology, such as publishing in a journal devoted to a particular approach or having to have the results in a month. Further, it will be assumed that the research will not be used or consumed solely by the researcher, but will be presented to at least a limited audience of academics and professionals with the goal of explaining and potentially even predicting this information-seeking behavior. The final product is a defensible dissertation of the quality expected of a doctoral candidate and the utility to be used by practitioners.
Although one of the stated intents of the research is for it to ultimately be applied by practitioners in the field, there is no desire to judge the information-seeking behavior of the participants, only to learn what it is. Although considered a form of applied research, evaluation research approaches would therefore be categorically rejected in this case, as they are intended to be used in rating and making decisions on the subject, as discussed previously.
The process therefore turns back to the research question itself. The key word in the research problem is the interest in how practitioners seek information. In general, a study to of how or why things are a certain way would indicate a qualitative approach would be most suitable (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 13). This allows for the development of hypotheses about how the behavior occurs, in contrast to a quantitative approach, which would test hypotheses (Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 8-9). As recommended by Merriam and Simpson, if it is revealed “that no theory fits the phenomenon under investigation, the one study goal may be to formulate a theory and/or hypothesis to explain observed events or behavior” (2000, p. 27).
However, eliminating approaches that are exclusively quantitative only narrows the field of potential methodologies slightly; there are a host of qualitative approaches left to consider. Action research, discussed previously, is considered a qualitative approach, but it is also considered to be nongeneralizable and limited to the specific conditions under which it was conducted (Merriam & Simpson, 2000). Since the researcher has a specific audience of both academics and practitioners in mind, with the intent of the research being applied, action research would therefore be eliminated from consideration. Since the researcher is interested in current practices, historical research methods are also inappropriate. This leaves several other options remaining.
A case study approach would allow detailed investigation into how a practitioner or practitioners seek information. Perry (1998) believes that case studies are particularly suitable for offering realistic portrayals of behavior:
Given this appropriateness of realism for case study research, the research problems addressed in theses are more descriptive than prescriptive, for example, no positivist experiments or cause-and-effect paths are required to solve the research problem. That is, the research problem is usually a “how do?” problem rather than a “how should?” problem. This “how do” rather than “how should” problem captures the positive versus normative dichotomy, for case study research is concerned with describing real world phenomena rather than developing normative decision models. (p. 787)
This fits the stated research problem of how do practitioners research. Case studies are likely to provide some important information, as Stake (2005) discusses:
We recognize a large population of hypothetical cases and a small subpopulation of accessible cases….On representational grounds, the epistemological opportunity seems small, but we are optimistic that we can learn some important things from almost any case. We choose one case or a small number of exemplars. (p. 451)
While learning something is a good start, the case study approach has several drawbacks for the proposed study, which focuses on how practitioners in an applied field seek information. First, it may be difficult to actually define a case to study for this research. Stake (2005) explains:
Custom has it that not everything is a case. A child [patient] may be a case, easy to specify. A doctor may be a case. But his or her doctoring probably lacks the specificity, the boundedness, to be called a case. (p. 444)
Similarly, a practitioner seeking information may likewise not be a suitable case for study. More importantly, while a case study would provide a lot of detail about that particular practitioner being examined, this may be inadequate for the given purpose, since the researcher wants to know how practitioners (plural) seek information. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001) point this limitation of case studies out:
They are not generalisable [sic] in the conventional sense. By definition, case studies can make no claims to be typical….because the sample is small and idiosyncratic, and because data is predominantly non-numerical, there is no way to establish the probability that data is representative of some larger population. For many researchers and others, this renders any case study findings as of little value. (p. 10)
This leaves us to consider other methodologies as more appropriate.
Ethnography is another qualitative approach that could be considered for this project. Gay and Airasian (2003) define ethnography as “a qualitative approach that studies the participants in their natural setting” (p. 16). This definition seems appropriate for the given study, as the researcher wants to know how practitioners seek information in their natural work setting. However, as Groat and Wang (2002) elaborate:
Although it emphasizes in-depth engagement with its subject…the researcher’s aim is not to create an explanatory theory that can be applied to many settings. Rather, ethnographic research culminates in a rich and full delineation of a particular setting that persuades a wide audience of its human validity. (p. 182)
This level of detail and focus on the context, while potentially interesting, are not what the researcher is seeking in this instance, eliminating ethnography as a suitable methodology for this study.
Although not exclusively a qualitative method, a grounded theory approach may also be considered for this research. The researcher is looking for a way of explaining how practitioners in an applied field seek information; in other words, a theory of how this is done in actual practice. Building a theory based on, or grounded in, actual data is specifically what a grounded theory methodology is designed to do. Glaser (1998) defines grounded theory as “the systematic generation of theory from data acquired by a rigorous research method” (p. 3).
Grounded theory is used to investigate problems of why and how in a systematic way, one that is “grounded” in the data itself rather than being deduced logically or hypothetically. It is particularly well suited for fields of practice, as it can be used to “give the practitioner a conceptual tool with which to guide practice” (Merriam & Simpson, 2000, p. 113). This satisfies the aforementioned overall goal of applied research of improving practice.
Another advantage of the grounded theory approach is its flexibility with regard to data collection and analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This is particularly important in this case because the researcher wants to know how the practitioners actually seek information, which presents difficulties with regard to data collection, as the behavior may not be possible to directly observe. As noted in Ellis’ (1993) grounded theory study of the information-seeking patterns of academics, the use of direct observation is “almost totally impracticable” (p. 475) due to the nature of the study. Even if access and timing worked to the researcher’s favor and he was present at the exact moment that a practitioner was seeking information, the actions would not be transparent and would not allow any depth of understanding, specifically regarding the “how” issues, to be obtained. Furthermore, the situation would certainly not ameliorate itself were the researcher to continuously ask the practitioner what they were doing, why they were doing it that way, and what influences were acting upon their decision making process. The observation of research would, by definition, end at that point, with the possible outcome being that the researcher would no longer be welcome in the setting.
Data collection methods other than observation, are therefore required. While journaling or diaries would be possible approaches, they have several drawbacks. First, it is doubtful that they would be properly maintained, if completed at all, by busy practitioners. This is particularly true of personnel in an applied industry, who might not be familiar with journaling and may view the process as strange and/or uncomfortable. As Ellis (1993) stated in regard to his study of academic research activities,
The use of diaries…would have relied on the willingness and ability of the researchers to complete the diaries, and, even if the researchers had been able to complete them, it is questionable whether they would have been able to have done so comprehensively and accurately (p.475).
Furthermore, the data collection would still be post hoc; no one would stop in the middle of their information-seeking to record their actions, thoughts, and motivations. Finally, the collection process would be slowed considerably as the diaries were completed, collected, and read before learning if they contained information of value to the researcher.
Grounded theory often employs interviewing as its data collection technique, and this appears most appropriate in this case. Interviews are particularly suited for this approach; as Fontana and Frey (2005) stated, “the focus of interviews is moving to encompass the hows of people’s lives…as well as the traditional whats ” (p. 698). These hows and whats are exactly what the researcher is seeking.
As with any methodology, there are several potential criticisms of grounded theory as an appropriate research tool for this study. A common criticism of grounded theory studies is that they are not “real” research. These criticisms are nothing new; in 1967 Glaser and Strauss noted that “qualitative research is generally labeled ‘unsystematic,’ ‘impressionistic,’ or ‘exploratory'” (1967, p. 223). However, these criticisms fall short in the case of grounded theory as a methodology. It is not exclusively qualitative; it has a systemic process including sampling, coding, and memoing; it is based on data rather than impressions; and, while it can explore new subject matter, is a complete methodology rather than simply a starting point for further (presumably quantitative) research.
The acceptance of the grounded theory framework has been evinced by its inclusion in a host of research texts, in subjects ranging from architecture (Groat & Wang, 2002) to education (Gay & Airasian, 2003; Merriam & Simpson, 2000) to qualitative research in general (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) (while it uses qualitative data, it is not a qualitative method). As Glaser has noted, grounded theory has “product proof” which nullifies criticisms: “Let the product legitimize it self [sic], as it is doing in health, education, and business professions, where it is crucial to have relevant research that works” (1998, p. 16).
Grounded theory is therefore the most appropriate methodology for this research study. It allows the researcher to determine how practitioners actually seek information in their field and develop a theory to explain and predict this behavior. Although there are minor concerns with the methodology, these are outweighed by its applicability for this situation.
The persuasions described previously convinced my committee that grounded theory was not just the best methodology for this study, but was in fact the only appropriate choice. This allowed me to gain the committee’s acceptance with grounded theory as the methodological approach and for the study to progress. While there were certainly still other challenges to the use of grounded theory for a dissertation proposal, the acceptance of the method in general was a key factor in the overall success of my completing the process and successfully defending my dissertation in the summer of 2008.
James W. Jones, Ed.D. Construction Management Program Coordinator and Assistant Professor of Technology Applied Technology Building 207D Ball State University Muncie, Indiana Email: [email protected]
Boulmetis, J., & Dutwin, P. The ABCs of evaluation: Timeless techniques for program and project managers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brause, R. S. (2000). Writing your doctoral dissertation: Invisible rules for success. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doyle, A. C. (1950). The sign of the four. In The adventures of Sherlock Holmes. NY: Heritage.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: AldineTransaction.
Glatthorn, A. A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Groat, L. & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: Wiley.
Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2001, December). The strengths and limitations of case study research. In Learning and Skills Development Agency conference: Making an impact on policy and practice. Retrieved June 28, 2007 from www.sfeu.ac.uk/documents/1553/
Madsen, D. (1992). Successful dissertations and theses: A guide to graduate student research from proposal to completion (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (2000). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults (2nd Edition). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Your email:
Are you developing a classic grounded theory? Do you have data that could be resorted and further developed into a new grounded theory? Are you working on a formal theory, or are you reflecting on a methodological issue? We invite you to submit your paper for consideration for the next issue of Grounded Theory Review, which is published in late December and June each year.
The database of the Grounded Theory Review now contains more than a hundred articles on classic grounded theories—from either a methodological or a theoretical perspective. We would like to expand the open access database with more grounded theories that truly demonstrates the interdisciplinary potential of the classic grounded theory method. Following the 50th anniversary wish of GT’s co-founder Dr. Barney Glaser, we would like to see a conglomerate of new grounded theories that span a wide array of disciplines and topics and that demonstrate general applicability and conceptual strengths in diverse social contexts. The theories will be peer reviewed by experienced members of the advisory board of the Grounded Theory Review.
Please submit your paper no later than April 1 for the June edition and September 15 for the December edition.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
A. An open beginning and research questions. Grounded theory studies are generally focused on social processes or actions: they ask about what happens and how people interact.This shows the influence of symbolic interactionism, a social psychological approach focused on the meaning of human actions [].Grounded theory studies begin with open questions, and researchers presume that they may know ...
Figure 1. Research design framework: summary of the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and processes. Grounded theory research involves the meticulous application of specific methods and processes. Methods are 'systematic modes, procedures or tools used for collection and analysis of data'. 25 While GT studies can ...
Grounded theory research is typically an iterative process. This means that researchers may move back and forth between these steps as they collect and analyze data. ... Remain open to revising your chosen theoretical codes as your analysis deepens and your grounded theory evolves. 9. Write your grounded theory. Present your findings in a clear ...
Naomi Elliott, Trinity College Dublin Agnes Higgins, Trinity College Dublin. Abstract. Grounded theory research students are frequently faced with the challenge of writing a research proposal and using a theoretical framework as part of the academic requirements for a degree programme.
issues relating to planning in grounded theory research. A structured framework for planning your study is proposed, along with guidelines to assist you in using essential grounded theory methods in diverse research designs. The grounded theory difference The choice of any research design is determined by the aims of the particular study.
Grounded Theory. Definition: Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology that aims to generate theories based on data that are grounded in the empirical reality of the research context. The method involves a systematic process of data collection, coding, categorization, and analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data.
Learn how to discover new theories based on the collection and analysis of real-world qualitative data in this free webinar. The goal of grounded theory is to develop a formal theory, a set of interrelated concepts that explain a particular phenomenon. The process tends to be both time and resource intensive.
A classic grounded theory protocol commonly contains the following: (1) introduction to the topic; (2) purpose of the study with the research question; (3) detailed description of the research methods, including data collection and analysis; and (4) procedures to demonstrate the ethical conduct of human participant research.
Most research consists mainly of a few generalizations from it. Grounded Theory has virtually carte blanche in analyzing existing data. The challenge and opportunity is great and fun. What was an overwhelming pile of data to the original collector becomes a joyous treasure to the grounded theory analyst." (Glaser, 1998, p. 60)
The personality of grounded theory research - comparison of the schools during project proposal development Suddaby (2006) and Muratovski (2016) believe GT is the best used to observe a phenomenon where little extant theory is available: it "relies on the absence of an existing theory and its purpose is to set up a new theory ...
Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many 'grounded theory' studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project.
Understanding Grounded Theory Research. In simple terms, Grounded Theory is like an adventure where you explore and understand things based on what you discover in your study. There are basically three key parts of this approach. Inductive Approach. Instead of starting with a set idea or plan, you should begin with an open mind.
Grounded theory is a qualitative research method which can be used to develop a theory grounded in data. This data is systematically collected and analysed. The discovery of GTM in 1967 was triggered by Glaser and Strauss. In their book ' The Discovery of Grounded Theory', Glaser and Strauss specified a research approach which aimed at ...
This qualitative study was performed using grounded theory methodology. "Grounded theory is a respected qualitative way of moving from individual knowledge to collective knowledge" (Stake, 2010, p. 17). Introduced to the research community in the 1960s, grounded theory is "the discovery of theory from data" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1).
The purpose of this study is to examine interdisciplinary action. (such as research and teaching) in academia and in the field, with the goal of discovering the. benefits and barriers to interdisciplinary work as seen by those participating in it. This study will address three research questions: Describe study, including proposed.
Grounded theory research students are frequently faced with the challenge of writing a research proposal and using a theoretical framework as part of the academic requirements for a degree programme. Drawing from personal experiences of two PhD graduates who used classic grounded theory in two different universities, this paper highlights key ...
Surviving Grounded Theory Research Method in an Academic World: Proposal Writing and Theoretical Frameworks . Naomi Elliott, Trinity College Dublin ... Grounded theory research students are frequently faced with the challenge of writing a research proposal and using a theoretical framework as part of the academic requirements for a degree ...
The study was an inductive study using grounded theory, rooted in case study methodology based on Eisenhardt's (1989) eight steps of building theory from case study research. This article contributes towards sharpening insights of students who are challenged to write up research proposals. The particular slant is for those students interested ...
The sheer fact of writing a paragraph, quite often, yields insights that put the analyst beyond it. This outgrowing of one's material can be disconcerting and even undermining of the final writing of the theory. In grounded theory work, the analyst must realize that writing is but a slice of a growing theory.
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 ... The database of the Grounded Theory Review now contains more than a hundred articles on classic grounded theories—from either a methodological or a ...
Grounded Theory, a type of interpretative research situated as a variant of. symbolic interaction, focused on the knowledge of the perception of the. particular meaning that a situation or an ...
Since each methodology has procedures to demonstrate rigor and techniques to establish trustworthiness (Vander Linden & Palmieri, 2021), a comprehensive research proposal and the briefer research study protocol are essential to identify, describe, explain, and justify the plan for conducting research using grounded theory.
criticisms of grounded theory as an appropriate research tool for ... challenges to the use of grounded theory for a dissertation proposal, the acceptance of the method in general was a key ... Glatthorn, A. A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-step guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.