Grounded theory for generating theory in the study of information behavior

The use of grounded theory procedures for the study of information behavior has contributed to generating theory in this field. Thirty-one works were analyzed with regard to a) their relationship to the context in which the research was carried out, b) the aspect of information behavior researched, c) the use of grounded theory procedures, and d) the generation of theory. Most of the studies were carried out in the context of health information, and grounded theory procedures were for the most part only partially applied. The theoretical propositions produced depended on the subject being studied. Although this methodology is suitable for the study of an individual’s interaction with information from that individual’s own point of view, documentation of the procedures involved is often deficient

Penelitian Grounded Theory, Apakah Itu..?

Generally speaking, Grounded Theory is an approach for looking systematically at (mostly) qualitative data (like transcripts of interviews or protocols of observations) aiming at the generation of theory. Sometimes, Grounded Theory is seen as a qualitative method, but Grounded Theory reaches farther: it combines a specific style of research (or a paradigm) with pragmatic theory of action and with some methodological guidelines. This approach was written down and systematized in the 1960s by Anselm Sfrauss (himself a student of Herbert Blumer) and Bamey Glaser (a student of Paul Lazarsfeld), while working together in studying the sociology of t7lness at the University of California. For and with their studies, they developed a methodology, that was then made explicit and became the founding stone for an important branch of qualitative sociology. Important concepts of Grounded Theory are categories, codes and codings. The research principle behind Grounded Theory is neither inductive nor deductive, but combines both in a way of abductive reasoning (coming from the works of Charles S. Peirce). This leads to a research practice where data sampling, data analysis and theory development are not seen as distinct and disjunct, but as different steps to be repeated until one can describe and explain the phenomenon that is to be researched. This stopping point is reached when new data doesn't change the emerging theory anymore. Grounded Theory according to Glaser emphasizes induction or emergence, and the individual researchers creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Sfrauss is more interested in validation criteria and a systematical approach. This methodical way of creating Grounded Theory (and still be acceptable to scientific standards) is explained in Strauss/Corbin (1990)

Penelitian Grounded Theory, Apakah Itu..?

Generally speaking, Grounded Theory is an approach for looking systematically at (mostly) qualitative data (like transcripts of interviews or protocols of observations) aiming at the generation of theory. Sometimes, Grounded Theory is seen as a qualitative method, but Grounded Theory reaches farther: it combines a specific style of research (or a paradigm) with pragmatic theory of action and with some methodological guidelines. This approach was written down and systematized in the 1960s by Anselm Sfrauss (himself a student of Herbert Blumer) and Bamey Glaser (a student of Paul Lazarsfeld), while working together in studying the sociology of t7lness at the University of California. For and with their studies, they developed a methodology, that was then made explicit and became the founding stone for an important branch of qualitative sociology. Important concepts of Grounded Theory are categories, codes and codings. The research principle behind Grounded Theory is neither inductive nor deductive, but combines both in a way of abductive reasoning (coming from the works of Charles S. Peirce). This leads to a research practice where data sampling, data analysis and theory development are not seen as distinct and disjunct, but as different steps to be repeated until one can describe and explain the phenomenon that is to be researched. This stopping point is reached when new data doesn't change the emerging theory anymore. Grounded Theory according to Glaser emphasizes induction or emergence, and the individual researchers creativity within a clear frame of stages, while Sfrauss is more interested in validation criteria and a systematical approach. This methodical way of creating Grounded Theory (and still be acceptable to scientific standards) is explained in Strauss/Corbin (1990)

Reconstructed grounded theory: beyond comparison?

This paper examines the modifications made to constructed grounded theory for application within an ethnographic study of group work processes in a virtual learning environment. The paper details how the complex professional relationship of educational practitioner research, and the associated ethical issues, together with the variety of data analysed influenced the approach taken. The paper explores how the adaptations to constructed grounded theory process were applied and how this approach can be construed as grounded in grounded theory. The paper is explicit about the application and adaptation of grounded theory to meet the needs of the research and the epistemology of the researcher. Many studies purporting to use grounded theory are less explicit, this paper is intended to contribute to the discussion and development of a flexible approach to grounded theory, fit for purpose within the restraints of a practitioner based virtual educational ethnographic study. The relationship of the practitioner researcher (an Associate Lecturer) and the participants (the students) created a dichotomy between the neutrality and social distance of the researcher and the ethical implications for the Associate Lecturer. Whilst the participants were not vulnerable adults, many of the participants were novice learners returning to study and therefore a duty of care was required. The paper explains how the adaptation of constructed grounded theory enhanced the analysis and provided richer data than ethnographic observation alone. Despite the divergence from constructed grounded theory methods, rigor was achieved through the comparison of the coding produced throughout the analysis of the data. This level of rigor led to the emergence of unanticipated themes which influenced the group work processes. It is my belief that these would not have appeared through generic inductive approaches as they would have been overlooked and ignored without the line by line analysis. The modification of the grounded theory process retained the influence of constructed grounded theory rather than claiming to be rooted in constructed grounded theory. But the techniques applied are not beyond comparison with grounded theory. The research into virtual group work is timely in light of recent UK Government reports and relevant as interest in network delivered learning continues to grow

XP customer practices: A grounded theory

The Customer is a critical role in XP, but almost all XP practices are presented for developers by developers. While XP calls for Real Customer Involvement, it does not explain what XP Customers should do, nor how they should do it. Using Grounded Theory, we discovered eight customer practices used by successful XP teams: Customer Boot Camp, Customer’s Apprentice, Customer Pairing, and Programmer’s Holiday support the well-being and effectiveness of customers; Programmer On-site and Road shows support team and organization interactions; and Big Picture Up Front and Re-calibration support Customers steering the whole project. By adopting these processes, XP Customers and teams can work faster and more sustainably

What Is Grounded Theory Good For?

Grounded theory (GT) made its appearance in the social sciences in 1967 with publication of Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss’s The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Glaser and Strauss advocated for systematically discovering and interpreting empirical data to generate theory, in contrast to testing or verifying theory derived from a priori assumptions. In the intervening 50 years, GT has spread into a wide range of fields including journalism and mass communication. Variations of the method have been developed, and debate has ensued about its relation to positivism and constructivism as well as pragmatism and postmodernism and about its value for critical race theory, feminist theory, and indigenous and other critical methods and theories. When and how is it best used? Is it misunderstood or misused by some? Is it more than a method? We asked senior scholars with expertise in GT to reflect on these issues, beginning with Vivian Martin, coeditor with Astrid Gynnild of Grounded Theory: The Philosophy, Method, and Work of Barney Glaserpublished by BrownWalker Press (2012). Martin, professor and chair of the Department of Journalism at Central Connecticut State University, argues the method has been misunderstood even by those who use it, often conflated with qualitative studies, with only two GT studies published in journalism and mass communication. It is practical and subversive, she observes, with the ability to develop new concepts and link ideas across disciplines. She advocates a closer adherence to Glaser’s original intentions for the method. Responding to Martin is Clifton Scott, associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Scott is the author of “Grounded Theory” in Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, edited by Steven Littlejohn and Sonja Foss published by SAGE (2009). While agreeing with Martin that the name often is misapplied, Scott argues for less preoccupation with policing the purity of the method in favor of developing multiple approaches appropriate to it as a methodology. Reacting to both Martin and Scott, Bonnie Brennen critiques the original GT approach as neglecting “methodological self-consciousness,” which would uncover researchers “theoretical assumptions, power relations, class positions and personal experiences.” Brennen, the Nieman Professor of Journalism in the Diederich College of Communication at Marquette University, is the author of Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies, second edition, published by Routledge in 2017. Finally, Meenakshi Gigi Durham, responding to all three, expresses optimism about GT’s potential to spur new inquiry through exploration of social life, while she proposes that, like all theory, it be seen as necessarily dynamic and evolutionary. Durham is a professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Iowa and associate dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. She is the editor with Douglas M. Kellner of Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, second edition, published by Blackwell (2011). Lana Rakow, Associate Editor Louisa Ha, Edito

Adopting a Grounded Theory Approach to Cultural-Historical Research: Conflicting Methodologies or Complementary Methods?

Grounded theory has long been regarded as a valuable way to conduct social and educational research. However, recent constructivist and postmodern insights are challenging long-standing assumptions, most notably by suggesting that grounded theory can be flexibly integrated with existing theories. This move hinges on repositioning grounded theory from a methodology with positivist underpinnings to an approach that can be used within different theoretical frameworks. In this article the author reviews this recent transformation of grounded theory, engages in the project of repositioning it as an approach by using cultural historical activity theory as a test case, and outlines several practical methods implied by the joint use of grounded theory as an approach and activity theory as a methodology. One implication is the adoption of a dialectic, as opposed to a constructivist or objectivist, stance toward grounded theory inquiry, a stance that helps move past the problem of emergence versus forcing

Grounded Theory

El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar cómo fueron aplicados en un proyecto de investigación concreto algunos elementos del estilo de investigación cualitativa denominado "teoría fundamentada" (en el inglés original, grounded theory). Esta denominación se refiere a que la construcción de teoría está basada en los datos empíricos que la sustentan, siguiendo un procedimiento de análisis inductivo

Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery

Grounded theory’s popularity persists after three decades of broad-ranging critique. In this article three problematic notions are discussed—‘theory,’ ‘ground’ and ‘discovery’—which linger in the continuing use and development of grounded theory procedures. It is argued that far from providing the epistemic security promised by grounded theory, these notions—embodied in continuing reinventions of grounded theory—constrain and distort qualitative inquiry, and that what is contrived is not in fact theory in any meaningful sense, that ‘ground’ is a misnomer when talking about interpretation and that what ultimately materializes following grounded theory procedures is less like discovery and more akin to invention. The procedures admittedly provide signposts for qualitative inquirers, but educational researchers should be wary, for the significance of interpretation, narrative and reflection can be undermined in the procedures of grounded theory

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory (GT) is a common approach to inductive analysis of qualitative health communication data. GT analysis generates a typology of themes or categories based on emic (research participant) perspectives that together constitute a new theory or extension of existing theory. GT is used to analyze data in written form, including researcher-generated data (e.g., interview transcripts, ethnographic field notes), participant-generated data (e.g., journal entries, narratives), or mediated representations (e.g., news coverage, Web site postings). GT contrasts with deductive research designs in which researchers begin with a theory and test ways in which data may (or may not) support its tenants. There is significant variability in the understanding and application of GT principles and practices within (and beyond) health communication