Grounded Theory Method - Muller

Grounded Theory Methods

Michael MullerIBM Research

Cambridge, MA, [email protected]

Thanks to: Sandra Kogan, Jennifer Thom-Santelli, David R Millen, Jane Preston

1UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research

Outline

• An orientation toward Grounded Theory Method

• Diversity, diversity, diversity…

– From Glaser & Strauss � Glaser vs. Strauss

– “The second generation” of grounded theorists

• One view of methods and practices

• Quality and rigor

• Conclusion

• Major sources

• Software packages


Why Grounded Theory?

• 63% of citations to qualitative analysis in Social Science Citation Index

• Increasing references to Grounded Theory in ACM Digital Library

• Useful for qualitative and quantitative data

• Combination of open mind with rigor and quality

• However, not well-understood in HCI and CSCW

– Qualitative analysis vs. theory-building

– Use of quantitative data as well as qualitative

– Diversity in methodology

– Does grounded theory offer … methodology? theory? heuristics?

procedures?0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Number of Papers returned by Search


Why Grounded Theory?

• 63% of citations to qualitative analysis in Social Science Citation Index

• Increasing references to Grounded Theory in ACM Digital Library

• Method for exploring a domain without a dominant theory

• Useful for qualitative and quantitative data

• Combination of open mind with rigor and quality

• However, not well-understood in HCI and CSCW

– Qualitative analysis vs. theory-building

– Use of quantitative data as well as qualitative

– Diversity in methodology

– Does grounded theory offer … methodology? theory? heuristics?

procedures?


Answer Questions such as…

• How do decisions happen in this organizational culture?

– Interview decision-makers and contributors

– Choose among many possible interviewees

– Describe a contextualized theory of decision-making

• What are the value systems of a group of companies?

– Examine public documents in detail

– Choose among a huge library of documents

– Understand values and value trade-offs in context

• What kinds of online communities?

– Analyze members, shared “goods,” social networks – in sum, and over

community lifecycle

– Choose among thousands of communities

– Derive a typography of online communities

– Develop a lifecycle model for each type of community


A Way We Often (want to) Think

• We want to think early about interpretation and theory

• Grounded theory methodology offers a disciplined way to do

this

• Why pretend that we don’t interpret and theorize?

– Why not turn our own tendencies to advantage!


A Way We Often (want to) Think

• We want to think early about interpretation and theory

• Grounded theory methodology offers a disciplined way to do

this

• Why pretend that we don’t interpret and theorize?

– Why not turn our own tendencies to advantage!

Charmaz: “Grounded theory methods consist of simultaneous data

collection and analysis, with each informing and focusing the other

throughout the research process. As grounded theorists, we begin our

analysis early to help us focus further data collection. In turn, we use

these focused data to refine our emerging analyses. Grounded theory

entails developing increasingly abstract ideas about research

participants’ meanings, actions, and worlds and seeking specific data to

fill out, refine, and check the emerging conceptual categories...”


The Right Approach for Some Problems

• What grounded theory is good for…

– Exploration

– Disciplined development of new ideas

– Finding theory and structure in domains where there is no a priori

guidance

– Keeping an open mind as you explore a new domain

• “An open mind is not in an empty head”

– Working with qualitative or quantitative data

• And what grounded theory is not good for…

– Hypothesis testing

– Evaluating a formal (e.g., published) theory

– Confirming a hunch


For Example: Study of Online Communities(with Kate Ehrlich, Tara Matthews, Inbal Ronen, Ido Guy, Elizabeth Daly, David Millen…)

• 8600+ online enterprise communities

• One software environment, but hints of many variations

• Read some communities, join some communities

• Are they all Communities of Practice?

– Test by looking for exceptions

– There are big virtual teams

– … tech communities, Rec communities

– Idea Labs – very high participation rates

• Examine goal statements, patterns of

membership, patterns of participation,

claims of impact

– Examine reputation, SNA…

• Theory of enterprise online communities

– Focusing on theories of user appropriation

• Leading to strong quantitative comparisons

of CoP, Team, Tech, Rec, Idea Labs

more concepts from research literature


iteratively develop stronger theory

use concepts from research literature

begin to look for systematic differences

theoretical sampling for breadth

initial “throw-away” theory

strategy of abduction

disconfirm initial theory

generate hypotheses for non-GT tests

Summary of the Example: Online Communities

• Theory– Social media are “blank” until used

• Carroll: “Completing design through use”

– Users appropriate social media to create specific genres for specific organizational purposes

– Users can navigate easily from one genre to another

– Revisions of social construction of technology theory, adaptive structuration theory, social learning theory

• Application– Matthews et al.: Collaboration personas

– Erhlich et al.: Users who contribute more than expected

– []: Metrics and analytics for the “health” of Communities of Practice, Teams, Technical Communities, Recreational Communities, Idea Labs

Strengths and Weaknesses of GT

• Strengths

– Outcomes are grounded in the data

– Theory is continually tested through constant comparison

– Data-collection is guided by theoretical sampling

– Highlights the agency and responsibility of the researcher(s)

• Weaknesses

– Too many diverse approaches

• How to choose?

• How to evaluate?

– Tension between “cookbooks” and “emergence”

– Stopping rules are unclear

– Highlights the agency and responsibility of the researcher(s)


A Summary View of Grounded Theory

Data

Formal Theory

Time

Substantive Theory


A Summary View of Grounded Theory

Data

Formal Theory

Time

Substantive Theory

Charmaz: “Grounded theory methods consist of simultaneous data

collection and analysis, with each informing and focusing the other

throughout the research process. As grounded theorists, we begin our

analysis early to help us focus further data collection. In turn, we use

these focused data to refine our emerging analyses. Grounded theory

entails developing increasingly abstract ideas about research

participants’ meanings, actions, and worlds and seeking specific data to

fill out, refine, and check the emerging conceptual categories...”


Diversity in Grounded Theory Method (GTM)

Schatzman,

Dimensional analysis

Charmaz,

Constructivist GTM

Clarke,

Situational analysis

Corbin,

Straussian GTM

Stern,

Glaserian GTM

Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978

Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992

“The Second Generation”

Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987

Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative

research, 1990

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

PierceDewey Mead Induction Abduction


Diversity in Grounded Theory Method (GTM)

Schatzman,


Charmaz,

Constructivist GTM

Clarke,


Corbin,

Straussian GTM

Stern,

Glaserian GTM






research, 1990




Starr: “a manifesto for freedom from the sterile methods

that permeated social sciences at the time.”

Straussian Grounded Theory Method

Schatzman,


Charmaz,

Constructivist GTM

Clarke,


Corbin,

Straussian GTM

Stern,

Glaserian GTM






research, 1990




Glaserian Grounded Theory Method

Schatzman,


Charmaz,

Constructivist GTM

Clarke,


Corbin,

Straussian GTM

Stern,

Glaserian GTM






research, 1990




Method in Grounded Theory


Schatzman,


Charmaz,

Constructivist GTM

Clarke,


Corbin,

Straussian GTM

Stern,

Glaserian GTM





research, 1990

Straussian


Grounding the Theory in the Data

Formal Theory

Time

Substantive Theory

Data

Codes

Concepts /

Categories

Dimensions

Core Concept


Data Components & Analytic Practices

• Core concept

– The (emergent) topic

• Selective coding “Emergence” (constructing)

– Concepts/Dimensions

• Axial coding Parameterizing

– Categories

• Open coding Aggregating

– Basic themes

• Data



• Core concept


• Selective coding “Emergence” (constructing)


• Axial coding Parameterizing

– Categories

• Open coding Aggregating

– Basic themes

• Data

Starr: “A code sets up a relationship

with your data, and with your

respondents…. a matter of both

attachment and separation…. Codes

allow us to know about the field we

study, and yet carry the abstraction

of the new.”


Examples of Coding

• Product inconsistency

• Necessary condition

they will all be the same.

• Procurementif you are buying several

• Assertion

Uncertainty

can never guarantee that

• Pronoun shiftYou

• Supplierdone by the … supplier.

• Changes in productor the product improvement

• Changes in technologyin changes in technology

• Assertionthe main challenge is

• Personal viewFrom my perspective

Open codeInformant Statement

Microanalysis coding from a study of Configuration Management

(CM) (excerpted from Allen, 2003)


Examples of Coding

Keypoint coding from a study of Configuration Management (CM)

(excerpted from Allen, 2003)

•Not helpful

•Control

•People difficulty

Developers saw CM as a control mechanism rather than a helpful

tool.

•People difficulty

•Tool difficulty

3rd parties have a preconceived set of established tools and are

not willing to see the in-house point of view

•People difficultyMain difficulty is in getting people to buy-in to CM.

•CM processStatus accounting is used to report monthly to the Project Board.

Open codeInformant Statement


Examples of Coding

Coding example from Charmaz (2006)


Examples of Coding

• Audience/Sales-team

• Audience/Tech-team

• Technology/team-

room

• Readers

• Sales team

• Technical

team

• Prior

technology

A. sales teams, technical

teams I do this basically for

the sellers and supporting

communities

in the web1.0 world I used

teamrooms

I needed an alternative

Q. who are your

readers?

• Audience

• Self

•Collection

for both self

and others

A. both: what's good for me

is good for my readers ☺

Q. did you make

collections for yourself,

and other collections for

your readers? or were all

the collections for both

"audiences"

• Purpose/taxonomy• Structure

• Taxonomy

A. taxonomy By Topic I

guess

Q. what kind of

structure?

• Purpose/structure

content

• Self

• Audience

• Structure

around

content

• For self

• For others

A. put some structure

around the content I

collect/create around my

topic for me and readers

Q. what was your goal

(or goals) in using

collections?

Axial CodeOpen CodeInformant’s Chat AnswerChat question

Open coding and axial coding from a study of Collections in a social file-sharing service

(data from Muller et al., 2009) 25

Examples of Coding

COLLECTIVEI HUMAN

ELEMENTS/ACTORS

Nurses’, physicians’, and others’

professional organizations

Hospitals, chains, and hospital associations

HMOs, state and private insurers

Pharmaceutical and medical supply

companies

DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF

INDIVIDUAL AND/OR COLLECTIVE

HUMAN ACTORS

Nurses as caring/angels of mercy/”good

mothers” imagery

Patients as needy, demanding

“Everyone’s so different”/patient uniqueness

Physicians as unavailable

Administrators as manipulative

Management consultants as heartless

Nurses as Angels

Discourse

Management

Consultants

Home Health

Aides

Nurses

Patients

Hospital

Administrators/

Managers

Cost Containment

Strategies

“Everybody’s So

Different”

Productivity &

Efficiency

Goals

Nurses’

Clinical/T

echnical

Caregiving

Private Insurance

Companies

Invisible

Knowledges & Skills

Patient/

Customer

Satisfaction

Discourses

Nurses’ Emotion

Work/C

aregiving

Health Maintenance Organizations

A B

NursesNurses’ Emotion

Work/Caregiving

“Everybody’s So

Different”

Nurses’

Clinical/Technical

Caregiving

Cost Containment

Strategies

Patients

Nurses as Angels

Discourses

Invisible

Knowledges &

Skills

Home Health

Aides

Health

Maintenance

Organizations

C

Private Insurance

Companies

Work Redesign

Strategies

Work Redesign

Strategies

Situational maps excerpted and redrawn from Clarke (2005).

A. “Messy” situational map. B. “Ordered” situational map. C. Relationship map.



• Core concept


• Selective coding


• Axial coding

– Categories

• Open coding

– Basic themes

• Data

�Coding starts with the first data

�Memos are repeatedly reread and sorted

MemosMemosMemos

MemosMemosMemos

MemosMemosMemos

Defining,

Aggregating

Clustering,

Parameterizing

Constructing, Integrating,

Connecting/Interrelating


Stern: “If data are the building blocks of the

developing theory, [then] memos are the mortar.”

Closure

Discerning Structure in Data

Data

Time

Codes

Categories

Concepts

Core ConceptSubstantive Theory

MemosMemosMemos



Straussian GT

• Balance data and formal theory

• Emphasis on practices

• Taxonomy of coding actions

– Open, axial, selective

– Closure tends to occur later, and

organizes subsequent coding

• Broad causative model - “The

PARADIGM”

– Causal conditions

– Phenomena

– Context

– Intervening conditions

– Action/interaction strategies

– Consequences

Glaserian GT

• Radical focus on data

• Emphasis on experience

– Induction and emergence

– Theoretical sensitivity

– Importance of the mentor

– Reduced requirement for

verbatim quotations

• Coding actions are less

formalized

– Closure tends to occur earlier,

and dominates coding

• No broad causative model




Schatzman,


Charmaz,

Constructivist GTM

Clarke,


Corbin,

Straussian GTM

Stern,

Glaserian GTM





research, 1990

Glaserian


Substantive Theory from Data

Time

Formal Theory

Substantive Theory

MemosMemosTheoretical

Memos

MemosMemosMemos

Open or Substantive

Coding

Selective Coding

Theoretical Coding

Closure

• Everything is data

• Keep an open mind by postponing

any reading of research literature

• Field notes instead of

verbatim records

• Don’t talk – write

memos!



Straussian GT








PARADIGM”


– Phenomena

– Context



– Consequences

Glaserian GT







verbatim quotations


formalized





Theory through Constant Comparison

• Compare data with data

– Codes, categories, concepts

• Compare data with your theory (substantive theory)

– Aggregating, parameterizing, constructing

– Iterative theory-building

• Compare data and substantive theory with formal

theory

�Record your observations, thoughts, developing

theory in memos

34

Memo-Writing: More than Field Notes

• Guiding data collection and coding

– “What is this data a study of?” (Glaser)

• Guiding theoretical sampling

– Where else should I be looking? What site would providea good test of my competing hypotheses?

• Guiding development of substantive theory

– Begin writing memos with the first data

– Define a code

– Record informal hypotheses, for subsequent test

– Describe relationships of codes to categories, and

categories to the core concept

MemosMemosMemos


Memo-Writing: More than Field Notes

• Guiding data collection and coding

– “What is this data a study of?” (Glaser)

• Guiding theoretical sampling

– Where else should I be looking? What site would provide a good test of my competing hypotheses?

• Guiding development of substantive theory

– Begin writing memos with the first data

– Define a code

– Record informal hypotheses, for subsequent test

– Describe relationships of codes to categories, and

categories to the core concept

MemosMemosMemos

Charmaz: “Memo-writing constitutes a crucial method in

grounded theory because it prompts you to analyze your

data and codes early in the research process…. [N]ote where

you are on firm ground, and where you are making

conjectures. Then go back to the field to check your

conjectures.”


How Big is a Memo?

• Dick 2005:

– “Carry file cards in your pocket”

– Write multiple memos on each file card

• Clarke’s Relationship Map

NursesNurses ’ Emotion

Work/ Caregiving

“Everybody ’s So

Different ”

Nurses ’

Clinical/Technical

Caregiving

Cost Containment

Strategies

Patients

Nurses as Angels

Discourses

Invisible

Knowledges &

Skills

Home Health

Aides

Health

Maintenance

Organizations

Private Insurance

Companies

Work Redesign

Strategies


Essay-like Example from Charmaz


Late-Stage Memo, integrating dimensions


Iteration through Theoretical Sampling

• Constant comparison and substantive theorizing

– Strategy of abduction

• How could I be wrong? (consider multiple, competing informal

hypotheses)

• How could I test for disconfirmation of what I think is going on?

– Go back to the data I already have

– Choose the next “site” to test for disconfirmation

• What is a “site”?

– Person with theoretically-relevant attributes

– Team in the appropriate department or geography

or discipline

– Community that differs from previously-studied

communities in a theoretically-important way

– Organization or enterprise with significant

contrasts to those that I have already studied

Increasing cost

Decreasing number



• Constant comparison and substantive theorizing

– What do I think is going on?

• Abduction: How could I be wrong? (consider multiple, competing

informal hypotheses)

– How could I test for disconfirmation of what I think is going on?

– Go back to the data I already have

– Choose the next “site” to test for disconfirmation

• What is a “site”?

– Person with theoretically-relevant attributes

– Team in the appropriate department or geography

or discipline

– Community that differs from previously-studied

communities in a theoretically-important way

– Organization or enterprise with significant

contrasts to those that I have already studied

Increasing cost

Decreasing number

Starr: “Codes allow us to know about the field we

study, and yet carry the abstraction of the new…

When this process is repeated, and constantly

compared across spaces and across data…

this is known as theoretical sampling…

Theoretical sampling stretches the codes, forcing

other sorts of knowledge of the object… taking a

code and moving it through the data…

fractur[ing] both code and data.”



• A first theory is necessarily localized to a single site

or person or data-source– Theoretical sampling: Where should I find my second site to test my

initial theory?

• A second theory is usually broader and stronger– Theoretical sampling: Where should I find

my next site for further abductive testing?

• Successive theories gain in

breadth and depth…

• Through iterations,

theory becomes both

descriptive & abstract

Substantive Theory

Data

Time

Closure



• A first theory is necessarily localized to a single site

or person or data-source– Theoretical sampling: Where should I find my second site to test my

initial theory?

• A second theory is usually broader and stronger– Theoretical sampling: Where should I find

my next site for further abductive testing?

• Successive theories gain in

breadth and depth…

• Through iterations,

theory becomes both

descriptive & abstract

Substantive Theory

Data

Time

Closure

Charmaz: “Consistent with the logic of

grounded theory, theoretical sampling is

emergent. Your developing ideas shape what

you do and the questions you pose while

theoretical sampling.”


Theory is Co-Constructed with Description

• Begin coding and theorizing with the first data

• Constant comparison with data and theory

• Abductive (disconfirmatory) testing / theoretical sampling

• Iterations of coding and theorizing/memo-writing/memo-sorting

• But… when do you ever stop?

Data

Substantive Theory

MemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemos

Closure

Closure


Stopping Rules

• By contrast, in conventional hypothesis testing:

– Decide how much data I need, collect it, test it � Done!

• In GT, when is theoretical sampling complete?– Academic study

• “Continue to sample until you have saturated your categories”

– Enterprise study

• “Continue to sample until Friday”

• “Saturated categories”– I know the topic of my project (I’ve chosen or constructed my core

concept[s])

– I’ve understood the relationship of those concepts to each of the

other concepts and categories

– The data are not telling me anything new about my chosen topic


• By contrast, in conventional hypothesis testing

– Decide how much data I need, collect it, test it � Done!

• In GT, when is theoretical sampling complete?– Academic study

• “Continue to sample until you have saturated your categories”

– Enterprise study

• “Continue to sample until Friday”

• “Saturated categories”– I know the topic of my project (I’ve chosen or constructed my core

concept[s])

– I’ve understood the relationship of those concepts to each of the

other concepts and categories

– The data are not telling me anything new about my chosen topic

Stopping Rules

Stern: “I realized that I had reached the

point of saturation when the [informant]

was telling me how when he was a small

child he stood witness as his mother shot

his father dead, and I was bored. I made

all the right noises… but I knew that my

data collection for that study had come to

an end.” (italics in the original)


• Working with memos

– Sorting on “a large desk,” “or the floor”

• Clustering

• Categorizing

• Dimensionalizing

• Relating

– Relationship with each of the other categories/dimensions

Writing and Reporting

MemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemosMemos

Closure

Some people say you write the Report from the memos


Memos

Memos

MemosMemos

Memos

Memos Memos Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Category

Dimension

Memos

Controversies in Theory Development

Memos

Memos

MemosMemos

Memos

Memos Memos Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Memos

Category

Dimension

Memos

Memos

Memos

External theories /

Research literature

• When and how to use “formal theory”?


Strauss

Glaser

Quality of Grounded Theory Reports

• Difficult to evaluate in conventional writing – in sociology or in HCI and CSCW

– “Heuristics from grounded theory” (Thom-Santelli, Muller, & Millen,

2008)

– Often the only citation is to Discovery of Grounded Theory, 1967

• Increasingly, “grounded theory” is mentioned without any citation

– Reports on the detailed coding methodologies and theoretical

iterations are terse or non-existent

• The specific framework may not be stated explicitly (e.g., Glaserian,

Straussian, one of the 2nd generation, etc.)

– Coding is described with isolated references to “axial coding” and

little else


Proposed Clues for Evaluation (1)

• References and citations

– Are there specific citation(s) of grounded theory method(s)?

Statements about methodological choices? Can you understand how

the authors constructed their substantive theory?

• Methods

– If Straussian (e.g., “axial coding”), can you discern multiple

categories, concepts, or dimensions?

– If Glaserian (e.g., “emergence”), how is the emergence described?

• Glaser argued against verbatim quotations. Does that strategy serve HCI

and CSCW goals?

– Are reference sets of categories invoked? from what source? (unlikely

in HCI and CSCW)


Proposed Clues for Evaluation (2)

• Findings (Straussian criteria)

– For findings that support major claims, do they occur at all sites, or

are those crucial findings associated with all major attributes?

• If not, how do the authors account for selective occurrence?

– Are there multiple categories, and are they well integrated with the

core concept (topic) of the paper?

• Bonus: Is each concept or dimension presented with its parameters?

• Findings (Glaserian criteria)

– Surface validity

– Internal consistency and “harmony” (constructs interrelated, linked to

core concept

– Good balance of description and/vs. abstraction

– Integrated with broader literature


Conclusion

• Uses of grounded theory

– Explore new domains

– Leverage human tendency to interpret and theorize

• Practices of grounded theory

– Begin coding and theorizing with the first data

– Constant comparison with data and theory

– Abductive (disconfirmatory) testing

– Iterations of coding and theorizing

• Strengths of grounded theory

– Bring data into focus and depth

– Build theory that is descriptive, abstract, and powerful

– … With discipline, rigor, and quality


Major Sources

• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1967.

• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008.

• Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.( eds.), The Sage handbook of

grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.

• Morse, J.M., Stern, P.N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K.,

& Clarke, A.E., Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press, 2009.

– Includes Glaserian grounded theory; Straussian grounded theory;

constructivist grounded theory methodology; situational analysis;

dimensional analysis


Methods and Processes

• Charmaz, K., Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage,

2006.

• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e.

Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008. (also on previous

slide)

– “the cookbook”

• Locke, K., Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2001.

• Chapters 4-13 in Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K., The Sage

handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.


Additional Sources

• Common history– Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., Awareness of dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1965.

– Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1967.

– Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., A time for dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1968.

– Strauss, A.L., & Glaser, B.G., Anguish. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1970.

• Glaserian grounded theory– Glaser, B.G., Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1978.

– Glaser, B.G., Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1992.

– Glaser, B.G., Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1998.

• Straussian grounded theory– Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008.

– Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A.L., Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 1973.

– Strauss, A.L., Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge, 1987.

– Strauss, A.L., Continual permutations of action. New York, NY, USA: Aldine, 1993.

• Constructivist grounded theory– Charmaz, K., Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2006.

– Charmaz, K., ‘Grounded theory,’ in Ritzer, G. (ed.), Encyclopedia of sociology. Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell, 2006.

• Situational analysis– Clarke, A.E., Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2005.

• Dimensional analysis– Schatzman, L., ‘Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding of theory in qualitative research,’ in

Maines, D.R. (ed), Social organization and social process. New York, NY, USA: Aldine, 1991.


Quality and Rigor

• Chiovitti, R.F., & Piran, N., ‘Rigour and grounded theory research,’ J. Adv. Nurs. 44 (4), 2003.

• Haig, B.D., ‘Grounded theory as scientific method,’ Phil. Educ. 2005.

• Stern, P.N., ‘Properties for growing grounded theory,’ in

Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.

• Suddaby, R., ‘From the editors: What grounded theory is not,’ Acad. Mgmt. J. 49 (4), 2006.


Essays and Discussions

• Diversity in grounded theory method

– Kelle, U., ‘”Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data? A crucial

problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Forum: Qual. Soc. Res.

6(2), May 2005.

– van Niekerk, J.C., & Roods, JD., ‘Glaserian and Straussian grounded

theory: Similar or completely different? Proc. SAICSIT 2009.

• Coding

– Starr, S.L., ‘Living grounded theory,’ in Bryant, A., & Charmaz,

K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA,

USA: Sage, 2007.

• “An open mind is not in an empty head”

– Bowen, G.A., ‘Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts,’ Int. J. Qual.

Methods 5(3), Sep. 2006.

– Stern, P.N., ‘Properties for growing grounded theory,’ in Bryant, A., &

Charmaz, K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand

Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.


30 Examples

• Bertram, D., Voida, A., Greenberg, S., & Walker, R., ‘Communication, collaboration, and bugs: The social nature of issue tracking in small, collocated teams. Proc CSCW 2010.

• Boden, A., Nett, B., & Wulf, V., ‘Articulation work in small-scale offshore software development projects.’ Proc CHASE 2008.

• Cannay, S., ‘A grounded theory investigation of patient empowerment in e-healthcare,’ Proc. AMCIS 2007.

• de Souza, C.,R.B., Redmiles, D., Cheng, L.-T., Millen, D., & Patterson, J., ‘Sometimes you need to see through walls – A field study of application programmer interfaces.’ Proc CSCW 2004.

• Goede, R., & de Villiers, C., ‘The applicability of grounded theory as research methodology in studies on the use of methodologies in IS practices,’ Proc. SAITSIC 2003.

• Graham, C., Cheverst, K., & Rouncefield, M., ‘Technology for the humdrum: Trajectories, interactional needs and a care setting.’ Proc OZCHI 2005.

• Hevner, A.R., Collins, R.W., & Garfield, M.J., ‘Product and project challenges in electronic commerce software development.’ SIGMIS Database 33(4), 2002.

• Hunter, K., Hart, S., Egbu, C., & Kelly, J., ‘Grounded theory: Its diversification and application through two examples from research studies on knowledge and value management,’ Elec. J. Bus. Res. Meth. 3(1), 2005.

• Kriplean, T., Beschastnikh, I., McDonald, D.W., & Golder, S.A., ‘Community, consensus, coercion, control: CS*W or how policy mediates mass participation.’ Proc GROUP 2007.

• Luther, K., & Bruckman, A., ‘Leadership in online creative collaboration.’ Proc CSCW 2008i.

• Mann, P., ‘Design for design: Support for creative practice in computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) in design.’ Proc C&C 2005.

• Mark, G., & Semaan, B., ‘Resilience in collaboration: Technology as a resource for new patterns of action.’ Proc CSCW 2008.

• Matavire, R., & Brown, I., ‘Investigating the use of “grounded theory” in information systems research,’ Proc. SAICSIT 2008.

• McConnell, D., ‘Complexity, harmony and diversity of learning in collaborative e-learning continuing professional development groups.’ Proc CSCL 2002.

• McDonald, D.W., McCarthy, J.F., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D.H., & Rashid, A.M., ‘Proactive displays: Supporting awareness in fluid social environments.’ TOCHI 14(4), 2008.

• Mentis, H.M., Reddy, M., & Rosson, M.B., ‘Invisible emotion: Information and interaction in an emergency room.’ Proc CSCW 2010.

• Muller, M.J., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J., ‘Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service’ Proc. ECSCW 2009.

• Poole, E.S., Chetty, M., Morgan, T., Grinter, R.E., & Edwards, W.K., ‘Computer help at home: Methods and motivations for informal technical support.’ Proc CHI 2009.

• Redhead, F., & Brereton, M., ‘A qualitative analysis of local community communications.’ Proc OZCHI 2006.

• Rode, J.A., ‘The roles that make the domestic work.’ Proc CSCW 2010.

• Sarker, S., Lau, F., & Sahey, S., ‘Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development,’ Data Base for Adv. Info. Sys. 32(1), 2001.

• Scholl, H.J., ‘Current practices in e-government0induced business process change (BPC).’ Proc dg.04, 2004.

• Selvaraj, N., & Fields, B., ‘A grounded theory approach towards conceptualizing CIS for heterogeneous work communities,’ Proc. HCI 2009.

• Sousa, C.A.A., & Hendriks, P.H.J., ‘The diving bell and the butterfly: The need for grounded theory in developing a knowledge based view of organizations,’ Org. Res. Meth. 9(3), 2006.

• Setlock, L.D., & Fussell, S.R., ‘What’s it worth to you? The costs and affordances of CMC tools to Asian and American Users.’ Proc CSCW 2010.

• Swallow, D., Blythe, M., & Wright, P., ‘Grounding experience: Relating theory and method to evaluate the user experience of smartphones.’ Proc EACE 2005.

• Thom-Santelli, J., Cosley, D., & Gay, G., ‘What’s mine is mine: Territoriality in collaborative authoring,’ Proc. CHI 2009.

• Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R., ‘Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders,’ Proc. CHI 2008.

• Weisinger, J.Y., & Salipante, P.F., ‘A grounded theory for building ethnically bridging social capital in voluntary organizations,’ Nonprofit & Vol. Sec. Quarterly 34(1), 2005.

• Wilson, E.J., & Vlosky, R.P., ‘Partnering relationship activities: Building theory from case study research,’ J. Bus. Res. 39(1), 1997.


Grounded Theory Method - Muller

Technology

Transcript of Grounded Theory Method - Muller