Grounded Theory Method - Muller

Grounded Theory Methods

Michael Muller
IBM Research
Cambridge, MA, USA
michael_muller@us.ibm.com

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

Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 1

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 140

• Combination of open mind with rigor and quality 120
Number of Papers returned by Search

• However, not well-understood in HCI and CSCW 100

– Qualitative analysis vs. theory-building 80

– Use of quantitative data as well as qualitative
60

– Diversity in methodology 40

– Does grounded theory offer … methodology? theory? heuristics?
20

procedures?
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year


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? initial “throw-away” theory
– Test by looking for exceptions strategy of abduction
– There are big virtual teams disconfirm initial theory
– … tech communities, Rec communities
– Idea Labs – very high participation rates theoretical sampling for breadth

• Examine goal statements, patterns of
membership, patterns of participation, begin to look for systematic differences
claims of impact
– Examine reputation, SNA… use concepts from research literature

• Theory of enterprise online communities iteratively develop stronger theory

– Focusing on theories of user appropriation more concepts from research literature

• Leading to strong quantitative comparisons
generate hypotheses for non-GT tests
of CoP, Team, Tech, Rec, Idea Labs

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

Formal Theory

ry
ive Theo
Sub stant

Data

Time


A Summary View of Grounded 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
Formal Theory
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
ry
participants’ meanings, actions, and worlds and seeking specific data to
e Theo
antiv
fill out, refine, and check the emerging conceptual categories...”
t
Subs

Data

Time


Diversity in Grounded Theory Method (GTM)
“The Second Generation”

Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman,
Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis

Stern, Corbin,
Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM

Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987
Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978
Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative
Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992
research, 1990

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction


Diversity in Grounded Theory Method (GTM)


Stern, Corbin,

Starr: “a manifesto for freedom from the sterile methods
that permeated social sciences atStrauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987
the time.”
research, 1990




Straussian Grounded Theory Method


Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990




Glaserian Grounded Theory Method


Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990




Method in Grounded Theory


Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990


Straussian


Grounding the Theory in the Data

Formal Theory

ry
ive Theo
Sub stant Core Concept

Dimensions

Concepts /
Categories

Codes

Data

Time


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 Starr: “A code sets up a relationship
– The (emergent) topic with your data, and with your
respondents…. a matter of both
• Selective coding “Emergence” (constructing)
attachment and separation…. Codes
allow us to know about the field we
– Concepts/Dimensions study, and yet carry the abstraction
• Axial coding of the new.”
Parameterizing
– Categories
• Open coding Aggregating
– Basic themes
• Data


Examples of Coding

Informant Statement Open code
From my perspective • Personal view
the main challenge is • Assertion
in changes in technology • Changes in technology
or the product improvement • Changes in product
done by the … supplier. • Supplier
You • Pronoun shift
can never guarantee that • Assertion
Uncertainty
if you are buying several • Procurement
they will all be the same. • Product inconsistency
• Necessary condition

Microanalysis coding from a study of Configuration Management
(CM) (excerpted from Allen, 2003)


Examples of Coding

Informant Statement Open code

Status accounting is used to report monthly to the Project Board. •CM process
Main difficulty is in getting people to buy-in to CM. •People difficulty
3rd parties have a preconceived set of established tools and are •People difficulty
not willing to see the in-house point of view •Tool difficulty
Developers saw CM as a control mechanism rather than a helpful •Not helpful
tool. •Control
•People difficulty

Keypoint coding from a study of Configuration Management (CM)
(excerpted from Allen, 2003)


Examples of Coding

Coding example from Charmaz (2006)


Examples of Coding
Chat question Informant’s Chat Answer Open Code Axial Code
Q. what was your goal A. put some structure • Structure • Purpose/structure
(or goals) in using around the content I around content
collections? collect/create around my content • Self
topic for me and readers • For self • Audience
• For others
Q. what kind of A. taxonomy By Topic I • Structure • Purpose/taxonomy
structure? guess • Taxonomy
Q. did you make A. both: what's good for me • Collection • Audience
collections for yourself, is good for my readers ☺ for both self • Self
and other collections for and others
your readers? or were all
the collections for both
"audiences"
Q. who are your A. sales teams, technical • Readers • Audience/Sales-team
readers? teams I do this basically for • Sales team • Audience/Tech-team
the sellers and supporting • Technical • Technology/team-
communities team room
in the web1.0 world I used • Prior
teamrooms technology
I needed an alternative
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
Productivity &
A Efficiency B COLLECTIVEI HUMAN
Co Goals s’ al
st rse nic ELEMENTS/ACTORS
C Nu Tech g
Str onta al/ vin Nurses’, physicians’, and others’
Patient/ ate inm nic egi
gie en Cli Car professional organizations
Customer s t Hospitals, chains, and hospital associations

Pa
Satisfaction

tie
HMOs, state and private insurers
ital

nt
Discourses Hosp ators/ Pharmaceutical and medical supply

s
ls
nge in istr companies
sA Adm agers
s a rse Man
r se cou
Nu Dis Pri
va DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF
Kn Invis t
Co e Ins INDIVIDUAL AND/OR COLLECTIVE

N
ow ibl

ur
led e mp ura HUMAN ACTORS

se
Sk ges an nc

s
ills & ies e Nurses as caring/angels of mercy/”good
t
men on mothers” imagery
nage nts
Ma ulta oti g
Em ivin Patients as needy, demanding
Cons lth s’ g
ea rse Care “Everyone’s so different”/patient uniqueness
H Nu rk/
me des o Physicians as unavailable
Ho Ai W
Wo Administrators as manipulative
Healt rk Management consultants as heartless
Main h Str Red
te “Everybody’s So ate esi
Orga nance gie gn
nizati Different” s
ons

C Work Redesign
“Everybody’s So
Strategies
Different”
Nurses as Angels
Discourses Patients
Home Health
Aides
Nurses Private Insurance
Nurses’ Emotion
Companies
Work/Caregiving
Nurses’ Cost Containment
Invisible Clinical/Technical Strategies
Knowledges & Health Caregiving
Skills Maintenance
Organizations

Situational maps excerpted and redrawn from Clarke (2005).
A. “Messy” situational map. B. “Ordered” situational map. C. Relationship map.


Closure
• Core concept
– The (emergent) topic
Memos
Memos Constructing, Integrating,
• Selective coding Memos
Connecting/Interrelating
– Concepts/Dimensions
Memos
Memos
Clustering,
• Axial coding Memos
Parameterizing
– Categories
Memos Defining,
• Open coding Memos
Memos
Aggregating
– Basic themes
• Data Stern: “If data are the building blocks of the
developing theory, [then] memos are the mortar.”

Coding starts with the first data
Memos are repeatedly reread and sorted

Discerning Structure in Data

Memos
Memos
Memos

ry
ive Theo
Sub stant Core Concept
Concepts

Categories

Codes

Data

Time



Straussian GT Glaserian GT
• Balance data and formal theory • Radical focus on data
• Emphasis on practices • Emphasis on experience
• Taxonomy of coding actions – Induction and emergence
– Open, axial, selective – Theoretical sensitivity
– Closure tends to occur later, and – Importance of the mentor
organizes subsequent coding – Reduced requirement for
• Broad causative model - “The verbatim quotations
PARADIGM” • Coding actions are less
– Causal conditions formalized
– Phenomena – Closure tends to occur earlier,
– Context and dominates coding
– Intervening conditions • No broad causative model
– Action/interaction strategies
– Consequences



Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990


Glaserian


Substantive Theory from Data
• Everything is data
• Keep an open mind by postponing
any reading of research literature Formal Theory

• Field notes instead of Memos
Theoretical
Memos
Memos
verbatim records ry
ive Theo
• Don’t talk – write
Sub stant Theoretical Coding
memos! Selective Coding

Closure

Open or Substantive
Coding

Memos
Memos
Memos

Time



– Consequences


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
Memos
Memos
Memos
– “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


Memo-Writing: More than Field Notes

• Guiding data collection and coding
Memos
Memos
Memos
– “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
Charmaz: “Memo-writing constitutes a crucial method in
– Record informalgrounded theory because it prompts you to analyze your
hypotheses, for subsequent test
– Describe relationships of codes to categories, and [N]ote where
data and codes early in the research process….
categories to the coreare on firm ground, and where you are making
you
concept
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
Work Redesign
“Everybody ’s So
Strategies
Different ”
Nurses as Angels
Discourses Patients
Home Health
Aides
Nurses Private Insurance
Nurses ’ Emotion
Companies
Work/ Caregiving
Nurses ’ Cost Containment
Invisible Clinical/Technical Strategies
Knowledges & Health Caregiving
Skills Maintenance
Organizations


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 Increasing cost

– Community that differs from previously-studied Decreasing number
communities in a theoretically-important way
– Organization or enterprise with significant
contrasts to those that I have already studied



• 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”? Starr: “Codes allow us to know about the field we
study, and yet carry the abstraction of the new…
– Person with theoretically-relevant attributes
When this process is repeated, and constantly
– Team in the appropriate compared across spaces and across data…
department or geography
or discipline this is known as theoretical sampling… cost
Increasing

– Community that differs from previously-studied
Theoretical sampling stretches the Decreasing number
codes, forcing
communities in a theoretically-important way of the object… taking a
other sorts of knowledge
– Organization or enterprise with significant it through the data…
code and moving
contrasts to those that I havefractur[ing] both code and data.”
already studied



• 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 Closure
my next site for further abductive testing?
• Successive theories gain in
ry
breadth and depth… nt ive T
heo
sta
Sub
• Through iterations,
theory becomes both
descriptive & abstract Data

Time



• 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 Closure
my next site for further abductive testing?
• Successive theories gain in
breadth and depth… eory
ntive Th
Su bsta
• Through iterations, Charmaz: “Consistent with the logic of
grounded theory, theoretical sampling is
theory becomes both emergent. Your developing ideas shape what
descriptive & abstract you do and the questions you pose while
theoretical sampling.”
Data

Time


Theory is Co-Constructed with Description
Closure

Closure

Th eory
sta ntive Memos
Memos
Sub Memos
Memos
Memos
Memos
Memos
Memos
Memos

Data

• 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?


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


Stopping Rules

• By contrast, in conventional “I realized that I had reached the
Stern: hypothesis testing
– Decide how much data I point of saturationit, test it[informant]
need, collect when the Done!
was telling me how when he was a small
• In GT, when is theoretical sampling complete? shot
child he stood witness as his mother
his father dead, and I was bored. I made
– Academic study
all the right noises… but I knew that my
• “Continue to sample until you have saturated your study had come to
data collection for that categories”
– Enterprise study an end.” (italics in the original)
• “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


Writing and Reporting

• Working with memos
– Sorting on “a large desk,” “or the floor” Memos

Closure
Memos
Memos
Memos
Memos Memos Memos Memos
Memos Memos
Memos
Memos Memos
Memos Memos
Memos
Memos
Memos
Dimension
Category

• Clustering
Memos Memos
• Categorizing Memos Memos
Memos Memos
• Dimensionalizing
• Relating Some people say you write the Report from the memos

– Relationship with each of the other categories/dimensions

Controversies in Theory Development

• When and how to use “formal theory”?

Memos

Memos
Memos

Memos Memos Memos
Memos Memos
Memos
Memos

Dimension
Memos Category

Memos Memos

Memos Memos
Memos Memos

External theories /
Research literature

Glaser
Strauss

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

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Grounded Theory Method - Muller

Similaire à Grounded Theory Method - Muller (20)

Plus de Michael Muller

Plus de Michael Muller (11)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Grounded Theory Method - Muller