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
2UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
3UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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?
4UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
5UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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!
6UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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...”
7UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
8UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
9UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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)
11UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
A Summary View of Grounded Theory
Data
Formal Theory
Time
Substantive Theory
12UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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...”
13UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
14UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
15UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Starr: “a manifesto for freedom from the sterile methods
that permeated social sciences at the time.”
Straussian Grounded Theory Method
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
16UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Glaserian Grounded Theory Method
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
17UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Method in Grounded Theory
Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967
Schatzman,
Dimensional analysis
Charmaz,
Constructivist GTM
Clarke,
Situational analysis
Corbin,
Straussian GTM
Stern,
Glaserian GTM
Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978
Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992
Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987
Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative
research, 1990
Straussian
18UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Grounding the Theory in the Data
Formal Theory
Time
Substantive Theory
Data
Codes
Concepts /
Categories
Dimensions
Core Concept
19UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
20UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
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.”
21UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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)
22UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
23UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Examples of Coding
Coding example from Charmaz (2006)
24UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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.
26UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Data Components & Analytic Practices
• Core concept
– The (emergent) topic
• Selective coding
– Concepts/Dimensions
• 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
27UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
28UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Method in Grounded Theory
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
29UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Method in Grounded Theory
Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967
Schatzman,
Dimensional analysis
Charmaz,
Constructivist GTM
Clarke,
Situational analysis
Corbin,
Straussian GTM
Stern,
Glaserian GTM
Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978
Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992
Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987
Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative
research, 1990
Glaserian
30UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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!
31UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Method in Grounded Theory
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
32UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Method in Grounded Theory
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
33UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
35UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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.”
36UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
37UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Essay-like Example from Charmaz
38UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Late-Stage Memo, integrating dimensions
39UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
40UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Iteration through Theoretical Sampling
• 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.”
41UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Iteration through Theoretical Sampling
• 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
42UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
Iteration through Theoretical Sampling
• 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.”
43UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
44UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
45UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
• 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)
46UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
• 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
47UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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”?
48UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
49UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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)
50UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
51UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
52UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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
53UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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.
54UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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.
55UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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.
56UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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.
57UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research
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.
58UC Irvine March 2012Muller, IBM Research