13.1: Grounded Theory
-
- Last updated
- Save as PDF
How can you analyse a vast set of qualitative data acquired through participant observation, in-depth interviews, focus groups, narratives of audio/video recordings, or secondary documents? One of these techniques for analysing text data is grounded theory —an inductive technique of interpreting recorded data about a social phenomenon to build theories about that phenomenon. The technique was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) in their method of constant comparative analysis of grounded theory research, and further refined by Strauss and Corbin (1990) to further illustrate specific coding techniques—a process of classifying and categorising text data segments into a set of codes (concepts), categories (constructs), and relationships. The interpretations are ‘grounded in’ (or based on) observed empirical data, hence the name. To ensure that the theory is based solely on observed evidence, the grounded theory approach requires that researchers suspend any pre-existing theoretical expectations or biases before data analysis, and let the data dictate the formulation of the theory.
Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe three coding techniques for analysing text data: open, axial, and selective. Open coding is a process aimed at identifying concepts or key ideas that are hidden within textual data, which are potentially related to the phenomenon of interest. The researcher examines the raw textual data line by line to identify discrete events, incidents, ideas, actions, perceptions, and interactions of relevance that are coded as concepts (hence called in vivo codes ). Each concept is linked to specific portions of the text (coding unit) for later validation. Some concepts may be simple, clear, and unambiguous, while others may be complex, ambiguous, and viewed differently by different participants. The coding unit may vary with the concepts being extracted. Simple concepts such as ‘organisational size’ may include just a few words of text, while complex ones such as ‘organizational mission’ may span several pages. Concepts can be named using the researcher’s own naming convention, or standardised labels taken from the research literature. Once a basic set of concepts are identified, these concepts can then be used to code the remainder of the data, while simultaneously looking for new concepts and refining old concepts. While coding, it is important to identify the recognisable characteristics of each concept, such as its size, colour, or level—e.g., high or low—so that similar concepts can be grouped together later . This coding technique is called ‘open’ because the researcher is open to and actively seeking new concepts relevant to the phenomenon of interest.
Next, similar concepts are grouped into higher order categories . While concepts may be context-specific, categories tend to be broad and generalisable, and ultimately evolve into constructs in a grounded theory. Categories are needed to reduce the amount of concepts the researcher must work with and to build a ‘big picture’ of the issues salient to understanding a social phenomenon. Categorisation can be done in phases, by combining concepts into subcategories, and then subcategories into higher order categories. Constructs from the existing literature can be used to name these categories, particularly if the goal of the research is to extend current theories. However, caution must be taken while using existing constructs, as such constructs may bring with them commonly held beliefs and biases. For each category, its characteristics (or properties) and the dimensions of each characteristic should be identified. The dimension represents a value of a characteristic along a continuum. For example, a ‘communication media’ category may have a characteristic called ‘speed’, which can be dimensionalised as fast, medium, or slow . Such categorisation helps differentiate between different kinds of communication media, and enables researchers to identify patterns in the data, such as which communication media is used for which types of tasks.
The second phase of grounded theory is axial coding , where the categories and subcategories are assembled into causal relationships or hypotheses that can tentatively explain the phenomenon of interest. Although distinct from open coding, axial coding can be performed simultaneously with open coding. The relationships between categories may be clearly evident in the data, or may be more subtle and implicit. In the latter instance, researchers may use a coding scheme (often called a ‘coding paradigm’, but different from the paradigms discussed in Chapter 3) to understand which categories represent conditions (the circumstances in which the phenomenon is embedded), actions/interactions (the responses of individuals to events under these conditions), and consequences (the outcomes of actions/interactions). As conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences are identified, theoretical propositions start to emerge, and researchers can start explaining why a phenomenon occurs, under what conditions, and with what consequences.
The third and final phase of grounded theory is selective coding , which involves identifying a central category or a core variable, and systematically and logically relating this central category to other categories. The central category can evolve from existing categories or can be a higher order category that subsumes previously coded categories. New data is selectively sampled to validate the central category, and its relationships to other categories—i.e., the tentative theory. Selective coding limits the range of analysis, and makes it move fast. At the same time, the coder must watch out for other categories that may emerge from the new data that could be related to the phenomenon of interest (open coding), which may lead to further refinement of the initial theory. Hence, open, axial, and selective coding may proceed simultaneously. Coding of new data and theory refinement continues until theoretical saturation is reached—i.e., when additional data does not yield any marginal change in the core categories or the relationships.
The ‘constant comparison’ process implies continuous rearrangement, aggregation, and refinement of categories, relationships, and interpretations based on increasing depth of understanding, and an iterative interplay of four stages of activities: comparing incidents/texts assigned to each category to validate the category), integrating categories and their properties, delimiting the theory by focusing on the core concepts and ignoring less relevant concepts, and writing theory using techniques like memoing, storylining, and diagramming. Having a central category does not necessarily mean that all other categories can be integrated nicely around it. In order to identify key categories that are conditions, action/interactions, and consequences of the core category, Strauss and Corbin (1990) recommend several integration techniques, such as storylining, memoing, or concept mapping, which are discussed here. In storylining , categories and relationships are used to explicate and/or refine a story of the observed phenomenon. Memos are theorised write-ups of ideas about substantive concepts and their theoretically coded relationships as they evolve during ground theory analysis, and are important tools to keep track of and refine ideas that develop during the analysis. Memoing is the process of using these memos to discover patterns and relationships between categories using two-by-two tables, diagrams, or figures, or other illustrative displays. Concept mapping is a graphical representation of concepts and relationships between those concepts—e.g., using boxes and arrows. The major concepts are typically laid out on one or more sheets of paper, blackboards, or using graphical software programs, linked to each other using arrows, and readjusted to best fit the observed data.
After a grounded theory is generated, it must be refined for internal consistency and logic. Researchers must ensure that the central construct has the stated characteristics and dimensions, and if not, the data analysis may be repeated. Researcher must then ensure that the characteristics and dimensions of all categories show variation. For example, if behaviour frequency is one such category, then the data must provide evidence of both frequent performers and infrequent performers of the focal behaviour. Finally, the theory must be validated by comparing it with raw data. If the theory contradicts with observed evidence, the coding process may need to be repeated to reconcile such contradictions or unexplained variations.