Com 473--Baldwin—Communication—Illinois State University
Updated 9/26/05
Grounded Theory
COM 473 Notes
Announcements:
Proposals
Meeting?
Analysis of Data I: Grounded Theory
Some Questions:
1. What is Grounded Theory? What are its philosophical roots?
2. Is GT just another qualitative methodology? (p. 159)
3. Would you call it objective or subjective? Why?
4. When or why would one want to build Grounded Theory?
5. How does grounded theory differ from description? (p. 29)
6. What is the difference between “substantive” and “formal” theory (and the inherent danger…)? (pp. 174-175)
7. How does GT resolve the tension between creativity and science?
Practical Concerns
8. How much of your interview or field note data do you need to transcribe?
9. Where do research questions come from? (p. 38) // emergent design; what are some types of questions? (p. 39)
10. What is theoretical sensitivity? What are some sources of theoretical sensitivity? (42-43)
11.
How is theoretical sensitivity developed? (
12. How should one use the literature? How might S&C treat nontechnical lit differently from L&G?
13. What is the role of interview guides in GT? (p. 180)—how “grounded” will our studies here really be?
14. How does sampling occur? How might it change in the “process” of a GT study? How long should one sample? (p. 188—key quote!)
Balance: consistency versus new categories
Coding/Analysis
15. What are the three types of coding? What should be done at each level?
Open Coding
Axial Coding
Selective Coding
16.
What type of sampling would be used at each of these (
17. Is GT inductive or deductive? (what is relationship between these two in GT?)
18. How do the notions of process and condition relate to theory-building?
My Own Notes [But we will focus on whatever you, as
presenters, find most important!]
Basic Operation (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998, Ch 6)
Questions
Why ask questions?
What are some of the types of
questions one might ask? When might each occur? Be able to give an example of
each
- Sensitizing questions
- Theoretical questions
- Practical/structural questions
- Guiding questions
Note: Distinction in study b/t overarching theoretical
questions and “theoretical questions” per GT; diff b/t overarching theoretical
Qs and research Qs for a given study.
Comparisons
What do S&C mean by
comparisons?
Note the bolded and
underlined sections b/t pp. 80-84. Apparently there are some points here that
are pretty strong in the minds of the authors. What are they trying to say
here?
Analytic Tools (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998, Ch 7)
What are analytic tools? What
is their function/purpose?
Two
main types of analytic
questions are presented.
Questioning: What are some questions you
can ask?
Close analysis (word, phrase, sentence. . . or idea)
Comparisons
Flip-flop
Systematic comparison (close-in, far-out)
Waving the red flag: challenging participants’ totalizing (all, never) statements
Remember, remember, remember: Your
questions, comparisons, dimensions, etc. are NOT your data—they are merely
theoretical ways to better understand the data!
NOTE: GT starts from the
assumption that the researcher is starting at ground zero. Thus, Susan might
observe interaction on the Internet or inquire about it not even assuming what
is important. Like the question on p. 106 (“Tell me about teens and
drug use”), she could start very open-endedly:
“Tell me about your communication on the internet”), allowing participants to
talk freely and slowly understanding what issues are important to the social
actors. Thus, Susan might not even impose her focus of “Internet deception” on
the study, if she is a true GT-ist, as this might not
be an issue of relevance to the social actors in the context.
The GT researcher might start
very openly, but will eventually focus on issues, processes, etc., that are
important to the social actors, formulating questions (how, who, when, what,
how long, how often, etc.) that help uncover a phenomenon. That phenomenon will
then become the topic of the study.
Few of us will use the very
open-ended approach even for a thesis. This for professors
with tenure who don’t have to worry about publication timelines. J
Open Coding (Ch.
q
Locate several concepts (eye to Comm!)
q
“Conceptualize” concepts (S&C, Chs 6-7)
q
Develop a rough set of categories
q
Imagine a memo. . .
q
Name the categories (theory? in vivo?)
q
Develop the dimensions of some categories
Axial Coding (Ch.
q
Work one aspect of the observation through “the paradigm”
q
List some of each type of conditions; apply the “conditional matrix” (
q
“Code for process” (
q
Develop some relational statements
q
Develop one set of subcategories
Selective Coding
q Determine a “central
category”
q Develop a “story line”
q What are some alternative
“story lines”
(cf modernist
v. PM approach…)
From Class Notes:
Ø Often, if you go in with a pre-determined focus (e.g., resistance to drug usage, definitions of racist communication), your “core category” is pre-determined; then your selective coding would be more based on locating a “story line.”
Ø In practice, GT is probably more of a continuum, or something that provides a set of tools, with researchers being nearer or further from Strauss and Corbin’s purposes.
NEAR: Development of categories, process, descriptive (“soft predictive”) statements, starting very open-ended; coding for structure and process, tracing out the paradigm as it plays out regarding the phenomenon of interest (especially, of interest to the social actors). Describing this in as value-neutral a way as possible, yet admitting (how) your values might influence you as a researcher; bracketing.
A LITTLE AWAY: Starting with your own RQ or category or phenomenon that you want to investigate, but still grounding your understanding in social actors’ perspectives, categories. Developing themes, but looking at interconnections b/t themes (for example, rather than simply looking at definitions of racism, considering whether there might be purposes, conditions, differences between groups of social actors; looking for connections between category sets.
FURTHER STILL: Developing inductive categories, but limiting your findings to a presentation of themes and definitions, grounded in the reality of the participants (not discussing relationship between categories, conditions, consequences, etc., or merely presenting different domains of categories and subcategories, but not discussing the relationships between them); bringing an overt value stance into your research with you (like feminism).
GROUNDED theory Exercise:
Pub II
Show up at Pub II in ones or twos. Observe for a bit of time. Be “naturalistic”: don’t actually interact with anyone, and don’t deliberately eavesdrop. Your focus will be more broad on the types of communication occurring, including both face-to-face and mediated communication.
1. Questions: What are some sorts of questions you can ask yourself about communication content and/or processes in the interaction? Ask some specific questions about the scene, communication within it… But your question might emerge as you do some of the next items:
2. Open coding: Either with a more focused question in mind, or starting from “ground zero,” list a series of constructs that you see in observation. These can be based on verbal content, if you hear any, on any other aspect of observation. [Easier to do after we learn how to do observational field notes, but we haven’t done that yet. Oh well!]. Open-coding, for now, will probably just be a list of unassociated concepts, ideas, phrases.
3. Axial coding: After you have observed and written down some ideas, begin to look for connections. Locate what you believe to be some “categories” of behavior or phenomena.
[Interlude: What are some things you might do before the study or at this point to strengthen your “theoretical sensitivity”? What role, if any, might prior literature or dialogue with other scholars have to do with your theoretical sensitivity? Where will much of your development of sensitivity occur in GT?]
4. Comparisons: Practice some comparisons. Here your observation in The Coffeehouse might (or might not) be relevant. Describe briefly how some behavior or practice might vary based on a comparison. Try a close-in and a far-out comparison.
5. Selective coding: Okay—it’s way too premature for this (we’ve hardly had what we would call “prolonged exposure! J)—but what do you think a “central category” of interaction here might be? Draw a “story line” about what happens in the communication situation or regarding the phenomenon you decide to focus on.
BEYOND YOUR
6. Coding for process: Are there steps, stages, processual elements involved in your phenomenon of observation? If so, describe what you think the process might be.
7. Coding for structure: Apply the “paradigm” (p. 128) to the phenomenon:
What are the conditions of the phenomenon?
Causal
Contextual
Intervening
What is the action/interaction of your focus (phenomenon)? [you may need to start here]
Are there aspects, elements, process of the phenomenon?
What are the consequences of the phenomenon?
Grounded Theory Evaluation Exercise: (out of class)
Purposes: The
objectives of this assignment are:
Ø
To enable you to demonstrate your understanding
of general principles, structure of GT.
Ø
To develop your ability to evaluate a grounded
theory
Ø
To improve the quality of your own research
project.
Instructions: In
pairs, evaluate the article that appears at: https://www.mlb.ilstu.edu/ereserve2/viewpdf.php?filename=JBCOMBRO.PDF (Browning, 1978).
While
we realize Browning wrote prior to the formalization of many of the standards
of evaluating grounded theory, his article is important as it demonstrates an
early effort at grounded theorization in organizational communication.
Browning, himself, might do his research differently if he were doing it today.
Develop
a “sustained” discussion (about 3 typed, DS, pages) of both the strengths and
limitations of the article as a grounded-theory development piece. Evaluation criteria appears below. To inform your critique,
you may use”
Ø The handout provided in class, which synthesizes several articles and their approach both to qualitative research in general and to GT specifically
Ø Miller’s summary of evaluation standards of GT (see Prosem text—I can’t find my 1st edition, the one you would have had. I know 2nd ed summarizes these on p. 64)
Ø Lincoln & Guba’s (1985) criteria for a good study
Some points:
o You will definitely not use all standards! Part of the art of the assignment is choosing standards that are more relevant.
o You can do an excellent job by addressing the standards in a “linear” fashion, but your analysis should probably incorporate at least some items specific to the goals, functions of GT (and not just L&G standards for qualitative research in general). Or you can go in more of a “discussion” format that demonstrates a) your knowledge of issues of process and product in qualitative research and GT and b) your ability to use terms, ideas from our sources.
o Citation is not important in this assignment, as you do not have access to the original articles, readings upon which the handout is based.
o End with—or include—practical suggestions that author could incorporate if doing the study today.
Grading criteria/rubric: Total 25 points (same as, say, an abstract)
1. Appropriate (accurate) use of standards, terms 1 2 3 4 5
2. Depth of thought/analysis 1 2 3 4 5
3. Balance, choice of “important” issues 1 2 3 4 5
(within space allowed J); both +/-
4. Practicality: Clarity of recommendations 1 2 3 4 5
5. Cohesion/flow of essay 1 2 3 4 5
Of course, final assessment will be on overall quality of the critique and will be “balanced” with scores on the grading rubric.
CHOICES:
There
are, of course, lots of choices:
·
Do I want to use a priori theory or grounded theory?
·
If GT, do I adopt the ontological assumptions of Strauss & Corbin?
[That will determine how you write up your findings. You could use GT as a
constructivist or as someone with a more objective view of the world]
·
If GT, how far do I want to go (see questions below): Do I just want
“categories with labels, definitions, and examples? Or do I want
to actually develop a “theory” that considers properties, dimensions,
conditions, consequences and so on. The key is to indicate in write-up which
elements of GT you are using.
Typically,
if you make reference to using GT, you need to specify which notions you are
using.
·
The paradigm (p. 128): conditionsà(inter)actionsàconsequences
·
The thought-provoking questions?
·
Open-coding only (for the development of categories?
·
Open-coding with properties and dimensions?
Open, axial, and selective
coding?
An example of some
open-ended questionnaire notes. Here
1)
I start with data (open-ended Q)
2)
I look for concepts (similar to S&C, pp. 106-109)
3)
I take some of those and begin to make categories.
4)
I develop possible aspects or dimensions of the categories. In some cases, a
dimension might be one of my prior concepts. In other cases, two concepts
(e.g., lack of control, too much control) might actually be different points
upon the dimension of “degree,” which, in turn, is one of several dimensions of
“control.”
Negative Comments
His approach to teaching was punctuated with directed lectures. The points were made quickly and half scribbled on the board. Questions were encouraged by his words but discouraged by his response. While he demonstrated his enthusiasm for the topic his control of the class mitigated its effect.
I disliked a teacher who called on students who did well on tests and announced that student’s name and test grade to the class.
I had an instructor who was frequently unavailable to meet to answer questions, did not return emailed questions and as a result was often unclear on assignments.
I have been in classroom situations in which the discussion was uncontrolled. Meaning, a question or thought was posed and discussion would just get entirely off-base and thoughts shared were too biased or personal at times.
On the other hand, I have had my share of professors who have been very discouraging and almost caused me to give up. When I first declared my major there was an instructor who told me in front of other students that I would not be good in the major and that I needed to rethink my decision.
There are several things that irk me about particular professionals (teachers), one being when a teacher yells at a student. I just believe conversation is the key to understanding and yelling is not rational conversation. There’s more times than not, a better way to handle a situation.
A poor learning experience I had took place in a class of about 30. I mention this because the course was not a seminar yet not a lecture hall. However, the professor provided little interaction with the students, choosing instead to lecture from overheads all day nearly every day. I felt I could have read the book and gained as much as I gained by attending class. I felt cheated.
As a graduate student, I took a course where I felt the instructor did not respect the ideas of students who conflicted with his/her perspective. Whenever discussion was raised that deviated from the instructor, it was quickly struck down. Further, he/she violated many teaching strategies by wanting an exact answer from a student and by not using “wait time”. Finally, I felt the instructor did not care about our time. He/she came to class at least 5 minutes late each day and kept us at least 7-10 minutes after every day.
One negative experience I have had was when my instructor, by mistake, let the entire class leave 25 minutes early from class. Instead of just providing the students with a handout of the missed material, he decided to keep the entire class 5 to 10 minutes late for the next two weeks. This made the class very upset overall and put the students on the defensive. The climate of the class was never the same again.
Concept |
Category |
Property |
Dimension |
Insult/put down |
Attitude
toward students Control
(subtle) |
|
|
|
Lecture |
Methods/format |
|
|
|
Not
available |
Availability
|
|
|
|
Didn’t
respond to notes, e-mail |
Availability |
|
|
|
Yelling |
Attitude |
|
|
|
Little
class interaction |
Methods/format |
|
|
|
Lack
of direction of discussion |
Organization Control |
|
|
|
Too
much control |
Control |
|
|
|
Late
for class |
Organization |
|
|
|
Haste
in answering students |
Attitude |
|
|
|
Too
structured in desired responses |
Methods/format Control? |
|
|
|
Lack
of wait time |
Methods/format |
|
|
|
Keep
class late |
Attitude
towards students (lack of respect) |
|
|
|
|
CONTROL |
Degree |
None
to total |
|
|
|
Breadth |
One
person to many |
|
|
|
Overtness |
Subtle
to overt |
|
|
|
|
Positive
to negative |
|
|
|
Consistency |
Inconsistent
to consistent |
|
|
METHODS |
Discussion
time |
One-way
to total discussion |
|
|
|
Media
use |
Single
to many |
|
|
|
Variety |
None
to unpredictable |
|
|
|
|
|