Grounded Theory Method

! *+&!

3.9 Grounded Theory Method

“Grounded theory provides a bridge to seeing the same problems and processes in other areas so the researcher can further inform his theory and develop comparative substantive theory and formal theory. Pure description does not provide this ability to build and contribute on more general level of the scientific enterprise, such as to a theory of becoming no matter what the occupation. Pure description is situation specific.”

(Glaser, 1992: 15)

The process itself involves constant iteration backward and forward between steps. The process is alive with tension between divergence into new ways of understanding the data and convergence onto a single

theoretical framework (Eisenhardt, 1989:546). The grounded theory-building components, used to iteratively formulate an empirical

understanding of minimal structures, are defined in Table 3.2, Grounded Theory-Building Definitions, below:

Table 3.2: Grounded Theory-Building Definitions

Analytic Elements Purpose

Formative Ideas General statements expressing theoretical sensitivity toward phenomena

Codes Identified textual anchors that allow the data to be categorized

Concepts Generalized abstractions of data categories that enable understanding

Construct Combinations of concepts that logically form theoretical propositions

Substantive Theory Middle-range theory composed of theoretical propositions

!!

! *+'!

3.9.1 Sampling

Building theory from case studies relies on theoretical sampling.

Theoretical sampling connotes that cases are selected because they are

“particularly suitable for illuminating and extending relationships and logic among constructs” (Eisenhardt, 2007: 27), and my case is deliberately chosen to extend emergent theory (Eisenhardt, 1989: 537). I elect to conduct a mixed sampling method, which includes: first, Critical Case Sampling, where a small number of important cases or episodes are likely to "yield the most information and have the greatest impact on the

development of knowledge" (Patton, 2001: 236); second, Purposive or Subjective Sampling among sources of data to build an awareness of

possibilities, and begin “talking to the most knowledgeable people to get a line on relevancies and leads to track down more data and where and how”

to locate myself in a rich supply of data (Glaser, 1978: 45). “Purposive sampling is based on the assumption that one wants to discover, understand, gain insight; therefore one needs to select a sample from which one can learn the most” (Merriam, 1988: 48); and third, theoretical sampling, where I am seeking and collecting pertinent data to elaborate and refine categories in my emerging theory (Charmaz, 2006: 96). These sample selections adhere to the insights offered for developing new theory from case studies, because

[s]election of cases is an important aspect of building theory from case studies. As in hypothesis-testing research, the concept of a population is crucial, because the population defines the set of entities from which the research sample is to be drawn. Also,

selection of an appropriate population controls extraneous variation and helps to define the limits for generalizing the findings. –

(Eisenhardt, 1989: 537)

!!

! *+(!

3.9.2 Memos

During formal and informal meetings, and phone conversations, I will collect scratch notes in my business journal, which is a common tool used by many of the KYF2 team members. Examples are provided in the

Appendices. These notes are very brief and written down as short phrases, quotes, keywords, gestures, and textual models (Lofland and Ofland, 1995:

90) to help my memory of the event when written up later in more

structured field note memos. My memo practices are generally kept out of sight of participants, with my journal in my lap and not in front of people so as to avoid making them feel self-conscious; though in other respects, some participants also use journals in practice, thereby allowing me to fit into the behavioral norm (Brymand and Bell, 2003: 333). The field notes provide a space for me to reflect afterwards about what I was observing and feeling about the research in progress, and contribute an emergent list of impressions about minimal structures. These memos are more than reminders in the grounded theory, they are

[a] striking feature of research to build theory from case studies is the frequent overlap of data analysis with data collection. While many researchers do not achieve this degree of overlap, most maintain some overlap. Field notes, a running commentary to oneself and/or research team, are an important means of accomplishing this overlap.

-(Eisenhardt, 1989: 538) 3.9.3 Coding

My initial data coding analysis works line-by-line through interview

transcripts to establish fit and relevance. Fit in respect to ensuring ideas emerge out of the actual context of participant’s experience, and

relevance in regards to the interpretation derived from the analytic

framework accurately describing what is happening (Charmaz, 2006: 54). I

!!

! *+)!

follow an inductive approach, which avoids predefining code schemas, developing starter lists, and use of domains or set of categories drawn from existing theory. I deliberately maintain an open, interactive perspective to grounded codes in the textualized data, and not loose the original context (Maxwell, 1996: 79).

This “code-in-use” method (Miles and Huberman, 1994: 58) supports the goal of matching observations to middle-range theory without pre-coding, which may influence, distract, or bias the analysis process. Furthermore, the development of provisional, initial codes in an open format generates new insights and enables new ideas to emerge directly from the data, as well as identify the data gaps (Charmaz, 2006: 48). In a ground theory pattern, my code emerges from data as I collected it, and is shaped by my interpretation, unlike “quantitative research that requires data to fit into the preconceived standardized codes” (Charmaz, 2000: 515). I also offer an example of this tool in the Appendices.

During the first phase of analysis, the coding activity begins early in collection of data with line-by-line coding of texts concentrating on the minimal structures processes as spatial phenomena. This method is appropriate to reveal the minimal structure story narrative, and scripts, embedded in my exhaustive observations of people, actions, and settings.

Nuances in the data, implicit concerns, and explicit statements collected from study participants and situations are swiftly located in the text with the ongoing, parallel notation of codes and comparison of emerging data categories (Charmaz, 2006: 50).

3.9.4 Constant Comparison

With each iteration of coding, I then revisit each participant’s written, and audio recording, interview interpretation to identify significant thematic

!!

! **+!

statements, which included metaphors, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs connecting directly to the participant’s personal experience of minimal structures used in practice. The intention of this analysis process is to describe facets of the phenomenon as experienced by each individual in the context of other data sources such as historical records and my field journal notes. The attention to maintaining a “steady and explicit

dialogue” between emerging ideas and evidence, and entering into data by means of a dialogue, is a crucial comparison step (Ragin, 1987; Charmaz, 2006: 25). This cyclical process continues until I am satisfied my study has reached theoretical saturation.

3.9.5 Linking Data to Propositions

The case study strategic episodes write narrative, combined with in-depth context, provides the foundation for detailed within-case analysis. The write-ups are concise, direct descriptions to simplify very large amounts of data in a single story. These write-ups compose a transcript of the KYF2 experience from the view of participants in the strategic management activities. The intent of within-case analysis is to better understand links between data and propositions as one “becomes intimately familiar with each case [and episode] as a stand-alone entity. This process allows the unique patterns of each case to emerge before investigators push to generalize patterns across cases. In addition, it gives investigators a rich familiarity with each case which, in turn, accelerates cross-case

comparison” (Eisenhardt, 1989: 540).

Following within-cases analysis, I conduct cross-case search for patterns to weed out potential bias and false conclusions in processing the case

information. I view the data in opposing ways by comparing strategic episode similarities and differences. “The juxtaposition of seemingly similar cases by a researcher looking for differences can break simplistic

!!

! ***!

frames… the search for similarity in a seemingly different pair also can lead to more sophisticated understanding.” The forced comparisons may

produce new categories and concepts, which I did not anticipate

(Eisenhardt, 1989: 541). This analytic step illuminates faulty reasoning, and supports the observation that

[t]he idea behind these cross-case searching tactics is to force investigators to go beyond initial impressions, especially through the use of structured and diverse lenses on the data. These tactics improve the likelihood of accurate and reliable theory, that is, a theory with a close fit with the data. Also, cross-case searching

tactics enhance the probability that the investigators will capture the novel findings, which may exist in the data.” - (Eisenhardt, 1989:

541)