Simultaneous data collection and analysis

One of the salient principles of conducting a research using GT is to have simultaneous analysis while collecting the data. The prime reason behind it is to expand the knowledge of the research as well as to acquire deep insight of the phenomenon under investigation. Moreover, it will help the researcher to decide

102

reinforce questions or areas related to the emerging theory or decline these questions and direct the researcher to a different path in his/her data collection.

However, Glaser (1992) proposes that the researcher need to transcribed one interview in full, and then do the rest partially. This process was abandoned in practice when the thematic recurring was noted predominately in the data (Goulding, 2002). From here the researcher extract the codes from the data rather than developing all possible codes. After that, codes are clustered together to construct conceptual meaning or abstract concept.

Figure ‎3.2 The Qualitative Process of Data Analysis (Creswell, 2012:237)

Grounded theory stands unique compared to other qualitative theories in the sense that through GT, the researcher starts the analysis while collecting the

data. As the figure 3.2 above indicates how a typical qualitative research would look like. In grounded theory, the researcher collects the data such as field notes, transcriptions, or optically scanned material and analysed it through obtaining broad sense of the material. Afterwards, the researcher codes the data and tries to generate theme that would aggregate to form an abstract concept. This line of activity is done in simultaneous and cyclic manner until final conceptual framework emerged. Below points are explaining the process of general qualitative approach towards data collection and analysis as it has been summarised by Creswell (2012):

 It involves a simultaneous process of analysing while you are also collecting data. In qualitative research, the data collection and analysis (and perhaps the report writing) are simultaneous activities. When you are collecting data, you may also be analysing other information previously collected, looking for major ideas. This procedure differs from traditional approaches in quantitative research, in which data collection occurs first, followed by data analysis.

 The phases are also iterative, meaning you cycle back and forth between data collection and analysis. In qualitative research, you might collect stories from individuals and return for more information to fill in gaps in their stories as your analysis of their stories proceeds.

 Qualitative researchers analyse their data by reading it several times and conducting an analysis each time. Each time you read your database, you develop a deeper understanding about the information supplied by your participants.

 There is no single, accepted approach to analysing qualitative data, although several guidelines exist for this process […]. It is an eclectic process.

 Qualitative research is “interpretive” research, in which you make a personal assessment as to a description that fits the situation or themes that capture the major categories of information. The interpretation that you make of a transcript, for example, differs from the interpretation that someone else makes. This does not mean that your interpretation is better or more accurate; it simply means that you bring your own perspective to your interpretation.

104 3.7.2.2 Constant Comparative process

The scheme of comparing incidents to another in a continuous manner where emerging concept is also compared to other ones, in Grounded theory, is referred to as constant comparative method. This process usually generates an emerging concept with their attributes (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

Constant comparison entail comparing same themes within the same category to search for emerging themes as Siggle (1994) stated:

Comparison explores differences and similarities across incidents within the data currently collected and provides guidelines for collecting additional data. … Analysis explicitly compares each incident in the data with other incidents appearing to belong to the same category, exploring their similarities and differences. (Spiggle, 1994: 493–4)

This process is also described below:

Theoretical sampling: Theoretical sampling is sampling directed by the emerging theory. In the initial stages sampling should be open and relatively unfocused. The researcher should go to those people who are likely to provide relevant information. As the data are analysed, the researcher should use the findings to direct the research to further groups and diverse locations which may broaden the interpretation. Theoretical sampling means that the researcher must be flexible and remain open to the full range of possibilities. (Goulding, 2002:170).

This process allows the recognition of concepts. These concepts are merely explaining the relationship between incidents and describing what is happening in the data. A constant comparison across incidents is required to be checked against each other to confirm the interpretation (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). In addition, by comparing where the facts are similar or different, we can generate properties of categories that increase the categories’ generality and explanatory powers (Glaser and Strauss, 1968: 24). Reference to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the researcher required to produce conceptual properties and categories from proof. This proof should underpin the generated concept or theoretical framework. The constant comparing process of different and similar

incidents emerge properties and categories that improve the categories explanatory power.

According to Goulding (2002) the process constant comparison should reach saturation stage where researcher “must also ensure that constant comparison is an on-going feature of the process. Theoretical sampling should direct the researcher to more contexts, locations, situations, and individuals and the theory must only be appeared as emerged after all core themes are saturated.

Theoretical saturation is achieved through staying in the field until no new evidence emerges which can inform or underpin the development of a theoretical point. There are no clear-cut rules of thumb for when this will occur, but it is vital to saturate the data if the theory is to have substance.” Goulding (2002:72)