All 11 entries tagged Groundedtheory

No other Warwick Blogs use the tag Groundedtheory on entries | View entries tagged Groundedtheory at Technorati | There are no images tagged Groundedtheory on this blog

January 09, 2016

Methodological Breakthrough, Part B: Introducing The New Methodology!

Introducing Triangulated Mixed Methods Methodology

Ta da! This has come as a breakthrough for my research as I have now identified what I believe to be the research methodology that is most suitable for my research. Triangulated Mixed Methods is a research methodology that applies Triangulation approaches within the context of Mixed Methods research, which essentially according to some writers enable higher levels of validity and reliability through comparisons and corroborations of differing types of data from different sources, which exactly matches my vision of my research project.

From the initial rereading, Cresswell provided the clearest and most useful definitions of this type of Mixed Methods methodology that convinced me of its suitability. Cresswell describes Triangulated Mixed Methods Methodology as suitable for research projects involving comparisons, validations and expanding discussions between quantitative and qualitative findings. This is suitable for my project because it will involve comparing quantitative data with qualitative data and using these further analytical comparisons and discussions to expand on separate analyses and discussions that shall be made with each data set in the thesis.

There are other reasons, but that was the major, influential definition of Mixed Methods that has encouraged the favoured methodological view to Triangulated Mixed Methods.

What does all this mean now for my research Methodology and research Philosophy?

In brief: Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology is now the research methodology for my Ph.D. with Constructivist Grounded Theory now being used as a research method along with questionnaires. Interview and focus groups shall be used in addition at a later stage as and when deemed necessary. This obvious impact on my methodology will have an impact on my research Philosophy, although the Philosophical assumptions and perspectives of Triangulated Mixed Methods, and Mixed Methods in general, appears to be highly discussed and debated by a lot of authors and Philosophers (oh fun!)

So will this methodology make reality any easier to understand?

Er, no, well, it will, eventually! Basically, even years before starting the Ph.D. I had an idea that my research would be quite complex because what I am doing is exploring perceived learning (quantitative data, qualitative data) and actual learning processes that take place (qualitative data, mostly). This direction has not changed; it has only became more specified and detailed but I am not going to discuss the specifics on here: I shall leave them to my future published research papers and thesis. The methodology now selected makes a lot more sense to me because it allows me to investigate the phenomenon in exactly the way that I envisioned.

What next?

Loads. Sheer absolute loads to do, which is fine because it gives me plenty of blog material! Methodologically speaking, I need to select the most appropriate variant of the Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology to use, as there are several variants that have been designed and debated, although I already have a fair idea but need to do more reading and experimenting into this. Also, I need to identify Philosophical assumptions and develop Philosophical arguments for using Mixed Methods methodology and this shall take a little while given the amount of debates from various authors. Following this, I then need to carefully plan the way that Constructivist Grounded Theory and Questionnaires shall work effectively within a Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology, and carefully think about the practical assumptions and considerations that Triangulation makes upon the data analysis. Not only this, but I also need to carefully consider the Philosophical assumptions, arguments, practical applications and so on of both Constructivist Grounded Theory and Questionnaires and the way that a Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology actually bring these Philosophical and Methodological differences together in the way that research objectives are achieved.

Additionally I need to carefully consider the way in which the methodology and methods all come together to deal with issues of data validation, integrity, reliability, consistency, coherence, authenticity, and so on, and also develop ways in which challenges that each method and the methodology provides shall be carefully managed, maintained and dealt with so that any data errors are avoided as best as possible.

All this and much more shall be considered within the thesis and various research papers that shall be published from the research. Now that the methodology and methods are set, I can begin to think about, within the context of my research, all these Philosophical, Methodological and practical issues and much more than has been discussed here as I think I have wrote enough about the subject for the time being!

‘till next time: is there really such a thing as objective reality?

Methodological Breakthrough, Part A: Background To The Problem!

Explaining the Background

Regular readers will have probably come to know that Constructivist Grounded Theory became the selected research methodology (framework of understanding overall research design of exploring phenomenon of interest) and that the following problems were fairly immediately obvious:

  • Considering the integration of quantitative and qualitative data was proving to be problematic within a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology

  • Compatibility issues therefore between Philosophically different approaches to understanding reality

The initial decision to use Constructivist Grounded Theory as an overall methodology led to Philosophical and Methodological problems. Philosophical problems in that Positivism and Interpretivism differ widely in that Positivism suggests a social reality independent of human perceiving and thinking therefore reality is absolute whilst Interpretivism suggests a social reality dependent on human perceiving and thinking therefore reality is relative. Positivism suggests that reality can be explored through reducing reality to a series of variables and the exploration of relationships between them; Interpretivism along with Constructivism suggests social reality as an interpretation therefore each person constructs their own perspective of reality and is therefore more complex to understand than a simple reduction to a series of variables and their relationships.

In what way could research be designed so that differing Philosophical perspectives increase in compatibility within a single research project? Could the phenomenon of interest be explored and explained using methodologies and methods that adopt either of these Philosophical definitions and then integrated to explain the phenomenon?

Methodological problems came about because Constructivist Grounded Theory as a methodology for this research entailed compatibility issues between quantitative and qualitative data that were not so easily resolved, as it was realised that Constructivist Grounded Theory unlike other flavours of Grounded Theory did not work with quantitative data. Even if I persevered with this, I envisioned having difficulty with figuring out and explaining the way that quantitative data from questionnaires could integrate with qualitative data from Constructivist Grounded Theory techniques as there was no guidance in textbooks available.  This obviously led me to knowing that as a methodology, Constructivist Grounded Theory was no longer applicable

To briefly explain my logic behind that (shall be exploring more about this in the thesis) Constructivist Grounded Theory as a methodology makes most sense in contexts that are exclusively qualitative; where all research methods are based on collecting and analysing qualitative data. With my research, this is simply not the case because the phenomenon of interest needs both quantitative and qualitative data to provide the basis of substantial and detailed theorising therefore I was not willing to alter any methods unless absolutely necessary in order to stay within the Ph.D. time frame. So, to find answers, I had to revisit previous research methodological ideas.

Returning to previous ideas

So, I had a problem to solve. Constructivist Grounded Theory was no longer making much sense as an overall methodology and given the phenomenon of interest I was not willing to drastically redesign any of the methods that are in development. Therefore I had to find a more appropriate methodology that assumed compatibility between differing Philosophical perspectives, and therefore allowed for the differing data types to be more effectively explored, compared or integrated within a single research project, leading to more effective and sound theorising of the phenomenon of interest.

Thinking back to earlier in the Ph.D. before initially deciding on Constructivist Grounded Theory as the most appropriate research methodology, I had thought for a while about Mixed Methods methodologies as well as Triangulation methods. Triangulation I had in the back of my mind to work with along the way, but Mixed Methods at the time unfortunately was considered unsuitable as the types I had learned about I considered inappropriate due to incompatibility between sequence orderings and timings of methods along with mixing approaches, and the vision I had of the research.

After a short stint into rereading mixed methods methodologies I thankfully came across a methodology that appears to be extremely appropriate for my research and for whatever reason I had not noticed it the first time I read a set of Mixed Methods literature.

That methodology is Triangulated Mixed Methods methodology!

December 09, 2015

Grounded Theory: possibly Relativist? Combination of various Philosophical perspectives?

I’ve been thinking further recently about Philosophical considerations of the Grounded Theory methodology and previously I mentioned about the possibility of combining or in some way integrating different Philosophical perspectives. Reality can be considered from a couple of main umbrella perspectives. There are perspectives that define reality as existing independent of the mind and the thoughts of the observer, and there are perspectives that define reality as dependent on the mind and the thoughts of the observer. What this means from a pure Philosophical or Ontological perspective is whether or not there really is an objective reality out there, or whether or not reality is simply something that we imagine and build for ourselves. From a methodological perspective, this has implications upon the choice of methodology and methods that are used to explore reality and to gain knowledge of that reality. Interpretivism, Constructivism and Relativism are Philosophical perspectives that describe reality as being dependent on the mind; of the thoughts that exist within the mind and the way in which these thoughts and other mental processes are used to develop a picture of the reality that the observer finds themselves in.

Grounded Theory enables the researcher to construct a theory or to theorise from the actual data itself and not from the data after it has been put through a level of, say, quantitative analysis. It is therefore apparent that whatever theory or theorisation occurs is dependent on the thoughts and the thinking of the researcher, and therefore it is a methodology that assumes that reality can be constructed, especially Charmaz’s Constructivist Grounded Theory, which is the flavour of Grounded Theory picked for my Ph.D. research.

What I have been thinking about is that perhaps Grounded Theory is a methodology that represents a combination of Interpretivism, Constructivism and Relativism. Because Grounded Theory enables each researcher to develop a theory following the development of codes and categories that explain their observations, it is an interpretivist methodology. Because it is an interpretation, each researcher would interpret the data differently and therefore develop different sets of codes and categories. The thoughts and the thinking of the researcher are therefore part of the Grounded Theory process and this is something that Positivist approaches (e.g., experimental designs) would not allow to happen.

Because the researcher is able to develop a theory or to theorise from the data they are therefore constructing a theory that explains their interpretation of that reality, and therefore Grounded Theory can be known as a Constructivist methodology. It is constructivist because reality or an aspect of reality is being constructed by the researcher through the development of that theory, through developing codes and categories as a result of data interpretation.

Relativism is something new that I have thought about. Relativism implies situational context; that the development of a theory therefore is relative only to the context within which the Grounded Theory research takes place. There are many debates about the generalisability (a characteristic that measures if whether or not a theory or findings can be generalised across multiple contexts) of the Grounded Theory methodology, so to suggest that Grounded Theory is a relative methodology might not be so clear cut as it is to suggest that Grounded Theory is both an Interpretivist and a Constructivist methodology. But it is interesting to think about it from the perspective as Grounded Theory enabling the researcher to construct a theory of some aspect of reality (hence Constructivism) through interpreting the data leading to developing codes and categories that explain what they observe in the data (hence Interpretivism) possibly because of the nature of interpretivism that this would be specific to the context of the Grounded Theory research (hence possibly Relativism). As mentioned however there are many debates surrounding the generalisability of Grounded Theory so I will not make any suggestion at this time as to whether or not Grounded Theory could be considered a Relativist methodology. But it will be interesting after the Christmas holiday to think about this more but in the meantime collect a fair amount of literature about this, and other Philosophical debates about Grounded Theory (and heck, more literature about Grounded Theory and everything else in general!)

So, lots of thinking to do next year!

‘till next time folks, remember: if Santa isn’t able to come down the chimney then use the front door!

December 07, 2015

Beginning of the reflecting, planning and wind down processes

Recently I have managed to complete the most challenging and most significant academic task that I set myself between late September up to Christmas and that is understanding Grounded Theory enough so that I can start laying out the outline and structure of the literature review and the positioning or ordering of the discussion of different sets of literature. Further, to also understand the way in which other sets of literature shall be used within the analysis of data, which shall be reported within the methodology chapter. I have completed and sent the first draft of the outline of the Grounded Theory literature review recently to the supervisor but since then, I have had more ideas about what should be in the literature review. Therefore during the past week or so I have been improving the layout and the structure of the literature review so shall send this to him at a later date before the Christmas holiday. I’ve also been working on ideas for magazine articles and identifying more magazines to contact but this is my research blog, not a business blog!

I would rather have completed the task earlier and be ahead on schedule than be struggling with it right before Christmas as that would not have been nice. It is always better to complete a task early and effectively if you can, because it does give you a nice feeling that you have completed a task that you set yourself. It also gives you a chance to bring forward certain plans so that you can start the next task early. I could have done that, but I have realised this time period to be better spent improving the layout and structure of the literature review so that I have a better understanding of what it is I am writing about. Because I’m taking a Christmas holiday it is better to do this as I can then remind myself of my progress after the holiday and be able to quickly move on with the reading and construction of the chapter without struggling to know where to start next.

So, the tasks that remain Ph.D wise up to the holiday is to complete improvements of the literature review structure and layout, to reflect on the past year, and to plan for the next year. Therefore the next post shall more than likely be a more reflective post discussing the main points of the past year and what I felt I have achieved, and then the post after that shall discuss planning and activities for the next year, and what I would like to achieve.

That’s about it! Christmas is on its way so whilst there shall be some reading taking place, any significant tasks shall now take place in the new year else if I do start any new and significant tasks I’ll just be thinking about them during Christmas. Quite frankly there shall be far too many mince pies, Christmas cake, turkey pasties and alcohol to consume to worry about anything to do with my work!

‘till next time folks, remember: Christmas is coming! Actually, I started listening to Christmas songs from the beginning of November!

November 29, 2015

Grounded Theory Literature Review: Progress!

Progress has been made in this aspect of the Grounded Theory study. The traditional aim of the literature review is to provide a full analysis, synthesis and critical evaluation of existing literature (both theoretical and empirical) in order to develop an argumentation or a series of arguments pertaining to the need and requirement of the proposed research. Further, the literature review shows where there are knowledge gaps, places the proposed research therefore in a suitable theoretical and practical context, and demonstrates the uniqueness and originality of the research. A typical product of a literature review is a theoretical model or framework of investigation that is usually imposed upon the research itself or in other words the research is led by this theoretical framework that is developed from the literature (or other existing theories and models, or a mixture of everything).

Grounded Theory is different from many other qualitative research methods and therefore the literature review and the literature are dealt with in substantially different ways than these other methods. Grounded Theory is an inductive research methodology therefore the theory, theorisation, theoretical framework (or whatever: literature appears to use the terms interchangeably) occurs from the actual analysis of the data and not deductively constructed from the literature therefore there are no pre existing frameworks or frameworks developed from the literature imposed upon the data analysis. In other words, within the context of Grounded Theory the analysis of the data is not framed or set within a particular framework or theoretical perspective; the analysis is not led by existing theories, but is led by careful interpretation of the researcher.

Therefore, the role of the literature review changes from providing a basis for the development of a theoretical framework (typically) to purely providing the means to state the case of the research. The role of the literature also changes: not only are certain sets of literature used to contribute towards understanding the need of the research and what existing research states, but also certain sets are used within the constant comparison method itself as further data. Literature itself can therefore be used as data and can be analysed along with all other data types within a Grounded Theory context.

Learning about this is continuous however I fully understand now that anything can be used as data. Specifically with the literature, the key is not to discard it completely as suggested by some authors but to use it in a way that carefully contributes toward an effective process of theory or theorisation generation. As can be imagined, the literature around this specific topic is an absolute minefield, but it is Charmaz and her book on Constructivist Grounded Theory that was key to understanding the way that literature should be used, and confirmed my previous thoughts about the role of literature within Grounded Theory.  Charmaz argues that it is not that existing literature and frameworks should be ignored, but that they should be used in a certain way that increases reliability and validity of the Grounded Theory development.

A breakthrough occurred during the past week in terms of not just understanding the role of the literature review within a Grounded Theory study, but the content of the literature review and the purpose of the literature within that review and within the data analysis itself. Of course, all these ideas will need to be confirmed by the Supervisor and I have been sending him fairly extensive emails. In summary I have been able to outline a structure of the literature review and be able to describe the purpose of each section, and starting to understand the way in which the literature can play its part in increasing the validity and reliability of the findings of the Grounded Theory research. This breakthrough was based on developing a clearer understanding of what “theoretical sensitising” actually means: with Grounded Theory research, the literature can be used to increase theoretical sensitivity or in other words increase the researcher’s sensitivity towards particular general constructs or concepts and not actual specific activities or processes as determined by a pre existing framework or theory. Essentially, this means that a researcher becomes aware of particular concepts and constructs that might occur in the data but not actually impose a particular framework upon the analysis. Being theoretically sensitive towards concepts and constructs differs from actually imposing a particular framework or theory upon data analysis, but I shall leave this for another blog post at some point in the future. Additionally using Grounded Theory shall have an impact on the way that the thesis shall be structured compared to the structure if any other type of method or methodology was used but again shall discuss this more in future blog posts.

Goodness, that’s a lot of thinking going on!

‘Till next time folks, remember: it’s the beginning of Advent and if you’re going to start telling seasonal jokes make sure you pull a cracker of a joke!

Initial thoughts on the methodological issues of integrating quantitative and qualitative data

Regular readers will have probably noted the discussions I have made (or starting to make) about the Philosophical difficulties of integrating quantitative and qualitative data in a single research study, relating mostly to the fact that quantitative is usually associated with the Positivist perspective whilst qualitative is usually associated with the Interpretivist perspective. But what I have not really touched upon at all are the difficulties of the methodological perspective (yes: there are Philosophical difficulties AND methodological difficulties, and both appear to be related to each other: check earlier blog entries that discuss relationships between Philosophy and Methodology). The methodological perspective is beginning to gain more attention as I come to understand Grounded Theory, and a couple of questions that have come to me are: what methods are appropriate for data integration? Along with, which methods are suitable for my research?

With the data collection this is no longer a problem: a mixed data questionnaire shall collect both qualitative and quantitative data and an extra method or couple of methods shall be used to gather more qualitative data. Quantitative data shall be analysed using a series of different statistical methods (descriptive statistics and also methods to identify and analyse relationships between different identified variables), whilst qualitative data shall be analysed using a series of analytical methods inherent to Grounded Theory processes (though there are some debates about the usefulness of some methods depending on the context of the research). Essentially, Grounded Theory involves interpretation of the collected data, and to develop codes and categories using the coding methods in order to explain or describe what is actually going on within the data. These codes and categories are developed for each qualitative data set and then compared across each set using a method called “constant comparison.”

Describing the “constant comparison” technique is way beyond the purpose of this blog post, but it suffices to say that it is used as a mode of comparing codes and categories across data sets as part of the process of continuous and simultaneous data collection and analysis, in order to develop a theory or to theorise about what is going on within the data. It’s a bit more complicated than that but for now that’s the best way that it can be described rather briefly. The point I am trying to make here is there has to be a way to generate codes and categories from statistical, quantitative data in a way that is comparable and compatible with codes and categories generated from qualitative data, in order for constant comparison to be utalised across all data sets produced from all data collection methods. If this is possible within my own research, then the theory or theorisation that shall occur as a result of analysing and integrating different data sets shall increase its reliability, validity, and possibly even generalisability. But this is something that I shall need to work out and perhaps it might be related to the quantitative methods: could I create comparable and compatible codes and categories from descriptive statistics? Could comparable and compatible codes and categories be generated from relational descriptive data analysis such as, say, the likes of ANOVA? What about regression analysis? Are codes and categories even meant to be compatible and comparable across differing data sets? If not, then in what way can a theory or theorisation even begin to happen if these codes and categories cannot integrate? What, exactly, is required to develop a theory or theorisation from a complete and cohesive collection of data? In what way can a collection of data be considered complete and cohesive? Does any of that even matter?

There are many many issues and problems, debates and perspectives relating to Philosophy and Methodology of data integration that shall have to be considered, and as you can imagine I shall probably banter on about them on here as and when I come across them! Regardless I do have the belief that I can create comparable and compatibles codes and categories across all data sets. I have the belief that Positivism and Interpretivism in some way can complement each other rather than compete with each other. But I do not know this for sure at this time: this time next year I might have a completely different picture of the way that Grounded Theory works and the way in which integration of quantitative and qualitative data can happen and should be appropriate for the context of my research. But that’s the way research forms and develops!

November 20, 2015

Weekly Ramblings: first run through of Kathy Charmaz's book!

This week I have given Kathy Charmaz’s book “Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” a first reading run through. The first reading run through is to mean an attempt at attaining a consensus or understanding as to the suitability of this flavour of Grounded Theory to my own (majority) qualitative research. From the first reading, I can confirm that this approach to Grounded Theory is very suitable for my own research project and the way that I perceive research and its role in understanding processes and reality itself. Reasons and arguments for this are in development, but I shall try to be as brief as I can with this blog post (Me, brief? Haha!)

Can a researcher really stand in a purely objective position when it comes to analysing their data? Can a researcher really detach themselves from their own perspectives of reality and their own subjective notations of reality and really analyse the data from an objective position? Can or should a qualitative researcher (important question for my own research) detach themselves from their own perspectives and consider only the perspectives of their participants? What is the role of the perspectives of the qualitative researcher, and what impact could these perspectives have on the research itself?

Constructivist Grounded Theory places both the researcher and participants’ perspectives as central to investigating the phenomenon of research interest. Charmaz takes the position that because of the constructivist, interpretivist style of Constructivist Grounded Theory, what is being constructed is an interpretation of the data or, in other words, what is being constructed is a theorising of the data, not a theory itself, through analysing and interpreting the data leading to the construction of codes and categories that explains what is going on, along with identifying and analysing relationships between these categories, memo writing processes, and saturating these categories till theoretical saturation has been achieved. This leads into subjectivity and not objectivity because there are no predetermined theoretical frameworks or theories being imposed upon the researcher’s lens of analysing the data, therefore the researcher simply analyses the data and interprets the data through developing those codes and categories that describes that the data an abstract level. There is no testing or experimentation of existing theories but there is a sense of inductive theoretical development through forming mini hypotheses as a result of analysing the data followed by testing these mini hypotheses through further data collection and analysis, which contributes to further theorising of the data and eventually leading to theoretical saturation.

What do I think of all this? Exciting in a way because I would not be imposing any theoretical frameworks or existing theories onto my analysis of the data, and I like this because I have always felt that if I used an existing theory or model of the learning process I would be quite limited in what I can really analyse and observe and this is something that I have picked up as a fundamental methodological problem in other literature. It is scary, there is no doubt about that, but I feel that this approach, and the flavour of Grounded Theory, is right for the context of my own research. Additionally, and as I said before, I am beginning to reject the notion of an objective reality. Being an interpretive or constructivist myself, I find that Constructivist Grounded Theory is compatible with my own perspectives of reality, and also the context of my research. My research is exploring a connection between Philosophy and Education (with Psychology and Technology thrown in) that has not really been considered, or theorised, much about before therefore it would probably be quite impossible to apply existing theories into my own research including the combination of existing theories. A new theory, or a new area of theorising, needs to be developed, and that is exactly what I am setting out to achieve. As I said, it is a scary approach, but at the same time the freedom of intellectual creativity and development inherent in Grounded Theory excites and fascinates me, and I am sure that I shall have a lot of fun with it, as well as head banging against the keyboard moments!

There might be a slight problem however: the questionnaire instrument that I have created is predominantly quantitative: most of the questions that I ask are of a variety that entails the collection of quantitative data, with the aim of exploring and identifying relationships between various constructs (variables) of the phenomenon being considered. I might have to increase the number of qualitative research questions in order to use this as further data for the qualitative analysis (Constructivist Grounded Theory can use a variety of text based documents as data: including extant literature), or find some way in which quantitative data could be used within a Constructivist Grounded Theory approach given that the original authors of Grounded Theory (Glass and Strauss) have suggested that Grounded Theory works with quantitative and qualitative data. Perhaps I might have to create my own interpretation of the Grounded Theory method that includes ideas from both Charmaz and Glass and Strauss. Books from other flavours of Grounded Theory shall be read through soon and I shall try to consider ways in which they could be included in my own version of Grounded Theory and whether or not this really is applicable.

As ever, lots to do, and as I have said I have given the book a first read through of specific chapters. The following readings of the book shall simply increase my understanding of the way to use Constructivist Grounded Theory in my research, and why it is applicable. The various arguments for and against this method and other methods shall be complimented by a full exploration of other relevant literature that explores the many aspects of Grounded Theory particularly Constructivist Grounded Theory. Along with thinking about the way that features of other flavours of Grounded Theory could be used whilst staying true to an interpretivist, constructivist perspective but if I have to shift along the Ontological and Epistemological spectrum towards the middle range of perspectives then that is what I shall do: I shall simply let the existing literature guide my thinking on this and try not to fit everything wthin any preexisting conceptions that I might have. Flexibility is a key characteristic of a Grounded Theorist or of any researcher, and this is something that needs to be heeded.

So then, where did I put my candles and coffee?

‘till next time folks, stay grounded, and theoretical, constructively speaking!

November 12, 2015

The Epistemology of Grounded Theory: brief thoughts on intial readings

During the past week, I shall admit, I have found the prospect of using Grounded Theory to be a little bit daunting. Books and other literature written by Strauss and Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz are the key literature in defining different main flavours of Grounded Theory, and whilst they all share commonality on some aspects of Grounded Theory (e.g., that it leads to some sort of new theory) they differ significantly on others (e.g., placement and role of the literature, what is actually produced, and epistemological positioning). The key understanding that I currently have on Grounded Theory from the literature that I have read so far and continue to read is that the application of Grounded Theory is extremely diverse and can be suited to fit the research agenda. That’s not to say, however, that Grounded Theory can be twisted and distorted completely out of proportion and original conceptions too much, but it is to say that it appears to offer a very flexible implementation and according to some of the Ph.D. theses I have had a read through that uses Grounded Theory, not every feature and instruction of Grounded Theory needs to be implemented. It really depends on the context and direction of the research. Understandably therefore, there is a myriad of literature which argues for and against different flavours of Grounded Theory, present different versions of Grounded Theory, applies and argues for and against different features of Grounded Theory, and tackles an assortment of different characteristics of Grounded Theory such as validity, reliability, rigour and limitations. Another important aspect of Grounded Theory and something that I shall probably need to tackle first in the thesis is the Epistemological orientation of Grounded Theory.

Epistemology, which is a branch of Philosophy that tackles the understanding of what knowledge is, the way we acquire knowledge of reality and the sources used to acquire this knowledge, might appear to be completely irrelevant to a particular research project but it is very important to be able to tackle epistemological problems of Grounded Theory or any other research method that you choose to adopt. This is because Epistemology in research deals with methodological problems and considerations around the way that particular method or methodology collects data and understands the way in which knowledge of reality should be acquired. This is something that is not really tackled in Ph.D. theses according to commentary from some Professors, so this is an area that I am keen to explore to a much greater depth than I had considered during the first year.

Remember that methodology defines the overall umbrella of the research design. A research design can therefore be experimental or quasi-experimental (therefore quantitative) or either of a selection of different qualitative methodologies such as case based or phenomenology. Quantitative data is usually associated with Positivist or Post Positivists perspectives of reality (that reality is fixed and knowledge is already there therefore easily obtainable through deconstructing this reality into a series of statistically calculable variables and their relationships) whilst qualitative data is associated with Interpretivist or Constructivist perspectives of reality (where it is believed that reality is not fixed or constant and therefore people construct different realities or different perspectives of a particular phenomenon). It is quite important for me to understand and further develop my understanding of this because Grounded Theory can work with both, and this is where I have found Grounded Theory to be a little daunting (as well as its actual application but this is another matter for another blog post and the more I read the more I am understanding its application anyway but it all takes time) because for many months I have read textbooks that suggest Grounded Theory is or should be associated only with an Interpretivist or Constructivist perspective. So to read that this is actually incorrect and that the original authors of Grounded Theory, Strauss and Glaser, intended it to be used with both quantitative and qualitative data, was quite interesting indeed and again this is an area that I need to understand further. This is made all the more interesting when Grounded Theory is used as a method of analysing qualitative data within a Mixed Methods methodology. With Mixed Method methodologies, the epistemological position is Pragmatism; therefore, there comes epistemological issues with the fact that an interpretivist or constructivist epistemologically based method is being used within a design that is inherently pragmatic.

Confused yet?!

There is a plethora of literature that argues back and forth, forwards and backwards about the epistemological stance of Grounded Theory. Without a doubt, I shall have to get to grips with this literature further, and through this understanding of the literature develop a particular stance and argue this stance in the thesis. This is important as there appears to be a general consensus for all Ph.D. candidates regardless of research method and methodology to involve themselves and really explore and argue epistemological positions, the compatibility issues, and so on.

A current initial thought of mine is that Grounded Theory could be viewed as a general interpretivist methodology, as it has been suggested in some Ph.D. theses that what is actually developed is an interpretation or perspective of the data, and not actually a strict theory.

This is just the beginning.

‘tii next blog post, remember children: don’t believe everything you read in your textbooks at school, but at the same time don’t challenge your teachers about it because you’ll get detention and be accused of being disruptive and unteachable (just kidden!)

November 06, 2015

Weekly Ramblings Part Two: Literature Review and Literature Reading

Welcome to the second part! You ready? Previous blog post didn’t put you off? Excellent! The other major activity that I have been involved with this week is thinking about the literature review and reading through the literature that I have been collecting.

The literature review

As the regular readers (if there are any, hello out there!) shall probably know by now (I’ve been going on and on about it and shall do for the time being) I’ve been thinking about the literature review for a while: its structure, content, and general approach to it. I had been thinking earlier the previous year about adopting a Critical Interpretive Analysis approach to constructing a literature review but I have now realised this is not going to work. This is because the Critical Interpretive Approach from what I can understand is not compatible with the Grounded Theory approach that I have now decided to use as the general research methodology.

What has to be remembered when writing the Ph.D. thesis is that the construction of the literature review must be compatible with whatever research methodological approach is utalised. You cannot write a meta analysis literature review (which is a quantitative approach to analysing literature) if your research methodology is qualitative as it just would not work and would be incompatible, from my current understanding. The Critical Interpretive Analysis would have resulted in a theoretical or conceptual framework developed from the findings of existing literature, which could have been used to lead the research directions and subsequent discussions; however, Grounded Theory opposes the use of a theoretical framework in this way because it advocates an inductive, theory building approach and not a deductive approach or an approach where some sort of preexisting theoretical framework is used to drive analysis of the data.

The approach to and purpose of the literature review must therefore change, and I do have ideas that I am developing with regards to this but shall have to read more literature on Grounded Theory and its application within existing Ph.Ds. for further assistance and examples.

Literature Reading

Excellent progress during the week and I have worked out now what learning models referring to various learning processes that shall be analysed, critiqued, compared and contrasted in order to find similarities and differences. The critiques and reflections shall be used then to provide reasoning as to why the foundations of all of these models have been incorrectly built and why they do not really capture the full and true essence of the learning processes they are attempting to model or theorise about. Indeed, I’ve come across literature that has applied some of these models and they concur that some of these models really don’t capture that full essence. Obviously there is still lots to read and search as I have to show evidence that I have exhausted the literature as much as possible until I reach literature saturation point, which is the point where I can reasonably conclude that findings across literature demonstrates particular patterns across the different areas of investigation interests.

Along with all the reading I’ve also written extensive notes, and this is a brilliant idea to do so because as reading progresses there shall always be opportunities and possibilities to develop ideas so it is always best to write everything down and not discard anything. 

In all it’s been an interesting week with that discussion about Social Justice and the ideas that have been continuously developed as a result of continuous reading. ‘Till next time, make sure you check your bonfires for animals, and try not to get too close to fireworks, and if you are attending any events this weekend do be safe and have fun!

November 01, 2015

Grounded in theories; surrounded by literature!

Have now recovered from yesterday’s drinking shenanigans and from the Zombie infestation of my local town (not just your typical Saturday night crowd!) though I did managed to escape the housing area without being mauled by little zombies and werewolves! Did I dress up for Halloween? Nope, but I went as myself: the Hairy Cornishman, and after receiving a couple of compliments from women I was beginning to believe it was my birthday, not Halloween! Anyway, that was yesterday: it’s now time to get back to more serious things such as my work. Grounded in theories; surrounded by literature? Absolutely!

Progress on Grounded Theory

Until very recently I have held the belief that Grounded Theory is a qualitative only research method; that theory could only be developed through developing categories and codes based on text based data. I have since come across a couple of research papers that states that Grounded Theory doesn’t just work with qualitative data as it can also work with quantitative data. This took me by surprise, so after more reading into the subject I found that Grounded Theory had been originally defined as being compatible with both quantitative and qualitative data. I then sent an email to my supervisor about this and he said that it was an excellent observation that I made with regards to Grounded Theory being compatible with both data types therefore I am guessing from this that there is a fair percentage of Ph.D. candidates who use Grounded Theory that are not aware of the fact that it is compatible with both qualitative and quantitative data.

It makes you realise that there are authors and academics that use terms interchangeably and apply different meanings to these terms depending on contexts. As an example of this, particular learning models that explore certain aspects of learning can be defined as exploring another aspect of learning such as critical thinking models have been defined by some authors as models of interaction. Another example is where a theory has been incorrectly defined as a framework, and a framework has been incorrectly defined as a theory. Perhaps there needs to be more standardisation in the meanings of what exactly a framework is or what exactly a theory is because this apparent lack of standards and definitions and the apparent interchangeable terminology could easily confuse those who do not have their wits about them.

Surrounded by literature!

Lots of it, lots and lots and lots and lots and you get the picture (or the book, or research paper!). The main reading activities at the moment involve empirical papers that are most likely going to have a role in the development of the literature review and the methodology chapters. These are papers that describe the development of particular analytical models, and papers that describe the implementation of these models across varying learning contexts and environments in relation to the use of certain technology to support particular learning processes. I have written extensive notes (pages and pages) and continue to do this with regards to the methodologies and methods that have been used to explore online learning processes in terms of their usefulness, the uses, and limitations of these methodologies and methods, and what other methods and methodologies could be used to enhance existing research. Similarly I have made extensive notes on the way that various analytical models have been implemented and used across various subjects and contexts. These contexts have included different instructional tasks and their design, and different subjects, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level although focussing on exploring literature based on postgraduates first as these shall be the focus of the Ph.D. research.

The aim is to provide a full comparison, contrast, analysis and synthesis of all these different models that explore different aspects of particular learning processes and give reasoning as to why existing models are not totally accurate or comprehensive enough, and to therefore provide reasoning as to why a new model or theory needs to be developed.

An important aspect of all this is to keep documenting ideas: for an average empirical paper, I can write on average a couple of pages of notes but I can write much more than I do. At the moment I am just documenting ideas as they come to me as I read but eventually when the reading of empirical papers has gone beyond a particular point (can’t read forever!) I shall then go through the notes and expand upon the ideas. Eventually after analysing and synthesising ideas that have been documented I can then begin forming a proper structure to the literature review and the methodology chapters.

So, not much to do then! It’s all fun, and it gives you a sense of accomplishment when you have come out with even just an idea. The trick (or treat) is not to worry about quantity but think about the quality. It is much better to write less and have more quality ideas than have pages and pages of what could prove to be meaningless dribble, but at this stage this is not of a concern: the idea is to document every idea and thought, and either remove them or expand upon them when I go through the notes. It is a carefully constructed process, and no step can be missed else mistakes shall happen. It can feel a little chaotic as you have pages of ideas around in what appears not to be very cohesive or consistent ordering, but that’s the way all learning journeys begin and progress: it is only later in any learning process that you begin to make sense of everything.

Keep going, and never give up!

‘till next time: trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrick or trrrrreeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaat!

February 2023

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  |
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28               

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • Thank you :) by Alex Darracott on this entry
  • Keep going! You can make it! by Ya Lei on this entry
  • Thank you for your comment and for your feedback and you are right about the student perspective of … by Alex Darracott on this entry
  • I think that 'objectivism' (like positivism) is over–rated in social sciences (and of course, you wi… by Liviu Damsa on this entry
  • Cider consumption shall come into it when chanting mumble jumble no longer helps :P ;) by Alex Darracott on this entry

Blog archive

RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder