All 14 entries tagged Methodology

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!

Alex Darracott : 09 Jan 2016 20:56 |  Tags: Design Groundedtheory Methodology Research |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

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!

Alex Darracott : 09 Dec 2015 16:25 |  Tags: Epistemology Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

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!

Alex Darracott : 29 Nov 2015 16:10 |  Tags: Groundedtheory Methodology Qualitative Quantitative |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

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!)

Alex Darracott : 12 Nov 2015 12:59 |  Tags: Epistemology Groundedtheory Methodology Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

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!

Alex Darracott : 06 Nov 2015 23:47 |  Tags: Groundedtheory Litreview Methodology Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

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!

Alex Darracott : 01 Nov 2015 12:27 |  Tags: Groundedtheory Litreview Methodology Thesis |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Ph.D. research design: as it currently stands

If there is ever a time to really think about the research methodology, the research questions, and the compatibility between research methodology and research questions, it’s now early in the Ph.D. process. The first year was really more of an introduction to research methodologies and to give you a chance to explore various methodologies and methods, but the second year (of the part time version anyway) begins the nitty gritty of really thinking about your methodology and methods in preparation for collecting and analysing data and also in preparation of the Upgrade paper and presentation (not to mention the literature review and methodology chapters of the thesis). When I really think about the design that I am creating, it is fairly flexible: it needs to be, and it needs to be absolutely accurate and correct because the design advocates a theory building context so the validity, reliability, accuracy, compatibility, comparability, and the use and merging of different forms of data and methods are well thought out and documented otherwise the theory could simply fall apart.

Previously I had been thinking about combining quantitative and qualitative data in with Grounded Theory but I’m having difficulties in figuring out the way in which these very different forms of data could merge (even though there are some comments in literature that suggests that this is possible) given that Grounded Theory’s analytical processes really are designed for qualitative data. Even the Constructivist Grounded Theory from what I can currently understand (still learning about it) does not deal with quantitative data. I do understand though that Constructivist Grounded Theory does take into account the values, perspectives, and so on, of the participants and the researcher more so than previous versions of Grounded Theory when it comes to the development of a theory. A potential problem here that I can vision is that a lot of the perspectives of the participants are due to be collected using quantitative processes within a survey method: I might have to redo the design of the survey to increase compatibility but I will have to do more reading and thinking into this area of using surveys with Grounded Theory.

Alternatively, I might not need to alter anything too much as I have found an interesting paper that described its research methodology as a mix of Grounded Theory and other methods including a Survey not in a Mixed Methods context, but in a more flexible context. Further reading into such a design that accommodates both qualitative and quantitative data and the use of multiple methods and perspectives with the aim of developing a new theory has led to the finding of what could effectively and broadly conceptualise and explain my research design. What is it called? Drum roll please………..

A flexible, triangulated theory building design

Now then, obviously I am taking on a fair bit here because I am not planning, designing, developing and implementing a single method, single approach design: I am planning, designing, developing and implementing a multi-method, potentially multi-perspective, research design that aims to develop theory as reliability and valid as is possible.

The biggest challenge here for me is to design not only the individual methods, but to design the entire methodology in a way that the results from all methods can merge as cohesively, coherently, reliably, feasibly and validly as possible, in a way that can assist with effective theory building and a substantial understanding of what is really going on within the phenomenon of investigation.

This shall include very careful consideration of the design of each method, suitability of each method, and very carefully planning the merging of the data at analysis level. There are going to be lots of areas to address in particularly the possibility that the research shall contain both positivist and interpretivist paradigms. I am not sure if this really will occur but if so, given that I am a constructivist this might prove to be interesting. Also what needs addressing are the different arguments for and against different methods, and the problems associated with each method and a way that a cohesive and coherent plan and design can minimise or eliminate these problems and therefore generating more reliable and valid findings, leading to the development of theory that is grounded in research that is well designed.

Interesting times in the research design: lots to think about, lots to write about, lots to read about, and lots of planning, designing, experimenting and implementation! It all feels a little daunting, but I know that I am on the right track and the methodology that I propose is the right methodology for the context and phenomenon of exploration.

Obviously all this shall be in consultation with the supervisor and shall be assessed at the Upgrade presentation. In the meanwhile: strong hot chocolate and late nights!

Alex Darracott : 15 Oct 2015 12:58 |  Tags: Design Methodology |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Initial thoughts about Constructivist Grounded Theory

The more I consider my own perspectives of reality and the way that researchers acquire knowledge of reality, the more I lean towards Grounded Theory as part of my Ph.D. research design. Grounded Theory, regardless of its flavour, is a research methodology that guides the researcher into constructing a theory of a phenomenon from an interpretation of the data itself using a series of codes, concepts and categories. It is a method of abstract and conceptual thinking where theory is built from these codes, concepts and categories and relies on logical, reasonable interpretations of the data and extensive documentation (in my case, the Ph.D. thesis and probably some part of the appendices).

Grounded Theory was originally a marriage between two different perspectives of reality from two different sociologists: Barney Glaser and his stance on Positivism, and Anseim Strauss and his stance on a more interpretivist approach, and eventually because of these differing stances they both professionally separated and promoted their own versions of Grounded Theory in a series of their respective publications. However, despite various flavours of Grounded Theory the variety that is currently receiving a lot of attention from me, and therefore selected as the preferred flavour of Grounded Theory, is Constructivist Grounded Theory, whose Philosophical roots lie in Pragmatism and Relativism and is developed by a student of Glaser and Strauss called Kathy Charmaz.

I first came across Constructivist Grounded Theory right at the beginning of the Ph.D. over a year ago but had not given it much thought at the time: what attracted me initially at the beginning was the term “constructivism,” which immediately suggests that some sort of marriage between the researcher, the participants, and the construction of reality. Now that I have gone back to re-examining my research design, Constructivist Grounded Theory is my favourite type of Grounded Theory so far. There are arguments made by various authors, particularly Glaser, that suggests that Constructivist Grounded Theory goes against the principles behind the development of Grounded Theory, but it can also be suggested that Grounded Theory was originally conceived at the time when Positivism and Realism were the dominant philosophies of research. Constructivist Grounded Theory was developed in the 1990s at a time when Social Science research paradigms began to lean more towards Constructivism, Interpretivism and Relativism based Philosophies.

I shall be using Constructivist Grounded Theory as part of my research design to build a new theory of the phenomenon being investigated, primarily because of the social constructivist orientation and also because it encourages the development of a literature review prior to data collection whereas the other varieties of Grounded Theory advocates the development of a literature review after the data collection and analysis and I do not really agree with that perspective.

Alex Darracott : 15 Oct 2015 12:48 |  Tags: Design Methodology |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Grounded Theory? Mixed Methods? Both? Current ponderings!

In a blog post yesterday I suggested that my research was going to be based on a Grounded Theory approach using Mixed Methods methodology. After spending till after midnight yesterday reading up on the subject and from what I have been reading this evening I can safely assume that I was talking complete nonsense. Well, possibly, but that's the beauty of learning: you think about things, and you develop your ideas and approaches based on your continuous learning and thinking, and the beauty of having a blog such as this is that the thinking, learning and development of ideas can be documented! So, where is my thinking at the moment? Methodologically speaking I can push the research in a couple of different ways: use a pure Grounded Theory approach, or used a Mixed Methods approach using Grounded Theory to explore qualitative data. That’s where my current thinking is: I know for sure that other types such an Ethnographic study, a Phenomenological study, an Action Research study, a Narrative Research study and so on are not appropriate for the aims of this research, and that is to develop a new theory that explains the relationship between constructs of a phenomenon of investigation.

I could use Grounded Theory and use quantitative and qualitative data to generate a new theory that explains this relationship among constructs, or I could develop a Mixed Methods study that initially uses Grounded Theory to develop a theory from qualitative data, and then collect and analyse quantitative data to experiment with this new theory. But I’m not sure at this time if I want to actually implement such a research design because the goal is to create a new theory and not to create and then experiment with the new theory: I’m not sure that there is enough time to create such a massive study and then having to write about everything that there is unless I am allowed to hand in a thesis that is a couple of hundred thousand words!

I’m quite happy that I’m really thinking about this because it shows engagement not just with the phenomenon of investigation but with the research methodology and the extent to which I can develop and push research methodologies and methods to really explore and acquire knowledge of that phenomenon. This refers to what I could class as the Philosophy of Research Methods and thinking about the research methods at this level includes the following questions in relation to my own research:

What extent could Mixed Methods methodology with Grounded Theory explore reality and the relationship between the constructs of the phenomenon that is being investigated?

What impact would the different Mixed Methods approaches have on the findings, and therefore on the development of the theory?

Comparing a pure Grounded Theory approach to a Mixed Methods approach, which method could really assist with contributing towards theoretical development?

What extent could Grounded Theory be pushed to explore the behaviour of a phenomenon of investigation?

Could Grounded Theory represent a more authentic reality and therefore provide the basis of a more convincing explanation of reality than Mixed Methods? Or vice versa?

The current contention is, I shall be using multiple methods within either methodology (Grounded Theory and Mixed Methods are known as methodologies although different authors have classed differently but they all have essentially the same meaning) so determining the answers to the questions asked might in part be answered by the way in which each methodology handles the multiple methods that I shall be using.

So, a lot of thinking to do! I shall be exploring both Mixed Methods and Grounded Theory methodologies over the next few weeks to really find out which would be most suitable for the aim of my research and the questions that I want to explore.

This shall also prove to be interesting for the Upgrade process because in the report and presentation a line of reasoning needs to be given as to why a certain methodology has been selected over other methodologies. Therefore, comparing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods methodologies in the context of my research should provide plenty of material to work with!

Alex Darracott : 11 Oct 2015 00:18 |  Tags: Design Groundedtheory Methodology Mixedmethods Philosophy |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Weekly ramblings: opportunities and getting settled on methodologies and methods!

Open Doors!

A big opportunity might have opened up during the past week regarding publication of a second research paper! This is because of the positive feedback I had regarding the second assignment of the Advanced Research Methods course that I did as part of the first year of the Ph.D. with regards to the literature that I had critically analysed and explained the need for the questionnaire instrument that I am developing.

The supervisor was pleased that I had explored the literature and offered a unique perspective, and in my opinion that opens the door now to convert and extend relevant discussions for the conference paper at next year’s Warwick University conference early in the Summer. Still early days as to the exact directions this shall take, but my initial thinking is the conference paper shall extend relevant discussions on the survey instrument that I am developing.

Deciding on the methodology!

The following quote from the research methodology book “Qualitative Research Designs: Selection and Implementation” sums up the sheer amount of approaches to qualitative research

“The qualitative researcher faces a baffling array of options for conducting qualitative research”

Phenomenology, Ethnography, Case Study, Grounded Theory, and Participant Research are all different types of qualitative methodologies, with the additional different types and variants of each qualitative methodology. Not only this, but there are also various quantitative research methodologies around and also there are mixed methods approaches where a variety of different methods are used to provide a richer set of data, as well as the many different Philosophical perspectives of research (mostly relating to ontological and epistemological perspectives of reality). To the junior researcher, it can turn into a baffling mixture therefore they need to carefully construct their questions and understand their own mind and perspectives of reality before they really tackle the selection of methodology and methods. Many research textbooks emphasise the relationship between perspectives of reality, methodology, methods, and research questions therefore all of this needs very careful consideration from the very beginning and the only real way this is going to be understood is to start reading and keep reading! Questions shall change as reading progresses and therefore it might be likely that methods shall change: I know that I have changed my research questions several times to explore the same phenomenon and probably will change some of the questions in the future with the aim of increasing compatibility between questions asked and methodology selected. The key thing to remember is never believe that this is a once only process: this is a continuous process during the early stages of the Ph.D. as the reading and your thinking progresses and develops.

With my own methodological considerations, I have always liked the idea of Mixed Methods research design to explore the phenomenon of investigation even before starting the Ph.D. and this is something that I have stuck with. I had also very early decided on using surveys as an approach to collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, but also required a pure qualitative method to analyse any interview transcripts or discussion transcripts. Following the reading of various chapters of research methodology books, I have now settled on Grounded Theory. This was fairly easy to decide once I started to compare different qualitative research designs as I have an interpretivist, constructivist perspective of reality and Grounded Theory is compatible with these perspectives.

However, I have not yet decided on the way that survey data is going to be analysed and also have not worked out the way in which cross comparative analysis shall also take place. That is going to take a little while to build (and hopefully another research paper!)

So is that it then? Now that I’ve settled on the majority of the data collection and analysis methods can I just get on with it? Not at all: this is only just the beginning!

What’s next? The following lists some of the activities during the next year or so as part of the upgrade process:

• Develop extensive understanding about the flavours and approaches of Grounded Theory methodology

  
  

• Complete the questionnaire method if possible in time for showcasing at the conference via a conference paper early next year

  
  

• More extensive learning on Mixed Methods methodology: its many flavours and approaches to collecting and analysing data and choose that which is most relevant

  
  

• Develop substantial argumentation that supports the overall research design, the relationships between selected methods, the way they have been integrated, and why certain methods and methodology have been selected over other methods and methodology

  
  

• Panic

  
  

• Drink strong coffee

  
  

• Chant some mumble jumble telling myself that everything will be alright

  
  

• Explore and choose most relevant quantitative data analysis methods

  
  

• Remember why I’m doing a Ph.D.

  
  

• Plan, Design and Develop quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques

  
  

• Figure out in what way this organised chaos of a research design is supposed to work

  
  

• Panic again

  
  

• Drink strong coffee again

  
  

• Chant yet more mumble jumble

  
  

Sounds like a plan! Thanks for reading and shall post up more musings soon!

Alex Darracott : 09 Oct 2015 23:02 |  Tags: Design Methodology Opportunities Reflection |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem