• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Grounded Theory Method - Muller
 

Grounded Theory Method - Muller

on

  • 13,512 views

Presentation at HCIC 2010, Winter Park, CO, USA, February 2010

Presentation at HCIC 2010, Winter Park, CO, USA, February 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
13,512
Views on SlideShare
13,334
Embed Views
178

Actions

Likes
8
Downloads
526
Comments
3

8 Embeds 178

http://www.slideshare.net 87
http://ocedresearchinternship.wikispaces.com 84
http://pinterest.com 2
http://8.ig.gmodules.com 1
http://bb-app.csufresno.edu 1
https://knowledge.udmercy.edu 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1
http://www.pinterest.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

13 of 3 previous next Post a comment

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Grounded Theory Method - Muller Grounded Theory Method - Muller Presentation Transcript

    • Grounded Theory Methods Michael Muller IBM Research Cambridge, MA, USA michael_muller@us.ibm.com Thanks to: Sandra Kogan, Jennifer Thom-Santelli, David R Millen, Jane PrestonMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 1
    • Outline • An orientation toward Grounded Theory Method • Diversity, diversity, diversity… – From Glaser & Strauss Glaser vs. Strauss – “The second generation” of grounded theorists • One view of methods and practices • Quality and rigor • Conclusion • Major sources • Software packagesMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 2
    • Why Grounded Theory? • 63% of citations to qualitative analysis in Social Science Citation Index • Increasing references to Grounded Theory in ACM Digital Library • Useful for qualitative and quantitative data 140 • Combination of open mind with rigor and quality 120 Number of Papers returned by Search • However, not well-understood in HCI and CSCW 100 – Qualitative analysis vs. theory-building 80 – Use of quantitative data as well as qualitative 60 – Diversity in methodology 40 – Does grounded theory offer … methodology? theory? heuristics? 20 procedures? 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 YearMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 3
    • Why Grounded Theory? • 63% of citations to qualitative analysis in Social Science Citation Index • Increasing references to Grounded Theory in ACM Digital Library • Method for exploring a domain without a dominant theory • Useful for qualitative and quantitative data • Combination of open mind with rigor and quality • However, not well-understood in HCI and CSCW – Qualitative analysis vs. theory-building – Use of quantitative data as well as qualitative – Diversity in methodology – Does grounded theory offer … methodology? theory? heuristics? procedures?Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 4
    • Answer Questions such as… • How do decisions happen in this organizational culture? – Interview decision-makers and contributors – Choose among many possible interviewees – Describe a contextualized theory of decision-making • What are the value systems of a group of companies? – Examine public documents in detail – Choose among a huge library of documents – Understand values and value trade-offs in context • What kinds of online communities? – Analyze members, shared “goods,” social networks – in sum, and over community lifecycle – Choose among thousands of communities – Derive a typography of online communities – Develop a lifecycle model for each type of communityMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 5
    • A Way We Often (want to) Think • We want to think early about interpretation and theory • Grounded theory methodology offers a disciplined way to do this • Why pretend that we don’t interpret and theorize? – Why not turn our own tendencies to advantage!Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 6
    • A Way We Often (want to) Think • We want to think early about interpretation and theory • Grounded theory methodology offers a disciplined way to do this • Why pretend that we don’t interpret and theorize? – Why not turn our own tendencies to advantage! Charmaz: “Grounded theory methods consist of simultaneous data collection and analysis, with each informing and focusing the other throughout the research process. As grounded theorists, we begin our analysis early to help us focus further data collection. In turn, we use these focused data to refine our emerging analyses. Grounded theory entails developing increasingly abstract ideas about research participants’ meanings, actions, and worlds and seeking specific data to fill out, refine, and check the emerging conceptual categories...”Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 7
    • The Right Approach for Some Problems • What grounded theory is good for… – Exploration – Disciplined development of new ideas – Finding theory and structure in domains where there is no a priori guidance – Keeping an open mind as you explore a new domain • “An open mind is not in an empty head” – Working with qualitative or quantitative data • And what grounded theory is not good for… – Hypothesis testing – Evaluating a formal (e.g., published) theory – Confirming a hunchMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 8
    • For Example: Study of Online Communities (with Kate Ehrlich, Tara Matthews, Inbal Ronen, Ido Guy, Elizabeth Daly, David Millen…) • 8600+ online enterprise communities • One software environment, but hints of many variations • Read some communities, join some communities • Are they all Communities of Practice? initial “throw-away” theory – Test by looking for exceptions strategy of abduction – There are big virtual teams disconfirm initial theory – … tech communities, Rec communities – Idea Labs – very high participation rates theoretical sampling for breadth • Examine goal statements, patterns of membership, patterns of participation, begin to look for systematic differences claims of impact – Examine reputation, SNA… use concepts from research literature • Theory of enterprise online communities iteratively develop stronger theory – Focusing on theories of user appropriation more concepts from research literature • Leading to strong quantitative comparisons generate hypotheses for non-GT tests of CoP, Team, Tech, Rec, Idea LabsMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 9
    • Summary of the Example: Online Communities • Theory – Social media are “blank” until used • Carroll: “Completing design through use” – Users appropriate social media to create specific genres for specific organizational purposes – Users can navigate easily from one genre to another – Revisions of social construction of technology theory, adaptive structuration theory, social learning theory • Application – Matthews et al.: Collaboration personas – Erhlich et al.: Users who contribute more than expected – []: Metrics and analytics for the “health” of Communities of Practice, Teams, Technical Communities, Recreational Communities, Idea Labs
    • Strengths and Weaknesses of GT • Strengths – Outcomes are grounded in the data – Theory is continually tested through constant comparison – Data-collection is guided by theoretical sampling – Highlights the agency and responsibility of the researcher(s) • Weaknesses – Too many diverse approaches • How to choose? • How to evaluate? – Tension between “cookbooks” and “emergence” – Stopping rules are unclear – Highlights the agency and responsibility of the researcher(s)Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 11
    • A Summary View of Grounded Theory Formal Theory ry ive Theo Sub stant Data TimeMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 12
    • A Summary View of Grounded Theory Charmaz: “Grounded theory methods consist of simultaneous data collection and analysis, with each informing and focusing the other throughout the research process. As grounded theorists, we begin our Formal Theory analysis early to help us focus further data collection. In turn, we use these focused data to refine our emerging analyses. Grounded theory entails developing increasingly abstract ideas about research ry participants’ meanings, actions, and worlds and seeking specific data to e Theo antiv fill out, refine, and check the emerging conceptual categories...” t Subs Data TimeMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 13
    • Diversity in Grounded Theory Method (GTM) “The Second Generation” Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman, Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis Stern, Corbin, Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987 Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978 Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992 research, 1990 Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967 Dewey Mead Induction Pierce AbductionMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 14
    • Diversity in Grounded Theory Method (GTM) “The Second Generation” Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman, Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis Stern, Corbin, Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM Starr: “a manifesto for freedom from the sterile methods that permeated social sciences atStrauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987 the time.” Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978 Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992 research, 1990 Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967 Dewey Mead Induction Pierce AbductionMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 15
    • Straussian Grounded Theory Method “The Second Generation” Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman, Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis Stern, Corbin, Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987 Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978 Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992 research, 1990 Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967 Dewey Mead Induction Pierce AbductionMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 16
    • Glaserian Grounded Theory Method “The Second Generation” Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman, Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis Stern, Corbin, Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987 Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978 Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992 research, 1990 Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967 Dewey Mead Induction Pierce AbductionMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 17
    • Method in Grounded Theory Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman, Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis Stern, Corbin, Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987 Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978 Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992 research, 1990 Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967 StraussianMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 18
    • Grounding the Theory in the Data Formal Theory ry ive Theo Sub stant Core Concept Dimensions Concepts / Categories Codes Data TimeMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 19
    • Data Components & Analytic Practices • Core concept – The (emergent) topic • Selective coding “Emergence” (constructing) – Concepts/Dimensions • Axial coding Parameterizing – Categories • Open coding Aggregating – Basic themes • DataMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 20
    • Data Components & Analytic Practices • Core concept Starr: “A code sets up a relationship – The (emergent) topic with your data, and with your respondents…. a matter of both • Selective coding “Emergence” (constructing) attachment and separation…. Codes allow us to know about the field we – Concepts/Dimensions study, and yet carry the abstraction • Axial coding of the new.” Parameterizing – Categories • Open coding Aggregating – Basic themes • DataMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 21
    • Examples of Coding Informant Statement Open code From my perspective • Personal view the main challenge is • Assertion in changes in technology • Changes in technology or the product improvement • Changes in product done by the … supplier. • Supplier You • Pronoun shift can never guarantee that • Assertion Uncertainty if you are buying several • Procurement they will all be the same. • Product inconsistency • Necessary condition Microanalysis coding from a study of Configuration Management (CM) (excerpted from Allen, 2003)Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 22
    • Examples of Coding Informant Statement Open code Status accounting is used to report monthly to the Project Board. •CM process Main difficulty is in getting people to buy-in to CM. •People difficulty 3rd parties have a preconceived set of established tools and are •People difficulty not willing to see the in-house point of view •Tool difficulty Developers saw CM as a control mechanism rather than a helpful •Not helpful tool. •Control •People difficulty Keypoint coding from a study of Configuration Management (CM) (excerpted from Allen, 2003)Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 23
    • Examples of Coding Coding example from Charmaz (2006)Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 24
    • Examples of CodingChat question Informant’s Chat Answer Open Code Axial CodeQ. what was your goal A. put some structure • Structure • Purpose/structure(or goals) in using around the content I around contentcollections? collect/create around my content • Self topic for me and readers • For self • Audience • For othersQ. what kind of A. taxonomy By Topic I • Structure • Purpose/taxonomystructure? guess • TaxonomyQ. did you make A. both: whats good for me • Collection • Audiencecollections for yourself, is good for my readers ☺ for both self • Selfand other collections for and othersyour readers? or were allthe collections for both"audiences"Q. who are your A. sales teams, technical • Readers • Audience/Sales-teamreaders? teams I do this basically for • Sales team • Audience/Tech-team the sellers and supporting • Technical • Technology/team- communities team room in the web1.0 world I used • Prior teamrooms technology I needed an alternative Open coding and axial coding from a study of Collections in a social file-sharing service (data from Muller et al., 2009) 25
    • Examples of Coding Productivity & A Efficiency B COLLECTIVEI HUMAN Co Goals s’ al st rse nic ELEMENTS/ACTORS C Nu Tech g Str onta al/ vin Nurses’, physicians’, and others’ Patient/ ate inm nic egi gie en Cli Car professional organizations Customer s t Hospitals, chains, and hospital associations Pa Satisfaction tie HMOs, state and private insurers ital nt Discourses Hosp ators/ Pharmaceutical and medical supply s ls nge in istr companies sA Adm agers s a rse Man r se cou Nu Dis Pri va DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF Kn Invis t Co e Ins INDIVIDUAL AND/OR COLLECTIVE N ow ibl ur led e mp ura HUMAN ACTORS se Sk ges an nc s ills & ies e Nurses as caring/angels of mercy/”good t men on mothers” imagery nage nts Ma ulta oti g Em ivin Patients as needy, demanding Cons lth s’ g ea rse Care “Everyone’s so different”/patient uniqueness H Nu rk/ me des o Physicians as unavailable Ho Ai W Wo Administrators as manipulative Healt rk Management consultants as heartless Main h Str Red te “Everybody’s So ate esi Orga nance gie gn nizati Different” s ons C Work Redesign “Everybody’s So Strategies Different” Nurses as Angels Discourses Patients Home Health Aides Nurses Private Insurance Nurses’ Emotion Companies Work/Caregiving Nurses’ Cost Containment Invisible Clinical/Technical Strategies Knowledges & Health Caregiving Skills Maintenance Organizations Situational maps excerpted and redrawn from Clarke (2005). A. “Messy” situational map. B. “Ordered” situational map. C. Relationship map.Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 26
    • Data Components & Analytic Practices Closure • Core concept – The (emergent) topic Memos Memos Constructing, Integrating, • Selective coding Memos Connecting/Interrelating – Concepts/Dimensions Memos Memos Clustering, • Axial coding Memos Parameterizing – Categories Memos Defining, • Open coding Memos Memos Aggregating – Basic themes • Data Stern: “If data are the building blocks of the developing theory, [then] memos are the mortar.” Coding starts with the first data Memos are repeatedly reread and sortedMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 27
    • Discerning Structure in Data Memos Memos Memos ry ive Theo Sub stant Core Concept Concepts Categories Codes Data TimeMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 28
    • Method in Grounded Theory Straussian GT Glaserian GT • Balance data and formal theory • Radical focus on data • Emphasis on practices • Emphasis on experience • Taxonomy of coding actions – Induction and emergence – Open, axial, selective – Theoretical sensitivity – Closure tends to occur later, and – Importance of the mentor organizes subsequent coding – Reduced requirement for • Broad causative model - “The verbatim quotations PARADIGM” • Coding actions are less – Causal conditions formalized – Phenomena – Closure tends to occur earlier, – Context and dominates coding – Intervening conditions • No broad causative model – Action/interaction strategies – ConsequencesMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 29
    • Method in Grounded Theory Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman, Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis Stern, Corbin, Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987 Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978 Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992 research, 1990 Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967 GlaserianMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 30
    • Substantive Theory from Data • Everything is data • Keep an open mind by postponing any reading of research literature Formal Theory • Field notes instead of Memos Theoretical Memos Memos verbatim records ry ive Theo • Don’t talk – write Sub stant Theoretical Coding memos! Selective Coding Closure Open or Substantive Coding Memos Memos Memos TimeMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 31
    • Method in Grounded Theory Straussian GT Glaserian GT • Balance data and formal theory • Radical focus on data • Emphasis on practices • Emphasis on experience • Taxonomy of coding actions – Induction and emergence – Open, axial, selective – Theoretical sensitivity – Closure tends to occur later, and – Importance of the mentor organizes subsequent coding – Reduced requirement for • Broad causative model - “The verbatim quotations PARADIGM” • Coding actions are less – Causal conditions formalized – Phenomena – Closure tends to occur earlier, – Context and dominates coding – Intervening conditions • No broad causative model – Action/interaction strategies – ConsequencesMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 32
    • Method in Grounded Theory Straussian GT Glaserian GT • Balance data and formal theory • Radical focus on data • Emphasis on practices • Emphasis on experience • Taxonomy of coding actions – Induction and emergence – Open, axial, selective – Theoretical sensitivity – Closure tends to occur later, and – Importance of the mentor organizes subsequent coding – Reduced requirement for • Broad causative model - “The verbatim quotations PARADIGM” • Coding actions are less – Causal conditions formalized – Phenomena – Closure tends to occur earlier, – Context and dominates coding – Intervening conditions • No broad causative model – Action/interaction strategies – ConsequencesMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 33
    • Theory through Constant Comparison• Compare data with data – Codes, categories, concepts• Compare data with your theory (substantive theory) – Aggregating, parameterizing, constructing – Iterative theory-building• Compare data and substantive theory with formal theory Record your observations, thoughts, developing theory in memos 34
    • Memo-Writing: More than Field Notes • Guiding data collection and coding Memos Memos Memos – “What is this data a study of?” (Glaser) • Guiding theoretical sampling – Where else should I be looking? What site would provide a good test of my competing hypotheses? • Guiding development of substantive theory – Begin writing memos with the first data – Define a code – Record informal hypotheses, for subsequent test – Describe relationships of codes to categories, and categories to the core conceptMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 35
    • Memo-Writing: More than Field Notes • Guiding data collection and coding Memos Memos Memos – “What is this data a study of?” (Glaser) • Guiding theoretical sampling – Where else should I be looking? What site would provide a good test of my competing hypotheses? • Guiding development of substantive theory – Begin writing memos with the first data – Define a code Charmaz: “Memo-writing constitutes a crucial method in – Record informalgrounded theory because it prompts you to analyze your hypotheses, for subsequent test – Describe relationships of codes to categories, and [N]ote where data and codes early in the research process…. categories to the coreare on firm ground, and where you are making you concept conjectures. Then go back to the field to check your conjectures.”Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 36
    • How Big is a Memo? • Dick 2005: – “Carry file cards in your pocket” – Write multiple memos on each file card • Clarke’s Relationship Map Work Redesign “Everybody ’s So Strategies Different ” Nurses as Angels Discourses Patients Home Health Aides Nurses Private Insurance Nurses ’ Emotion Companies Work/ Caregiving Nurses ’ Cost Containment Invisible Clinical/Technical Strategies Knowledges & Health Caregiving Skills Maintenance OrganizationsMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 37
    • Essay-like Example from CharmazMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 38
    • Late-Stage Memo, integrating dimensionsMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 39
    • Iteration through Theoretical Sampling • Constant comparison and substantive theorizing – Strategy of abduction • How could I be wrong? (consider multiple, competing informal hypotheses) • How could I test for disconfirmation of what I think is going on? – Go back to the data I already have – Choose the next “site” to test for disconfirmation • What is a “site”? – Person with theoretically-relevant attributes – Team in the appropriate department or geography or discipline Increasing cost – Community that differs from previously-studied Decreasing number communities in a theoretically-important way – Organization or enterprise with significant contrasts to those that I have already studiedMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 40
    • Iteration through Theoretical Sampling • Constant comparison and substantive theorizing – What do I think is going on? • Abduction: How could I be wrong? (consider multiple, competing informal hypotheses) – How could I test for disconfirmation of what I think is going on? – Go back to the data I already have – Choose the next “site” to test for disconfirmation • What is a “site”? Starr: “Codes allow us to know about the field we study, and yet carry the abstraction of the new… – Person with theoretically-relevant attributes When this process is repeated, and constantly – Team in the appropriate compared across spaces and across data… department or geography or discipline this is known as theoretical sampling… cost Increasing – Community that differs from previously-studied Theoretical sampling stretches the Decreasing number codes, forcing communities in a theoretically-important way of the object… taking a other sorts of knowledge – Organization or enterprise with significant it through the data… code and moving contrasts to those that I havefractur[ing] both code and data.” already studiedMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 41
    • Iteration through Theoretical Sampling • A first theory is necessarily localized to a single site or person or data-source – Theoretical sampling: Where should I find my second site to test my initial theory? • A second theory is usually broader and stronger – Theoretical sampling: Where should I find Closure my next site for further abductive testing? • Successive theories gain in ry breadth and depth… nt ive T heo sta Sub • Through iterations, theory becomes both descriptive & abstract Data TimeMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 42
    • Iteration through Theoretical Sampling • A first theory is necessarily localized to a single site or person or data-source – Theoretical sampling: Where should I find my second site to test my initial theory? • A second theory is usually broader and stronger – Theoretical sampling: Where should I find Closure my next site for further abductive testing? • Successive theories gain in breadth and depth… eory ntive Th Su bsta • Through iterations, Charmaz: “Consistent with the logic of grounded theory, theoretical sampling is theory becomes both emergent. Your developing ideas shape what descriptive & abstract you do and the questions you pose while theoretical sampling.” Data TimeMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 43
    • Theory is Co-Constructed with Description Closure Closure Th eory sta ntive Memos Memos Sub Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Data • Begin coding and theorizing with the first data • Constant comparison with data and theory • Abductive (disconfirmatory) testing / theoretical sampling • Iterations of coding and theorizing/memo-writing/memo-sorting • But… when do you ever stop?Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 44
    • Stopping Rules • By contrast, in conventional hypothesis testing: – Decide how much data I need, collect it, test it Done! • In GT, when is theoretical sampling complete? – Academic study • “Continue to sample until you have saturated your categories” – Enterprise study • “Continue to sample until Friday” • “Saturated categories” – I know the topic of my project (I’ve chosen or constructed my core concept[s]) – I’ve understood the relationship of those concepts to each of the other concepts and categories – The data are not telling me anything new about my chosen topicMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 45
    • Stopping Rules • By contrast, in conventional “I realized that I had reached the Stern: hypothesis testing – Decide how much data I point of saturationit, test it[informant] need, collect when the Done! was telling me how when he was a small • In GT, when is theoretical sampling complete? shot child he stood witness as his mother his father dead, and I was bored. I made – Academic study all the right noises… but I knew that my • “Continue to sample until you have saturated your study had come to data collection for that categories” – Enterprise study an end.” (italics in the original) • “Continue to sample until Friday” • “Saturated categories” – I know the topic of my project (I’ve chosen or constructed my core concept[s]) – I’ve understood the relationship of those concepts to each of the other concepts and categories – The data are not telling me anything new about my chosen topicMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 46
    • Writing and Reporting • Working with memos – Sorting on “a large desk,” “or the floor” Memos Closure Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Dimension Category • Clustering Memos Memos • Categorizing Memos Memos Memos Memos • Dimensionalizing • Relating Some people say you write the Report from the memos – Relationship with each of the other categories/dimensionsMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 47
    • Controversies in Theory Development • When and how to use “formal theory”? Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Dimension Memos Category Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos Memos External theories / Research literature Glaser StraussMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 48
    • Quality of Grounded Theory Reports • Difficult to evaluate in conventional writing – in sociology or in HCI and CSCW – “Heuristics from grounded theory” (Thom-Santelli, Muller, & Millen, 2008) – Often the only citation is to Discovery of Grounded Theory, 1967 • Increasingly, “grounded theory” is mentioned without any citation – Reports on the detailed coding methodologies and theoretical iterations are terse or non-existent • The specific framework may not be stated explicitly (e.g., Glaserian, Straussian, one of the 2nd generation, etc.) – Coding is described with isolated references to “axial coding” and little elseMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 49
    • Proposed Clues for Evaluation (1) • References and citations – Are there specific citation(s) of grounded theory method(s)? Statements about methodological choices? Can you understand how the authors constructed their substantive theory? • Methods – If Straussian (e.g., “axial coding”), can you discern multiple categories, concepts, or dimensions? – If Glaserian (e.g., “emergence”), how is the emergence described? • Glaser argued against verbatim quotations. Does that strategy serve HCI and CSCW goals? – Are reference sets of categories invoked? from what source? (unlikely in HCI and CSCW)Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 50
    • Proposed Clues for Evaluation (2) • Findings (Straussian criteria) – For findings that support major claims, do they occur at all sites, or are those crucial findings associated with all major attributes? • If not, how do the authors account for selective occurrence? – Are there multiple categories, and are they well integrated with the core concept (topic) of the paper? • Bonus: Is each concept or dimension presented with its parameters? • Findings (Glaserian criteria) – Surface validity – Internal consistency and “harmony” (constructs interrelated, linked to core concept – Good balance of description and/vs. abstraction – Integrated with broader literatureMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 51
    • Conclusion • Uses of grounded theory – Explore new domains – Leverage human tendency to interpret and theorize • Practices of grounded theory – Begin coding and theorizing with the first data – Constant comparison with data and theory – Abductive (disconfirmatory) testing – Iterations of coding and theorizing • Strengths of grounded theory – Bring data into focus and depth – Build theory that is descriptive, abstract, and powerful – … With discipline, rigor, and qualityMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 52
    • Major Sources • Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1967. • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008. • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.( eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007. • Morse, J.M., Stern, P.N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A.E., Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press, 2009. – Includes Glaserian grounded theory; Straussian grounded theory; constructivist grounded theory methodology; situational analysis; dimensional analysisMuller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 53
    • Methods and Processes • Charmaz, K., Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2006. • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008. (also on previous slide) – “the cookbook” • Locke, K., Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2001. • Chapters 4-13 in Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K., The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 54
    • Additional Sources • Common history – Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., Awareness of dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1965. – Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1967. – Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., A time for dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1968. – Strauss, A.L., & Glaser, B.G., Anguish. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1970. • Glaserian grounded theory – Glaser, B.G., Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1978. – Glaser, B.G., Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1992. – Glaser, B.G., Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1998. • Straussian grounded theory – Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008. – Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A.L., Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 1973. – Strauss, A.L., Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge, 1987. – Strauss, A.L., Continual permutations of action. New York, NY, USA: Aldine, 1993. • Constructivist grounded theory – Charmaz, K., Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2006. – Charmaz, K., ‘Grounded theory,’ in Ritzer, G. (ed.), Encyclopedia of sociology. Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell, 2006. • Situational analysis – Clarke, A.E., Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2005. • Dimensional analysis – Schatzman, L., ‘Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding of theory in qualitative research,’ in Maines, D.R. (ed), Social organization and social process. New York, NY, USA: Aldine, 1991.Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 55
    • Quality and Rigor • Chiovitti, R.F., & Piran, N., ‘Rigour and grounded theory research,’ J. Adv. Nurs. 44 (4), 2003. • Haig, B.D., ‘Grounded theory as scientific method,’ Phil. Educ. 2005. • Stern, P.N., ‘Properties for growing grounded theory,’ in Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007. • Suddaby, R., ‘From the editors: What grounded theory is not,’ Acad. Mgmt. J. 49 (4), 2006.Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 56
    • Essays and Discussions • Diversity in grounded theory method – Kelle, U., ‘”Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 6(2), May 2005. – van Niekerk, J.C., & Roods, JD., ‘Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory: Similar or completely different? Proc. SAICSIT 2009. • Coding – Starr, S.L., ‘Living grounded theory,’ in Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007. • “An open mind is not in an empty head” – Bowen, G.A., ‘Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts,’ Int. J. Qual. Methods 5(3), Sep. 2006. – Stern, P.N., ‘Properties for growing grounded theory,’ in Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 57
    • 30 Examples • Bertram, D., Voida, A., Greenberg, S., & Walker, R., ‘Communication, collaboration, and bugs: The social nature of issue tracking in small, collocated teams. Proc CSCW 2010. • Boden, A., Nett, B., & Wulf, V., ‘Articulation work in small-scale offshore software development projects.’ Proc CHASE 2008. • Cannay, S., ‘A grounded theory investigation of patient empowerment in e-healthcare,’ Proc. AMCIS 2007. • de Souza, C.,R.B., Redmiles, D., Cheng, L.-T., Millen, D., & Patterson, J., ‘Sometimes you need to see through walls – A field study of application programmer interfaces.’ Proc CSCW 2004. • Goede, R., & de Villiers, C., ‘The applicability of grounded theory as research methodology in studies on the use of methodologies in IS practices,’ Proc. SAITSIC 2003. • Graham, C., Cheverst, K., & Rouncefield, M., ‘Technology for the humdrum: Trajectories, interactional needs and a care setting.’ Proc OZCHI 2005. • Hevner, A.R., Collins, R.W., & Garfield, M.J., ‘Product and project challenges in electronic commerce software development.’ SIGMIS Database 33(4), 2002. • Hunter, K., Hart, S., Egbu, C., & Kelly, J., ‘Grounded theory: Its diversification and application through two examples from research studies on knowledge and value management,’ Elec. J. Bus. Res. Meth. 3(1), 2005. • Kriplean, T., Beschastnikh, I., McDonald, D.W., & Golder, S.A., ‘Community, consensus, coercion, control: CS*W or how policy mediates mass participation.’ Proc GROUP 2007. • Luther, K., & Bruckman, A., ‘Leadership in online creative collaboration.’ Proc CSCW 2008i. • Mann, P., ‘Design for design: Support for creative practice in computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) in design.’ Proc C&C 2005. • Mark, G., & Semaan, B., ‘Resilience in collaboration: Technology as a resource for new patterns of action.’ Proc CSCW 2008. • Matavire, R., & Brown, I., ‘Investigating the use of “grounded theory” in information systems research,’ Proc. SAICSIT 2008. • McConnell, D., ‘Complexity, harmony and diversity of learning in collaborative e-learning continuing professional development groups.’ Proc CSCL 2002. • McDonald, D.W., McCarthy, J.F., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D.H., & Rashid, A.M., ‘Proactive displays: Supporting awareness in fluid social environments.’ TOCHI 14(4), 2008. • Mentis, H.M., Reddy, M., & Rosson, M.B., ‘Invisible emotion: Information and interaction in an emergency room.’ Proc CSCW 2010. • Muller, M.J., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J., ‘Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service’ Proc. ECSCW 2009. • Poole, E.S., Chetty, M., Morgan, T., Grinter, R.E., & Edwards, W.K., ‘Computer help at home: Methods and motivations for informal technical support.’ Proc CHI 2009. • Redhead, F., & Brereton, M., ‘A qualitative analysis of local community communications.’ Proc OZCHI 2006. • Rode, J.A., ‘The roles that make the domestic work.’ Proc CSCW 2010. • Sarker, S., Lau, F., & Sahey, S., ‘Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development,’ Data Base for Adv. Info. Sys. 32(1), 2001. • Scholl, H.J., ‘Current practices in e-government0induced business process change (BPC).’ Proc dg.04, 2004. • Selvaraj, N., & Fields, B., ‘A grounded theory approach towards conceptualizing CIS for heterogeneous work communities,’ Proc. HCI 2009. • Sousa, C.A.A., & Hendriks, P.H.J., ‘The diving bell and the butterfly: The need for grounded theory in developing a knowledge based view of organizations,’ Org. Res. Meth. 9(3), 2006. • Setlock, L.D., & Fussell, S.R., ‘What’s it worth to you? The costs and affordances of CMC tools to Asian and American Users.’ Proc CSCW 2010. • Swallow, D., Blythe, M., & Wright, P., ‘Grounding experience: Relating theory and method to evaluate the user experience of smartphones.’ Proc EACE 2005. • Thom-Santelli, J., Cosley, D., & Gay, G., ‘What’s mine is mine: Territoriality in collaborative authoring,’ Proc. CHI 2009. • Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R., ‘Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders,’ Proc. CHI 2008. • Weisinger, J.Y., & Salipante, P.F., ‘A grounded theory for building ethnically bridging social capital in voluntary organizations,’ Nonprofit & Vol. Sec. Quarterly 34(1), 2005. • Wilson, E.J., & Vlosky, R.P., ‘Partnering relationship activities: Building theory from case study research,’ J. Bus. Res. 39(1), 1997.Muller, IBM Research UC Irvine March 2012 58