Grounded Theory and Design

1. Grounded Theory and Design Mithat Konar, M.Sc. 26 December 2008

2. The TRVTH

3. Grounded Theory Research requires a hypothesis. Research requires a “problem”.

4. “When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.” -Lord William Thompson Kelvin (1824-1907)

5. Grounded Theory knowledge = science science = verification knowledge = science = verification

6. The truth

7. Grounded Theory Research does not require a hypothesis. Research does not require a “problem”. Research requires a purpose.

8. Grounded Theory knowledge > science science > verification knowledge > science > verification

9. Grounded Theoryknowledge science verification circles are not to scale

10. Grounded Theory • Grounded Theory is a qualitative research methodology • Designed to help social scientists generate theory • Is not “hypothesis” and “problem” oriented

11. Grounded Theory and Design The Appeal of Grounded Theory Grounded Theory Concepts Applicability in Design Application Example History in Brief

12. History in Brief

13. History in Brief • Began development at the Department of Sociology and the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University in the 50’s and 60’s (Glaser, 1992). • Formalized in the 1967 monograph The Discovery of Grounded Theory by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss.

14. History in Brief • Glaser and Strauss later diverged in their view of GT (Glaser, 1992). • Glaser's view of GT remained closer to the initial emergent ideals (Glaser, 1992) (Dick, 2005). • The remainder of this presentation is based on Glaser's view of GT.

15. The Appeal of Grounded Theory

16. The Appeal of Grounded Theory • GT echoes the values of many designers • GT “throws out the book” in developing theory • Aims find what “works best” in a given situation

17. The Appeal of Grounded Theory • GT's epistemology similar to user studies in interaction design. • Both rely on inductive analysis of data to generate useful abstractions.

18. The Appeal of Grounded Theory • Useful in developing understanding of the social dimensions of • designed artifacts • design activity • design discipline

19. Grounded Theory Concepts

20. Grounded Theory Concepts • GT's important aspects • Used for theory generation rather than theory verification • Based on induction rather than deduction

21. Generation vs. verification • Classic scientific method formalizes half of the scientific endeavor: • the verification of theory • through observation and measurement (Ackoff, et al., 1962).

22. Generation vs. verification • GT attempts to formalize the other half: • the generation of theory

23. Generation vs. verification • Grounded theory is “the systematic discovery of theory from data as the concepts emerge and integrate.” • “[GT's] yield is just hypotheses!” • “Testing or verificational work ... is left to others interested in these types of research endeavor.” (Glaser, 1992)

24. Generation vs. verification • GT was a particular response to a particular need in a particular context • “Big man” theories in the 1960s and 1970s. • “Until [researchers] proceed with a bit more method their theories will tend to end up thin, unclear in purpose, and not well integrated” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). • However, the issue of theory generation vs. verification is universal.

25. Grounded Theoryknowledge science verification circles are not to scale theory generation inductive methods grounded theory

26. Inductive vs. deductive theory • GT is based on “hard study of much data,” and produces theory which is strongly supported observation. • “Logically deduced theories based on ungrounded assumptions ... can lead their followers far astray” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). • How many angels on the head of a pin?

27. Inductive vs. deductive theory • Another problem with logico-deductive methods: exampling • Finding examples to support your theory after the theory has been developed • Can create an illusion of proof

28. Inductive vs. deductive theory • An advantage of inductive theory generation: longevity • “Theory based on data can usually not be completely refuted by more data or replaced by another theory. “Since it is too intimately linked to data, it is destined to last despite its inevitable modification and reformulation” (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

29. Grounded Theory Concepts • GT is an emergent methodology. • Emergent here means generating theory that emerges from collected data. • Is not used to mean new (e.g. Hesse-Biber & Leavy (2006)). • Many emergent methodologies exist. • GT is one of the most rigorous.

30. Grounded Theory Process

31. Sorting Selective coding Open coding Phase Output Categories and properties Stops when theoretically saturated and core category appears. Additional coding around core category Integration of emergent concepts around core category The theory Communicable form of theoryWriteup Sorted “database” of memos showing emergence of theory Grounded Theory Process

33. Open coding • GT starts with open coding. • The researcher enters the open coding phase with no preconceptions about what is to be found or what is to be studied. • Starting open coding with an open mind is critical.

34. Open coding • The analyst’s job during open coding is to collect and analyze data to produce • Categories •a high level abstraction of the patterns observed in the data • Properties •conceptual characteristics of a category

35. Open coding • Data collection is typically performed through direct observation and unstructured interviews with the members of the social group under study. • However, any form of data, including quantitative data, is valid if it permits the goals of open coding to be reached.

36. Open coding • The ultimate aim of open coding is to identify a core category for further study. • Open coding will produce a number of categories, associated properties, and theoretical codes connecting them. • Eventually, a dominant category will emerge, and this category will become the basis for the next phase of the study (Glaser 1992).

37. Open coding • Concepts employed in open coding include: • Constant comparative analysis • The memo • Theoretical sampling

38. Open coding • Constant comparative analysis • Continually reflecting on previous coding incidents to inform present incident • For each incident, identify •categories and properties suggested in the data •theoretical codes that connect these to other categories and properties or other concepts. • Used throughout the whole GT process

39. Open coding • Memo • When you have spent some time working with a category and have some theoretical insights, stop coding and record a memo. • The standard medium for the recording of constant comparative analysis

40. Open coding • Theoretical sampling • Used during open coding and selective coding • Conventional sampling techniques try to employ randomization so as to produce a representative sample of a group under study. • Theoretical sampling composes sample groups based on where to go to get the next relevant piece of data.

41. Open coding • Theoretical sampling • “The basic question in theoretical sampling ... : what groups or subgroups does one turn to next in data collection? And for what theoretical purpose?” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

42. Open coding • Theoretical saturation • Is achieved when additional sampling fails to yield useful insights. • There is an element of subjectivity in deciding that something is theoretically saturated. • You can never know whether the next interview will yield a useful insight.

43. Open coding • Open coding summary • The output of the open coding phase is •The identification of a core category for further study •that has emerged through the saturation of theoretically sampled data •and has been analyzed by the constant comparative method.

45. Selective coding • Selective coding begins when a core category has been found. • Selective coding limits itself to • “only those variables that relate to the core variable, • in sufficiently significant ways to be used in a parsimonious theory” (Glaser, 1992).

46. Selective coding • Uses constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling. • Over time, observations will integrate and your theory will emerge.

47. Selective coding • “Integration is simply the emergent connection between categories and properties based on theoretical codes, and it just happens, because the world is integrated and we are discovering the world —not creating it!” (Glaser, 1992).

49. Sorting • Sorting the memos that one has taken during open and selective coding. • Intended to produce a structured, coherent and integrated packaging of the recorded ideas.

51. Writing up • The structure of the write-up, “just emerges from sorting memos.” • “ ...the analyst starts with no idea of an outline and thereby lets the concepts outline themselves through emergence.” • “When the sorting of all the memos is done, it is just obvious when to write and what to write about and how to present the integrated picture” (Glaser, 1992).

52. Writing up • In contrast to many verificational and non-emergent and methodologies, it is not possible to construct a GT report outline ahead of time. • The structure of the report emerges as part of a “just-in-time” process, when it is needed and no earlier.

53. Evaluation Criteria • The criteria for judging GT research is different from that of verificational methods. • The output of a grounded theory process is scientific theory, and it needs to be judged as scientific theory.

54. Evaluation Criteria • Basic requirements for good theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967): • Parsimony of variables and formulation • Scope in the applicability of the theory to a wide range of situations

55. Evaluation Criteria • Additional requirements: • Fit • Work • Relevance • Modifiability

56. Evaluation Criteria • Fit • “The categories must be readily (not forcibly) applicable to and indicated by the data under study” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). • “If a grounded theory is carefully induced ... its categories and their properties will fit the realities under study” (Glaser, 1992).

57. Evaluation Criteria • Work • “[The theory] must be meaningfully relevant to and be able to explain the behavior under study” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). • “If a grounded theory works it will explain the major variations in behavior ... with respect to the processing of the main concerns of the subjects (Glaser, 1992).

58. Evaluation Criteria • Relevance • “If it fits and works the grounded theory has achieved relevance” (Glaser, 1992).

59. Evaluation Criteria • Modifiability • The theory itself should not be written in stone ..., it should be readily modifiable when new data present variations in emergent properties and categories (Glaser 1992).

60. Evaluation Criteria • Verifiability is not a criterion! • However: • “The theory should provide clear enough categories and hypotheses so that crucial ones can be verified in present and future research; • they must be clear enough to be readily operationalized in quantitative studies when these studies are appropriate” [emphasis added] (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

61. Evaluation Criteria • Furthermore: • If and when verification fails or new data become available through other means, “[a] theory is neither verified nor thrown out, it is modified to accommodate by integration the new concepts” (Glaser, 1992).

62. Applicability in Design

63. Applicability in Design • GT was developed for use in sociology. • Can it be used in design and design research?

64. Applicability in Design • GT's domain: • “Grounded theory methods are not bound by either discipline or data collection … its methods work quite well for analyzing data within the perspective of any discipline [and] it is a useful methodology for multidisciplinary studies” [emphasis original] (Glaser, 1992).

65. Applicability in Design • GT's domain: • “Sociologists and other social psychologists are not the only researchers who use ... grounded theory.” (Glaser, 1992).

66. Applicability in Design • However: • “One property of grounded theory must be clearly understood: The theory can be developed only by professionally trained sociologists, but can be applied by either laymen or sociologists” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

67. Applicability in Design • Huh?

68. Applicability in Design • GT is directly applicable over a wide range of disciplines as long as the subject to be investigated has a strong social aspect. • Adapting GT’s inductive methodology to non-social situations requires extension to what Glaser presents.

69. Applicability in Design • GT in design • Usable directly in research on “human behavior in organizational, group, and other social interactions.” • A more general use of GT in design is problematic.

70. Applicability in Design • GT in design • Requires clear understanding of what constitutes theory in the area to which it will be adapted • Standards of “theory” in design research are not very clear (e.g., Friedman (2003) and Gray & Malins (2004)).

71. Applicability in Design • GT in design • GT recommends itself as a method through which research problems can be discovered. • It has not been developed as a tool to support research where the problem has been identified beforehand.

72. Applicability in Design Using GT to understand the issues faced by female designers working in Turkey: good • Has large social component • “Problems” not yet defined

73. Applicability in Design Using GT to develop a model of automotive dashboard control locations based on class differences: probably not the best choice • Issue marginally social • Problem is well defined

74. Applicability in Design • Summary • GT is “the systematic discovery of theory from data as the concepts emerge and integrate using the constant comparative method as an inductive device” (Glaser, 1992). • Can be used directly in design research in problems that have a significant and general social dimension.

75. Applicability in Design • Summary • Is adaptable to a wider range of design research problems if researcher has clear standards regarding the kind of theory he or she is trying to construct. • If the research has already acquired some focus, further modification to the process will be required.

76. Applicability in Design • Summary • The adopter must not inadvertently transform the methodology into one of data forcing (as Glaser accuses Strauss of doing (Glaser, 1992)) • or otherwise turn out a methodology that is something other than an emergent, inductive process.

77. Application Example

78. Application Example • My thesis' research question: • Why are women such reluctant consumers of non-portable music reproduction equipment?

79. Application Example • Methodology for my thesis • Adapted from Grounded Theory •GT satisfies need for an emergent method •GT's inductive aspect was very attractive

80. Application Example • Problems with GT for my study: • The “research question” is not a social process. •Solution • Use different approaches to data taking • Use different theoretical codes

81. Application Example • Problems with GT for my study: • The “research question” is already defined. •Solution • No need for open coding • Begin directly with selective coding

82. Application Example • The resulting methodology: • “Emergent, inductive triangulation” using •Sketch analysis •Unstructured interviews •Repertory grids •Observations from literature

83. Application Example • Sketch analysis • Participants were asked to sketch their ideal fantasy system. •Inspired from Brunner, Bennet, & Honey's “Fantasy Sketching” approach to participation (2000) •Results were coded using an original semiological framework

84. Application Example • Unstructured interviews • Used here to complement understanding of sketches and provide additional inductive cues

85. Application Example • Construction of repertory grids • The repertory grid is an evaluation methodology developed to support George Kelley's Personal Construction Theory (Tindall, 1994). • Original intent was personality analysis, but it suggests itself as a means for general value analysis as well.

86. Application Example • Observations from literature • Credible data from the literature were incorporated into the inductive process.

87. Application Example • Data was coded only for gender • Other codings may be possible (age, musical preferences, etc.)

88. Application Example • Participant requirements (theoretically sampled): • At least slightly technologically informed • Ability to think hypothetically and conceive hypothetical solutions • Ability to express those ideas in sketch form • Some concept of discretionary spending • Balance of male and female participants

89. Application Example • Emergent participant profile • Designers • Design academics • Graduate design students

90. Application Example • Result • An original emergent methodology • that is not GT • but it is based on GT concepts and epistemology

91. References Ackoff, R. L., Gupta, S. & Minas, J. S., 1962. Scientific Method: Optimizing Applied Research Decisions, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Bierut, M., 2005. On (Design) Bullshit, Design Observer: Writings About Design and Culture, online, <http://www.designobserver.com/archives/002559.html> (4 January 2007). Borgatti, S., ND. Introduction to Grounded Theory, online, <http://www.analytictech.com/mb870/introtoGT.htm> (30 April 2006). Brunner, C., Bennett, D. T. & Honey, M., 2000. Girl games and technological desire, in The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and Learning, pp. 168-183, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.

92. References Dick, B., 2005. Grounded Theory: A Thumbnail Sketch, Action Research Resources website, <http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html> (30 April 2006). Friedman, K., 2003. Theory construction in design research: criteria approaches and methods, Design Studies, 24(6), 507-522, <http://w3.msi.vxu.se/~per/DVM752/Friedman.pdf> (20 April 2006). Gill, R. & Grint, K., 2000. Introduction, in The Gender-Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research, pp. 1-28, Eds. Gill, R. & Grint, K., Josey-Bass Inc., San Francisco. Glaser, B. & Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing, Chicago.

93. References Glaser, B. G., 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Glaser, B. G. (Ed.), 1996. Gerund Grounded Theory: The Basic Social Process Dissertation, Sociology Press, Mill Valley. Gray, C. & Malins, J., 2004. Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot. Haig, B. D., 1995. Grounded theory as scientific method, in Philosophy of Education 1995, Ed. Neiman, A., Philosophy of Education Society, address unknown, <http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/95_docs/haig.html> (30 April 2006).

94. References Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (Eds.), 2006. Emergent Methods in Social Research, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks. Kinach, B. M., 1995. Grounded theory as scientific method: Haig-inspired reflections on educational research methodology, in Philosophy of Education 1995, Ed. Neiman, A., Philosophy of Education Society, location unknown, <http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/95_docs/kinach.html> (30 April 2006). Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage, Newbury Park.

95. References Tindall, C., 1994. Personal construct approaches, in Qualitative Methods in Psychology: A Research Guide, pp. 72-90, Eds. Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M. & Tindall, C., Open University Press, Maidenhead.

Grounded Theory and Design

You are reading a preview.

Check these out next

Grounded Theory and Design

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (18)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Grounded Theory and Design (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Grounded Theory and Design