EuropIA 2014 - Analysing the impact of constraints on decision-making by arch...
Sg icis-gtws-v2
1. Using Grounded Theory To Generate Process Models Dr Susan Gasson College of Information Science & Technology Drexel University Email: sgasson@cis.drexel.edu
An example of a factor model vs a process model – just to clarify terms. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is an information systems theory that models how users come to accept and use a technology. The model suggests that when users are presented with a new technology, a number of factors influence their decision about how and when they will use it, notably: Perceived usefulness (PU) - This was defined by Fred Davis as "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance". Perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) - Davis defined this as "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort" (Davis, 1989). References: Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339. Royce, Winston (1970), "Managing the Development of Large Software Systems", Proceedings of IEEE WESCON 26 (August): 1-9. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Newman, M. & Robey, D. (1992) ‘A Social Process Model of User-Analyst Relationships,’ MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 249-266. This shows different inputs and outputs for the factor model. As I discuss later, you need the *same* variables as both inputs and outputs if you are going to treat a process model as a series of factor models, distributed across time-series episodes of equilibrium that are disrupted by rapid transitions.
Gersick, C.J.G. "Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development," Academy of Management Journal (31:1), March 1988, p. 9-41. Gersick, C.J.G. "Marking Time: Predictable Transitions in Task Groups," Academy of Management Journal (32:2), June 1989, pp. 274-309. Gersick, C.J.G. "Revolutionary Change Theories A: Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm” Academy of Management Review (16:1), January 1991, pp. 10-36.
Selective coding is done after having found the core category, or what is thought to be the core, the tentative core. The core explains the behavior of the participants in resolving their main concern. The tentative core is never wrong. It just more or less fits with the data. I do not believe that defining a SINGLE core category is helpful. Several “core” categories can be defined, that explain different aspects of the data. You then need to understand the relationship between these “core categories” to get an emergent understanding of the final core category – which is always defined at a more abstract level than the original (or refined as you go along) core category constructs! Theoretical codes integrate the theory by weaving the fractured concepts into hypotheses that work together in a theory explaining the main concern of the participants
The technique for representing code relationships shown here is taken from Gioia, D. A., J. B. Thomas, et al. (1994). Symbolism and Strategic Change in Academia: The Dynamics of Sensemaking and Influence. Organization Science , INFORMS: Institute for Operations Research. 5: 363. Be careful – this is a rather positivist paper … My emergent theoretical analysis (after 3 rounds of selective coding and memoing) revealed three core categories, discussed on the next two slides. The task was to derive a more abstract core category by puzzling over how these core categories emerged over time and related to each other in a coherent whole. This is not always apparent. Sometimes, I just live with multiple core categories, because at least you have a stibstantive thoery of action!
Newman, M. & Robey, D. (1992) ‘A Social Process Model of User-Analyst Relationships,’ MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 249-266. Because I was focusing on how participants understood the design, across boundaries, my first two core categories related to this understanding. The third related to the process, as I puzzled over what appeared to be critical about these time-related transitions (see next slide).
I (eventually) had the blinding revelation, after puzzling over the core categories and how these changed over time. They were continually redefined in the process (e.g. I did not originally understand the third as levels of conflict, but as interpersonal roles).
This is the model that I ended with. There is a more complete description at http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/sgasson/Pubs/SG-DESRIST-2008.pdf
![Agenda ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],© Susan Gasson, 2009]()