Emergence vs. forcing of empirical data? A crucial problem of “Grounded Theory reconsidered”

- Kelle, Udo 2005

Chulaka Ailapperuma (cailappe@connect.carleton.ca)TTMG5004 Technology Innovation Management

18 June 2009

Purpose

• Article by Kelle, U (2005) on problems with understanding of grounded theory methodology

• Paper about– Summarising most important developments within

“Grounded Theory” concerning relationship between empirical data and theoretical statements

– Special emphasis on differences between Glasser and Strauss’ current views

– Glasser ‘s critique that Strauss’ “coding paradigms” and “axial coding” leads to “forcing” of data

Slide 2

18 June 2009

Grounded theory methodology

• Proposed by Glaser, B., and Strauss, A, in “The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research”– Inductive process where theoretical concepts emerge from

data– Alternative to hypothetico-deductive process– Method for comparative analysis which allows for

“emergence” of categories from data instead of “forcing” of data by hypothetico-deductive process

– Methodology recommends to “to ignore literature of theory and fact under area of study in order to assure that emergence of categories will not be contaminated”

Slide 3

18 June 2009

Grounded theory methodology

• Can researchers approach reality “as it is” without any preconceived ideas?

Slide 4

18 June 2009

Theoryladeness

• How to reconcile– Discovery (or claim of) theoretical categories and

propositions from empirical data – Researchers drawing from existing theoretical concepts

when analysing data– Two competing methodological requirements

• Impossible to free empirical observation from all theoretical influence since “seeing is a theory laden undertaking”– Observation of X is shaped by prior knowledge of Y– View data from your own lens and conceptual networks

• Construction of theory, grounded or not has to draw from existing knowledge

Slide 5

18 June 2009

Difficulties encountered

• Researchers can experience a certain difficulty– Search for coding categories can become tedious and lead

to never-ending team sessions especially if one hesitates to introduce theoretical knowledge

– Can lead to proliferation coding categories making for an insurmountable process

• Glaser and Strauss suggest researchers to have “theoretical sensitivity” – Researchers ability to “see relevant data”– Reflect on empirical data with help of theoretical terms– Combine concepts and hypothesis emerged from data with

“some existing ones that are clearly useful”

Slide 6

18 June 2009

Theoretical sensitivity

• Not clearly defined• “Discovery” book does not elaborate how to use

existing theory• Glasser and Strauss attempt to reconcile these• Over time diverging concepts and understandings of

theory has emerged leading to a split between founders– Split centred on dichotomy between “Theoretical sensitivity”

vs. “Emergence” of theory from data

Slide 7

18 June 2009

Glasser’s method

• Theoretical coding with “coding families”• Substantive coding and theoretical coding

– Substantive coding• Developed ad-hoc during open-coding• Relates to empirical substance of each domain

– Theoretical coding • Conceptualization of how substantive codes related to each

other as hypothesis to be integrated into theory• Used to build theoretical model from substantive codes

• Families of theoretical codes– Degree family: limit, range, extent, amount– Dimension family: element, part– Cultural family: social norms, social values

Slide 8

18 June 2009

Glasser’s approach

• Meant to guide researcher in developing theoretical sensitivity

• Does not show how to combine theoretical and substantive coding in a meaningful way

• Task remains difficult• Utility for novice researchers limited

Slide 9

18 June 2009

Strauss and Corbin approach

• Similar to Glasser starts with open coding• Use “coding paradigms” to structure data and clarify

relationships among codes• Coding paradigms

– Conditions– Interactions among actors– Strategies and tactics– Consequences

• Useful during a process called “axial coding”– Intense analysis done around one category at a time in

terms of paradigm items

Slide 10

18 June 2009

Axial coding

• Empirical investigation needs theoretical framework to help identify categories in data and relate them in meaningful ways

• Used to think systematically about data and relate them in complex ways

• Used to analyse and model actions and interaction strategies of actors

Slide 11

18 June 2009

Axial coding

• Categories and concepts developed during open coding are investigated whether they relate to– Phenomena at which actions and interactions are directed– Causal conditions which lead to occurrence of phenomena– Attributes of context of investigated phenomena– Additional intervening conditions by which phenomena are

influenced– Action and interaction strategies of actors– Consequences of their actions and interactions

• No requirement for “free mind”– All kinds of literature can be used before research study

begins

Slide 12

18 June 2009

Axial coding

• Coding paradigm serves to explicate construction of a theoretical framework to create categories in a “user friendly” way

• Researchers with limited experience can use method without risking in drowning in data

Slide 13

18 June 2009

Split between approaches

• Glasser critiques axial coding and coding paradigms will force categories on data rather than emergence of categories from data– Should stay true to grounded theory and approach area of

study without precise research questions– Insists no need to review literature– Concerned not to contaminate efforts to generate categories

and their properties– Reiterates theoretical concepts would emerge if researchers

free themselves from preconceived notions

• Keele views criticism as overstated

Slide 14

18 June 2009

Towards a clearer understanding

• Contemporary methodology and epistemology leads to a better understanding

• Concepts of– Abductive inference– Empirical content or falsifiability– Corroboration

• Grounded theory already implicitly uses these concepts

Slide 15

18 June 2009

Abductive inference

• Neither deductive nor inductive– Premises set on empirical phenomena whose conclusion is

an explanatory hypothesis– Hypothetical inferences serve to discover hypothesis which

explain certain empirical findings

• Originality of newly developed hypothesis is limited by facts which must be explained

• Hypothesis must lead to a satisfactory explanation of observed facts and must be related to previous knowledge

• Depend on previous knowledge that provide necessary framework for interpretation of empirical world under study

Slide 16

18 June 2009

Falsifiability

• Use of theoretical concepts with “low empirical content” can help

• Can be used as a heuristic concepts which represent “lenses” through which facts and phenomena are perceived

• Kelle suggests two different types of heuristics to draw from– From “grand theories” of social science which are too broad

and abstract to draw empirically contentful propositions– Categories which relate to general topics of interest in data

material

• Must be careful not to exclude concepts that may better fit

Slide 17

18 June 2009

Corroboration

• Research based on abductive inference is fallible– Validity of propositions developed on basis of empirical data

cannot simply be ascertained by fact that researcher freed their mind from preconceptions

– Can be easily seen by fact that often one empirical phenomenon allows for several theoretical explanations

• Newer computer assisted methods can be used to systematically search for empirical evidence and counter-evidence

Slide 18

18 June 2009

Conclusion

• Using theoretical terms with limited empirical content reduces risk of “forcing” categories on data

• Should be guided by epistemological understanding of relation between data and theory– Requires integration of previous knowledge with new

empirical observations– Previous knowledge provides categorical frameworks for

interpretation, description and explanation of empirical world

• Process should include meticulous search for negative instances and heuristic categories that do not apply

• Empirically contentful categories and propositions developed should be corroborated

Slide 19

18 June 2009

Lessons learned

• Use of grounded theory building is a difficult task and novices should have proper training and guidance

• Careful application of previous knowledge will assist in not “forcing” categories on data

• Strauss and Corbin’s approach provides a more systematic approach to grounded theory building

• Must be careful in applying heuristics – there may be better heuristics that one applied

Slide 20