In this section, the process of data collection and analysis using a grounded theory approach is explained on the basis of Strauss’s analytic procedures. This choice is made because Strauss’s approach provides analytic techniques and guid-ance that are useful for researchers who are using grounded theory for the first time.
In the grounded theory approach, one of the most important goals is to de-velop theoretical sensitivity that refers to a personal quality of the researcher (e.g.
the ability to give meaning to data) because this allows the researcher to develop a theory. Theoretical sensitivity can be developed through a review of the
ature and via analytic procedures (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Therefore, the liter-ature review on decision theory and other previous research continues until the development of the categories is complete.
The procedures for data collection and analysis of the qualitative data ob-tained through the fieldwork consist of six steps as shown in Figure 1. These pro-cedures are not linear but rather intertwined through various steps. For example, data collection and analysis are conducted simultaneously through the stage of theoretical sampling and the comparative method is ongoing. Because the ground-ed theory approach is generally aimground-ed at generating theory, data collection is fo-cused on discovering concepts, categories, their properties and the relationships between them. The procedures are reiterated until theoretical saturation of each category is reached.
Figure 1. The process of data collection and analysis using a grounded theory approach
Source: based on Strauss & Corbin (1998)
3.1. Theoretical sampling
Theoretical sampling in the grounded theory approach refers to the sampling method based on the concepts that are significant and relevant to the evolving theory (Corbin and Strauss, 1990; Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998). Therefore, the aim of theoretical sampling is to sample specific issues that are indicative of cate-gories and their properties by using the comparative method. Thus, theoretical sampling helps to develop emerging categories and make them increasingly defini-tive and useful.
Unlike sampling methods normally used in quantitative research and other qualitative research, theoretical sampling cannot be planned before embarking on a grounded theory study (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Similarly, Charmaz (2000, 2006) recommends that theoretical sampling should be conducted after entering the field otherwise relevant data and analytic directions could be forced in the wrong direction.
Theoretical sampling is guided by questions and comparisons that occur during analysis. Therefore, every kind of source including interviews, government documents and newspapers can be considered to be part of the theoretical sampling. These constant questions and comparisons are helpful for discovering relevant concepts, categories and their properties (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
3.2. The coding process and constant comparison
The core of the analytic procedures in the grounded theory approach is the coding process and constant comparison. Once collected through theoretical sam-pling, data are broken down, conceptualised, and put back together in new ways through the coding process in order to build theory from them (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Because the coding process provides the rigor necessary to make theory into ‘good’ science, this research follows the coding process suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998). There are three types of coding, which include open, axial and selective coding.
Open coding refers to the process of breaking down, examining, comparing,
conceptualising and categorising data (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998). In the open coding process as well as with axial coding, the constant comparative meth-od is required to reach the goal of conceptualising and categorising data, that is, the asking of questions and the making of comparisons. The constant comparative method of grounded theory means: (a) comparing different people (such as their views, situations, actions, and experiences); (b) comparing data from the same in-dividuals with themselves at different points in time; (c) comparing incident with incident; (d) comparing data collected through theoretical sampling with a cat-egory; and (e) comparing a category with other categories, and so on (Charmaz, 2000).
These two analytic methods help to give the concepts and categories their precision and specificity. By using these two methods, data was compared with others for similarities and differences. In this way, conceptually similar decision processes, for example, were grouped together to generate categories and subcategories. Once initial categories and their properties have evolved, these be-come the basis of theoretical sampling for the next round of data collection (sampling for open coding). In this way, data collection and open coding are re-iterated until no new categories are developed.
While open coding fractures data into concepts and categories, axial coding puts these data back together in new ways by making connections between categories. Thus, axial coding refers to the process of developing main categories and their subcategories. All of these categories are unified around a core category through selective coding.
Once the initial categories are identified through theoretical sampling and the analytical coding process, they are tested and developed by selecting additional samples. These processes allow categories to be further extended and sharpened.
However, the analytical procedures for building a model stop when theoretical saturation of each category is reached. This means when: (1) no new or relevant data seems to emerge regarding a category; and (2) category development and the relationships between categories are well established (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
After that, the next step is to compare the emerging theory with the existing liter-ature and examine what is similar, what is different, and why. These comparisons
Subject Guideline
The research
process
1. How was the original sample selected? On what grounds?
2. What major categories emerged?
3. What were some of the events, incidents, actions, and so on that indicated some of these major categories?
4. On the basis of what categories did theoretical sampling proceed?
are expected to enhance the internal validity, generalisabililty and theoretical level of the theory.
3.3. Guidelines for enhancing the validity and reliability of the findings
Despite the usefulness of grounded theory for developing theory from data, many discussions of its weaknesses relate mainly to the issues of validity and reliability. However, Corbin and Strauss (1990) insist that the criteria used to evaluate objectivist, positivist, and quantitative studies are not necessarily appro-priate for judging qualitative studies. As a result, they suggest more systematic guidelines for analytic research procedures and evaluative criteria that will also prove useful in ensuring the success of this study (see Table 1).
According to Corbin and Strauss (1990), a grounded theory publication should help the reader to assess the actual research process. Therefore, these actual research process illustrated in Table 1 would be useful information for the readers to assess. These guidelines are expected to provide this study with useful tools to enhance both the validity and reliability of the findings.
Table 1. Guidelines for analytic research procedures and evaluative criteria
Subject Guideline
Evaluative criteria of
findings
1. Are concepts generated?
2. Are the concepts systematically related?
3. Are there many conceptual linkages and are the categories well developed?
Do the categories have conceptual density?
4. Is there much variation built into the theory?
5. Are the broader conditions that affect the phenomenon under study built into its explanation?
6. Has “process” been taken into account?
7. Do the theoretical findings seem significant and to what extent?
Source: Corbin and Strauss (1990, pp.16-20)