grounded-theory

--leads me to a place of theory in research. So this idea of extracting concepts from emotions.
The first thing that we have is a emotional reaction to things that we observe or things we listen
to. And how do we go from that state to actual analysis is the research piece. So theory is this
narrative component of a specific phenomenon that is geared to bridge the relationships between
the things that we observe.

On one hand, as we talked the last time, we could use previous studies in a top-down approach to
guide our own expectations. As I mentioned to Michael's study on skateboarding community, I
can say, well, I know that people have done these types of things, and they have created this
positivity theory, right? These communities are very positive, very supportive.

So my expectation, in this case, would be supportive. That's a theory, that's my narrative. And I
can say this as a narrative by saying, oh, previous studies have looked at this, and this, and they
saw that this is happening. Yet, in many cases, we don't have these expectations because our case
is very specific, for example.

Or, it can be that we want to find new aspects of it. We will be using this grounded theory
approach. And it's called the logic of discovery. And how it works? We said in the last time, we
can have two approaches. One is top-down, and the other is bottom-up.

So in this whole graph, if we have already a theory on which we build on, we usually use this
approach. But in this class, we want to use this approach, which is called grounded theory
approach, which is bottom-up for various reasons. So logic of discovery, that means when we do
that, we're able to enter the site without preconceived notions what we should find.

So basically, this theory was based by Glaser and Strauss from the '50s-- but you don't need to
know this information-- exactly as created along with the developments of qualitative research
by providing this pace for the new phenomena to emerge. Because if we go top-down, we can
only find the things that we predict or we expect.

And in this case, we can find other stuff. So one analogy that I'm using, in this case, is-- So
basically, categories are developed through an ongoing process of comparing needs and data
with each other. That's how it takes place. So you observe, you read, you go through it, you go
through it, you go through it, and you identify certain things that have codes and category
definitions continue to change dynamically by the researchers still on the--.

So I'll give you two analogies that I'm using when I talk about grounded theory approach. First is
my fish and net or, not fish [INAUDIBLE]. Imagine grounded theory approach is something like
a fisher person-- I won't say fisherman or fisherwoman, that's a complicated thing-- This fisher
person-- Is that a word in English? I don't know. Anyway, so you go to sea, you put the net to
sea, and you take out the stuff. And if you use grounded theory approach, you will categorize
everything you have on your net, including shells, seaweed, stones.
Whereas, if you are using top-down approach, you would do the same thing. You go with a net,
take out the net, and then you say, oh, I just want Tuna, and I want only Sardines. Everything
else, throw in the water. Do you see my point?

So if we have-- Imagined the shells or something. But my bottom line is, in the first case, if we
have a top-down approach, we have a specific fishing line or stones, we just want corals. What
are the downsides of grounded theory approach, potentially?