Qualitative Research Methodology

Grounded Theory
&
Practitioner’s Research/ Action Research
Session 29 & 30
By
Dr. Qudsia Kalsoom
School of Education
Grounded Theory
 History of Grounded Theory
Grounded theory was first proposed by Barney
Glaser and Anselm Strauss in 1967. According to
them, grounded theory is an innovative
methodology that involves ‘the discovery of
theory from data’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1).
Like other qualitative research designs, in
grounded theory too, the researcher is not
focused on testing hypotheses taken from
existing theoretical frameworks.
 Grounded Theory
Grounded theory is a process of collecting
qualitative data and undertaking data
analysis to generate categories (a theory) to
explain a phenomenon of interested (Opie,
2004). OR
Grounded theory research is a logically
consistent set of data collection and analytic
procedures aimed to develop theory.
 Grounded Theory: Definition
Grounded theory is a design of inquiry from
sociology in which the researcher derives a
general, abstract theory of a process, action, or
interaction grounded in the views of participants
(Charmaz, 2006; Corbin & Strauss, 2007, 2015
cited in Creswell, 2012).
 The Key Characteristics of
Grounded Theory Research Design
(Creswell, 2012)
Characteristic 1: Process Approach
The research process in grounded theory
research is a series of interactions and
outcomes among a group of people regarding
the studied subject. For example, in educational
research, some examples are:
The first year teaching life of a new teacher
Becoming a school principal
Characteristic 2: Theoretical Sampling.
Theoretical sampling refers to the on-going
process of coding the
data, comparing the data, and grouping similar
data to build categories and core categories
(Jones & Alony, 2011).
The purpose of theoretical sampling is to
systematically direct the grounded theorists to
choose the most important data for the studied
phenomenon/ subject.
 Theoretical Sampling
Theoretical sampling means sampling to develop,
refine, or fill out the properties of tentative
theoretical categories.
Theoretical sampling makes these categories more
robust and precise.
What and who the researcher needs to sample
cannot be known before the research begins. To
engage in theoretical sampling, researchers must
have a tentative category or categories.
Thus, theoretical sampling follows focused coding.
 Theoretical Sampling
When engaging in theoretical sampling, researchers
gather data to answer specific questions about the
properties of their theoretical categories.
Theoretical sampling can be stopped when
theoretical saturation is achieved. Theoretical
saturation can be identified through three
parameters:
(i) no new data is distilled from a certain category,
(ii) the category could sufficiently cover salient
variations and process,
(iii) the interrelationships between categories have
been delineated appropriately.
Characteristic 3: Constant Comparative
Constant comparison is the process of
comparing like with like, to trace out the
emerging pattern and theory (Goulding, 2002).
It involves comparing events to events, events
to codes, codes to codes, codes to categories,
and categories and categories (Birks & Mills,
2011).
 Characteristic 4: A Core Category
The core category (or central category) portrays the main theme of a
study
OR
A core category can be viewed as the integration of other major
derived categories into a theory that rooted in the collected data.
Grounded theorist choose a core category that is able to explain the
rooted theory as a whole.
Some of the features of a core category are:
• Core category can be related to other major categories
• It should emerge frequently in the data
• The core category should be named sufficiently abstract so that it
can be used in other relevant studies,
• The generated theory should have explanatory power.
Characteristic 5: Theory Generation
The outcome of grounded theory research is to
construct a theory that explains a studied
phenomenon from the collected data.
Since the generated theory is close to the data, it
does not have an excellent ability for generalization,
thus it could not be applied widely for many
situations and people.
The theory can be presented:
(i) as a visual coding paradigm, (ii) as a series or
hypothesis, (iii) or as a narrative story (Creswell,
2012)
 Characteristic 6: Memos
memo-making, that is, writing analytic notes to explicate and
fill out categories, the crucial intermediate step between
coding data and writing first drafts of papers. Memos reflect
the researcher’s internal dialogue with the data at a point in
time.
Memo writing is a good idea to record emergent concepts or
ideas throughout the research process. These types of memos
are known as theoretical memos. Documentation of these
ideas and thoughts would prevent paralysis in the process of
generating theories as memo writing is helpful to direct
researchers into data and questions that need further
exploration.
The researchers who do not write memos become lost in
mountains of data and cannot make sense of them.
 When to start writing memos
The researchers should begin as soon as they have some
interesting ideas and categories that they wish to pursue.
They may look for the codes that they have used
repeatedly in their earlier data collection. Then start
elaborating on these codes. They should keep collecting
data, keep coding and keep refining their ideas through
writing more and further developed memos.
Treat memos as preliminary, partial and correctable. The
researchers are expected to NOTE where they are on
firm ground and where they are making conjectures.
Then they go back to the field to check their conjectures
How and when existing literature
should be used
during a grounded theory study.
While engagement with existing
literature prior to primary data
collection is characteristic of most
strategies of inquiry, Glaser and
Strauss (1967) originally argued
explicitly against this. They said:
‘An effective strategy is, at first,
literally to ignore the literature of
theory and fact on the area under
study’ (1967, p. 37).
Grounded theory’s very strong dicta are a) do
not do a literature review in the substantive
area and related areas where the research is to
be done, and b) when the grounded theory is
nearly completed during the sorting and writing
up, then the literature search in the substantive
area can be accomplished and woven into the
theory as more data for constant comparison.
(Glaser, 1998, p. 67)
The fundamental concern is based on the
premise that a detailed literature review
conducted at the outset may ‘contaminate’ the
data collection, analysis and theory
development by leading the researcher to
impose existing frameworks, hypotheses or
other theoretical ideas upon the data, which
would in turn undermine the focus, authenticity
and quality of the grounded theory research.
Delaying the literature review can help ‘to avoid
importing preconceived ideas and imposing
them on your work. Delaying the review
encourages you to articulate your ideas’
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 165).
Criticism on Delayed Literature Review
The open-mindedness of the researcher should
not be mistaken for the empty mindedness of
the researcher who is not adequately steeped in
the research traditions of a discipline. It is after
all, not very clever to rediscover the wheel, and
the student or researcher who is ignorant of the
relevant literature is always in danger of doing
the equivalent (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996, p. 157)
Literature Review in Grounded Theory:
A Middle Ground
The researcher may do literature review to become
aware of the ‘geography of the subject’, identify
research gap and formulate research questions. The
researcher may do further literature review parallel
to analyzing data. At this stage, literature review
serves to progress the analysis.
The constant comparative method involves seeking
out theoretical ideas from diverse fields to help
further explain and explicate emerging ideas
(Dunne, 2011)
Action Research
 Content
• Concept of Action Research
• Origins of Action Research
• Models of Action Research
• Tools in Action Research
• Trustworthiness and rigour in Action
Research
• Generations of Action Research
• Forms of Action Research
Some Readings on Action Research
• Caillier, S., & Lattimer, H. (Eds.). (2015). Surviving and
Thriving with Teacher Action Research: Reflections and
Advice from the Field. New York: PeterLang.
• Gravett, S. (2004). Action research and transformative
learning in teaching development. Educational Action
Research, 12(2), 259-272.
• Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The Action
Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action
Research. New York: Springer.
• Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of
action research: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage.
• The Action Research Journal
 Some Websites for AR
http://ccar.wikispaces.com/AR+Tutorial
http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.as
p
http://web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.ht
ml#_Toc26184662
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-SAJ
PF5xiA
 What is Action Research?
Action research is a form of research in
which practitioners reflect systematically
on their practice, implementing informed
action to bring about improvement in
practice and add to a body of knowledge.
Action (that is, change/ intervention)
Research (that is, understanding)
Dick (1999)
 What is Action Research?
Bassey (1998, p.93-95) describes educational
action research as follows:
‘Educational action research is an inquiry which
is carried out in order to understand, to evaluate
and then to change, in order to improve some
educational practice.’ (p.93)
 Action
• Initiating
• Doing: Taking action
• Intervening: Facilitating
• Improving practice
• Interested in the research
topic
Research
• Enquiring: review of literature
• Standing back: reflection
• Being careful: modest
educational claims
• Disciplined: Time to reflect and
write.
• Evidence: video recordings,
tape transcripts, written
reflections, peer validation
meetings
• Systematic: Not ad-hoc.
Time-scale, method to what
you are doing.
 Origins of Action Research
Kurt Lewin (1946) is reputed to have been the
first to use the term 'action research’.
Planning

Reflecting Acting

Observing
 Origins of Action Research

Stephen Corey (1953) first spoke of action

research as being a means for improving
practice in school. He urged teachers to
research their own practice in order to
improve it.
Why to do Action
Research?
1. Do all my students understand what I
teach them?
2. Do all students perform according to
their potential in my class?
3. Are my teaching methods perfect?
4. Are my teaching methods relevant but
can be improved?
5. Do I want to try something new with
my class?
 We all believe that
there is always a room for
improvement.
 How can we improve?
• By reflecting on our current practice
• Talking to peers and seeking their advice (Do
peers have enough time to help you
improve?)
• Talking to an expert in the area and seeking
advice (Can experts be approached easily?)
• Searching on internet and looking into the
books to find ways of improving the practice
Action Research helps in improving
our practice much more as compared
to any other means like: reflection,
peers, experts etc.
Models of Action
Research
Kemmis Model (1986)
 Cohen and Manion (1994) Model of
Action Research
First stage: Identification of the area/topic
Second stage : Preliminary discussion
Third stage : Review of related literature
Fourth stage : Modification of identified
area/topic
Fifth stage : Selection of research procedures
Sixth stage : Selection of evaluation procedures
Seventh stage : Implementation of the project
Eighth stage : Interpretation of data &
conclusions
 McNiff Model of AR adapted from
Whitehead
1. What issue am I interested in researching?
2. Why do I want to research this issue?
3. What kind of evidence can I gather to show why I am
interested in this issue?
4. What can I do? What will I do?
5. What kind of evidence can I gather to show that I am
having an influence?
6. How can I explain that influence?
7. How can I ensure that any judgments I might make are
reasonably fair and accurate?
8. How will I change my practice in the light of my
evaluation?
 Using Action Research Cycles

Action Research should offer the capacity to deal with a

number of problems at the same time by allowing the spirals
to develop spin-off spirals. (Jean McNiff, 1988)
http://www.jeanmcniff.com
 Action Research data gathering
techniques
• Keeping a Research Diary – teacher-researcher
and students
• Questionnaires
• Interviewing
• Observing
• Video
• Audio
• Online technology
 Action Research tools-Inquiry
Journal/Diary
Bassey (1998, p.107) states:
‘The essential tool is an ‘inquiry journal’,
that is a note book. This is where the
practitioner keeps notes stage-by-stage as
the research unfolds. It is a working
document which provides the source for
subsequent reflective thinking and report
writing.
 Trustworthiness and Rigour in Action
Research
Trustworthiness
Does the research do the things it claims to do?
Can the reader believe the results?
Researchers hold validity meetings to:
• test out claims with a validation group who will
challenge claims and help identify any weaknesses
• check out the data and the way it is analyzed and
presented
• enhance claims to knowledge and make sure that data
supports them.
• to gain new insights
 Rigour in Action Research
Rigour
The methodology which best allows the researcher
to conduct systematic inquiry in order to present a
warranted assertion. Swepson (2000)
Ensuring Rigour in Action Research
• Selection and use of multiple research
methods.
• Cyclical nature of action research.
• Focus on participation.
Generations of Action Research
 Generations of Action Research
• Stephen Corey initiated action research in
education in the US soon after Lewin’s work was
published (Corey, 1949, 1953). However, efforts
to reinterpret and justify AR in terms of the
prevailing positivistic ideology led to a temporary
decline.
• A second generation of action research with
practical focus, building on a British tradition of
action research in organizational development is
seen in 1970s and 80s.
• Advocacies and efforts for the realization of
‘critical character of AR is called the third
generation of action research
 Generations of Action Research
• A fourth generation of action research emerged in
the connection between critical emancipatory action
research and participatory action research that had
developed in the context of social movements in the
developing world .
• Two key themes were (a) the development of
theoretical arguments for more “actionist”
approaches to action research and (b) the need for
participatory action researchers to make links with
broad social movements.
 Kinds of action Research

1. Technical action research

2. Practical action research
3. Critical action research
 Technical Action Research
Technical action research is guided by an
interest in improving control over outcomes.
The task for the participant-researcher is to
improve the means (her/ his practice) to achieve
the outcomes.
In technical action research, there is an
asymmetric, one-way relationship between the
participant-researcher and the others involved
in or affected by the research.
 Practical Action Research
Practical action research guided by an interest in
educating or enlightening practitioners so they can act
more carefully. The focus is on long-term improvement.
The practitioner in such a case might still be the one who
decides what is to be explored and what changes are to
be made, but in practical action research she or he
remains open to the views and responses of others, and
the consequences that these others experience as a
result of the practice.
In this case, there is a symmetrical, reciprocal
relationship between the practitioner and others
involved in and affected by the practice.
 Critical Action Research
Critical action research guided by an interest in
emancipating people and groups from irrationality,
unsustainability, and injustice.
In critical participatory action research, the
reciprocity between practitioner researchers and
others in a setting is amplified still further:
responsibility for the research is taken collectively,
by people who act and research together in the first
person (plural) as ‘we’ or ‘us’. Decisions about what
to explore and what to change are taken
collectively.
 Scope of CAR
In recent times, Critical Participatory Action
Research has attempted to take account of
disadvantage attributable to gender and
ethnicity as well as to social class, its initial point
of reference, and to issues of unsustainability in
the contemporary world (Kemmis, McTaggart &
Nixon, 2014, p.12).