Five Qualitative Approaches to Inquiry

 GROUNDED THEORY
RESEARCH

 CASE STUDY

 THE FIVE APPROACHES

COMPARED

AMERA C. MALACO
GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH
 Definition and Background

Grounded theory study is to move beyond description

and to generate or discover a theory, a “unified theoretical
explanation” for a process or an action. (Corbin & Strauss,
2007, p. 107).
 
According to Creswell (2009), grounded theory is “a
qualitative strategy of inquiry in which the researcher
derives a general, abstract theory of process, action, or
interaction grounded in the views of participants in a
study.”
• Theory development does not come “off the
shelf,” but rather is generated or “grounded” in
data from participants who have experienced
the process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

• Thus, grounded theory is a qualitative research

design in which the inquirer generates a
general explanation (a theory) of a process, an
action, or an interaction shaped by the views of
a large number of participants.
 Defining Features of Grounded Theory

There are several major characteristics of grounded theory that might be incorporated
into a research study:

• The researcher focuses on a process or an action that

has distinct steps or phases that occur over time.
• Researchers seek to develop theory from this process
at the end.
• Researchers writes down ideas, while collecting or
analyzing data called memoing, helps in sketching out
the whole process.
• Researchers were of the view that previous theories
were not always suitable for participants under study.
Primary Data collections DATA ANALYSIS

• Interviewing ( face to face • can be structured and follow the

interview and also focus pattern of developing open
group discussion) categories, selecting one category
to be the focus of the theory.

• The participants interviewed • They can be presented in the form

are theoretically chosen of diagram, hypotheses or
(theoretical sampling) discussion.

• The researchers can begins

• Iterative ( means moving analysis while collecting data.
forward and back
simultaneously ) • Use of “zigzag” process.

• can also be less structured and

• Developing theory or going
based on developing a theory by
back to participants piecing together implicit meanings
about a category (Charmaz, 2006).
 Types of Grounded Theory Studies
1. systematic procedures of
Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) open coding

• Coding the data for its major

• explains process, action,
categories of information.
or interaction on a topic. • Involves taking data through
• conducts 20 to 30 interviews, transcriptions, and
interviews based on segmenting them.
several visits. • researcher identifies one open
• The coding category to focus on
researchers can
(called the “core” phenomenon),
begins analysis while
collecting data.
Ask question or
• data collection in a consistent
Code precisely
grounded theory study is questions to the
a “zigzag” process. data
• participants Four
interviewed Guidelines
are theoretically chosen.
• constant comparative Write reflected Minimize your
method of data analysis. memos assumption
 Axial coding Selective Coding

• Linking concepts ( categories )

or categories to concepts for
• Integration of all categories in
exploration of the following four
the theory
properties:
• Grouped around a core
 category
Causal conditions
 • Building the storyline around
Strategies
 this category
Context
 Consequences

 Construction of theories, pattern

& relationship
2. Charmaz ( 2005-2006) Constructivist approach

• emphasizing diverse local worlds, multiple realities, and the

complexities of particular worlds, views, and actions.

• a focus on theory developed that depends on the researcher’s

view.
• more emphasis on the views, values, beliefs, feelings,
assumptions, and ideologies of individuals than on the methods
of research.
• suggests diagrams, conceptual maps, and systematic
approaches (such as Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
• procedure does not minimize the role of the researcher in the
process.

• Any conclusion developed by grounded theorist are suggestive,

incomplete, and inconclusive ( Charmaz, 2005)
 Procedures for Conducting Grounded Theory
Research

• Begin by determining if grounded theory is best

suited to the research problem.
• Grounded theory is a good design to use when a
theory is not available to explain or understand a
process.
• theories may be present, but they are incomplete
because they do not address potentially valuable
variables.
• A theory may be needed to explain how people are
experiencing a phenomenon.
• gather enough information to fully develop (or
saturate) the model.
• This may involve 20 to 30 interviews.
• The analysis of data proceeds in stages: open coding,
axial coding , and selective coding.

• The result of the process of data collection and

analysis is a theory, a substantive-level theory, written
by a researcher close to a specific problem or
population of people.

• The theory emerges with the help from the process of

memoing, in which the researcher writes down ideas
about the coding.
• The substantive-level theory may be tested later for
its empirical verification with quantitative data to
determine if it can be generalized to a sample and
population

• The study may end at this point with the generation of

a theory as the goal of the research.
TEMPLATE FOR CODING GROUNDED THEORY
 Challenges

• The investigator needs to set aside, as much as

possible, theoretical ideas or notions so that the
analytic, substantive theory can emerge.
• The researcher faces the difficulty of determining
when categories are saturated or when the theory is
sufficiently detailed.
• One strategy that might be used to move toward
saturation is to use discriminant sampling.
Strauss and Corbin (1990) also provide broad writing parameters
for their grounded theory studies

 Develop a clear analytic story. This is to be provided in the

selective coding phase of the study.

 Write on a conceptual level, with description kept secondary to

concepts and the analytic story. This means that one finds little
description of the phenomenon being studied and more analytic
theory at an abstract level.

 Specify the relationship among categories. This is the theorizing

part of grounded theory found in axial coding when the researcher
tells the story and advances propositions.

 Specify the variations and the relevant conditions, consequences,

and so forth for the relationships among categories.
 Definition and Background

• Case study research involves the study of a case

within are life, contemporary context or setting (Yin,
2009).

• It is not a methodology but a choice of what is to be

Studied according to Stake (2005)(i.e., a case within
a bounded system, bounded by time and place).
• Case study research is a qualitative approach in which the
investigator explores a real-life, contemporary bounded
system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over
time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving
multiple sources of information (e.g., observations,
interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and
reports), and reports a case description and case themes.

• The unit of analysis in the case study might be multiple

cases (a multisite study) or a single case (a within-site
study).
 Defining Features of Case Studies
• Case study research begins with the identification of a
specific case. This case may be a concrete entity,
such as an individual, a small group, an organization,
or a partnership.
• Case study researchers, study current real-life cases
that are in progress so that they can gather accurate
information not lost by time. A single case can be
selected or multiple cases identified so that they can
be compared.
• The intent of conducting the case study is also
important. A qualitative case study can be composed
to illustrate a unique case, a case that has unusual
interest in and of itself and needs to be described and
detailed.
 When to use case study approach?

 When you want to answer a descriptive question

( What happened? )

 When you want to answer an explanatory question

( How or why something happened?

 When you want to provide an explanation

( to what extent has an innovation had an effect on
participants in a setting?)
 Types of Case Studies
• Single Instrumental case study (Stake, 1995), the
researcher focuses on an issue or concern, and then
selects one bounded case to illustrate this issue.
• Seeks to understand the issue, problem, or concern
that the case represents, rather than the particular case.
The case is seen as important as a means to an end.
Ex.
 Teenage drug use in general rather than teenage drug
use at a particular school.
 Discipline in general rather than discipline in a particular
teacher’s classroom.
 Campus reactions to violence in general rather than
reactions to a specific incident.
2. Collective case study (or multiple case study), the
one issue or concern is again selected, but the inquirer
selects multiple case studies to illustrate the issue.

 It seeks to study multiple cases to gain greater insight

into the research topic ( typically no more than 4-5
cases)

 Advantage

 Cases can compared for similarities and differences

 Disadvantage

 Depth vs breadth trade off ( attention to detail may

diminish when you study more than one case)
3. Intrinsic case study in which the focus is on the case
itself because the case presents an unusual or unique
situation.

Ex.
 A student who is having difficulty in class
 How the local PTA operates
 How a church uses technology in its ministry
 Procedures for Conducting a Case Study

• First, researchers determine if a case study approach is

appropriate for studying the research problem. A case
study is a good approach when the inquirer has clearly
identifiable cases with boundaries and seeks to provide an
in-depth understanding of the cases or a comparison of
several cases.

• Researchers need next to identify their case or cases.

These cases may involve an individual, several
individuals, a program, an event, or an activity.
• In choosing which case to study, an array of
possibilities for purposeful sampling.

• The data collection in case study research is typically

extensive, drawing on multiple sources of information,
such as observations, interviews, documents, and
audiovisual materials.

• Six types of information to collect: documents, archival

records, interviews, direct observations, participant
observation, and physical artifacts. (Yin (2009)
• The type of analysis of these data can be a holistic analysis of
the entire case or an embedded analysis of a specific aspect of
the case (Yin, 2009).

• the researcher might focus on a few key issues (or analysis of

themes), not for generalizing beyond the case, but for
understanding the complexity of the case.

• One analytic strategy would be to identify issues within each case

and then look for common themes that transcend the cases (Yin,
2009).

• This analysis is rich in the context of the case or setting in which

the case presents itself (Merriam, 1988).
• When multiple cases are chosen, a typical format is to provide first
a detailed description of each case and themes within the case,
called a within-case analysis, followed by a thematic analysis
across the cases, called a cross-case analysis, as well as
assertions or an interpretation of the meaning of the case.

• In the final interpretive phase, the researcher reports the meaning

of the case, whether that meaning comes from learning about the
issue of the case (an instrumental case) or learning about an
unusual situation (an intrinsic case).
 Challenges

 The researcher must identify the case

 The case selected may be broad in scope (e.g., the
Boy Scout organization) or narrow in scope (e.g., a
decision-making process at a specific college).
 The case study researcher must decide which
bounded system to study, recognizing that several
might be possible candidates for this selection and
realizing that either the case itself or an issue, which a
case or cases are selected to illustrate, is worthy of
study.
 The researcher must consider whether to study a
single case or multiple cases. The study of more than
one case dilutes the overall analysis; the more cases
an individual studies, the less the depth in any single
case.
 When a researcher chooses multiple cases, the issue
becomes, “How many cases?” There is no one answer
to this question. However, researchers typically
choose no more than four or five cases.
 Deciding the “boundaries” of a case—how it might be
constrained in terms of time, events, and processes.
 Case Study Writing Structure
This approach is suggested by Stake (1995)
 The writer opens with a vignette so that the reader can develop a
vicarious experience to get a feel for the time and place of the
study.
 Next, the researcher identifies the issue, the purpose, and the
method of the study so that the reader learns about how the study
came to be, the background of the writer, and the issues
surrounding the case.
 This is followed by an extensive description of the case and its
context—a body of relatively uncontested data—a description the
reader might make if he or she had been there.
 Issues are presented next, a few key issues, so that the reader
can understand the complexity of the case. This complexity builds
through references to other research or the writer’s understanding
of other cases.
• Next, several of the issues are probed further. At this point, too,
the writer brings in both confirming and disconfirming evidence.

• Assertions are presented, a summary of what the writer

understands about the case and whether the initial naturalistic
generalizations, conclusions arrived at through personal
experience or offered as vicarious experiences for the reader,
have been changed conceptually or challenged.

• Finally, the writer ends with a closing vignette, an experiential

note, reminding the reader that this report is one person’s
encounter with a complex case.
TEMPLATE FOR CODING A CASE STUDY ( USING A MULTIPLE
OR COLLECTIVE CASE APPROACH)
 FIVE APPROACHES COMPARED

First
• For case and narrative studies, the researcher uses multiple forms
of data to build the in-depth case or the storied experiences.
• For grounded theory studies and phenomenological projects,
inquirers rely primarily on interviews as data.
• Ethnographers highlight the importance of participant observation
and interviews, but, as noted earlier, they may use many different
sources of information.
Second
• Narrative researchers, phenomenologists, and ground theorists
study individuals;
• Case study researchers examine groups of individuals participating
in an event or activity or an organization; and
• ethnographers study entire cultural systems or some subcultures of
the systems.
Third
• Ethnographers have written extensively about field issues (e.g.,
Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995).
• Narrative researchers are less specific about field issues,
although their concerns are mounting about how to conduct the
interview (Elliott, 2005).
Fourth
• Conducting interviews seems less intrusive in phenomenological
projects and grounded theory studies than in the high level of
access needed in personal narratives, the prolonged stays in the
field in ethnographies, and the immersion into programs or
events in case studies.
“The best research you can do is
talk to people”
- Terry Pratchett