Keith Woodman wrote:
In Strauss and Corbin's 1990 paper "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluation Criteria" they list several criteria for judging grounded theory studies (I've paraphrased and combined some):
Research Process Judging Criteria:
1. How and why was the original sample selected?
R: this may be relevant for a dissertation committe of course, for classic GT it is not very important. In classic GT (CGT) one may start collecting data whenever and however. Important to CGT is the researcher's motivation to do the study. This will drive the research. The original data is often part of a professional concern. However, with time this concern is replaced by the concern of participants if one follows CGT procedures.
2. What major concepts emerged?
R: well, this is what you write up in your theory. I e that is what your theory is about - to fit the emergant concepts together in a theory that explains what is going on in the studied scene
3. What were some of the incidents that pointed at the emerged concepts?
R: again a question the diss committe might ask but in a CGT this is part of conceptual illustration. I e you'll have to give examples of incidents in the data that are conceptualized in order to make the reader understand what patterns of behavior these incidents are examples of.
4. On the basis of what concepts did theoretical sampling proceed? How did it guide data collection? Was it representative of the concepts?
R: again a question the diss committe might ask but in a CGT this may show in your memos and eventually in the write up of the theory
5. What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations (that is, among categories)? How were they formulated and tested?
R: conceptual relations is about what CGT calls theoretical coding and should also as the other issues above be implicit in the written theory - to discuss in detail how you did your theory thru coding, sampling, memoing, sorting, re-coding and re-memoing and re-sorting and eventually writing up the theory is not required or relevant in a CGT - it just bores the reader and steals valuable space since word count is limited for most publications.
Compare it to a quantitive study where the results are numbers. In such a study with the results written into a scientific paper the methods section is normally short with references to what statistical methods were used, but you do not have to elaborate how you did your statistic tests in detail. Unless you have developed a new statistical method. But CGT has been around for decades and the books are there for anyone to read who wants to understand the procedures.
The hypotheses are formulated in the written theory conceptually by using understandable language - think theoretically but write substantively is a CGT advice.
Testing is not required in CGT.
6. Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen? How was this accounted for? How did it affect the hypotheses?
R: in CGT you constantly compare your data and check if your hypotheses stick and fit the data. If they do not fit you'll have to modify them so that they will fit.
7. How and why was the core concept selected?
R: sometimes the core flies in your face during the first interview, other occasions it takes months or even years (if you do your research part time and you are a novice) . The core explains with much variation the behavior/action of the participants in the studied field of interest according to CGT.
Empirical Grounding Judging Criteria:
1. Are concepts generated?
R: Well that is the basic idea of CGT...
2. Are the concepts systematically related?
R: this is a workability question
3. Are there many linkages between concepts? Are they well developed?
R: this has to do with how well theoretical coding was done
4. Is much variation built into the theory?
R:this is of course important to CGT, unless modifiability is good the theory is too much of a tiny topic research
5. Are the broaden conditions built into its explanation?
???
6. Has process (change or movement) been taken into account?
R: process is a common theoretical coding approach but it is not always relevant
I was wondering if people feel that all or some of these can be used to judge a Grounded Theory study based on Glaser's methods? Are there different criteria for judging based on Glaser's canons of fit, relevance, workability, modifiability?
Research Process Judging Criteria:
1. How and why was the original sample selected?
R: this may be relevant for a dissertation committe of course, for classic GT it is not very important. In classic GT (CGT) one may start collecting data whenever and however. Important to CGT is the researcher's motivation to do the study. This will drive the research. The original data is often part of a professional concern. However, with time this concern is replaced by the concern of participants if one follows CGT procedures.
2. What major concepts emerged?
R: well, this is what you write up in your theory. I e that is what your theory is about - to fit the emergant concepts together in a theory that explains what is going on in the studied scene
3. What were some of the incidents that pointed at the emerged concepts?
R: again a question the diss committe might ask but in a CGT this is part of conceptual illustration. I e you'll have to give examples of incidents in the data that are conceptualized in order to make the reader understand what patterns of behavior these incidents are examples of.
4. On the basis of what concepts did theoretical sampling proceed? How did it guide data collection? Was it representative of the concepts?
R: again a question the diss committe might ask but in a CGT this may show in your memos and eventually in the write up of the theory
5. What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations (that is, among categories)? How were they formulated and tested?
R: conceptual relations is about what CGT calls theoretical coding and should also as the other issues above be implicit in the written theory - to discuss in detail how you did your theory thru coding, sampling, memoing, sorting, re-coding and re-memoing and re-sorting and eventually writing up the theory is not required or relevant in a CGT - it just bores the reader and steals valuable space since word count is limited for most publications.
Compare it to a quantitive study where the results are numbers. In such a study with the results written into a scientific paper the methods section is normally short with references to what statistical methods were used, but you do not have to elaborate how you did your statistic tests in detail. Unless you have developed a new statistical method. But CGT has been around for decades and the books are there for anyone to read who wants to understand the procedures.
The hypotheses are formulated in the written theory conceptually by using understandable language - think theoretically but write substantively is a CGT advice.
Testing is not required in CGT.
6. Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen? How was this accounted for? How did it affect the hypotheses?
R: in CGT you constantly compare your data and check if your hypotheses stick and fit the data. If they do not fit you'll have to modify them so that they will fit.
7. How and why was the core concept selected?
R: sometimes the core flies in your face during the first interview, other occasions it takes months or even years (if you do your research part time and you are a novice) . The core explains with much variation the behavior/action of the participants in the studied field of interest according to CGT.
Empirical Grounding Judging Criteria:
1. Are concepts generated?
R: Well that is the basic idea of CGT...
2. Are the concepts systematically related?
R: this is a workability question
3. Are there many linkages between concepts? Are they well developed?
R: this has to do with how well theoretical coding was done
4. Is much variation built into the theory?
R:this is of course important to CGT, unless modifiability is good the theory is too much of a tiny topic research
5. Are the broaden conditions built into its explanation?
???
6. Has process (change or movement) been taken into account?
R: process is a common theoretical coding approach but it is not always relevant
I was wondering if people feel that all or some of these can be used to judge a Grounded Theory study based on Glaser's methods? Are there different criteria for judging based on Glaser's canons of fit, relevance, workability, modifiability?
No comments:
Post a Comment