From Keith Woodman
Hello folks. Good news, I just passed my dissertation proposal defense but it was quite a fight. My committee is made up of 4 professors, only one of whom appreciates and understands inductive research. The main sticking points were as follows:
1. When describing theoretical codes, I stated that they describe the most probable relationships between concepts. This turned into a 20 minute discussion by what I meant by "probable". I stated that the theoretical code was the best way I could link my concepts based on data triangulated from multiple sources.
2. I was asked how I would know I've reached saturation. Having already collected all my data and conducted several iterations of coding, I knew when I had reached saturation during the study at least with concepts, but kept taking data in order to collect more information to describe concept properties and increase validation through triangulation. But I couldn't state, "you just know when you've reached saturation because you're so close to the data".
3. The last sticking point was significance. How do you know your inductive study is going to be significant to the body of knowledge since you don't conduct a literature review until close to the end? Got to admit, this one stumped me. I knew I could prove the significance of my study having conducted my literature review but how would one do that at the beginning of an inductive study? (Note: I collected most of my data and conducted my analysis and literature review before the proposal defense because my opportunity to collect data was a once in a lifetime opportunity.)
Although I've made it through proposal defense, I post these for two reasons. First, to help those who may be coming up on their proposal defense. Second, my committee is taking me seriously now and wants to meet with me every three months until I am finished. I would like to be able to answer their questions and make these deductive researchers feel more comfortable with what I'm doing.
Thanks!
----------------
Tom's response to Keith
Hi Keith,
Your posting raises some interesting questions. You sound as if you dealt with them very well. I will answer them briefly as follows.
1. Theoretical codes essentially are the qualitative research equivalent to conceptual frameworks. They demonstrate how the core, sub-core and categories relate to each other- they hold the study together. Like all aspects of GT they emerge as well and while there may be several relevant in any one study, it is likely that there will be an overriding one.
2. You achieve saturation when you see no new incidents of the same category or you see interchangeability of indices. Being “close to the data” is not an issue. Remember that “validation” is not an issue either in GT because of its conceptual nature.
3. It is likely that most studies using qualitative research will be descriptive. The significance of GT is that it generates a conceptual theory, one that at a minimum can be used explain and/or understand the behaviour of participants in resolving or processing their main concern. It makes a theoretical contribution, particularly in areas where there theory is lacking and there are many. Again, a minimum contribution is that the generated theory can be used to guide practice. It is generalisable because it is independent of time, place and people. A generated GT has the potential to be very influential.
I hope this helps and gives you something to think about when answering the questions of your committee. Also, I would encourage you to read some of Dr. Glaser’s later books where these issues are dealt with at length.
---------------------
Lettra's questions to Tom
Hi Tom. I always find your imput very helpful. I wonder if you could confirm what you mean by core sub-core and categories. To clarify what I mean - At the open coding stage I identifed themes used by participants, To compare them I then numbered them to identify similars and none-similars, which produced the substantive codes. These were then delimited by noting how many times each similar was used; e.g the lesser number 1-3 were delimited as not being significant enough to become a category, others above this number were so identifed. Eventually one specific core category emerged making the rest sub-categories.
My question is this: Are your core: sub-core: categories the same under different labels?
-------------
Tom responded to Lettra
Hi Lettra,
First of all the words code and category are used interchangeably in GT; they mean the same thing. The aim is to identify a core category which accounts for most of the variation in the behaviour of participants. It is at this point that researchers delimit, meaning that data are collected around the core category only and other categories not related to the core are dropped since they haven’t “cored out” that is, they are not related to the core. They might become the focus of another paper. That is what is meant by delimiting. So delimiting is not applied to incidents. Categories/concepts are the naming of patterns of behaviour. This is what researchers are looking for in the behaviour of people. There is no need to look for similarities and differences, negative cases etc. as in qualitative research. However, researchers will often be concerned with what varies a category. It could be consequences, conditions, contingencies etc. but these must emerge and not be forced in any way. For example (and it’s not a particularly good one but the only one I can think of currently), in a category called “money worries” participants may be worried along a continuum from not being too worried to being greatly worried. Rather than treating them differently GT researchers would look at what varies money worries. Incidents would still indicate the same category (money worries) but in this example, it varies along a continuum. Qualitative research would concern itself with describing in detail each of the variations, while not necessarily relating them one to another. Not so in GT where the pattern is conceptualised and related using theoretical coding. I hope this makes sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment