Autores: Lozano-Marco, M.A

Creswell (2009) suggested the researchers to employ Strauss and Corbin’s (1990; 1998; 2008) version of grounded theory as it provides a more systematic approach towards exploration. He further proposed that any of the grounded theory versions can be implemented depending on researcher’s understanding of procedures but Strauss and Corbin’s (1990; 1998; 2008) approach to conduct grounded theory is an organized way of reaching close to the research aim and objectives and determining solutions to the research problem. Though, Glaser (1978, 1992 and 1998) and Charmaz (2006) also have numerous attractive features, but the researcher preferred using Strauss and Corbin’s version due to its simplified and standardised procedures. Strauss and Corbin’s version also provide various options to researchers to adapt themselves according to the understanding, beliefs and suitability of grounded theory procedures. For example, Strauss and Corbin (1998) provides a range of options from which a research problem can be identified. It could be from literature, highlights from professional experience, a research area to work on with

72 supervisory team or identification of the problem from conducting initial interviews. Similarly, due to the differences mainly in philosophical beliefs coding paradigm from Axial Coding phase was considered optional by Corbin and Strauss (2008); as she believes that it doesn’t fully address the principles of grounded theory. Consequently, coding paradigm had also been criticized over times by Charmaz (2006), considering it as highly structured and too prescribed. Charmaz (2006) also recommended that the use of coding paradigm is an option for the researcher, but it doesn’t particularly fit with the dynamics of grounded theory. Hence, Strauss and Corbin’s (1990; 1998; 2008) versions are better elaborated and have been widely matured in the academic research; thus, finding easy to comprehend and supports attaining a research focus. Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998; 2008) guidelines for conducting a grounded theory study consists of precise steps towards the development of a theory which supports the researcher to follow a focused path rather searching for data in different fields. Additionally, as this research was time-constrained, and the researcher planned to complete his studies within a specific duration, this version was found most appropriate out of all the three due to its methodical procedures.

Additionally, Glaser’s classic (1978, 1992 and 1998) version seems to be more time- consuming as the researcher must determine the research problem based on initial data collection and then look for his substantive area of research; whereas Strauss and Corbin (1998) provides variety of options to explore the research problem as discussed above. Glaser (1978; 1992; 1998) prefers to ignore literature to a great extent which could not have been done as approval of various progression points was required during the Doctorate research journey where the researcher needed to depict a considerable knowledge and reasons of choosing grounded theory research. The researcher also likes to highlight here that Glaser (1978; 1992; 1998) approach towards literature is too vague which was not even acknowledged by the supervisory team. Although Glaser (1978; 1992; 1998) guidelines were considered time-to-time during data collection and analysis process. Glaser (1978; 1992;

73 1998) prefers to ignore literature completely to minimise pre-conceptions when entering into the field. In context, Strauss and Corbin’s version outlines for the utilization of the literature helped to fulfil the requirements of academia as well. Consequently, Charmaz (2006) constructivist version also provides strict procedures towards generating a theory but due to the understanding and flexibility in Strauss and Corbin’s (1990; 1998; 2008) version, this version was selected as it has been matured more than three decades now. Further, the researcher can now acknowledge that initial review of the literature helped extensively in identifying the problem and gaps, which further aided to attain a focus in the substantive area, like all other qualitative approaches.

3.7.2 Basic Steps of the Strauss and Corbin GTM

As described, Strauss and Corbin’s (1990; 1998; 2008) version was used for conducting research due to its systematic set of procedures. By following a more methodical approach, the researcher generated his theory under following two phases simultaneously;

- Data Collection Phase – further completed into o Designing Interview Questions

o Transcribing and Analysing Interviews

o Constant Comparison and Theoretical Sampling - Data Analysis Phase – further completed into

o Development Codes and Concepts o Categorization and refining relationships o Generation of theory

In grounded theory study, the data collection and analysis run in parallel so that process of constant comparison could be facilitated. Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998; 2008) version of grounded theory study is usually completed in three stages of coding, i.e.

74 - Open Coding

The phase in which the data is mainly fractured down into codes, then similar codes together generate concepts based on their properties and dimensions; and then concepts further take the form of a category. Properties and dimensions can be determined from the words of the participants or can be acknowledged from the data incidents. Properties and dimensions are the wide-ranging characteristics identified from the data in which the action, events or happenings take place. Further, memo-writing during data collection and analysis helps to relate the emerging concepts against categories. It is the process in which the researcher uses its own observation for an action or setting. The categories are filled with more concepts as data is collected until it reaches the Axial Coding Phase.

- Axial Coding

The phase in which the categories from the open coding phase are refined and arranged in a new relationship in relation to the research phenomenon using own inductive and deductive thinking style. This analytical thinking is acquired from researcher’s theoretical sensitivity and reviewing of the data incidents again and again. Open and Axial coding phases overlap at several stages where the researcher collects data, analyses it, generates concepts and categories and then goes back into the field. This process continues until the saturation is observed in categories.

- Selective Coding

Selective coding starts when the theoretical saturation is observed as no new data is emerging. This is the phase in which a core-category is recognised representing the overall phenomenon under investigation. Memos generated previously helped to explain the relationship of the categories from open and axial coding phases.

75

3.7.3. Summary of the Paradigm Development

Before conducting the study practically, the researcher was well-aware of the versions, concepts, procedures and processes involved in grounded theory study. The key steps understanding for conducting this research are summarised under guidelines of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1990; 1998; 2008).

- This study is mainly based on interviewing to experienced personnel who were related to the process of study. The interview questions were inquired to participants who were currently or had previously experienced the phenomenon and were able to identify the process and give detail of the actions or interactions applied for managing risks and uncertainties.

- Data collection and interviewing process was guided by theoretical sampling and

constant comparison. These were the characteristics through which the interviewees who participated in the process of data collection were theoretically selected. Theoretical sampling and constant comparison assisted the researcher to absorb several dimensions and parameters linked to the process of study.

- In Open Coding, preliminary categories were created against data gathered. This included breaking down, comparing and classification of the collected data. After initially exploring the categories, the researcher went back into the field when Axial Coding Phase was initiated.

- In Axial Coding, the categories which were developed in open coding phase were further refined and arranged in a new relationship by looking at the data incidents again and again. The basic purpose of the axial coding phase was to further fracture down data and fill the already generated categories with more concepts.

- In Selective Coding, a core-category was determined and integrated into other categories which helped to create a storyline around that category. The purpose of selective coding was to identify the core-phenomenon taking place in data which

76 represented the overall solution to the research problem for which the researcher produced justification of the emergent theory. This core category united all the categories to provide a justification for the phenomenon being studied. Further, use of literature and data helped the researcher to validate associations which created a strong relationship between the categories and sub-categories, thus, leading to the development of the theory.

- The outcome of this empirical evidence and analysis phase was a substantive-level

theory, which has been demonstrated close to the research problem. The paradigm emerged with the assistance of memo-writing, an activity in which the ideas, concepts and perceptions were noted down throughout the process of Open, Axial and Selective Coding.