COMPETENCIA METAFÓRICA Y PROCESOS COGNITIVOS

In what follows, a synopsis of the processes used in grounded theory is presented. It is an overview of the original method created by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and incorporates further insights from Glaser (1992). It has been adapted by the researcher, who also includes the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985) to present this

naturalistic inquiry. It is therefore an interpretation of grounded theory as seen by the researcher.

The initial phase of a grounded theory study commences with the researcher having, 'an abstract wonderment of what is going on that is the issue and how it is handled. Or what is the core process that continually resolves the main concern of the subjects' (Glaser, 1992:22). Unlike a positivist study, there is not an exhaustive literature review conducted at the beginning of a grounded study. According to Glaser (1992:32) 'the literature will always be there. It does not go away!' The process is summarised by Leonard and McAdam:

… the researcher starts with minimalist a priori constructs, inquires deeply into organisational behaviour and events and gradually tests and forms theoretical constructs (2001:182).

This does not mean that the literature is ignored; rather the researcher reads 'in a substantive field different from the research' (Goulding, 1998:53). Once theories emerge from the data, the literature is checked and 'is analysed in order to draw comparisons, build on, or offer an alternative perspective' (Goulding, 1998:53). This process with the literature is in contrast to positivist studies that commence with a literature review and then test and replicate related research. According to Goulding:

Usually researchers adopt grounded theory when the topic of interest has been relatively ignored in the literature or has been given only superficial attention…most researchers will have their own disciplinary background

which will provide a perspective from which to investigate the problem (2002:55).

In this research, the researcher was aware of a gap in the literature on corporate governance and the public sector. Her own 'disciplinary background' and orientation in qualitative organisational research was the impetus to use a grounded theory approach.

4.7.1 Generating Theory

The collection of data is referred to as conducting fieldwork - 'observations, interviews, meetings and the inspection of documentation where appropriate or possible' (Douglas, 2003:46). The researcher commences analysis of the data and 'generating theory' from the initial data collection by immersing themselves in and with the data and looking for dimensions or themes (Berg, 2004). This process is described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as 'coding' the data. The theoretical perspective that is generated from the theory is determined by the researcher's approach and the personal interests and academic background in the area.

4.7.2 Coding

The coding of the data is a continuous process over the duration of the inquiry with the researcher breaking down the data and looking for connections, similarities and differences as it emerges. The categories are not predetermined, rather discovered by being immersed in the data. In sum, coding occurs from asking questions of the data

and assigning 'provisional' answers or 'theories' until all data is collected and analysed (Douglas, 2003).

In the initial coding phase, the researcher codes or 'names' an incident, event or perception of the phenomenon that emerges from the data. The name or code provides researcher's initial interpretation of what is happening. The same incident can be renamed, or allocated a mix of names or codes at this stage. This process can be described as a 'brainstorming' activity to enable broad thinking about the

incident's meaning (Goulding, 1998). The naming or coding is usually written in the margins of the field notes, transcripts etc. or prepared using index cards. These incidents can be renamed or re-coded during subsequent analysis or additional data sources. The data is then checked for similarities and differences. This comparison of the data is used to create conceptual categories and build theory. Glaser (1992) emphasised the importance of 'constant comparison' of the data, codes and categories 'to allow conceptual properties to emerge' (Douglas, 2003:48).

During the analysis and coding, the researcher looks for alternative explanations to test or confirm the emergent concepts and theories. This is done to ensure that the theory is conceptually adequate (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). The collection of data ceases upon 'saturation' - that is, when no new or relevant theories can be drawn for all existing data.

There are several layers of coding: open coding in which unrestricted labels are attached to the data. Reflection of existing data combined with new data is also coded 'openly' at this stage, as is a check for similarities and differences. Following

this open coding process is axial coding in which the researcher regroups the data and identifies the relationships between open codes. The final coding is known as selective coding in which the central phenomenon emerges from the axial coding. Following this, 'a theoretical framework of interrelated concepts can be developed' (Douglas, 2003:48). Throughout the coding process and the reflection on the data, the researcher writes theoretical questions and summaries of the codes. This process is described as memoing, in which the researcher is writing memos to her/his self. Memos become the basis of the narrative used by the researcher in the final phase, to write up or report the data.

As stated earlier, the researcher may at first be overwhelmed with the 'flood' of data and be unsure as to how much data is necessary, as there is no definitive measure to answer this. Goulding (1998:56) warned intending researchers that as a

methodology, it is 'time-consuming, often frustrating [and] requires patience, an open mind and flexibility'. Partington (2000:101) supports Goulding and describes the qualities needed by qualitative researchers as, 'sensitivity, creativity, patience, perseverance, courage and luck'. The researcher must be willing to 'continuously expand and refine' their ideas and once they have done so, it is time to write up their findings as the study has 'ceased'.