Importancia de la Prueba

that GT is a type of methodological approach not often practised within Computing Science departments, where statistical, experimental, verificational, notionally inductive, traditional scientific approaches to the generation of knowledge are much more

traditional, and as such some explanation of what such a methodology sets out to

achieve is prudent. Second, I have attempted to follow Glaser's approach, but he has yet to publish a single, easy to obtain, step by step guide to performing this methodology. The published work other than the original The Discovery of Grounded Theory:

Strategies for Qualitative Research (Glaser & A. Strauss 1967) that comes closest to a guide is Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory (Glaser 1978), but this publication has few practical examples rendering the advice open to interpretation. This interpretative nature could be said to be the purpose of the methodology as a whole. Glaser repeatedly warns against what he calls ‘forcing’. That is forcing the data to fit an anticipated theoretical direction. However when learning to implement this ‘freeform’ yet structured methodology the lack of real world examples makes the process of learning how each method should be carried out and how one method leads into the next, to form a structured methodology, is far from transparent. This lack of transparency is evidenced by the variability in interpretation demonstrated in the many papers professing to have used a Grounded Theory Methodology and

numerous books purporting to explain what the methodology entails, while showing large differences in their implementations and interpretations respectively. The greatest demonstration of the lack of transparency in Glaser’s methodology however is his disagreement with his co-author of The Discovery of Grounded Theory, the late Anselm Strauss. This disagreement in the interpretation of the methodology even resulted in Glaser writing a book specifically highlighting the points where Strauss’s interpretation

112

(Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques; (A. L. Strauss & Corbin 1998)) departed from his own; Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emargence vs Forcing; (Glaser 1992). Strauss and Corbin’s Book (now in its 3rd edition) has gained some traction and has influenced the interpretation of GT methodology greatly. This is possibly due to the much more accessible, cook-book style it presents. Glaser’s objections are centred on the theoretical underpinnings of Strauss’s

Methodology, but yet there is still not a single source of practical advice in implementing Glaser’s view of GT which this author is aware of. There are only collections of papers (and apparently vanity published books) produced by Glaser showing the different domains in which it might be applied and what one might expect in terms of results. This section then will present an interpretation of Glaser’s methodology (which he prefers to call Classic Grounded Theory). Starting with what kind of ‘theory’ one might expect to produce, followed by what processes one might expect to perform in order to produce such a theory, and what these processes might look like in all practicality. I will not enter the debate between Classic GT and Straussian GT; if the reader would care to know the minutiae of the differences between these two competing interpretations I would suggest reading Glaser's critique of Strauss and Corbin (Glaser 1992). The section following this one deals with how this interpretation has actually been implemented in order to produce the extant thesis, and a later chapter explores commonly encountered misconceptions (many of which I myself have fallen foul of at various points) which often serve to confound the user of GT.

2.2.2. Generalized Process

In the following gross summary paragraph I have attempted to present the process free of GT jargon. Where necessary, as the jargon will be used as shorthand later in this

113

thesis, the specific jargon word or phrase is placed in parentheses and italics immediately following the concept.

The Classic GT process is primarily iterative. Data is collected in an ongoing process, rather than as a single study or a study broken into a series of predetermined phases, and the formulation of theoretical concepts operates in parallel with data collection. Indeed, the developing theory directs the collection of data in order to increase the efficiency of the data collection process (theoretical sampling). The formulation of theoretical concepts is directed via two methods: the generation of themes (category codes) and properties of these themes, and the capturing of theoretical thoughts

(memos). The collection of data, in each iteration, is guided by the theoretical ideas that are emerging, with the researcher following interesting leads as much as possible

(theoretical sampling). These iterations pass through a phase where the theory seems to point in one particular theoretical direction (core category) which is then rounded out (selective coding) with more iterations focused on this idea, before stopping when this direction is theoretically exhausted and the work is no longer producing new theoretical ideas (saturation). Once the primary iterative phase is complete the researcher then takes his, hopefully many theoretical ideas, and decides how they will best fit together to explain the phenomenon via the direction identified (sorting); a process which may well yield new theoretical ideas which would also be included in the integration process. These integrated ideas are then the basis for the final published work.

It should be pointed out that the identification of themes is essential to using this methodology effectively, indeed in Glaser and Strauss's original disseminations on the methodology (1967) it is known as the Constant Comparative Method highlighting that the method relies on comparisons within the data set rather than applied interpretations to individual datum.

114

All of these decisions cannot be automated and depend entirely on the researcher’s ‘sensitivity’ to theory. That is the researcher is relying on their own knowledge and intelligence to identify the interesting themes and make theoretical judgments about them. That is not to say that the process should be deductive; theoretical judgments should only be made which appear in and hence can be ‘grounded’ in the data, resulting in an abductive or retroductive process.

One issue that should also be pointed out is the relationship between Memos and Theoretical Codes. As I understand it a Memo is a theoretical idea based on Codes while a Theoretical Code is a comparison of Codes rather than data, a super-code if you will.

2.2.3. Practical Process

In practical terms, for many studies in the Social Sciences this means that GT is formed by inspecting each new set of data (interview, diary, article, participant observation or whatever else seems to best fund the research) for points of comparison. Where a point of comparison is identified it is noted and where it differs from other instances of the same comparative code that new difference is also noted as a property code of the parent comparative code. These comparison and property codes are then the material for theorizing. As theorizing is the purpose of the endeavour, the writing of theoretical memos takes priority; the researcher ensuring that theoretical memos are captured throughout.

At some point the researcher will become fairly convinced that they have a good idea about what is driving the actors in the domain, what their key concern is, and switches focus to selectively flesh out this idea. In selectively coding for this core category the researcher isn’t attempting to find every possible value for every possible variable, they are attempting to achieve theoretical saturation; saturation of the variables (Theoretical memos), not the values of those variables (codes or data). For qualitative research in

115

general this would mean fleshing out the interesting contributing types of property and how they affect the core. If the core is going to lead to a good theory one would expect most theoretical memos to relate to its properties. When new no new theoretical ideas are being noted in memos, this is the general stopping rule for the main part of the research.

The researcher now has a collection of theoretical ideas in the collection of memos, but this is, in itself, not as interesting as it could be. The theory needs to be worked up into a meaningful whole. While sorting the memos, with the simultaneous aims of integrating as many of the theoretical ideas as possible into the theory, and producing a product which can be written into a meaningful thesis (or paper), the researcher remains aware of new and interesting relationships which may emerge and notes them as new memos to be integrated. At the end of sorting the researcher should have a structure for the intended publication, and in virtue of the methodology used be able to illustrate

theoretical points by drilling down from the memos back through the codes to find clear illustrative examples in the data to illuminate points made; demonstrating the grounding of the theory.

The precise physical mechanics of each of these stages is not dictated. Glaser himself seems to prefer to use paper at every stage of the process, from data collection (post hoc and ad hoc field notes) to sorting (paper and scissors), but a case can be made for using software to keep track of the relationship between codes and data, and memos and codes, and some practitioners use other systems of keeping track of their research. The primary aim is keep the project in a fluid, flexible state so that it can account for the data in the domain; allow the researcher to maintain an understanding of that data, the domain and their theory; and not be constrained by the particular mechanics employed.

116

Other pieces of practical advice can be gathered from Glaser’s writings. The following coverage of this advice is not exhaustive, but the points presented have shaped this thesis:

Glaser advocates avoiding literature directly relating to the research domain in order to prevent the theoretical influence of these theories on the developing work. Though while attempting to avoid forcing a deductive process on the data with directly related works he does advocate maintaining a broad scholarship in order to become as sensitive to theoretical concepts as possible. Similarly, discussing ones emerging theory before it is fully formed can rob the researcher of confidence, being swayed by the opinion of colleagues who have not engaged in the grounded process, and so should also be avoided.

Advice on the actual practice and mechanisms of GT are less forceful, however some can be ascertained. For example, where sampling is concerned the place to start is

anywhere; just collect some data and start. Once theoretically sampling one should seek out similar data to flesh out properties and different or disparate data to generate new comparative codes. Another example is that when coding, a single part of the data should inform one code (category or property) rather than many, preventing any propensity to create a complex theory from a few data points. However theory production in memos is not so constrained.