The ultimate purpose of this study is to build a substantive theory that explains OSS governance. The focus of the research is on vertical OSS communities that challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions in the relevant literature. As explained in chapter 2, there is a lack of theoretical foundation to assist researchers in explaining the emergence and dynamicity of the OSS governance practices, especially in vertical OSS communities. Therefore, in this thesis, I follow a grounded theory approach that is suitable for phenomena that are emergent and poorly understood (Corbin and Strauss, 1990).
62
Grounded theory is an inductive data-driven methodology (Walsh et al., 2015). It aims to develop theory that is grounded in empirical data, rather than setting hypotheses and testing theories. Accordingly, I have started the research without a definitive theoretical basis. The research was driven by sensitising concepts from the initial literature review. The aim was to develop empirically-driven theoretical explanation with regards to OSS governance.
It is evident that there is an increase interest in grounded theory approach in the field of information systems over the past decade (Urquhart and Fernandez, 2013). However, grounded theory was criticised for producing low level of theory development due to the misuse of the grounded theory concepts (Urquhart et al., 2010). Therefore, I begin this section by providing a brief historical background about grounded theory and the emergence of the contentions and conflicts in the adoption of grounded theory. Then, I explain the grounded theory approach that is adopted in this thesis.
3.2.1. Types of Grounded Theory
Grounded theory was initially developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, which was represented in their famous book “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” in 1976 (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The aim of the book was to provide an alternative to the deductive approaches that require precise hypotheses to be developed before data collection (Kelle, 2010). Emergence is the key principle of grounded theory, where the research process and outcome emerge from data, rather than forcing categories on data. Besides, the researcher should employ theoretical sensitivity by combining the concepts that have emerged from the data with the researcher's previous theoretical knowledge (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). These basic rules have evolved considerably producing multiple types of grounded theory approaches. The first type is the Glaserian approach, which is the closest to the classical grounded theory. Glaser remained
63
consistent with the original grounded theory approach. He proposed two levels of coding; substantive and theoretical coding. According to Glaser (2002), the substantive coding aims to categorise data into as many categories as possible, while theoretical coding focuses on integrating the substantive codes to form a theory. The Glaserian approach is mainly based on emergence. Novice researchers find this approach challenging to be translated and applied in practice because emergence is highly reliant on theoretical sensitivity, which requires solid background in relevant theoretical directions (Kelle, 2010).
The second type is known as the Straussian approach. It was developed by Strauss as he was aware of the difficulties that face novice researchers in generating theoretical concepts. In 1987, he published a book titled “Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists” to train students in grounded theory procedures (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). He proposed more systematic coding procedures and suggested three levels of coding: open, axial, and selective coding. Similar to the substantive coding in the Glaserian approach, open coding involves scrutinising the collected data to produce concepts. Axial coding involves aggregating concepts into categories. Strauss proposed a coding paradigm model to analyse the categories in terms of contexts, causation, intervening conditions, and consequences. Finally, selective coding sets the relations between the categories to develop a theory. Strauss elaborated his approach in a book titled “Basics of Qualitative Research”, which was co-authored with Juliet Corbin (Corbin and Strauss, 1990).
A more recent type of grounded theory took a more flexible path. A famous example is the constructivist grounded theory developed by Cathy Charmaz (Charmaz, 2014). The advocates of this type assume that grounded theory constitutes of set of practices and principles; not a methodology. Charmaz argues that the grounded theory guidelines are flexible and can be applied with various methodological assumptions and approaches. She named her approach “Constructivist Grounded Theory” to acknowledge subjectivity
64
and highlight the role of the researcher’s position, perspective, and interactions in the process of theory development (Charmaz, 2014).
In summary, “there is no definitive grounded theory method” (Corbin and Strauss, 2008:373). Despite the variations and contentions between the different types of grounded theory approaches, they all have the central elements of grounded theory. In the rest of this section I explain the main tenets of the grounded theory that have been adopted in this research.
3.2.2. The Grounded Theory Approach Applied in the Thesis
In this thesis, I adopt grounded theory approach throughout the research process including data collection, data analysis, and theoretical development. I have applied the basic tenets of grounded theory approach, as suggested by Urquhart et al. (2010), which are:
1. The research was not driven by pre-conceived assumptions or pre- formulated hypotheses. This does not mean that I have ignored the literature (Suddaby, 2006). Instead, an initial literature review was conducted and helped in clarifying the research topic and formulating provisional research questions. Besides, the initial literature review acted as sensitising concepts that guided the data analysis.
2. I have relied on multiple sources of data to provide an opportunity for triangulation.
3. ‘Slices of data’ of various types were selected by a process of theoretical sampling (Walsh et al., 2015). According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), theoretical sampling is the process of combining data collection and analysis to decide what data to collect next and where to find them. This allows the researcher to capture concepts as they emerge, which advances the development of theory. This is what distinguishes grounded theory from other qualitative research. In addition, in line with grounded theory tenets, data was not focused on individuals and organisations. It also included events, incidents, interactions, and consequences (Corbin and Strauss, 1990).
65
4. Constant comparisons were performed as the data were collected. Constant comparisons aimed to assign a common meaning to multiple data incidents (Locke, 2001). As concepts emerge and labelled they were compared to other incidents in data. This continued until the existing categories were saturated.
5. Since the main purpose of the grounded theory method is theory building, I had to maintain theoretical sensitivity, which refers to the theoretical awareness of the researcher. I have developed this awareness by frequently referring to the relevant literature (Goulding, 2002) and by staying close to data (Charmaz, 2014). In addition, as argued by Corbin and Strauss (2008), the more I was involved in data analysis, the more I developed theoretical sensitivity. During data analysis, I have followed the Straussian coding phases (i.e. open, axial, and selective) and the Straussian coding paradigm. I have selected the Straussian approach because it provides a sign-posted procedure that guides the research (Seidel and Urquhart, 2013). It also provides analytical tools that uncover the context in which the target phenomenon occurs, and focus on related interactions and consequences (Corbin and Strauss, 1990), which fits the objectives of the research. The coding paradigm is flexible, and thus researchers can construct a coding paradigm that is consistent with their particular objectives (Kelle, 2010). Moreover, the Straussian approach allows researchers to more transparently report on the underlying research processes (Seidel and Urquhart, 2013). It is evident that the Straussian coding scheme became a common practice in the information systems discipline in general (Seidel and Urquhart, 2013). Besides, it has proven to be fruitful in OSS literature (e.g. Shah, 2006; Agerfalk and Fitzgerald, 2008; Feller et al., 2008; Shaikh and Henfridsson, 2017).
66
Figure 2: The Grounded Theory Approach
Adapted from Urquhart et al. (2010)
Figure 2 summarises the grounded theory approach followed in this research. The figure has been adapted from Urquhart et al. (2010). It illustrates that the research started with an initial literature review that lead to the area of inquiry and the collection of the first slices of data. Then, the research went through an iterative process between data collection, analysis, and literature review. This is considered as a central feature of grounded theory methodology. This process is further explained in sections 3.4 and 3.5.