NOMBRE DEL TOUR IDIOMA RMSE (%) MAE (%)
4.2.1.8. PRESENTACIÓN DEL MODELO
According to Heath and Cowley (2004), the novice researcher in grounded theory should put aside the anxiety of doing grounded theory right and instead get on with doing it. The appropriate approach will be discovered through the process of data collection and interpretation. Throughout this process, I found the Straussian approach, as articulated by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and their subsequent publications (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, 2008, 2015, Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 1998), to be appropriate for this study. The Glaserian, or the classic grounded theory
approach, was not used as it does not suit the design of this study. Table 10 outlines the reasons for selecting the Straussian approach over the Glaserian approach.
Table 10: Why Choose the Straussian Grounded Theory Approach?
Reason Description
The Literature Review
In grounded theory, a substantial literature review in the area under study is delayed until the generated categories and theory seem to be grounded in the data. While both the Glaserian approach and the Straussian approach advise against a complete literature review, the Straussian approach is relatively flexible in that regard.
Coding Process & Theory Development
The Straussian approach provides steps and processes to help guide the researcher in creating a theory, including writing diagrams, filling the gaps, using metaphors, and talking to a supervisor or a colleague.
The Research Problem & Question
Unlike the Glaserian approach, in the Straussian approach, the researcher can initiate an inquiry with a predetermined research problem and question/s.
The Literature Review: While Glaser (1992) advises against consulting the relevant literature prior to or during the research process, Corbin and Strauss (2008) are relatively open to using the literature. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008) the relevant literature “can be a stimulus to research in several ways”, “may suggest that a new approach is needed”, may point “to a relatively unexplored area” and “suggest the need for a study that will help solve an old problem” (p. 22). What Strauss and Corbin caution against is being so steeped in the literature that one becomes constrained and stifled by it. They want the researcher to use the literature, not to be used by it (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In PhD studies, conducting a literature review is often a necessary step to satisfy university procedures and to find an area of interest and justify it. Normally, students must conduct a literature review in their area before focusing on a specific area. The focus and research area then emerges from that literature review. By then, a student will have been immersed in the related and unrelated literature under study. Only then can the research methodology be chosen to accommodate the emerging research problem and question.
In my case, a grounded theory study was inspired by the lack of theory and knowledge in the area chosen as a result of the initial literature review. The literature review, therefore, was essential, not to mention mandatory, to show that the chosen methodology, grounded theory, was justified, and that the findings would contribute to the literature. All of this was done while being aware that only the generated categories and theory would determine the research road. According to Charmaz (2006), “the trick is to use [the literature] without letting it stifle your creativity or strangle your theory” (p. 166), and to set this literature review “aside—bracketed—prior to the emergence of the core category during the primary research” (Thistoll et al., 2016, p. 632).
Coding Process & Theory Development: The coding procedure is another reason for choosing the Straussian approach. Glaser (1978) lists three coding stages that are imperative to classical grounded theory, namely: open coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding. After open coding, the researcher starts selective coding in which open coding is delimited and coding becomes focused only on the key variables to the discovered core category (Glaser & Holton, 2007). Any hypothesis or relationships should emerge from the data; there is no attempt to test preconceived relationships or hypotheses. Strauss and Corbin (1994), on the other hand, designed a highly systematic and detailed coding structure to create a theory, namely: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. After open coding, and during axial coding, the Straussian approach encourages the researcher to hypothesise and to relate and link categories and their properties together in an effort to create a theory. At this stage, hypotheses and relationships can be deductively proposed and tested against data and categories. Accordingly, axial coding is when “categories are related to their subcategories, and the relationships tested against data” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 198). Glaser (1992) calls this forcing the data into preconceived concepts; according to Glaser, the concepts and these categories should be allowed to emerge without any effort to relate or link them.
During open coding and axial coding, I found myself hypothesising, contextualising, and relating certain categories and their properties. This came
without an effort to force or impose any data into concepts or linking them, and was still grounded in the data. This led me to see the Straussian approach as more suitable for this research than the classical approach.
The Research Problem & Question: Another important, and decisive, reason for choosing the Straussian approach is the issue of formulating the research problem and question. Glaser (1992) prohibits the researcher from entering the field with a predetermined research problem or question. Glaser writes “the grounded theory researcher … moves into an area of interest with no problem” (p. 22). That is, the researcher moves in with only an abstract ‘wonderment’ of what is going on. If you are interested in studying people in pain for example, you will discover what problems pain produces (Glaser, 1992). Such an approach might be suitable, and indeed exciting, for experienced or independent researchers. However, for PhD candidates, such an approach is not suitable for many reasons, including gaining approval for PhD proposals and confirmation. In contrast, the Straussian approach believes that the researcher could initiate an enquiry with a predetermined, but open, research question, which also arises from a partial review of the existing literature (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
In summary, in the Glaserian approach, data collection must precede the research problem, question, and the related literature review; however, in the Straussian approach, they may precede data collection. In addition, unlike the Glaserian approach, the Straussian approach allows researchers to hypothesise, contextualise, and relate certain categories and their properties together to create a theory. These reasons have made this PhD research more aligned with the Straussian approach.
3.6 Chapter Summary
This chapter has justified the choice of the study methodology by discussing different philosophical positions related to ontology, epistemology, and methodology. A comparative examination of qualitative and quantitative research was also presented. A qualitative approach was deemed appropriate due to the interpretive-exploratory nature of the research question. Grounded theory was then introduced and justified by the lack of empirical research on business
diplomacy and the need to generate new theory and practices. The Straussian approach was finally justified as an approach for this research. How grounded theory was applied in relation to data collection and sampling is explained in the next chapter.