Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Content Type
      Content Type
      Clear All
      Content Type
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
17,412 result(s) for "Grounded theory"
Sort by:
Contrasting Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist Grounded Theory: Methodological and Philosophical Conflicts
Grounded Theory (GT) is an innovative research methodology, consisting of three prevailing traditions: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. Despite arising from the same root, and sharing a number of the original methodological techniques, Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT have nevertheless diverged to such an extent that they are neither homogenous nor interchangeable methodologies. They are differentiated by contrasting philosophical frameworks and conflicting methodological directives. Through a careful analysis of the literature, the authors propose that the incongruity of the three GT traditions hinges on three principal and paramount demarcations: Firstly, their contending coding procedures; secondly, their opposing philosophical positions; and thirdly, their conflicting use of literature. The authors argue that these three areas of contention represent the quintessential distinction between the three GT traditions. Accordingly, this article will illustrate and contrast the contending coding conventions, uncover the underlying philosophical positions, and explore the contrasting uses of literature embedded within Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT.
Challenges When Using Grounded Theory
The grounded theory (GT) method is widely applied, yet frequently misunderstood. We outline the main variants of GT and dispel the most common myths associated with GT. We argue that the different variants of GT incorporate a core set of shared procedures that can be put to work by any researcher or team from their chosen ontological and epistemological perspective. This “shared core” of the GT method is articulated as the principles of (1) taking the word “grounded” seriously, (2) capturing and explaining context-related social processes, (3) pursuing theory through engagement with data, and (4) pursuing theory through theoretical sampling. In this article, we have put forward, in a nutshell, a distillation of core principles underpinning existing GT approaches that can aid further engagement with the different variants of GT. We are motivated by the wish to make GT more comprehensible and accessible, especially for researchers who are new to the method.
Tracing the history of grounded theory methodology: from formation to fragmentation
There are very few articles, which track the history of Grounded Theory (GT) methodology from its tentative conception to its present divisions. This journal article addresses the dearth by tracing the history of GT methodology from its conception in the 1960's, discussing the context of its composition, character, and contribution. Subsequently, the article follows the maturation of GT which is characterised by a series of contentious and, at times, antagonistic academic debates. The crux of these debates centres on disputes over core tenets of GT and have resulted in three dominant and divergent configurations of the GT methodology: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. These factions can often create confusion for the researcher wishing to embark on a GT study. However, an examination of the history of the GT methodology sheds light on the logic of these schisms. Keywords: Classic Grounded Theory, Straussian Grounded Theory, Constructivist Grounded Theory, History of Grounded Theory, Development of Grounded Theory, Differences between Grounded Theories, Grounded Theory Methodology, Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, Charmaz
Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers
Background: Grounded theory is a well-known methodology employed in many research studies. Qualitative and quantitative data generation techniques can be used in a grounded theory study. Grounded theory sets out to discover or construct theory from data, systematically obtained and analysed using comparative analysis. While grounded theory is inherently flexible, it is a complex methodology. Thus, novice researchers strive to understand the discourse and the practical application of grounded theory concepts and processes. Objective: The aim of this article is to provide a contemporary research framework suitable to inform a grounded theory study. Result: This article provides an overview of grounded theory illustrated through a graphic representation of the processes and methods employed in conducting research using this methodology. The framework is presented as a diagrammatic representation of a research design and acts as a visual guide for the novice grounded theory researcher. Discussion: As grounded theory is not a linear process, the framework illustrates the interplay between the essential grounded theory methods and iterative and comparative actions involved. Each of the essential methods and processes that underpin grounded theory are defined in this article. Conclusion: Rather than an engagement in philosophical discussion or a debate of the different genres that can be used in grounded theory, this article illustrates how a framework for a research study design can be used to guide and inform the novice nurse researcher undertaking a study using grounded theory. Research findings and recommendations can contribute to policy or knowledge development, service provision and can reform thinking to initiate change in the substantive area of inquiry.
\Let the Fear Go and Trust the Process\ - Experiencing Grounded Theory Over a Lifetime: Odis E. Simmons in Conversation With Astrid Gynnild
Odis SIMMONS was among the first students who learned grounded theory method (GTM) directly from the co-founders GLASER and STRAUSS. Except for GLASER himself, SIMMONS is probably the grounded theorist who has taught the method to most students globally. In this interview SIMMONS provides key insights into learning, doing, teaching, and applying classic grounded theory (GT) as a general research method. With his double background as a therapist and a teacher in higher education, SIMMONS elaborates on fears that students might have during the research process and how they are overcome. He explains the ideas behind his own approaches to grounded action and grounded therapy, which for a long time resided in the GTM background but are gradually getting more widespread. In the interview, he also brings new knowledge on the diverging perspectives of GLASER and STRAUSS which, according to him, existed from the beginning. He argues, in an including manner, why classic GTM and constructivist GTM should be considered two different methods and urges educators to openly discuss the differences.
IT Consumerization and the Transformation of IT Governance
IT governance describes the decision rights and accountability framework used to ensure the alignment of IT-related activities with the organization’s strategy and objectives. Conversely, IT consumerization refers to the process whereby the changing practices and expectations of consumers influence the IT-related activities of workers and managers in organizations. We propose that IT consumerization not only challenges the foundations of IT governance but ultimately also transforms it. To explore this research problem, we utilize the punctuated equilibrium theory and a case study of IT consumerization and the transformation of IT governance in a large global bank. Our findings suggest that the widespread adoption of digital technology in everyday life leads to “everyone’s IT,” which is a new set of shared beliefs among consumers that highlights democratized access and individualized use of IT. As everyone’s IT beliefs begin to alter the IT-related activities of workers, the result is IT governance misalignments that ultimately lead to a punctuated transformation of IT governance that dismantles functional IT governance. The establishment of platform-based governance marks a new equilibrium period. Our mid-range theory contributes to the IS domain with the novel concept of everyone’s IT and a grounded explanation of IT governance transformation in the context of IT consumerization. Our theory offers a set of significant research and practical implications.
Data-Driven Computationally Intensive Theory Development
Increasingly abundant trace data provide an opportunity for information systems researchers to generate new theory. In this research commentary, we draw on the largely “manual” tradition of the grounded theory methodology and the highly “automated” process of computational theory discovery in the sciences to develop a general approach to computationally intensive theory development from trace data. This approach involves the iterative application of four general processes: sampling, synchronic analysis, lexical framing, and diachronic analysis. We provide examples from recent research in information systems.
Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis
A critical pathway for conceptual innovation in the social is the construction of theoretical ideas based on empirical data. Grounded theory has become a leading approach promising the construction of novel theories. Yet grounded theory-based theoretical innovation has been scarce in part because of its commitment to let theories emerge inductively rather than imposing analytic frameworks a priori. We note, along with a long philosophical tradition, that induction does not logically lead to novel theoretical insights. Drawing from the theory of inference, meaning, and action of pragmatist philosopher Charles S. Peirce, we argue that abduction, rather than induction, should be the guiding principle of empirically based theory construction. Abduction refers to a creative inferential process aimed at producing new hypotheses and theories based on surprising research evidence. We propose that abductive analysis arises from actors' social and intellectual positions but can be further aided by careful methodological data analysis. We outline how formal methodological steps enrich abductive analysis through the processes of revisiting, defamiliarization, and alternative casing.
Grounded Theory Methodology in Information Systems Research
Grounded theory methodology (GTM), with its espoused goal of theory development of novel phenomena, has found broad application in Information Systems (IS) research. To investigate how GTM is applied in IS research and how the research contributions are contingent on those applications, we review 43 GTM-based articles in major IS and related journals. Ten of the articles develop theory. The other 33 articles use GTM to develop models and rich descriptions of new phenomena as their theoretical contribution. We show that each of the three forms is valuable to the IS community. For example, studies that develop theories and models are highly cited in the IS literature. We identify nine GTM procedures that are applied in various combinations to develop the three forms of research contribution. Treating GTM as a portfolio of the nine procedures, we examine the implications for the research contribution of adopting the core GTM procedures compared with a partial portfolio of those procedures.