Chapter Twenty-Three - Additional Resources

Step One: Decide the codes to be used in the analysis

Step Two: Construct the categories for analysis

Step Three: Conduct the coding and categorizing of the data

Step Four: Conduct the data analysis

Step Five: Summarizing

Step Six: Making speculative inferences

Step Seven: Developing the grounded theory

Theory generation in qualitative data can be emergent, and grounded theory is an important method of theory generation. ‘Grounded theory is a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analysed’. There are several features here:

• Theory is emergent rather than predefined and tests;
• Theory emerges from the data rather than vice versa;
• Theory generation is a consequence of, and partner to, systematic data collection and analysis;
• Patterns and theories are implicit in data, waiting to be discovered.

Grounded theory is a systematic theory, using theoretical sampling, coding constant comparison, the identification of a core variable, and saturation.

As one cannot know in advance when sufficient data will have been gathered to describe what is going on in the context or situation under study, one cannot determine the sample size or representativeness until one is actually doing the research. In theoretical sampling, data collection continues until sufficient data have been gathered to create a theoretical explanation of what is happening and its key features. It is not a question of representativeness, but, rather, a question of allowing the theory to emerge. ‘The process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory’. ‘The basic criterion governing the selection of comparison groups for discovering theory is their theoretical relevance for furthering the development of emerging categories’ rather than, for example, conventional sampling strategies.

Coding

Coding is ‘the the process of disassembling and reassembling the data. Data are disassembled when they are broken apart into lines, paragraphs or sections. These fragments are then rearranged, through coding, to produce a new understanding that explores similarities, differences, across a number of different cases. In grounded theory there are three types of coding: open, axial and selective coding, the intention of which is to deconstruct the data into manageable chunks in order to facilitate an understanding of the phenomenon in question. Open coding involves exploring the data and identifying units of analysis to code for meanings, feelings, actions, events and so on. The researcher codes up the data, creating new codes and categories and subcategories where necessary, and integrating codes where relevant until the coding is complete. Axial coding seeks to make links between categories and codes, ‘to integrate codes around the axes of central categories’; the essence of axial coding is the interconnectedness of categories. Hence codes are explored, their interrelationships is examined, and codes and categories are compared to existing theory. In selective coding a core code is identified and the relationship between that core code and other codes is made clear, and the coding scheme is compared with preexisting theory.

Constant comparison

In constant comparison the researcher compares the new data with existing data and categories, so that the categories achieve a perfect fit with the data. If there is a poor fit between data and categories, or indeed between theory and data, then the categories and theories have to be modified until all the data are accounted for. In constant comparison, discrepant, negative and disconfirming cases are important in rendering the categories and emergent – grounded – theory fit all the data. Constant comparison is the process ‘by which the properties and categories across the data are compared continuously until no more variation occurs’, i.e. saturation is reached.

The core variables and saturation

Through the use of constant comparison a core variable is identified: that variable which accounts for most of the data and to which as much as possible is related, that variable around which the most data are focused. Saturation is reached when no new insights, codes or categories are produced even when new data are added, and when all of the data are accounted for in the core categories and sub-categories.

As a consequence of theoretical sampling, coding, constant comparison, the identification of the core variable, and the saturation of data, categories and codes, the grounded theory (of whatever is being theorised) emerges from the data in an unforced manner, accounting for all of the data. How adequate the derived theory is can be evaluated against several criteria:

• The closeness of the fit between the theory and the data;
• How readily understandable the theory is by the lay person working in the field, i.e. that it makes sense to them;
• The ability of the theory to be general to a ‘multitude of diverse daily situations within the substantive area, not just to a specific type of situation’;
• The theory must allow ‘partial control over the structure and process of daily situations as they change through time’, i.e. it must ‘enable the person who uses it to have enough control in everyday situations to make its application worth trying’.

Strauss and Corbin (1990: 253-6) suggest several criteria for evaluating the theory:

• How adequately and powerfully the theory accounts for the main concerns of the data;
• The relevance and utility of the theory for the participants;
• The closeness of the fit of the theory to the data and phenomenon being studied, and under what conditions the theory holds true;
• The fit of the axial coding to the categories and codes;
• The ability of the theory to embrace negative and discrepant cases;
• The fit of the theory to literature;

• How was the original sample selected? On what basis?
• What major categories emerged?
• What were some of the events, incidents, actions, and so on (as indicators) that pointed to some of the major categories?
• On the basis of what categories did theoretical sampling proceed? Was it representative of the categories?
• What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations (that is, among categories), and on what ground were they formulated and tested?
• Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen? How were these discrepancies accounted for? How did they affect the hypotheses?
• How and why was the core category selected (sudden, gradual, difficult, easy)? On what grounds?
• Are concepts generated and systematically related?
• Are there many conceptual linkages, and are the categories well developed?
• Is much variation built into the theory? Are the broaden conditions built into its explanation?
• Have change or movement been taken into account into the development of the theory?