Preserving Rigor in Researching National Human Resource Development Country Studies

Transcription

1 Preserving Rigor in Researching National Human Resource Development Country Studies Udaya Mohan Devadas, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. Abstract National Human Resource Development (NHRD) is gaining its shape as a modern research agenda contradicting with the main domain of Human Resource Development (HRD) for its critical limitations. Since HRD phenomena at macro level demands innovative inquiries of paradigmatic, epistemological and axiological combinations, NHRD as a macro level HRD phenomenon also, demands innovative research approaches. Organizational HRD phenomena have been immensely studied, though NHRD research is still at its premature stage. This has created a challenge in selecting more relevant research rigor in researching NHRD phenomena. In this context, this study focuses on delineating a more relevant research approach, research strategy, research methodology, and quality measurements in studying about NHRD phenomena. This study suggests qualitative research approach based on constructivist research paradigm using grounded-case study in researching into NHRD country studies while suggesting procedures for preserving research quality as well. Key Words: Human resource development, National human resource development, Constructivism, Grounded theory, Grounded case study 1

2 1. Introduction National Human Resource Development (NHRD) has been presented as modern HRD by Devadas et.al. (2011), differentiating between Human Resource Development (HRD) as traditional HRD and modern HRD. (Table 1). Further, the paradigmatic differences between HRD and NHRD also have been highlighted by Devadas et. al. (2012) (Figure 1). Table 1: Traditional HRD and Modern HRD Criteria Traditional HRD Modern HRD Period Nedler (1970) to Swonsan (2001) After 2001 Definitional focus Limited to organizational boundaries Extended beyond organizational boundaries Theoretical basis HRD three legged theories Multiple theories or no mandatory theories Knowledge claim Positivism and post positivism Critical claim, constructivism, pragmatism Theoretical nature Static; specific; ethnocentric; absolute; micro Geocentric, flexible, situational, meso and macro, more ambiguous (Sources: Modified from Devadas et al., 2011) Figure 1: Differences between Traditional HRD and Modern HRD Ontology Methodology THRD- Naive and/or critical realism (Reality is West & the US based not relative to different People Place and Time (PPT)) MHRD- historical realism / relativism (Reality is perceived relating to different PPT) Epistemology THRD-Experimental//modified experimental/manipulative (Researcher mostly uses quantitative methods) MHRD- dialogic/dialectical or hermeneutical (Researcher mostly uses qualitative methods) (Source: Devadas et al., 2012) THRD VS MHRD THRD-dualist/objectivist or modified dualist (falsification of hypothesis based on predominantly selected knowledge base-emphasis on a set of foundational theories) MHRD-Subjectivist/transactional (Structural/ historical and or individual reconstructions coalescing around consensus- multiple knowledge base or atheoritical) These investigations have convinced NHRD researches to think developing appropriate research protocol in researching NHRD phenomena. Even though there are many country case studies have been already done, the research rigor in carrying out such studies have not been published yet. In bridging this literature gap this review paper details about canons and procedures, with justifications, in doing NHRD country studies. 2

3 2. Characteristics of NHRD Country Case Studies NHRD research has peculiar characteristics. Firstly, NHRD phenomena are assumed to be culture and context oriented and are socially constructed (McGoldrick, Stewart, and Watson, 2001; McLean, 2004 & 2007; Lynham and Cunningham, 2006). The reason is that NHRD research agenda around the globe requires seeing how NHRD has been constructed in different country contexts by studying it inductively within their own natural settings. This nature of the phenomenon rejects research methods that test hypothesis, or use control or manipulation deductively. Secondly, NHRD studies are descriptive in nature and that discovery or exploration of NHRD phenomena focuses on describing NHRD phenomena for a better understanding. Thirdly, the NHRD phenomena represent external reality pertaining to social structures within countries. Fourthly, NHRD studies attempt to understand contemporary nature within countries on which the literature is skeletal. Fifthly, understanding and describing NHRD phenomenon is not simple. Instead it is complex that requires a triangulation in finding and verifying evidence. Sixthly, NHRD studies though, primarily is inductive, it needs to be started deductively with a priory construct to guide; the establishment of the research questions and problem statement, data collection, understanding the context and other components of NHRD within countries, the researcher s theoretical sensitivity, the probing questions at interviews, and the comparison of countries NHRD models among themselves. Seventhly, the phenomena in question are unique only to particular country contexts since they are determined by countries unique conditions. 3. Justification of Research Rigor Considering the characteristics of NHRD country studies, the appropriate research approach, research strategy, and their paradigms are justified prior to detail the research methodology to be employed. According to Lincoln and Lynham (2011), answering to ontological and axiological questions informs a series of practical choices in research. This highlights the importance of rationalising the selection of such choices to be made Qualitative Approach To satisfy the characteristics of NHRD country studies nature of studies, a qualitative research approach is suggested to see how national HRD is constructed within particular country contexts. Qualitative researches are: the studies in which (a) an alternative to the positivist paradigm is used as the basis for the study, (b) words are considered the elements of data, (c) a primarily inductive approach to data analysis is used, and (c) theory development is the outcome of data analysis (Burns, 1989, p.44). Qualitative research has two main assumptions; existence of multiple realities, and inductive logic (Creswell, 1994). Multiple realties of the inquirer and the respondents should be revealed appropriately. Inductivity requires that findings must be derived not from testing 3

4 the deduced theoretical variables extracting from the extant literature against (respondents ) data but from inducing such variables from the (respondents ) data to be compared against the extant literature. NHRD country studies require to reveal the realities of the key respondents who bear the views of NHRD thus to induct a conceptualization of NHRD phenomena to be compared and contrasted against extant literature and then to place it as an emerging theory Case Study as a Research Strategy The other question to be raised is about deciding on the relevant research design strategy with appropriate research methodology to explain the research process in terms of the needed research methods and procedures. NHRD country studies require exploring and describing NHRD phenomena within countries as unique cases. In other words, these studies are needed to be grounded in data and guided by the theoretical sampling due to a difficulty in prior selection of the cases or unit of analysis. The reason is that the parameters or the boundaries of NHRD phenomenon cannot be identified prior to start of the study and such identification will also be the outcomes of such studies. Case study is useful when a study requires a natural setting or a focus on a contemporary issue or an event; when a study is not supported by a strong theoretical basis; and when a control or manipulation of events in the study is not needed (Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead, 1987). NHRD country studies fulfill these requirements. Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead (1987) further pointed out that, if the case is a unique or extreme case, critical case, or a revelatory case, then a single case study will be appropriate. NHRD phenomena in most of the countries become unique cases due to differences of country contexts. Case studies can be applied in understanding and exploring phenomena, describing, and explaining phenomena (Tellis, 1997). Furthermore, case studies have strengths of developing novel theories, testing the emergent theories, and empirically validating the resultant theories (Eisenhardet, 1989). NHRD country studies also attempt to understand NHRD phenomena within countries while aiming at developing substantive theories of NHRD of each country. Case study examines a phenomenon in its natural setting, employing multiple methods of data collection to gather information from one or a few entities (people, groups, or organizations) (Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead, 1987, p. 370). NHRD country studies require these features as well. The unit of analysis of case studies can be an individual, group, institution, an organization, a community, or alternatively, a project or a decision (Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead, 1987; Merriam et al., 2002). Stake (1978) described a case as whatever bounded system of interest such as an institution, a program, a responsibility, a collection, or a population, not limiting to a person or enterprise. In NHRD country studies, the case becomes a collection of NHRD programs, initiatives or decisions. 4

5 As a research strategy, the distinguishing characteristics of case studies are its attempt to examine: (a) a contemporary phenomenon in its real-life context, especially (b) when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 1981 p.59). NHRD country studies focuse on the contemporary practices of NHRD, the boundaries of which are not clear until the studies identify the nature of NHRD and its relationships with its context after resolving the research questions. Differentiating between the focus of a case study and that of other studies, Stake (1978) emphasized the clarifying the boundaries of a case and said what is happening and deemed important within those boundaries (the emic) is considered vital rather focusing on hypothesis or issues previously targeted (the etic) by the investigator (p.7). Perry (1998) described the case study questions as more descriptive rather being prescriptive; focus on theory building (because inductive) than theory testing; and positive (how do?) rather being normative (how should?). The research questions of NHRD country studies; are also descriptive in nature, aim at developing substantive theory of country s NHRD, and examines what actually exist letting the emic voice to dominate the study. The etic voice plays a role in enhancing the creativity in the research process, and to guide the study Grounded Theory In NHRD country studies, it is suggested to use Grounded Theory (GT) as an overarching method to drive data collection and analysis within case method. The main reason for embedding GT in case study method is to remain inductive while grounding the study in data. GT has been viewed as a theory building approach and an alternative method to quantitative and qualitative inquiries (Glaser, 1978; 2002a). Fernández (2004) provided evidence of using GT in case study method. Benbasat et al. (1987) also pointed out the reasons for using GT in case study method in Information System (IS) researches. There are: ability of studying IS in its natural setting, its state of art, and generating theories from practice; enabling the researcher s understanding of the nature and complexity of the processes taking place; and its appropriateness to research a previously little studied area. In a similar way, GT embedded in case study method can be used to study about NHRD in its natural setting in the countries, learn its state of art, and generate theories from NHRD practice in such particular countries; answer questions about the nature and complexity of processes in NHRD that has not being previously studied. Lehmann evidenced for successful application of this research design stating that: applying grounded theory to case study was very successful. It produced a prolific amount and yielded a great richness of information. The case settings, furthermore, contained more varied data than could be expected from individual, purely homocentric studies. Efficiency and abundance combined to make this method an exceedingly fruitful one (2001a, p. 87) 5

6 GT has mainly two branches: Glaserian and Straussian GT (Fernandez, 2004; Goulding, 1999; Devadas, Silong, and Ismail, 2011). Glaser and Strauss (1967) first introduced GT as a theory building methodology in 1967, and later from 1990, the core-originators contended for their own procedures in GT that led to start two major branches of it. Paradigmatically, Glaserian perspective in GT is post positivistic (Annells, 1996) while Straussian GT has been identified under constructivism (Corbin and Strauss, 1990; 2008; Charmaz, 2000). Glaser (1992) refused to start the research with a set of research questions whereas Straussian perspective allowed it (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; and Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Glaser (1992: 1998) strongly restricted using literature only at the later part of the study whereas Straussian approach has no restrictions on where to use literature (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). In both GT perspectives theoretical sampling has been the method of sampling, yet Glaser (1992) criticized the use of model sampling which is the paradigm model suggested in Straussian analysis. Coding and constant comparison were the main analytical tools in both approaches, yet Straussian s coding takes place under a priori construct paradigm model unlike in the Glaserian approach. Corbin and Strauss (1990) did selective coding to relate substantive categories around a core category while Glaser (1992) used selective coding after an emergence of a core category to further intensify it with literature Straussian Grounded Theory The Straussian GT approach was more suitable for NHRD country studies for data collection and analysis with case study method due to the perceived limitations of applying the Glaserian method in this study. Firstly, NHRD country studies value the constructivist s hermeneutical and dialectical paradigm in understanding how NHRD within countries have been constructed. Constructing a reality is prohibited in GT; instead Glaser suggested discovering an existing reality (Annells, 1996; Glaser, 1992: 1998). Secondly, NHRD country studies require to be started with a priori construct, developed after a literature review. The purpose is to set a research problem followed by research questions to align NHRD country studies with extant NHRD literature. Besides conducting a literature review prior to data collection and analysis is a prerequisite in most of the research evaluations. Using literature or such priori constructs or establishing research questions prior to begin the study have been strictly prohibited by the Glaserian approach (Glaser, 1978: 1992: ). Thirdly, NHRD country studies are required to use the researcher s prior knowledge on the phenomenon in order to guide the study in the development of an NHRD model to be compared and contrasted with extant NHRD models. However, Glaser s (1992; 1998; 2002a; 2004) method required to suspend such prior knowledge. Fourthly and finally, the NHRD researchers have to use the quality measures suggested by the Straussian approach due to the reason that NHRD country studies are appropriate to be designed based on the Straussian GT approach as shown here above. 6

7 Importantly, from 1967, until 1990, Strauss s contribution was to expand their initial work of GT developed in However, the work of Strauss and Corbin in 1990 on The Basics of Qualitative Research which was enhanced further by Corbin and Strauss in the same year was widely used in qualitative studies (Goulding, 1999). These works did not aligned to the initial GT work and embedded main qualitative perspectives as highlighted in the discussion of the differences between Glaserian and Straussian GT. After Strauss s passing away, Straussian GT has been taking different shapes under the subsequent work of his followers (See Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Charmaz, 2006). Due to this, it is suggested to align NHRD country studies with the original work of Straussian GT done in 1990s Grounded Case Study As explained above, NHRD country studies are suggested to design as case studies using the GT as an overlapping method. For this purpose, the most appropriate research protocol was the Eisenhardt s (1989) grounded cases study a case study embedding the Straussian GT procedures as the overlapping research method. She referred to this theory building strategy as grounded case study. In NHRD country studies, the biggest challenge is the selection of the unit of analysis. The use of the GT approach that used theoretical sampling enables researchers to flexibly drive data collection and analysis concurrently until the end of the study. This helps control the etic voice and the biases that can hinder the research process The researcher on the other hand, may perceive a limitation of the GT method alone since it did not properly guide on deciding the scope of GT research (Fernandez, 2004). Due to this reason, Eisenhardt s (1989) case study approach ideally matches not only to decide the limit of the scope of the study, but also to apply the GT method appropriately. Eisenhardt s (1989) grounded case study method provides a guided protocol as a measure of validity and reliability of such NHRD country studies. 4. Paradigm The next question in justifying the research methodology in doing NHRD country studies is what alternative paradigm of inquiry to be used. A paradigm is a set of basic beliefs (or meta physics) that deals with ultimates first principles. It represents a worldview (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.107). Guba and Lincon (1994) explained the positivistivism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism as alternative paradigmatic inquiries. Positivism is ontologically in naive realism that is a real reality (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.109). Postpositivism also deals with real reality that can only be probabilistically apprehendable. Critical theorists ontologically believes in a virtual reality shaped by sociocultural, political, economical, ethnic, gender and values generating value mediated findings. Constructivism deals with relative realities constructed using the subjectivist epistemology through hermeneutical (interpretative and explanatory) and dialectical (logically augmented) 7

8 methodology (See Guba and Lincol, 1994). NHRD country studies also values constructivist paradigm to construct an external reality using a deduced research construct to inductively collect and analyse data. Applying the Straussian GT procedures can serve constructivists paradigm and inductivity. One can argue that case study does not serve for this purpose since Perry (1998), and Healy and Perry (2000) have categorised case study method as in the realism, which studies objective reality inductively. The case study method, which is placed under realism does not do any harm to NHRD country studies since such studies also deal with an external realities and well use triangulation to address complexities. NHRD phenomena within countries are external realities and their complexities can be studied applying data and method triangulation. Moreover, the case study method has the strengths to embrace multiple research paradigms (inductive and deductive approaches) for theory building (Dooly, 2002). By using the case study method integrating the Straussian GT can construct the phenomenon in question through a logical interpretation and explanation (hermeneutical/dialectical) with the most relevant and suitable key people who share as much evidence as possible in serving to the research purpose. 5. Delineating Methodological Procedures For NHRD country studies, the research model, depicted in Figure 2 can be suggested. Figure 2: The Research Model In-depth interview Data sources -DOCUMENTS- Data Analysis (Coding and constant comparison) Themes, concepts, and Categories Data Theoretical sampling no Theoretica l saturation ye SUBSTANTIVE THEORY -Categories and their relations- LITERATURE Enterin Source: Adapted from Lehmann (2001a); Fernandez (2004) As guided by Corbin and Strauss (1990), data collection starts selecting an initial sample of documents and respondents based on an initial idea of the phenomenon. This idea of the phenomenon can be obtained through literature, discussion with the supervisory committee and the experts in NHRD research. Data obtained from the initial sample can be analyzed using the constant comparative method and the next level (the second level) data sample can be decided based on the findings of the first round analysis. 8

9 5.1. Case Study Protocol The steps of Eisenhardt s (1989) grounded case study for theory building have been explained under this section Getting Started-The Researcher s Story in the Study As highlighted by Eisenhardt (1989), an initial definition of research questions, possibly with a priori constructs are important in building the case theory. Corbin and Strauss (1990) pointed out that each investigator enters the field with some questions or areas for observation, or will soon generate them (p. 6) Selecting Cases Eisenhardt (1989) highlighted that the cases or sample for analysis should be selected using theoretical sampling to focus on theoretically useful cases that replicate or extend theory by filling conceptual categories. This is exactly similar to and governed by the grounded theorists theoretical sampling Crafting Instruments and Protocols The Eisenhardt s (1989) case study protocol suggests to use; a data collection protocol, a multiple data collection as a triangulation of data, using both quantitative and qualitative data for data richness, using multiple researchers to enhance creative potentials of the study, and enhancing the confidence of the findings by the convergence of observations Entering the Field Eisenhardt, (1989) describes about allowing overlap of data analysis with data collection and the use of field notes in accomplishing such overlap by writing down whatever impressions occur to react to the dilemma what will and will not be useful in the future (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 539). Further, flexible and opportunistic data collection methods have been suggested. The purpose here is to give freedom to the researcher in theory building case studies to flexibly make adjustments to the data collection process, data collection methods, and data collection instruments. However, Eisenhardt, (1989) has not explained the way of adding the flexibility in this regard and it seems that Eisenhart has made an attempt to earn the flexibility given in the GT method through its theoretical sampling, and coding and constant comparison that are concurrently carried out Analyzing Data Eisenhardt (1989) discusses about within-case analysis and cross-case pattern search. The within case tactics, used to identify unique patterns, were mainly writing case study write ups for each site, narrative descriptions within-case, use of transcripts, tabular displays and the use of graphs, and sequence analysis. In explaining the cross-case analysis, Eisenhardt (1989) emphasises on identifying cross-case patterns. Here, it was suggested to develop categories to see within group similarities and to couple with out-group dissimilarities, comparing cross cases for their similarities and dissimilarities, and dividing the data based on 9

10 data sources to corroborate the findings of one with another for stronger grounding of findings in data. His emphasis of using such techniques was to develop a theory with a close fit with the data (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 541). However, a careful investigation reveals that the Eisenhardt s approach in data analysis explains the grounded theory s constant comparison method. The only difference here is the involvement of the cases as the unit of analysis where as that in GT is the data that explain an event, a happening or an action Coding Process For the analysis of NHRD country data, analysis process nee to prepare observational notes, open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Writing observational notes was suggested by Schatzman and Strauss (1973) in Corbin and Strauss (2008) to describe the actual events Open Coding Open coding is the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing, and categorizing data (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p. 61). Simply, it is the process of analyzing data in GT. The output of coding is the production of code notes properties, concepts, categories and subcategories. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990) coding paradigm has many uses. It builds a theory rather than testing a theory, gives the rigor in the research process to make the theory a good science, helps the researcher to break through the biases and assumptions during the research process, provides the grounding, builds density, and develops the sensitivity and integration needed to generate a good theory that closely approximates the reality it represents Shaping Hypothesis As the result of data analysis, tentative themes, concepts, and relationships begin to emerge. Then the next step is to verify the emergent conceptualization with the evidence. Eisenhardt (1989) suggests doing this by a constant comparison of the theory and data until the theory closely fit with the data. This action is another aspect of grounded theory, and another example for Eisenhardt s (1989) methodology that embedded GT in case study. Eisenhardt (1989) suggested doing this verification by refining the definition of the constructs, and building evidence which measures the construct in each case, through constant comparison between data from various sources and constructs. In testing the relationships, the replication logic was suggested to be used to confirm or disconfirm by comparing the relationship of each case with another that replicate the former relationship. Eisenhardt s (1989) suggested procedures denote that the categories must be placed in a way establishing relationships among them and such developments must closely be compared with data and verified against evidence. In this way, Eisenhardt (1989) tried to use axial and selective coding in his case study method. 10

11 Axial coding is a set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories. This is done by utilizing a coding paradigm that involves conditions, context, action/interactional strategies and consequences (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Further, the open and axial coding can be simultaneously carried out. This is practical and allowed by Strauss, and Corbin (1990). According to them, though open coding and axial coding are distinct analytical procedures, when the researcher is actually engaged in analysis he or she alternates between the two modes (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p.98). In the axial cording process Strauss and Corbin suggested four steps: (a) the hypothetical relating of subcategories to a category by means of statements denoting the nature of the relationship between them and the phenomenon causal conditions, context, intervening conditions, action/interactional strategies, consequences; (b) the verification of hypotheses against actual data; (c) the continued search for the properties of categories and sub categories, and the dimensional locations of data (events, happenings, etc.) indicative of them; (d) the beginning exploration of variation in phenomena, by comparing each category and its subcategories for different patterns discovered by comparing dimensional locations of instances of data (1990, p.107). According to Strauss and Corbin selective coding is the process of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development (1990, pp116). Further they explained the needed steps in selective coding. First, explicating the story line the conceptualization of the core category as the main story. Second, relating subsidiary categories to core category by means of paradigm. Third, relating categories at the dimensional level, Forth, validating the relationships identified against data. Final step was filling in categories that may need further development or refinement (see Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p ). These steps however were not sequential in this study or follow in order or can t be separately identified as step by step procedures. In reality one moves back and forth between them (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, p118) Enfolding Literature Eisenhardt (1989) suggested a comparison of the finding with conflicting literature and comparison with similar literature. These procedures help enhance and build internal validity, sharpen generalisability, and raises theoretical level Research Closure The Straussian GT suggested laying out the final story as an emerging theory that holistically organized all what observed in the analytical process in answering the research questions. 11

12 Eisenhardt (1989) pointed out few issues to be considered here. First is the decision of theoretical saturation. This is the point where the incremental improvement to the emergent theory is minimal. Straussian GT also highlighted about this theoretical saturation. Eisenhardt (1989) pointed out that theoretical saturation is achieved under the constraints of time and resources available. According to Eisenhardt (1989), the final product of building theory from grounded case studies may be concepts, a conceptual framework, or propositions, or possibly a midrange theory or can be a disappointment with a replication of an existing theory or no clear patterns within data. The theoretical saturation of this study was achieved under the scope of research questions, limitations and delimitations, and resources and time available. However, there are few weaknesses highlighted by Eisenhardt (1989) such as developing overly complex theory with a staggering volume of data, and inability to raise the generalizability of the theory Quality of the Research Quality of the study will mainly decide the success or the failure of a study. However, use of such quality criteria defer based on the different perspectives of enquiry (Lincoln and Lynham, 2011; Corbin and Strauss, 2008, Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Therefore, in NHRD country studies, the procedures for assuring quality of research suggested by the Eisenhardt (1989), Strauss and Corbin (1990), and Corbin and Strauss (1990) can be followed since Eisenhardt s (1989) grounded case study and Straussian GT research canons and procedures have been suggested for preserving methodological rigor Canons and Procedures of Grounded Theory Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggested some procedures to be taken seriously as to claim for the use of GT. (Table 2). Table 2. GT Canons and Procedures Canons and Procedures (1) Data collection and analysis are interrelated procedures (2) Concepts are the basic units of analysis (3) Categories must be developed and related (4) Sampling in grounded theory proceeds on theoretical ground (5) Analysis makes use of constant comparisons (6) Patterns and variations must be accounted for (7) Process must be built into the theory (8) Writing theoretical memos is an integral part of doing grounded theory (9) Hypothesis about relationships among categories 12

13 should be developed and verified as much as possible during the research process (10) A grounded theorists must not work alone (11) Broader structural conditions must be analyzed Evaluating Research Process Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Corbin and Strauss (1990) presented some of the components of the actual research process for reader to judge over how the researcher carried out the analysis (Table 3). Table 3. Research Process Criteria of Research Process How was the original sample selected? On what ground? (Selective Sampling)? What major categories emerged? What were some of events, incidents, actions and so on that indicated some of the major categories? On the basis of what categories did theoretical sampling proceed? That is, how did theoretical formulation guide some of the data collection? After the theoretical sample was carried out, how representative did these categories prove to be? What were some of the hypothesis pertaining to relations among categories? On what grounds were they formulated and tested? Were there instances when hypothesis did not hold up against what was actually seen? How were the discrepancies accounted for? How did they affect the hypothesis? How and why was the core category selected? Was the selection sudden or gradual, difficult or easy? On what grounds were the final analytic decision were made? How did extensive explanatory power in relation to the phenomena under study and relevance? Empirical Grounding of Findings Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggested considering some of the criteria for empirical grounding of the findings (Table 4). Table 4. Criteria for Empirical Grounding of Data Criteria for empirical grounding of data Are concepts Generated? -Does it generate concepts? -What were their sources? -Are there any cases that were not grounded in data? Are the concepts systematically related? -Have such linkages been made? -Do they seem to be grounded in data? -are the linkages systematically developed? 3. Are there many conceptual linkages and are the categories well developed? Do the categories have conceptual density? Is there much variation built in the theory? 13

14 Are the broader conditions that affect the phenomenon under study built into its explanation? -Is the analysis limited and microscopic? Has process been taken into consideration? Do the theoretical findings seem significant and to what extant? -Is the theory relatively important for stimulating a range of studies and explaining a range of phenomena? -Can the researcher see what the data are reflecting? -Is the research creative? -Is the collected data quality and sufficient? -Is the study is fully verified? NHRD researchers are further interested to reveal the methodological congruence methodological excellence including rigor in documentation, procedural rigor, ethical rigor, and auditability (Burns, 1989). Documentation rigor requires presenting all the elements of the study. Procedural rigor refers to the application of selected procedures of the methodology. Ethical rigor is about recognition and discussion of the ethical implications of various factors related to the conduct of the study. Except the main evaluation criteria of GT, this study must fulfil such requirements of grounded case study of Eisenhardt (1989). Eisenhardt (1989) asked few questions for a good theory that characterized with parsimonious, testable, and logically coherent theory: Have the investigator followed a careful analytical procedures? Does the evidence support the theory? Have the investigators ruled out rival explanations? Have the investigator provided sufficient information on the sample, data collection procedures, and analysis? Is there enough evidence for each construct to allow reader to make their assessment of the fit with theory? Has a thorough reporting of information been provided to confirm the theory s validity? And does the hypothesis testing fit with the data? Has the theory building resulted in new insights? Except one, all other criteria have been addressed in the above tables that explained GT evaluation criteria. It is impossible to ignore the most popular terms used in evaluating the quality of research Validity and reliability. Many authors have shown that these concepts belong to conventional tradition or positivism (Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Corbin and Straus, 2008; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Miles and Hurberman, 1994; Hoepfl, 1997). However, Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Corbin and Strauss (1990) suggested to show the validity (internal validity/value of the study, external validity/plausibility/applicability) and reliability among the other evaluating criteria. The same criteria have been suggested by Yin (1984) for case study evaluation as appropriate for the realism (post positivism) paradigm. Since these two criteria have been suggested by both GT method and case study, it is worthwhile to show what procedures have been taken to fulfil such requirements. 14

15 Table 5: Research Procedures for Validity and Reliability Criteria Expectations Research procedures Construct validity Credibility /Internal validity/ Truth value External validity/ applicability/ plausibility transferability Reliability/ Dependability/ Consistency Establishing correct procedural measures to enable to ensure to study by the research that was actually intended to study Postulate a causal relationship to accurately describe the reality (multiple realities) (Hofpl, 1997) Establishing the domain within which a study's findings can be generalized or applied (Healy & Perry, 2000) Showing both the product of the study and the process of it for consistency (Hofpl, 1997) Multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 1994)/data triangulation (Healy & Perry, 2000) Review of research outputs by the key respondents Applying relevant canons and procedures of the research process (Table 3.2 & 3.3, section 3.4) Establishing a chain of evidence (Yin, 1994) Triangulation (Hofpl, 1997) Review of research outputs by key respondents Sufficient citations in writing and appropriate referencing to data The use of the paradigm model and Quote statements Replication by integration Identification of priory research model (research questions and sampling model), developing interview and data collection protocol based on the above (Healy & Perry, 2000) Comparing and contrasting with the extant literature Provision of descriptions of the contextual limits of generalizing the findings (Hofpl, 1997) Validation of coding scheme Fulfilling criteria for GT research process (Table 3.3 & 3.4) Fulfilling case study criteria for case study research process (section 3.7) Inquiry audit/ Audit trail (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) Developing a case study protocol Managing Bias in the Research Process The other important aspect in qualitative research is managing bias. According to Corbin & Straus, (2008), quality of qualitative research must: resonate with the reader s life experiences that have substance, give insights, and shows sensitivity. It s a sufficient conceptualization with descriptions allowing reader to reach his or her own conclusions about the data and judging the credibility of the data analysis. It is creative in its conceptualizations but is grounding in data (p.305). 15

16 This shows that since the qualitative research involves meaning making, bias has to be regarded as it hinders establishing the quality of the qualitative research (Morrow, 2005). Flyvbjerg (2006) pointed that bias (in case studies) had been.understood as a tendency to confirm the researcher s preconceived notions, so that the study therefore becomes of doubtful scientific value (p. 234). Some have shown that the criticisms against bias are based on quantitative criteria (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Corbin and Strauss, 2008). However, bias is inevitable and desirable (Glaser, 2002a; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Janesick, 2000). The reasons are: external reality is inseparable from our inner reality (Krieger, 1991); and biases, blind spots, and cognitive limitations as high a priority as theoretical knowledge (Simmons, 1988 in Brown, 1996, p.20). The challenge therefore, is to manage it appropriately revealing the two voices: insiders /participants emic voice and the outsider/researcher s etic voice (Mehra, 2002), and deciding and revealing the researcher s position in between complete participant and complete observant (Junker, 1960). Devadas and Silong (2011) synthesized criteria for bias management at three levels: at the start; at doing; and at the end of the research process (Table 6). At Table the start 6. Obtaining proper consent Being aware of the distance and engagement with the subject in different data gathering methods Understanding the climate of the study context for its biases Non threatening questioning from the respondents Gaining knowledge and skills in sourcing and managing data sources, and the method s tools of data collection and analysis (Fielden, 2003) Critical reading on the subject for conformity and dis-conformity of the bias Check for and evaluating the research committee biases (Mehra, 2002) At doing Identifying the multiple stakeholders perspective in the study Recognizing accidently emergent data without discarding it (Fielden, 2003) Recording the detailed field notes Maintaining a Subjective Journal (SJ) to record our biases Recording multiple perspectives in the SJ Recording separately what is observed, and your opinion, values, emotions, beliefs, knowledge etc. Taking a learner perspective to record the insider reality managing your own emotions (Mehra, 2002) At the end Decide among the emic and etic voices to be more prominent in the study as required by the methodology- The style of writing has to be changed (Mehra, 2002) having a quiet mind to allow intuitive interpretations to emerge Adopting an interpretative framework with system perspective Understanding about rich models of system thinking Developing the skills outside of the dominant research paradigm Aligning with the theoretical principles of complex nature of research (Fielden, 2003) Source: Devadas et.al. (2011) 16

17 Verifications Verification involved enhancing the confidence of the findings by the convergence of observations as explained by Eisenhardt (1989). Verification of data and research outcomes become crucial in preserving the quality in research. 6. Conclusion This article reviewed, base on an actual NHRD research experience at PhD level, a plausible methodological framework in studying NHRD country case studies. First, it is suggested to use qualitative research approach in NHRD country case studies valuing constructivism ontologically, applying case study with grounded theory in designing NHRD country studies. As the research methodological protocol, Eisenhardt s (1989) grounded case study methodological procedure was introduced to be applied for the research process. Further, to preserve the quality of NHRD country studies, a set of quality criteria suggested in the case study method, grounded theory method and grounded case study method was suggested. A guided protocol for managing bias in preserving the quality of NHRD country studies were then presented. References Annells, M. (1996) Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical Perspecties, Paradigm of Inquiry, and Postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), doi: / Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), Retrieved from Brown, J. R. (1996). The I in science: Training to utilize subjectivity in research. Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget AS). Burns,N. (1989). Standards for qualitative Research. Nursing Science Quartely, 2(1), p doi: / Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. : Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), doi: /bf Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research 3e (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Creswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and quantitatve approaches.thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. Devadas U.M., Silong, A.D, Ismail, I.A., and Crauss, S.E. (2011). Constructing the meaning of National Human Resource Development in Malaysia. In A.M. Osman-Gani and M. Ismail (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development 2011 Conference proceedings (pp. 64), Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Putra Malaysia. Devadas, U.M., Silong, A.D., Crauss S.E., and Ismail, I.A. (2012). From Human Resource Development to National Human Resource Development: Resolving Contemporary HRD Challenges, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 20(2), p Devadas, U.M., Silong, A.D., Ismail, I.A. (2011). Application of Grounded theory Method in Researching Rural Entrepreneurship Development. The Journal of International Social Research, 4(19), p Retrieved from 17

18 df. Devadas, U.M., Silong, A.D., Krauss, S.E. (2011). Human Resource Development and the Contemporary Challenges of the World, Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(5), Devadas, U.M., Silong, A.D., Silva, A.P. (2011). Techniques of Managing the bias in qualitative research in management. Asia Pacific Marketing and Management Conferences (APMMC- 2011). (pp.52), Kuching: UNIMAS. Devadas, U.M., Silong, A.D., Silva, A.P. (2011). Techniques of Managing the bias in qualitative research in management. Asia Pacific Marketing and Management Conferences (APMMC- 2011). (pp.52), Kuching: UNIMAS. Dooly, L. (2002). Case study research in theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 3(4), p doi: / Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), Retrived from stable/ Feilden, K. (June 2003). Fact or Fiction: Qualitative Research Results in Information Systems, Informing Science InSITE - Where Parallels Intersect, Fernández, W. D. (2004). The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and design. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Retrieved from Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), Glaser, B. G. (`1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Advances in the Methodology of Grounded theory: Theoritical Sensitivity. California: The Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. (2002a). Conceptualisation: On theory and Theorizing Using Grounded Theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1 (2). Retrieved from Glaser, B. G. (2002b). Constructivist Grounded Theory? Retrieved February 25, 2010, from Forum: Qualitative Social Research: Glaser, B. G. (2004, January). Naturalist Inquiry and Grounded Theory.5(1). Retrieved http;//nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fgs Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions. Working Paper Sries June Retrieved from Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions. Working Paper Sries June Retrieved from Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp ). London: Sage. Healy, M., and Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), p Doi: / Hoepfl, M.C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), p Retrieved December 20, 2010, from 18

19 Janesick, V. (2000). The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design: Minuets, Improvisations, and Crystallization. In Denzin N.K. & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp ). Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Pub. Junker, B. (1960). Field work, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lehmann, H.P. (2001). Using Grounded Theory with Technology Cases: Distilling Critical Theory from a Multinational Information Systems Development Project. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 4(1), Lincoln, Y.S., and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Lincoln, Y.S., and Lynham, S. A. (2011). Criteria for assessing theory in human resource develompent from an interpretative perspective. Human Resource Develompent Internatinoal 14(1), 3-22.doi: / Lynham, S.A. and Cunningham, P.W. (2006) National Human Resource Development in Transitioning Societies in the Developing World: Concept and Challenges. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(1), McGoldrick,J., stewart, J., and Watson,s. (2001). Theorizing human resourece development. Human Resourece Development International,4(3), McLean, G. N. (2004). National Human Resource Development: What in the World is it? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 6(3), Mehra, B. (2001). Research or personal quest: Dilemmas in studying my own kind. In B. M. Merchant & A. I. Willis (Eds.), Multiple and intersecting identities in qualitative research (pp ). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mehra, B. (2002). Bias in qualitative research: voices from an online classroom, The Qualitative Report, (7(1), ( Merriam, S.B., and Associates (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. California: Jossey-Bass Miles,M.B., and Hurberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morrow, S.L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counselling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), Perry, C. (1998). Processesof a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), Stake, R. E. (1978). The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(5), 4-8. Retreived from doi: / x Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, London: Sage Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd edition). Sage Publications: London. Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to Case Study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Retrieved from Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Sceince Quartly, 26(1), Retrieved from Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research:design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly hilla,ca: Sage. 19