Using grounded theory to write qualitative findings with reflective journals

Transcription

1 Using grounded theory to write qualitative findings with reflective journals Presentation to ESP 11/16/16 ESP Presentation 11/16/16 DR. LINDA S. BEHAR-HORENSTEIN DISTINGUISHED TEACHING SCHOLAR & PROFESSOR, EDUCATION, DENTISTRY, VETERINARY MEDICINE & PHARMACY DIRECTOR, CTSI EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION

2 Objectives 1. Explain the purpose of grounded theory. 2. Use selective coding to write up one thematic category 3. Use the sample dataset and develop a memo. 4. Describe the criteria which define good grounded theory research.

3 What is grounded theory? Grounded theory is both a method and an approach to analyzing data. The intent is to generate or discover a theory among study participants who experience the same process. The theory might help explain practice or provide a framework for further study.

4 Definition of Grounded Theory Grounded theory means Remaining open to all possible theoretical understandings Developing tentative interpretations about these data through codes and nascent categories Returning to the field site(s) and gathering more data to check and refine major categories (See Kathy Charmaz and Karen Henwood, 2007, in Carla Willig and Wendy Stainton-Rogers, eds. Handbook of Qualitative Psychology, Sage, London.)

5 Begin with an inductive logic Use broad concepts to conceptualize projects and proposals Take a comparative, interactive, and emergent approach Adopt several key strategies for conducting inquiry.

6 What grounded theorists do Engage in simultaneous data collection and analysis Start analyzing data from the beginning of data collection Integrate and streamline data collection and analysis through making systematic comparisons throughout inquiry Interact with their data and emergent analyses Begin building inductive theoretical analyses Move beyond inductive logic Check emerging theoretical ideas about their data

7 Grounded Theory Guidelines Study your emerging data Look for processes in the data Engage in coding Discover what people experience Look and listen for cues about feeling and meaning Look for how, when, and why people act Look for what people do as well as what they say Take a critical stance toward your data, not your participants

8 Grounded Theory Guidelines, Cont. Choose the most frequent and significant codes through focused coding Raise your focused codes to tentative categories Write memos (and title them!) that show how you filled out the category Use theoretical sampling (early theoretical sampling can bring premature closure on your work) Order your memos Rework the entire piece

9 Guidelines for Initial Coding Use these flexible strategies while coding Breaking the data up into their component parts or properties Defining the actions on which they rest Looking for tacit assumptions Explicating implicit actions and meanings Crystallizing the significance of the points Comparing data with data Identifying gaps in the data

10 Guidelines for Initial Coding During initial coding, ask: What is this data a study of? (Glaser, 1978, p.57; Glaser and Strauss, 1967) What does the data suggest? Pronounce? From whose point of view? What theoretical category does this datum indicate? (Glaser, 1978)

11 Guide to Initial Coding Remain open Stay close to the data Keep your codes simple and precise Construct short codes Preserve actions Compare data with data Move quickly through the data

12 Illustrating the Grounded Theory Examples from Published Research

13 Students Expectations Good mentors Student/Professor interactions Collaboration Skills sets Mentoring styles Professors Expectations of students Accessibility Challenges Figure 1. Grounded theory for Mentoring Undergraduate Researchers Cite from: Behar-Horenstein LS, Roberts KW, Dix AC. Mentoring undergraduate researchers: An exploratory study of students and professors perceptions. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 2010;18(3):

14 Figure 2. Faculty perceptions of Peer Observation of Teaching. Cite from: Roberts KW. Faculty Perceptions of Peer Observation in University Teaching. University of Florida 2013.

15 Figure 3. Grounded theory used in STARS Cite from: Behar-Horenstein LS, Feng X, Roberts KW, Gibbs M, Catalanotto FA, Hudson-Vassell CN. Serving the underserved: developing cultural competence among dental students. J Dent Educ 2015;79(10):

16 Emergent Data Analysis Development of theory is guided by piecing together implicit meanings about a category, weaving together several categories to identify a central phenomenon.

17 Charmaz s suggested GT guidelines 1. Label data with active, specific codes using gerunds. 2. Select focused codes, compare & sort data with specific codes. 3. Raise focused codes to tentative analytic categories. 4. Construct theoretical concepts from abstract categories, compare category with concept.

18 Applying Grounded Theory Techniques: Let s Code

19 Read Reflective Writings Samples 1. ESP DATASET #1 2. ESP DATASET #2

20 Memoing

21 Take your focused codes and write whatever comes to mind about these. This is the time to have flights of fancy-not later. See what you discover! Get your ideas down on paper as quickly and fully as you can Write to and for yourself and write freely. Don t attend to grammar, organization, logic, evidence, and audience Write in an informal, conversational style

22 Memoing Researcher writes down ideas as data is collected and analyzed. These ideas might be to sketch out the of the process, researcher s reactions, tentative interpretations, or reflections that are responses to that data collected.

23 Memos can become the basis for generating GT. Data collection is grounded by the researcher s constant comparison of data gleaned from participants with ideas about an emerging theory. Remember, data analysis can be structured or developmental/emergent.

24 Memo-writing Is the pivotal intermediate step between data collection and writing drafts of papers A crucial method -- because it prompts you to analyze your data and codes early in the research process

25 Memo-writing (cont.): How to Write Memos Prerequisite: Study your emerging data Title your memo as specifically as possible. Early Memos 1. Record what you see happening in the data 2. Explore and fill out your qualitative codes. 3. Use your codes to direct and focus further data collection What process is at issue here? Under which conditions does this process develop? How do(es) the research participant(s) think, feel and act while involved in this process? Where, why, and how does the process change? What are the consequences of the process?

26 Memo-writing (cont.): How to Write Memos What is going on in the field setting or within the interview accounts? Can you turn codes into pithy categories? Examples:, getting an honest chance, surrendering to illness. 1. What are people doing? 2. What is the person saying? 3. What do research participants actions and statements take for granted? 4. How do structure and context serve to support, maintain, impede, or change their actions and statements? 5. What connections can you make? Which ones do you need to check?

27 Memo-writing (cont.): Advanced Memos Trace and categorize data subsumed by your topic Describe how your category emerges and changes Identify the beliefs and assumptions that support it Tell what the topic looks and feels like from various vantage points Place it within an argument

28 Memo-writing (cont.): Advanced Memos Make comparisons ØCompare different people (such as their beliefs, situations, actions, accounts, or experiences) ØCompare data from the same individuals with themselves at different points in time ØCompare categories in the data with other categories example: How does accepting illness compare with reconciling oneself to illness

29 Memo-writing (cont.): Advanced Memos Which categories should become major sections? Which should be relegated minor status? ØCompare sub-categories with general categories for fit-- example: where does Accepting illness go? ØCompare sub-categories within a general category example: what is the difference between an Identifying Moment and a Significant Event

30 Memo-writing (cont.): Advanced Memos ØCompare concepts or conceptual categories example: demonstrate the differences between experiencing intrusive illness with immersion in illness ØCompare the entire analysis with existing literature or the ruling ideas in a field Refine the consequences of your analysis

31 Memo-writing Helps Your to: Develop fresh ideas, create concepts, and find novel relationships. Demonstrate connections between categories (e.g. empirical events and social structures, larger groups and the individual, espoused beliefs and actions). Discover gaps in your data collection. Link data gathering with data analysis and report writing. Build whole sections of papers and chapters. Keep involved in research and writing. Increase your confidence and competence.

32 Writing a Memo

33 Use the dataset entitled, Narratives about Living with Chronic Illness Discuss impressions. Identify gerunds you selected. Take three minutes to write a memo. Report out.

34 Challenges to Using GT

35 As much as possible, set aside, any pre-existing ideas so that the analytical, or substantive theory emerges from the data.

36 Determining saturation can be difficult. One strategy to use to move towards saturation is discrimination sampling gather information from individuals different from those initially interviewed. Ask if theory holds true for additional participants.

37 a central phenomenon context or conditions. specific components Primary outcome of GT is a theory characterized by: casual conditions, or strategies

38 Use of prescribed categories (recommended by Glaser, 1978); Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1999; Corbin & Strauss, 2007) limit flexibility during analysis of data.

39 Criteria for evaluating good Grounded Theory Research q CREDIBILITY q RESONANCE q USEFULNESS

40 CREDIBILITY 1. Has the researcher(s) achieved intimate familiarity with the setting or topic? 2. Are the data sufficient to merit the researcher s claims? Consider the range, number, and depth of observations contained in the data 3. Has the researcher made systematic comparisons between observations and between categories?

41 CREDIBILITY 4. Do the categories cover a wide range of empirical observations? 5. Are there strong logical links between the gathered data and the researcher s argument and analysis? 6. Has the researcher provided enough evidence for his or claims to allow the reader to form an independent assessment and agree with the researcher s claims?

42 Resonance 1. Do the categories portray the fullness of the studied experience? 2. Have you revealed liminal and taken-for-granted meanings? 3. Have your drawn links between larger collectivities or institutions and individual lives, when the data so indicate? 4. Does your grounded theory make sense to your participants or people who share their circumstances? Does your analysis offer them deeper insights about their lives and worlds?

43 Usefulness 1. Does your analysis offer interpretations that people can use in their everyday worlds? 2. Do your analytic categories speak to generic processes? 3. Have you examined these generic processes for tacit implications?

44 Usefulness 4. Can the analysis spark further research in other substantive areas? 5. How does your work contribute to knowledge? How does it contribute to making a better world?

45 Using grounded theory to write qualitative findings with reflective journals Presentation to ESP 11/16/16 ESP Presentation 11/16/16 DR. LINDA S. BEHAR-HORENSTEIN DISTINGUISHED TEACHING SCHOLAR & PROFESSOR, EDUCATION, DENTISTRY, VETERINARY MEDICINE & PHARMACY DIRECTOR, CTSI EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION