Management research methods individual assessment
Grounded theory
In the book ‘Research methods for business students´ Saunders, Thornhill and Lewis presents their collaborative opinions emanating from empirical and qualitative researches. Their collaborative ideas regarding the paradigms of underlying premises on which the grounded theory was formulated are comprehensively presented to the reader (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012). Furthermore, it is by reading the book that the advantages and disadvantages embedded in the applicability and consequent use of theory are exhibited. The research findings presented by the three authors support that the grounded theory is a pertinent tool in conducting business researches thus triggering a further analysis of the theory. This is because the grounded theory presents a systematic methods which reflect those used in social sciences. The theory also emphasizes on the need for data analysis in the case of a quantitative research thus it becomes equally applicable to business related researches. One major reason why researchers prefer the theory is because of its consistency regarding presentation of findings and analysis.
Furthermore it is appreciated that the grounded theory disqualifies previous theories that were used in both business researches and social sciences thus there is much support that the theory is modernistic. Given the fact that technological advancement has boosted not only the level of researches but also the quality of the data collected thus the grounded theory presents a much clearer picture of the actual presentation of field data. Moreover the ability to interface with modern research tools makes the theory preferable over classical theories that might not fit effectively where findings have been extracted from electronic equipment such as computers. Intuitively, the theory presents a different approach to research as it will be elucidated in this dissertational paper.
Thornberg and Charmaz, (2012) support that the grounded theory defies traditional rules of conducting research which used to emphasize on the need to formulate hypotheses before conducting the actual research. While using the grounded theory, data collection supersedes formation of hypotheses while at the same time the theory states variety of data collection techniques that are inclusive of technology aided data collection instruments. Using the data collected, key indicators or points can be serialized and marked with codes. The codes are extracted from texts and are further grouped into concepts so as to increase their precision as well as workability. The concepts guide the researcher into forming categories which become the basis upon which theories are instigated. This illustration emphasizes that grounded theory supports the use of reverse engineered hypotheses (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012). This is unlike classical theories which require the researchers to use traditional research models whereby the researcher selects a theoretical framework after which a given research is forced to fit into the framework chosen.
By definition, grounded theory is a method of research that presents a systematic collection and generation of alternative theories using both deductive and inductive data collected from the field. One of the goals that led to the development of the grounded theory is supported by the need by researchers to formulate hypotheses after they gain an incisive view of their sample data which then guides the development of conceptual ideas and thus specific hypothesis can be made to relate to the research findings (Thornberg & Charmaz 2012.). Another goal that can be interpreted as being an advantage of the grounded theory is the ability of the theory to discover the main concerns that regards to the researchers desire to resolve a certain social problem. This is because with the grounded theory, a researcher is made to answer the question of “What is going on?” and by so doing the researcher makes plans to identifying the societal problems that need to be resolved. This attribute also makes the theory applicable to business research because it answers a pertinent question that is essential in developing novel business ideologies or transforming the currently existing business models.
Unlike classical theories, contemporary business and social models supported by the grounded theory has been associated with the use of empirical research (Savin-Baden & Major 2013). As a result, the theory distances itself from focusing on the truth but on the quality of the empirical research conducted. Therefore the bottom-line that defines the use of the grounded theory is defined by the time at which hypotheses are formulated. The researcher is not obligated to forming hypotheses prior to the research because of the need to use preconceived data to formulate viable hypothesis and theories (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012). Intuitively, it becomes clear that the term grounded is derived from the need for the hypothesis to be made after empirical research has been conducted thus the theory is grounded on either qualitative or quantitative data. By comparing behavioral research to the grounded theory also abbreviated as GT, it is further elucidated that whereas the former uses people or patients for research, the latter uses a given research unit as an incident thus hundreds of incidents are considered when dealing with grounded theory.
This means that GT can be applied in various fields especially when conducting business researches because a researcher can make a report regarding any of the hundreds of incidents identified. The incidents also form the basis upon which probability statements are made. This is supported by the fact that GT presents general methods which can be compatible with any kind of data ranging from qualitative to quantitative data. Despite this, grounded theories make use of mathematical and statistical probabilities thus the theory is considered being more sideline to the qualitative side since the theory is conservative in its use of statistical figures and methodology. According to an observation made by Oktay, (2012), grounded theory gives the researcher the option of using general methods whose use is complemented by either quantitative or qualitative data. Even while working with probabilities, GT uses more qualitative data which makes it a perfect choice for business people especially when quantitative data is incorporated.
Oktay, (2012) adds that grounded theories are hardly used for reporting statistical data featuring probabilities but they are used interchangeably to advance probability statements dealing with relationships integrated with sets of conceptualized hypotheses basically developed using empirical data. On the other hand GT does not emphasize on validity thus it judged by attributes such as fit, workability, relevance and modifiability. In this context, fit represents the collinear relationship identified between the incidents and the concepts presented by the researcher. Relevance means the actual aim with which a research is conducted. Workability represents the problem solving capacity of the theory while modifiability describes the ease with which essential premises underlying a given theory can be altered so as to facilitate the comparison of new and old data collected from the field. With these definitions, it becomes rife that GT is wholly dependent on fit, modifiability, relevance and workability thus the theory does not emphasize whether a given hypothesis is right or wrong (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012). The margin of correctness when using GT is identified by the mathematical measure identified using the four attributes.
Since the inception of the grounded theory, several advancements have been made in the past to make the theory more relevant to other disciplines of study. Based on this objective and the need to expand the applicability of the theory, heated debates conducted by theorists have led to the splitting of methodologies regarding GT. The first theory being divergent grounded theory which came into existence in the 1967 (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012). The disagreement between Strauss and Glaser on how the theory should be applied spiked debates which led to the names Glaserian and Straussian paradigms. This split was made clear after the publication of the book “Qualitative analysis for social scientists in the year 1987. The book by Strauss led to the divergence of philosophers such as Juliet Corbin who published a book on the basics of a qualitative research by presenting perspectives in support of GT techniques and procedures when undertaking medical researches, business or social science research (Juliet & Strauss 2008).
Glaser refuted the publications by the two authors citing reasons why the grounded theory was the perfect theory that supported objective collection of data. According to Glaser, GT is inclusive of many aspects some of which were omitted by Strauss and Corbin. Thus Glaser presents ideologies that support the original grounded theory. An independent author nnnn¸ argues that the credibility of either Glaser or Strauss can be determined by defining the meaning of coding which is a relevant term when defining GT. This paper tend to conform to the approach stipulated by Glaser. The Glaser’s approach contains the premise on which the GT paradigm is formulated. According to Glaser, the theory describes a comparative method where a researcher uses the first field data collected to make comparative indicators and patterns that guide the formation of hypotheses, concepts and theories. He also does not advocate for GT as being wholly dependent on qualitative data but an integration of the two. By so doing, Oktay, (2012) emphasizes that GT can be comfortably used in media, sciences or even other fictitious researches. According to Glaser, GT is not limited in applicability because it is devoted not devoted to ascertaining accuracy.
On the other hand Strauss named three basic elements that define grounded theories. The grounded theory approach has the element of theoretic sensitivity codes which generate theoretic concepts that explain statistical phenomenon. The second element represents theoretical sampling which helps a researcher in determining the best sample for interviews or analysis. It is through sampling that a researcher collects data which is then analyzed to generate theories. After the formulation of the theories, the researcher will need to compare the phenomenon and the immediate contexts so as to make the theory stronger. In the words of Mills, Bonner and Francis (2006), Glaser’s definition and stamen regarding the applicability of the grounded theory hold more weight as compared to Strauss. In the eyes of Glaser, grounded theory emphasizes on emergence or induction and individual creativity at the various stages while to Strauss, validation of research data coupled with a systematic approach to research seems to be more important.
As it was supported by Mills, Bonner and Francis (2006) the Classic Glaserian Grounded Theory also abbreviated as CGT, it is a research methodology that was instituted into the wide arena of research so as to situate empirical findings by assessing the place and position of relevant literatures that can support decision making. The theory is advantageous in supporting conceptualization as opposed to contextualization. Whereas the former derogates comparison of concepts the later defines the origin of data hence describes authenticity of a given research. The selection of literature has to be selectively guided by behavioral patterns which again reflects back on the four attributes of fit, workability, modifiability and relevance. Using these concepts as supported by (Kelle 2005) then, it becomes evident that comparison of literature is key to the formulation of hypothesis thus qualifying the grounded theory as being superior to its predecessors. With the theory, a researcher is restricted from forming hypothesis before collecting data because of several reasons among them being the need to make inferences supported by the availability of preliminary data.
In spite of being restrictive on the formulation of hypotheses, GT encourages researchers to engage in studies relating to loosely defined topics of research that are relevant to the interests of the researcher. In the event that a researcher wants to preconceive a research problem by making hypotheses in advance, then the applicability of the grounded theory is compromised. This is basically because the research would have preferred suing classical theories of research which have been associated with the weakness of influencing researchers into embracing subjectivity rather than objectivity. Classical theories have moreover been disqualified by CGT which has the advantage of helping the researcher identify knowledge gaps and consequently develop informed hypothesis that helps in the collection of relevant information (Faggiolani 2011).
In order to avoid being subjective by developing a pre-judged or a preconceived impression of any given research, the Glaser grounded theory becomes the most preferable. The theories importance is embedded in the realization that a researcher with a preconceived opinion about a given topic of interest will tend to favor their theory so as to save themselves from the risks associated with the formation of null hypotheses. This can be emphasized by looking at enquiries which have been made in the recent past using CQT. The use of fit, workability, relevance and modifiability instead of judgment such as wrong or right eliminates the probability of developing null hypotheses (Clarke 2008). Unlike classical theories, CQT encourages researchers to read unrelated literature including fictions, drama or poetry before the actual commencement of research. By so doing the researcher will be better placed to accurately identify, recognize and analyze behavior patterns as well as the relationships presented by the codes, concepts and categories thus leading into the formation of unbiased theories. A researcher has to be careful when choosing research methods so as to avoid limiting the research to the thoughts of biased respondents.
The grounded theory has been applauded by many researchers as well as theorists who find it to be applicable in myriads of courses and its support for technology and modern advanced statistical researches but there have been critics. The first critic has revolved around its being misunderstood as a theory (Oktay 2012). The question asked in this case is the qualifying factors that make GT a theory rather than a research model. The second critic has revolved the claim that the theory uses inductive knowledge. Charmaz, (2009) sums up these theories by suggesting that no theorist can free his or her research work from critics but the intensity varies. The main disadvantage with the GT theory is that it is almost impossible to free oneself from prejudice or preconception because a researcher will always find a way to forge data so as to favor a certain line of thought.
There is generally a lack of congruence in the interpretation of the premises on which the theory is grounded. This is because the argument between Strauss and Glaser exposed several loopholes in the interpretation of the theory. Apparently the argument made the theory open to discussions relating to the suitability of both the qualitative and quantitative inquiries. To break the code at this point, Bryant and Charmaz, (2007) suggests the use of constant comparative methods. Being that the grounded theory was developed at a period when all the other qualitative methods of data collection were considered as being unscientific, it easily became acknowledged among researchers who showed academic rigor and much optimism with the use of the theory. The grounded theory has as a result been equated to qualitative research.
References
Bryant, A & Charmaz, K 2007. Grounded theory in historical perspective: An epistemological account’, in Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles
Charmaz, K 2009. Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J.M. Morse, P.N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A.E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation (pp. 127–154). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Clarke, A 2008. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Faggiolani, C 2011. Perceived Identity: applying Grounded Theory in Libraries”. JLIS.it University of Florence
Juliet, C & Strauss, L 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques”. Sage: US
Kelle, U 2005. “Emergence” vs. “Forcing” of Empirical Data? A Crucial Problem of “Grounded Theory” Reconsidered. Forum Qualitative Forum: Qualitative Social Research
Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K 2006. The development of constructivist grounded theory’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1): 25-35.
Oktay, J 2012. Grounded Theory. Oxford University Press: New York.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A 2012. Research Methods for Business Students (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Savin-Baden, M & Major, C 2013. Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. Rutledge: London
Thornberg, R & Charmaz, K 2012. Grounded theory. In S. D. Lapan, M. Quartaroli, & F. Reimer (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs (pp. 41-67). John Wiley/Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]