School of Information and Library Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Introduction

Session 1, January 12: Frameworks, models, and theories; Scope of this course

• Merton, R.K. (1957). Introduction. In Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL, Free Press, 3-16. [Davis, SILS - HM66 .M4 1957]
  • Merton first developed the idea of theories of the middle range, that Poole discusses within the context of information science. For the original, see pages 5-10, particularly the first few paragraphs.
• Kuhn, T. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 320-329. [Davis Library - Q175 .K954]
  • Reprinted in Balashov, Y., & Rosenberg, A. (eds.) (2002). Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge, 421-437. [Davis Library - Q175.3 .P49 2002; available in Sakai resources]
  • In this short piece, Kuhn (famous for his book on paradigm change in the conduct of science) discusses the criteria that we can use to evaluate the quality of a given theory. In particular, he focuses on the role of a scientist's values in making a choice between two theories.
• Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (eds.). (2003). Part 6: New directions and challenges. In Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 365-377. [SILS Library - H61.15 .P48 2003; copy in Sakai resources]
  • Delanty and Strydom summarize several (postmodern) trends in the social sciences since the 1980s and how they affect our epistemological and methodological perspectives. They include reflexivity, standpoint, rational choice, constructivism, cognitivism, and realism.

Session 2, January 19: Scientific reasoning; The role of theory in science

• Hempel, C. (1962). Two models of scientific explanation. In Colodny, R.G. (ed.), Frontiers of Science and Philosophy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of PIttsburgh Press, 9-19. [Davis Library - Q175 .C627 1963]
  • Reprinted in Balashov, Y., & Rosenberg, A. (eds.) (2002). Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge, 45-55. [Davis Library - Q175.3 .P49 2002; copy in Sakai resources]
  • Much of ILS research (and social science research in general) relies on the probabilistics explanations that Hempel describes in section 2.2.
• Nagel, E. (1961).The cognitive status of theories. In The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 106-152. [Davis Library - Q175.N22]
  • Reprinted in Balashov, Y., & Rosenberg, A. (eds.) (2002). Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings. London: Routledge, 197-210. [Davis Library - Q175.3 .P49 2002; copy in Sakai resources]
• Avgerou, C. (2013). Social mechanisms for causal explanation in social theory based IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(8), 399-419. [Online]
  • Avgerou's discussion of explanation and causality focuses on process information systems research that draws from social theory.

• Critical theory and critical realism

• Frauley, J., & Pearce, F. (2007). Critical realism and the social sciences: Methodological and epistemological preliminaries. In Frauley, J., & Pearce, F. (eds.), Critical Realism and the Social Sciences: Heterodox Elaborations. University of Toronto Press, 3-29. [Davis Library - H61.15 .C75 2007]
  • In your reading, you'll likely run across references to critical realism as a particular epistemological stance. This chapter provides an introduction to this perspective.

Applying a Theory in a Particular Study

Session 3, January 26: Dangers and pitfalls when applying an existing theory

• Examples of information science theories
• Examples of theories from other disciplines

Session 4, February 2: Applying existing theories

• Examples of information science theories
• Examples of theories from other disciplines

Session 5, February 9: Applying existing theories, continued

• Additional readings on cognitive apprenticeship
  • Pane, J. F., Griffin, B. A., McCaffrey, D. F., & Karam, R. (2014). Effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor Algebra I at scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(2), 127-144. [UNC libraries]
    • Read the abstract of the study only
  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398. [UNC libraries]
    • Skim material by heads/subheads only in first few pages
  • Basham, J. D., Perry, E., & Meyer, H. (2011). It’s in the bag: Digital backpacks for project-based learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(2), 24-27. [copy in Sakai resources]
    • Skim only
  • Chang, S.-H., Wu, T.-C., Kuo, Y.-K., & You, L.-C. (2012). Project-based learning with an online peer assessment system in a photonics instruction for enhancing LED design skills. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 11(4), 236-246.​ [UNC libraries]
    • Read abstract only

Session 6, February 16: Applying existing theories, continued; Discussion of plans for paper

• Additional reading on information-based ideation
  • Kerne, A., Smith, S.M., Koh, E., Choi, H., & Graeber, R. (2008). An experimental method for measuring the emergence of new ideas in information discovery. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(5), 460-477. [UNC libraries]
    • For more background, read p460-465

Session 7, February 23: Testing/validating a theory

• Gregor, S., & Klein, G. (2014). Eight obstacles to overcome in the theory testing genre. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(11), i-xix. [UNC libraries]
  • Both conceptual and methodological obstacles to theory testing are discussed, and suggestions are made for overcoming them.

Development of Grounded Theory

Session 8, March 2: Inducing theory from observation

Example grounded theory studies in LIS

• Lingel, J. (2015). Information practices of urban newcomers: An analysis of habits and wandering. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 66(6), 1239-1251. [UNC libraries]
• Shehata, A., Ellis, D., & Foster, A. (2015). Scholarly communication trends in the digital age: Informal scholarly publishing and dissemination, a grounded theory approach. Electronic Library, 33(6), 1150-1162. [UNC libraries]
• Vassilakaki, E., & Johnson, F. (2015). The use of grounded theory in identifying the user experience during search. Library & Information Science Research, 37(1), 77-87. [UNC libraries]
• Burford, S. (2014). A grounded theory of the practice of web information architecture in large organizations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 65(10), 2017-2034. [UNC libraries]
• Costello, K.L. (2013). Ethical implications of searching for a kidney donor online. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 50, 1-5. [UNC libraries]
• Walker, C. (2012). The information world of parents: A study of the use and understanding of information by parents of young children. Library Trends, 60(3), 546-568. [UNC libraries]
• Duncan, V., & Holtslander, L. (2012). Utilizing grounded theory to explore the information seeking behavior of senior nursing students. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(1), 20-27. [UNC libraries]
• Burford, S. (2011). Complexity and the practice of web information architecture. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62(10), 2024-2037. [UNC libraries]
• Rubin, V.L., Burkell, J., & Quan-Haase, A. (2011). Facets of serendipity in everyday chance encounters: A grounded theory approach to blog analysis. Information Research, 16(3). http://www.informationr.net/ir/16-3/paper488.html.
• Mutshewa, A. (2010). The use of information by environmental planners: A qualitative study using Grounded Theory methdology. Information Processing & Management, 46(2), 212-232. [UNC libraries]
• Camargo, M.R. (2008). A grounded theory study of the relationship between e-mail and burnout. Information Research, 13(4). http://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper383.html.
• Park, J.-H., & Qin, J. (2007). Exploring the willingness of scholars to accept open access: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 38(2), 55-84. [UNC libraries]
• Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2007). Grounded theory analysis of e-government initiatives: Exploring perceptions of government authorities. Government Information Quarterly, 24(1), 135-147. [UNC libraries]
• McKnight, M. (2007). A grounded theory model of on-duty critical care nurses' information behavior: The patient-chart cycle of informative interactions. Journal of Documentation, 63(1), 57-73. [UNC libraries]
• Prekop, P. (2002). A qualitative study of collaborative information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 58(5), 533-547. [UNC libraries]
• Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory approach. Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469-486. [UNC libraries]
• Wildemuth, B. M. (1989). End-user computing: The adoption of an intellectual technology in corporate settings. Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University. http://search.proquest.com/docview/30372762
• Mellon, C.A. (1986). Library anxiety: A grounded theory and its development. College & Research Libraries, 47(2), 160-165. [UNC libraries]

Other readings on theory development

• Apramian, T., Cristancho, S., Watling, C., & Lingard, L. (2017, in press). (Re)grounding grounded theory: A close reading of theory in four schools.Qualitative Research, Early online. [UNC libraries]
  • Four variations of grounded theory methodology are examined: Glaserian, Straussian, Charmazian, and Clarkeian, with a focus on the assumptions each holds.
• Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34-45. [UNC libraries]
  • Critical theory studies take a particular epistemological and social stance. In this article, Charmaz argues that a constructivist approach to grounded theory can support critical appropaches to inquiry.
• Bawden, D. (2016). The noblest pleasure: Theories of understanding in the information sciences. In Sonnenwald, D.H. (ed.), Theory Development in the Information Sciences. Austin: University of Texas Press, 283-299. [SILS Library - Z665 .T49636 2016]
  • Using his own biography for background, Bawden reflects on how theory is developed in our field.
• Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E.R., & Monod, E. (2015). Theoretical perspectives in IS research: From variance and process to conceptual latitude and conceptual fit. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(6), 664-679.
  • Rather than just categorizing theories as process theories and variance theories, the authors argue for a closer consideration of the concepts in the theory and their fit with the purposes of the study.
• Matavire, R., & Brown, I. (2013). Profiling grounded theory approaches in information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 119-129. [UNC libraries]
  • You may be interested in the findings of this study of the different approaches to grounded theory methods that have been used in the information systems field, but focus your attention primarily on the authors' overview of the different approaches (p119-124).
• Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2013). The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek, CA: West Coast Press. [UNC libraries, ebook]
  • This short book is not focused specifically on grounded theory, but will be worth your time if you're taking a constructivist approach to theory development.
• Wu, C.-H. V., & Beaunae, C. (2012). Personal reflections on cautions and considerations for navigating the path of grounded theory doctoral theses and dissertations: A long walk through a dark forest. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(3), 249-265.
  • Some practical advice for doctoral students considering pursuing a grounded theory study for their dissertation research, based on the authors' experiences.
• Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Creativity and the generation of ideas. In Theory Construction and Model-Building Skills: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. New York: Guilford Press, 39-74. (SILS Reserve - H62 .J29 2010)
  • The chapter on creativity is included in this book because, as the authors argue, “Theory construction involves specifying relationships between concepts in ways that create new insights into the phenomena we are interested in understanding” (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010, p.39). Theory development is creative work. Thus, most of this chapter is spent identifying and explaining 26 heuristics that you can use to generate theoretical ideas (p.48-67).
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage. [Available from UNC libraries as an electronic book.]
  • The same Strauss, but he and Glaser had a parting of the ways on methodological issues. This text is now considered a "standard" for the grounded theory method. If you're planning to develop grounded theory in your dissertation, you'll want to buy and read this book.
• Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
  • As the use of grounded theory methods has grown in the information systems field, Suddaby urges authors not to fall into the trap of claiming to do grounded theory research wthout attending to the basic tenets of this approach. He outlines six misconceptions of grounded theory research that can lead authors astray.
• Mansourian, Y. (2006). Adoption of grounded theory in LIS research. New Library World, 107(1228/1229), 386-402.
  • This paper reviews and critiques the applicability of grounded theory methods to ILS research. He concludes that there have been a good number of ILS studies that have successfully applied grounded theory methods, but that this is not an approach that is applicable to every ILS research question.
• Selden, L. (2005). On grounded theory -- with some malice. Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 114-129.
  • Selden provides a really nice overview of grounded theory, much like the Charmaz and Dey books, but from the perspective of an ILS researcher. He concludes by pointing out four deficiencies in the grounded theory approach: that the coding process is too "finicky" and can become like the tail wagging the dog; that the coding process breaks the link with the context of the data; that the advice to avoid forming a pre-understanding of the theory (based on literature) puts a premium on lack of learning; and that the categories that result from the analysis prevent attachment to higher-level (i.e., more abstract) theories.
• Schwandt, T.A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 292-331. (Davis - H62 .L274 2003; also in Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 189-213, SILS Reference - H62 .H2455 2000)
• This chapter takes a more philosophical approach to some alternative approaches to qualitative research. Read it in combination with the required Creswell chapter.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21
  • A nice brief overview of the basic tenets of conducting grounded theory research, from two of the leaders in the field.
• Dey, I. (1999). Introduction. In Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press, 1-24.
  • This chapter provides an introduction to the methods used in grounded theory development, as well as a very brief discussion of the history and evolution of grounded theory approaches.
• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
  • The book that got it all started. Grounded theory approaches have evolved since its original publication, but if you want to look at the original proposal, read this book.

The role of the literature review

• Urquhart, C., & Fernández, W. (2013). Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Journal of Information Technology, 28, 224-236.
  • This paper reviews three misconceptions about how to conduct grounded theory studies, with special emphasis on misconceptions about the role of the literature review.
• Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of social Research Methodology, 14,(2), 111-124. UNC libraries - http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=5de70e43-2da1-44af-9a11-f1b246dc527d%40sessionmgr12&hid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#
  • The use of prior literature is a contested area in grounded theory research. This article may help to firm up your own stance on this issue.
• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Integrating, challenging and contributing to the literature. In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 200-211. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014]
  • Use of the literature in grounded theory development is controversial. Gibson and Hartman have some suggestions for how to handle the literature as you develop theory.

Session 9, March 9: Data collection

• Forster, M. (2016). Phenomenography: A methodology for information literacy research. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48(4), 353-362. [UNC libraries]
  • Phenomenography may be a useful approach for theory development, because it focuses on inducing conceptual understanding from lived experience. This article provides a brief introduction to this research approach.
• Blix, S.B., & Wettergren, A. (2015). The emotional labour of gaining and maintaining access to the field. Qualitative Research, 15(6), 688-704.
  • This article considers the role of emotions when you're collecting qualitative data. It analyzes strategic emotion work, emotional reflexivity, and emotion work to cope with emotive dissonance. It will be particularly useful if you anticipate that your emotions might play a role in your interactions with study participants.
• Molloy, C. (2015). Getting by or getting in? Grappling with access and affect in qualitative research projects involving vulnerable human subjects. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(5), 467-476. [UNC libraries]
  • Using some interesting examples, Molloy discusses the challenges of gaining authentic access to study participants. She works with participants who have chronic mental illnesses.
• Janesick, V.J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 379-399. [SILS Reference - H62 .H2455 2000; copy in Sakai resources]
  • Janesick uses choreography to discuss how you can approach the design of a qualitative research study. She covers both your preparation for the study and the design decisions to be made during the course of the study. She also briefly discusses the criteria by which a design might be judged to be of high quality (or not). The relevance of her chapter for our purposes starts to drop off on page 390; so if you get that far and are running low on time, you can stop there.

Research Designs

• There are a number of readings on flexible designs and sampling in qualitative research. Here are a few that you will find useful as you develop your research proposal.
• Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological issues and practices in qualitative research. Library Quarterly, 63,(4), 431-449.
  • This article provides a nice overview of qualitative research methods, within the context of information and library science. It is NOT specific to grounded theory studies, but it does provide a good foundation for understanding how to conduct a qualitative study of any kind.
• Mason, J. (2002). Designing qualitative research. In Qualitative Researching. 2nd ed. London: Sage, 24-47. Davis Library - H62 .M2853 2002
  • Mason uses a question-and-answer format to review the basics of designing a qualitative study. It's not specific to grounded theory, but will be useful.
• Robson, C. (2002). Flexible designs. In Real World Research. 2nd ed. Blackwell, 163-199. Davis Library - H62 .R627 2002
  • Robson divides the research world into fixed and flexible research designs (rather than the more common quantitative/qualitative or positivist/interpretive splits). This chapter on flexible designs discusses the characteristics of a 'good' flexible design and reviews several common approaches using flexible designs: case studies, ethnographic studies, and grounded theory studies.

Interviewing

• Johnson, J.M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In Gubrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context & Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 103-119. SILS Reference - H61.28 .H36 2002
• Weiss, R.S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Inteview Studies. New York: Free Press. [Undergrad Library Reserves - HN29 .W42 1994]
• Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [SILS Reserve - H62 .R737 2005; online via UNC libraries]
• Kvale, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. [Davis - HM48 .K9 2009]
• Harvey, W.S. (2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431-441.
• Taylor, S. (2012). 'One participant said...': The implications of quotations from biographical talk. Qualitative Research, 12(4), 388-401.
• Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [Previous edition in Davis Library - LB1028 .L436 2010]
• Roulston, K. (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 277-293. [UNC libraries]
• Lloyd, A. (2014). Following the red thread of information in information literacy research: Recovering local knowledge through interview to the double. Library & Information Science Research, 36, 99-105. [UNC libraries]
• Seitz, S. (2016). Pixilated partnerships, overcoming obstacles in qualitative interviews via Skype: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 229-235. [UNC libraries]
• Silverman, D. (2017). How was it for you? The Interview Society adn the irresistible rise of the (poorly analyzed) interview. Qualitative Research, 17(2), 144-158. [UNC libraries]

Observation

• Angrosino, M.V., & Mays de Pérez, K.A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, 673-702. SILS Reference - H62 .H2455 2000

Think-aloud protocols

• Originally developed by Ericsson and Simon, this approach to data collection has both supporters and critics. It definitely is useful for certain purposes in studying information behaviors. Here are some suggested readings on this method.
• Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
• Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Davis Library - BF455 .E68 1984 (Second edition was published in 1993.)
• van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F., & Sandberg, J.A.C. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press. (SILS Library - BF444 .S63 1994) (Chapters 3 and 4 are particularly useful.)
• Wilson, T.D. (1994). The proper protocol: Validity and completeness of verbal reports. Psychological Science, 5(5), 249-252. (This is a brief introduction to some of the criticisms of this method.)
• Ericsson, K.A. (1998). Protocol analysis. In Bechtel, W., & Graham, G. (eds.), A Companion to Cognitive Science. Blackwell, 425-432. Davis Library - BF311 .C578 1998
• Boren, M.T., & Ramey, J. (2000). Thinking aloud: Reconciling theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(3), 261-278. (These authors take a communications-oriented approach to these protocols, rather than a cognitive science approach. It makes a lot of sense to me.)
• Oh, S., & Wildemuth, B.M. (2009). Think-aloud protocols. In Wildemuth, B.M., Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Libraries Unlimited. SILS Library - Z669.7 .W55 2009 (This chapter provides a brief overview of the method, and presents some examples. The following examples are all ones that Sanghee identified in developing this chapter.)
• Crutcher, R.(1994). Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in psychological research. Pscyhological Science, 5(5), 241-244.
• Henderson, R.D., Smith, M.C., Podd, J., & Varela-Alvarez, X. (1995). A comparison of the four prominent user-based methods for evaluating the usability of computer software. Ergonomics, 38, 2030-2044.
• Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
• Payne, J.W. (1994). Thinking aloud: Insights into information processing. Psychological Science, 5(5), 241-248.
• Russo, J.E., Johnson, J., & Stephens, D.L. (1989). The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition, 17, 759-769.
• Schooler, J.W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 122, 166-183.
• Yang, S.C. (2003). Reconceptualizing think-aloud methodology: Refining the encoding and categorizing techniques via contextualized perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 95-115.

Session 10, March 23: Coding and constant comparative methods

Coding: Highly recommended

• Kelle, U. (2007). The development of categories: Different approaches in grounded theory. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage, 191-213. UNC libraries - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941
  • This chapter is highly recommended, if you have time to read one more thing. The challenge in analyzing data in grounded theory studies is the move from raw data (lots of text) to categories of theoretical interest, that can be defined and related to each other. This chapter provides a good overview of this process. It shows how categories emerge from data, and contrasts Glaser's and Strauss' approaches to coding. It also discusses how to incorporate ideas from other theories into your thinking about the data you've gathered.

Coding: Classic texts

• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Analyzing data for concepts. In Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 159-194. [Available from UNC libraries as an electronic book.]
  • In this chapter, Corbin and Strauss use a single study as an extended example of how to develop categories from your data. They include a number of actual memos, so you can get a good sense of how memo writing might support your theory development work.
• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). Insight and theory development. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 251-257.
  • In this brief final chapter of their classic book, Glaser and Strauss urge us to use our own insights, gained during the data collection and analysis process, to develop sound theory.

  Additional readings on coding

• Kaefer, F., Roper, J., & Sinha, P. (2015). A software-assisted qualitative content analysis of news articles: Example and reflections. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2), Article 8. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2123/3815.
  • After discussing how software can be used in analysis, a qualitative content analysis of 230 newspaper articles is described.
• Odena, O. (2013). Using software to tell a trustworthy, convincing and useful story. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(5), 355-372. [UNC libraries]
  • While this article talks about how to use software to support coding, it also focuses on how the use of software can be used to substantiate the researcher's claims.
• Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Data analysis in grounded theory. In Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. Los Angeles: Sage, 88-111. [SILS Reserve - H61.24 .B57 2011]
  • This chapter briefly describes the coding process, from initial coding through advanced analysis. It also discussed diagramming as an analysis technique, and software that can support the coding process.
• Hutchison, A.J., Johnston, L.H., & Breckon, J.D. (2010). Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a grounded theory project: An account of a worked example. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(4), 283-302. UNC libraries - http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=3a8166b0-3485-4ef7-9a2f-cf2edda82b0f%40sessionmgr15&hid=6&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#
  • Using QSR-NVivo as an example of the data analysis software available now, the authors provide a detailed discussion of the practicalities of managing the data collection and analysis processes involved in a grounded theory study.
• Holton, J.A. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage, 265-289. UNC libraries - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941
  • This chapter is some good follow-up reading, after the Kelle chapter. It provides a more in-depth discussion of the coding process and also discussed how coding and memo writing interact.
• Dey, I. (2007). Grounding categories. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage, 167-190. UNC libraries - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941
  • The Dey chapter precedes the Kelle chapter in this Handbook and, as might be expected, provides a more foundational discussion of deriving categories from your data.

Session 11, March 30:Memo writing

• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Analyzing data for concepts. In Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 159-194. [Available from UNC libraries as an electronic book.]
  • In this chapter, Corbin and Strauss use a single study as an extended example of how to develop categories from your data. They include a number of actual memos, so you can get a good sense of how memo writing might support your theory development work.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Memos and diagrams. In Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 117-141. [Available from UNC libraries as an electronic book.]
  • Corbin and Strauss review the primary characteristics of the memos and diagrams that can support theorizing. They include several examples of the types of diagrams that you might draw, as well as examples of memos.
• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Thinking theoretically and writing memos in grounded theory. In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 171-185. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014]
  • Some practical pointers for memo writing.
• Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Memoing - The cornerstone of quality. In Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. Los Angeles: Sage, 40-47. [SILS Reserve - H61.24 .B57 2011]
  • In addition to providing an example memo, the authors discuss why, when, what, and how to write memos.

Session 12, April 6: Theoretical sampling

Theoretical sampling

• Morse, J.M. (2007). Sampling in grounded theory. In Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage, 229-244. UNC libraries - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941
  • Morse begins with a discussion of three principles of sampling for grounded theory research: excellent research skills are essential for obtaining good data; it is necessary to locate 'excellent' participants to obtain excellent data; and sampling techniques must be targeted and efficient. She then discusses convenience sampling, purposeful sampling, and theoretical sampling, as well as when to stop data collection.
• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Rediscovering sklls for theoretical sampling. In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 122-135. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014]
  • These authors attempt to cut through the many variations/changes to grounded theory that have been developed over the past several decades. In this chapter, they focus on selecting slices of data for theory development, drawing primarily on the work of Elkins.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Theoretical sampling. In Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 143-157. [Available from UNC libraries as an electronic book.]
  • This is the chapter on theoretical sampling from the primary textbook by Corbin and Strauss. They also use a question-and-answer format to address all your questions about how to develop your sample.
• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). Theoretical sampling. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New YOrk: Aldine de Gruyter, 45-77.
  • This is the chapter on theoretical sampling from the original book on grounded theory. It includes sections on selecting comparison groups, degree of theoretical sampling, and the temporal aspects of theoretical sampling.
• Reybold, L.E., Lammert, J.D., & Stribling, S.M. (2013). Participant selection as a conscious research method: Thinking forward and the deliberation of 'Emergent' findings. Qualitative Research, 13(6), 699-716.
  • The authors use their own work to examine the ways in which the selection of study participants influences the meanings that can be drawn from the data. They consider the ways in which participant selection "is a constitutive method of the data collection and analysis process."
• Coyne, I.T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research; Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623-630. [UNC libraries]
  • In this article, Coyne untangles purposeful sampling and theoretical sampling.
• O'Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). 'Unsatisfactory saturation': A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190-197.
  • After noting that theoretical saturation has evolved from its original use in grounded theory studies to become a "marker" of sampling adequacy in many types of qualitative research, they argue that this trend is inappropriate.
• Mayan, M.J. (2009). Research question and sampling. In Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 57-65. Davis Library - GN345 .M39 2009
  • A very brief discussion that ties the formulation of your research question directly to your plans for sampling.

Session 13, April 13: Constructing grounded theory; Ensuring the trustworthiness of your findings

Organizing your memos and other analytical documentation

• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Theoretical integration and sorting in grounded theory. In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 186-199. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014]
  • Some practical pointers for sorting and integrating your ideas.
• Buckley, C.A., & Waring, M.J. (2013). Using diagrams to support the research process: Examples from grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 148-172.
  • Using examples from two separate projects, this article describes how diagrams can be useful at several different stages of the data analysis process.

Theorizing

• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A. (1967). Insight and theory development (Chapter 11). In The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 251-257. [copy in Sakai resources]
• Pozzebon, M., Petrini, M., de Mello, R.B., & Garreau, L. (2011). Unpacking researchers' creativity and imagination in grounded theorizing: An exemplar from IS research. ~Information and Organization, 21~(4), 177-193.
  • Section 2 of this article is the general discussion of creativity and imagination at various stages in a grounded theory study, so will be most pertinent.
• James, A. (2013). Seeking the analytic imagination: Reflections on the process of interpreting qualitative data. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 562-577.
  • James argues that "imaginative acts are key to the analytical craftsmanship involved in interpretive analysis" (p.562).
• Demir, R., & Lychnell, L.-O. (2015). Mangling the process: A meta-theoretical account of process theorizing. Qualitative Research, 15(1), 85-104.
  • Focuses on the ontological premises of process theorizing.

Writing a research proposal

• Sandelowski, M., Davis, D.H., & Harris, B.G. (1989). Artful design: Writing the proposal for research in the naturalist paradigm. Research in Nursing & Health, 12(2), 77-84.
  • While this article is directed at writing a proposal for funding, its advice also applies to writing a dissertation proposal. It's oriented toward qualitative research studies more generally, but also applies specifically to grounded theory studies.

  Writing up your results

• Geertz, C. (1973). The thick description of culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Basic Books. Excerpt in Delanty, G., & Strydom, P. (eds.), Philosophies of Social Science: The Classic and Contemporary Readings. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, 187-190. SILS Library - H61.15 .P48 2003
  • This is a brief excerpt from a longer discussion of thick description by Geertz. He coined this term, and most people still rely on his definition of it to guide their work in qualitative research.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Writing theses, monographs, and giving talks about your research. In Basics of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 275-295. [Available from UNC libraries as an electronic book.]
  • Corbin and Strauss provide some very practical advice about how to organize and write up (or present) your results.
• Gibson, B., & Hartman, J. (2014). Understanding how to write theoretically. In Rediscovering Grounded Theory. Sage, 212-222. [SILS reserve - H61.24 .G53 2014]
  • Some practical pointers for writing up theory-based results..
• Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2011). Presenting a grounded theory. In Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide. Los Angeles: Sage, 129-144. [SILS Reserve- H61.24 .B57 2011]
  • The discussion is organized around four principles: identify your audience; decide what level of analytical detail is required; choose an appropriate style of writing; and present your grounded theory as a whole.
• Twining, P., Heller, R.S., Nussbaum, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2017). Some guidance on conducting and reporting qualitative studies. Computers & Education, 106, A1-A9. [UNC libraries]
  • These authors are making recommendations to those qualitative researchers who might want to submit papers to this journal. They cover the methods used in a qualitative study (including a grounded theory study), and how to report on the results.
• Paulus, T., Woods, M., Atkins, D.P., & Macklin, R. (2017). The discourse of QDAS: Reporting practices of ATLAS.ti and NVivo users with implications for best practices. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(1), 35-47.
  • The authors analyzed 763 qualitative research articles in terms of the ways that researchers used qualitative data analysis software. In addition to summarizing their findings, they conclude with recommendations for best practices.

Ensuring the trustworthiness of your findings

• Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. In Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 289-331. (SILS Reserve - B828.2 .L56 1985; copy in Sakai resources)
  • This is the classic text on qualitative methods, and is the basis for most discussions of ensuring the trustworthiness of your study. Focus your reading on pages 301-327.
• Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In Williams, D. (ed.), Naturalistic Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 30.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Standard criteria for evaluating the trustworthiness are positioned as parallel to criteria used to evaluate experimental rigor; they extend their thinking by also considering authenticity and fairness in relation to research quality.
• Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological issues and practices in qualitative research. Library Quarterly, 63(4), 431-449.
  • This article provides an overview of qualitative methods, in general. There is a short summary of Lincoln and Guba's ideas on pages 436-437.
• Westbrook, L. (1994). Qualitative research methods: A review of major stages, data analysis techniques, and quality controls. Library & Information Science Research, 16(3), 241-254.
  • Westbrook provides a list of five ways to ensure integrity in your study, on page 251.
• Robson, C. (2002). Establishing trustworthiness in flexible design research. In Real World Research. 2nd ed. Blackwell, 168-177. (Davis, SILS - H62 .R627 2002)
• Robson divides the world into fixed and flexible designs. With their emergent nature, grounded theory studies are definitely in the flexible category. He positions the issue of trustworthiness somewhat differently than the other authors listed here, but does have some useful tips on how to achieve it.
• Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1451-1458. [UNC libraries]
  • Polit and Beck discuss three approaches to generalization - classic sample-to-population (statistical) generalization, analytic generalization, and case-to-case transfer (transferability).
• Kaumann, L., & Denk, N. (2011). How to demonstrate rigor when presenting grounded theory research in the supply chain management literature. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47(4), 64-72.
  • Rather than discussing how to obtain trustworthy results, this article discusses how to present your results in a way that communicates their trustworthiness to your readers.
• Sikolia, D., Biros, D., Mason, M., & Weiser, M. (2013). Trustworthiness of grounded theory methodology research in information systems. MWAIS Proceedings, Paper 16. http://aisel.aisnet.org/mwais2013/16.
  • Specific methods for improving trustworthiness are discussed in a bit more detail than the Houghton et al. (2013) paper.
• Cope, D. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(1), 89-91.
  • Brief discussions of credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability, and authenticity.

Session 14, April 20: Presentations

Final exam date, TBA

• Proposal due

Syllabus / Schedule / Assignments / Sakai class site

The INLS 887 website, UNC-CH, 2017, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Address all comments and questions to Barbara M. Wildemuth at wildemuth@unc.edu. This page was last modified on April 25, 2017, by Barbara M. Wildemuth.