The Charmaz book is very good for how to analyze data but the scale of her example may not help you with urban development.  To some extent grounded theory is more of a way of asking questions and a method of analysis than a method for research.  I would start with more ethnographic methods…get the lay of the land physically, socially, economically and historically.  Figure out who the main actors in urban development are and ask them about what they are doing, why, what they are hoping to accomplish, what challenges they anticipate.   This is where the use of grounded theory begins.  I also find hanging out in the place and talking to a cross section of people useful.  THis is where you need to get a feel for how to get familiar with a place. Earlier grounded theory texts suggest you ask yourself "what is going" on here and then use observation, participant observation, and conversation copiously recorded in field notes and worked over off site theoretically, etc.    Then you can develop a more systematic idea of who what where and when you need to study.  

HI

I found this book really helpful in doing grounded theory http://www.amazon.co.uk/Constructing-Grounded-Theory-Practical-Qualitative/dp/0761973532

Hope this helps

Andrea

The Charmaz book is very good for how to analyze data but the scale of her example may not help you with urban development.  To some extent grounded theory is more of a way of asking questions and a method of analysis than a method for research.  I would start with more ethnographic methods…get the lay of the land physically, socially, economically and historically.  Figure out who the main actors in urban development are and ask them about what they are doing, why, what they are hoping to accomplish, what challenges they anticipate.   This is where the use of grounded theory begins.  I also find hanging out in the place and talking to a cross section of people useful.  THis is where you need to get a feel for how to get familiar with a place. Earlier grounded theory texts suggest you ask yourself "what is going" on here and then use observation, participant observation, and conversation copiously recorded in field notes and worked over off site theoretically, etc.    Then you can develop a more systematic idea of who what where and when you need to study.  

There are many ways of working with Grounded theory and Case studies. The most common way is to have a Grounded Theory approach/design and use Case Study Data. This means, you do data collection leading to case study or studies, followed by GT analysis of those cases. This is easier said then done, because you will never know when the theoritical saturation can occur (applicable only when you are developing a theory).

Coming to GT approaches, there are two: Developing GT & Constructing GT. You may have an existing grand theory and you may develop it, or construct a new theory in itself.

From sources standpoint, GT approach has evolved over last decade. If you prefer classical way look at authors - Barney Glasser & Anslem Strauss. If you want more contemporary applications of GT go for Kathy Charmaz & Anthony Bryant.

You may not be able to decide which approach / path to take, hence let it evolve. The biggest challenge with GT and Case Studies is that almost all content seems overwhelmingly applicable in the initial stages. In reality, it is better to start with high level approach and streamline as the research evolves.

Good Luck..!

Thank you all. I have done fieldwork in the area for some time now. I also carried out a Land Use Land Cover change study using GIS for the last century. Now I am planning for survey to look at how new urban subjectivities are emerging in the region. I have developed a theoretical framework from fieldwork. However, the problem I face is how to integrate the GIS work, fieldwork and survey in a meaningful manner.

If you have already done your fieldwork, then it is rather late in the process to be considering Grounded Theory -- which usually insists on an alternation of data collection and data analysis during the GT process.

Given the variety of data sources you are using, this seems more like an issue in Mixed Methods Research, but again, you are rather late in considering how to do integration after collecting the data. The classic advice in MMR would be that you need to begin with a design that will help you integrate the results. That said, here are two sources you might consider in that area:

Creswell & Plano-Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, SAGE.

Morgan, Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Research, SAGE

Thank you Professor, I have been doing fieldwork from a GT perspective. But certain aspects of my field demands the GIS analysis and a survey on the emergence of urban subjectivity in the areas. So, my now doubt is how to integrate these two with the GT

One of the first questions that would come up in a Mixed Methods Research approach is whether you are going to treat one of your methods as "primary" or dominant. In MMR notation, that would point to designs like:

qual --> QUANT

or

QUAL --> quant

In the first case, you would be using your survey as the primary part of the design for this portion of your overall study, and the prior fieldwork would help you develop the content for that survey.

In the second case, you would be treating your survey as a supplementary study that was designed to meet the needs of your prior by adding useful follow-up data.

These are not your only design options, but they give you a good place to start in thinking about you will connect and integrate the results from these two pieces of your total data set.

I have to agree with David L Morgan and also point out that a grounded theoretical approach is intended to more or less bracket or avoid pre-existing frames for making sense of data within a given field. A grounded theorist starts with data collection, but does not then subsequently invoke grounded theory. Instead, grounded theory frames the data collection process. So for example, your first/early instances of fieldwork would produce data, which you then begin coding/interpeting inductively. There are no right or wrong ways to do this, only better and worse ways. A grounded theorist searches for patterns in the data, but also for deviant cases or events/processes that run counter to the emerging patterns.  The research slowly and meticulously collects and analyzes data in an attempt to glean sufficient insight to provide a theory of what is going on. That theory is grounded in the data (thus, "grounded theory.")

One aspect of grounded is inductively derived ideas about what's going on in your data. This is often done through in vivo coding (using terms that occur "naturally" within the field to make sense of what is going on). I don't think it ever too late to begin inductively-based, in vivo coding. If all your fieldwork is done, you can still code inductively (though to be fair, our codes are always likely to be influenced in some way by what we've read/studied, so it's rarely if ever only inductive). What would keep this from being grounded theory is that you would not subsequently collect additional data in an attempt to reach theoretical saturation (in Glaser and Strauss's terms). 

Here's a link to a brief description of coding emergent themes.

Chapter Emergent themes

Thank you Prof. Williams, your entry really helps. 

Dear Kuria

Grounded Theory allows you to organize product data primarily qualitative in-depth interviews, field notes and ethnographic observations. In the topic you work well could help you, if you are planning to just use the GT, the analysis of the interviews you make the inhabitants of the slums on the outskirts of the city under study.

Generally, the process of urbanization in Latin America countries and other continents, generate marginal areas with poor people migrating from rural areas. This is where you would be most useful to apply the methodology of GT: using interviews, observing and collecting data in the field, in informal talks with residents of the new neighborhoods with key informants, making maps, taking pictures, etc.

For the process of coding and analyzing information can with help you the software Atlas ti. V.6 and you can get excellent results.

Finally, for many social scientists the GT is just a strategy for collection and analysis of qualitative data, for others it is a whole metodoloía allowing a concise theoretical formulation of the study area. At the end depends on your goals and the scope of the investigation.

Greetings and good luck.

The focus of grounded theory is on the creation of a new theory that leads to better understanding a culture that is not clearly defined. Charmaz (2006) stated that "a journey begins before the travelers depart. So, too, our grounded theory adventure begins as we seek information about what a grounded theory journey entails and what to expect along the way." Qualitative research begins with the topic and defining what is to be discovered. From there an appropriate methodology is chosen that matches the purpose of the study and the research question. It is difficult if not impossible to apply a methodology after the data is collected because you have already answered the question for which an answer is being sought. I would suggest maybe looking at a phenomenology method as that might help you as your seek to uncover the themes that define the emerging culture. Just my thoughts. I wish you great success with your project.

Grounded theory can be used. There is a PhD thesis on line that may be helpful. it is The role of Cooperative societies in rural finance: evidence from ogun state, Nigeria