Hello Tinh Ta

I don't know which type of grounded theory you planned to use. I used constructivist grounded theory ( Kathy Charmaz).

I also used the framework method of analysis:

https://mthoyibi.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/qualitative-research-practice_a-guide-for-social-science-students-and-researchers_jane-ritchie-and-jane-lewis-eds_20031.pdf

See p.220.

I carried out semi-structured interviews using a topic guide, and transcribed them. Then I went through the transcripts and made indices of each topic (for our research 'Living with Faecal Incontinence' FI - faecal incontinence, BD - bowel dysfunction) for example - for my first 6 transcripts. This was the first, and I had 11, each regarding different topics. After each 6 transcripts, I reviewed and revised the indices):

1.0.0 ATTITUDES TO FI/BD/

CONDITION CAUSING FI/BD

1.1.0 OVERALL ATTITUDE

1.1.1 living with it – acceptance/ resignation

1.1.2 living with it – combative/ autonomous

1.1.3 overwhelmed by FI

1.1.4 feeling alone/unique

1.1.5 self-image and related issues

1.1.6 self-esteem

1.1.7 trying to be as normal

I then carried out open coding, recording each numerical reference to what I had on my topic guide in the transcript margins.

See p.223 in the link mentioned above.

I then used the framework method to draw my findings from each transcript together.

I did not use axial coding but went on to use selective coding when I had conducted 18 interviews.

I then, using theoretical coding, brought the topics from the frameworks together in a central chart (see p.250).

I hope I haven't totally confused you, but could this be a way forward for you? Even though the participants gave their information online, you could still carry out coding and draw together like responses and also record those that differed from the mainstream, and make sense of your data? I thought the use of indices was very helpful to me, and then recording the findings on framework spreadsheets. I did not use any computer aided analysis; only the search facility from my computer. But this was the very early part of this millennium!

Best wishes with your data analysis,

Mary

maybe for you quantitative research methods are better

What kind of "online interviewing" did you do? If it is "chat-style" software, then short statements are a very common kind of response, which may indeed be inadequate for Grounded theory.

But if you are video interviewing with Skype, Zoom, etc. then you should get something closer to actual face-to-face type data. In that case, you may need to reconsider the questions you are asking. In particular, it can often help to start with a broad, "auto-biographical" question as a technique to get participants talking about their experiences.

Another online technique that you might consider is "dyadic interviewing" where you have two participants share and compare their experiences with regard to your topic.

David L Morgan I was using Facebook Messenger with voice only. My participants somehow felt uncomfortable to have their face showed.

There is a difference between using video to conduct the interview versus collecting video as data. Have you tried offering them a face-to-face interview, but with only the audio being recorded?

Mary C R Wilson Thanks for your description. May I ask a little more about Charmaz's GT? I have read two books written by both Corbin and Charmaz about their GTs, but I don't really understand the differences between their versions. To my understanding, Corbin and Strauss highlight an overall process should be developed at the end by making clear of context, condition, action/interaction, consequences. Does Charmaz's GT also require that a process must be made? I am currently using Strauss and Corbin's version to conduct my analysis.

David L Morgan Well, I tried to ask my participants if we could have video chat, but only their voice recorded, but they rejected it since they didn't feel comfortable with it. I guess I have to meet them face--to-face since the lockdown in my country has been lifted. Besides, may I ask a few more things? How many participants that a GT research usually require? I am inexperienced, and using convenient sampling methods for my master dissertation. When I wrote that I was going to interview 10 people, my commitee seemed to have no objection at all, but I feel that this number may be too small.

The classic GT standard for deciding when you have enough interviews is "theoretical saturation." This follows the basic GT assumption that you are coding and analyzing each interview as soon as you complete it. That way, you can assess how each new piece of data collection affects the ongoing development of your theoretical conclusions.

You should be able to find good descriptions of saturation in Both Charmaz and Strauss and Corbin.

Thanks, Tinh Ta for raising the questions. Much appreciated David L Morgan , Hermann Gruenwald , and Mary C R Wilson

Tinh Ta

Thank you for your reply; I need to spend a bit more time than I have at the moment, to go back through the reference list from my research. I will get back to you as soon as I can (next day or two).

Mary

Many thanks Tinh Ta for this question! And thank you to Mary C R Wilson and David L Morgan .

I also have to make modifications to the methods of my data collection in order to be able to explore how my participants understand the (current) social interactions and how their identities are constructed through language (L2 learning).

Tinh Ta

These were the relevant references I made to Dr Kathy Charmaz's work. You may like to contact her.

Charmaz K. 'Discovering' chronic illness: using grounded theory. Social Science and Medicine 1990; 30(11):1161-1172.

Charmaz K. Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2000: 509-535.

Charmaz K. Grounded theory. In: Smith JA, Harré R, Van Langenhove N, editors. Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage Publications; 1995: 27-45.

I hope these help you with your research,

Mary

Munirah Algharib

I was pleased that what I wrote for Tinh Ta was helpful for you. Do let me know if I can help you any further? I found constructivist grounded theory was best for our study in identifying what the participants, themselves, felt about faecal incontinence. I was able to focus on meaning [521-2], identifying 'views and values as well as acts and facts' [525] (see Charmaz K. Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2000: 509-535).

You mentioned your participants 'understand the (current) social interactions and how their identities are constructed through language (L2 learning)'

Best wishes with your PhD.

Very best wishes,

Mary

In her book on Constructivist Grounded Theory, Charmaz gives a detailed example of one of her interview questionnaires. I personally found it to be more detailed than what I prefer -- a larger number of more specific questions than I would use.

But either way, I think the most useful advice is to ask initial, opening questions that are interesting to the participants and easy for them to answer. These may not be the most "information rich" topics from the researcher's standpoint, but they help establish the kind of rapport that will generate a good interview overall.

I agree with a lot that David Morgan has written - it sounds to me as if carrying out the interviews is the challenge for you. In addition tothinking about technicalities and the advice of trying "easy" opening questions that make the participants feel at ease, I find it helpful to expand on given answers by asking follow up questions such as "What do you mean by XY?", "Can you give me an example of XY?", "What was it like when you did XY the last time?" "How did that make you feel?" etc.

Furthermore, I think the key is to listen very carefully to what your participants are saying (or sometimes also not saying!) and follow up on that with formulations such as "You have mentioned XY, can you tell me more about that?" or "You have not talked about XY at all, something other participants have talked about. Why is that?" In my experience inexperienced interviewers try very hard to focus on their interviewguideline in order not to miss a question, but I always tell my students that it is equally if not more improtant to listen to what is being said and react to that. You can always look over your guideline at the end of the interview and come back to a question by e.g. saying "There is one question that I forgot to include before, but would still like to ask ..."

And one last thing I always do and which has proven very valuable on many instances: Before finishing the interview I always say something like "We've talked about many aspects of XY now - is there something that we have not addressed, but which you'd also like to mention or talk about?"

Dr David L Morgan

Yes, I agree; when I was interviewing participants for the initial study, particularly as the subject regarded living with faecal incontinence, I was very careful and aimed to make them as relaxed and as comfortable as possible at the start the interviews. As it was, I seem to remember that they became relaxed with the subject matter quite early on.

But my 'day job' was as a nurse practitioner for bladder and bowel health and I spent a lot of time with people who were referred to me with continence problems, although then, my main aim was to identify problems and put in place a suitable plan of care (within a limited amount of time). However, I still tried to make them feel comfortable, initially.

Hopefully the following publications could help:

• Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. (See: A sample of Grounded Theory interview questions about a life change).
• Charmaz, K. and Belgrave, L. L. (2012) Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis, in Gubrium, J.F., Holstein, J.A., Marvasti, A.B. and D, M.K. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. 2nd ed. California: SAGE Publications, Inc. (See: Grounded Theory Interviewing / Forming Grounded Theory Questions / Examples of Grounded Theory Questions, Chapter 24, pp. 347-354).
• Giske, T. and Artinian, B. (2007) A Personal Experience of Working with Classical Grounded Theory: From Beginner to Experienced Grounded Theorist, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6, 4, pp. 67-80.
• Jones, M. and Alony, I. (2011) Guiding the Use of Grounded Theory in Doctoral Studies - An Example from the Australian Film Industry, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 1, pp. 95-114.
• Sbaraini, A., Carter, S. M., Evans, R. W. and Blinkhorn, A. (2011) How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices, BMC medical research methodology, 11, 1, pp. 128-138.

Mary C R Wilson Thank you so much! Much appreciated :)

Currently I'm very concerned which identity theory would mostly relate to Covid-19 (circumstances) + to find different approaches to it. I should reformulate the whole theoretical framework of my study ...

Best,

Munirah

I agree with the answer written by G Srinivasarao.

Tinh Ta Don't worry dear, you can always conduct a second round of interviews. In that, you start asking each respondent further from the points where they left the last time. Also, while conducting the second round of interviews, you must know the end point, i.e., what is the ultimate information you want to get from them.

Your research does not seem to require a methodology like grounded theory. We use it only for problems that cannot be researched with available theories, obliging the researchers to build up theorization from the data itself. I have only supervised 2 Ph.D. students that did use grounded theory for very unusual subjects. EFL motivation or demotivation has countless theories, books, papers, questionnaires. It is not a research problem for applying grounded theory. Regarding your online interview problems, you can try to sort out a strategy through open interviews without previous questions or you can try to organize a focus group if the interviewers concur. In this case, you can return to the group to develop some suggestions, ideas, reinterpretations.