This is a technical question for those who are fairly familiar with the GROUNDED THEORY METHOD (Birks & Mills, 2012; Bryant & Charmaz, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Urquhart, 2013). It is about what to do in the case when the word-limit/impositions on the length of the doctoral thesis do not allow for describing the second phase of theoretical sampling (and the second study) I conducted in the research. The theory which I have developed is substantive (i.e., it is limited to the area and the phenomena studied in the research), however it has two degrees of “substantiveness”. I have to mention here that, initially I did not plan my research to have two phases. I decided two sample a second group of participants while I was analysing the data from the first group.
During the (iterative) steps of data collection and analysis, it became obvious that some of the categories could be further densified or placed on a more solid ground if I sampled a somewhat similar group of participants from whom I planned to collect more focused data to nuance my categories (in fact, two core categories).
I am currently writing up my thesis. Throughout it, I am providing rich description of everything I did step by step in my study. This is for providing credibility and replicability. Because of the rich description I have given, it seems impossible to include the second phase of data collection done for turning my theory into a more substantive proposition/for widening its scope. The theory stands on its own even without this second phase but it is weaker.
What would be a good strategy to mention this second phase of data collection/second study (as it can stand on its own, too). How should I mention this in the body of the thesis? That the theory/categories have been taken further for widening their scope?
I would greatly appreciate Your ideas and remarks, & of course advice. Best regards, Emese Boksay Pap
In my opinion, two things will help you:
1. Make a graphical representation of the research methodology (picture speaks more than 1000 words) and
2. All that can not fit in the text, insert in Annex (in the main text you can calls on individual attachments)
Dear Amra, Thanks for your two pieces of advice. And I'm grateful that you bothered to answer. It seems a lot of people are away from their computers & enjoying the vacation.
I was thinking about incorporating the research methodology into a graphical representation, this would solve some issues (institutional word-limit impositions). Attaching and appendix with all the additional material--meaning the data from the second phase of my research--would be quite longish, it would amount to a second PhD thesis. The issue here, is that my theory got substantiated during the second phase of the research (it became more "grounded" so to say...), and it would be useful to include the second phase/step of the study into my thesis. But, to explain what happened in this second phase it would mean to write another 200 (approx.) pages. If you are familiar with the Grounded Theory Method, you know that you have to provide rich description of the steps you have taken, to justify your choices, and to describe how theory emerged, how it got shaped. What I am looking for now, is a solution which would allow me to include this second phase to some degree so as to be able to present at the end of my thesis a well-developed/substantive theory.
Dear Emese,
You can change the doctoral dissertation draft with the mentor and pass the administrative procedure again. It is a difficult choice, but it is a good solution. It is not difficult to understand that research results in greater knowledge than in the beginning.
Best Regards
Thank you Mr Pap for your effort of going from the known to the unknown. Although you did not state the length of your work thus far and the expected length after incorporating the second phase which according to your explanations above will add value to the entire thesis, I think what you need to do is to summarize and condense the entire work. however, you must be careful not to hurt the essence of the study (i.e. Knowledge sharing through discovery). I wish you the best of luck.
Dear Mr Zango,
I am very grateful for your comments and pieces of advice you gave. I have to apologize for getting back to you with this delay. The reason is that I needed some time to decide on how to adjust my research study to the thesis requirements. The institutional requirement related to the length of the thesis, here in Hungary, is cca. 80, 000 words +/- 10%. My work has been done in a qualitative paradigm, I used the grounded theory method throughout the process. I provided rich descriptions of everything I have done in term of research tool development, purposive sampling, the site of research, data collection, data analysis (coding), member check, and theory development. This is mostly why, i.e.because of the rich description, I had a hard time deciding on what to leave out. I conducted the research at three sites, and the theory I developed got more substance at the third site/third group of participants. In the end, I left this third part of the research out from the thesis and I ended on a "to-be-continued" tone. Meaning that I included this third part in the research-to-be-done section. Even performing this forced cut, my thesis came out cca. 100,000 words. So, probably I will have to still discard things from it (probably, it will be from the literature review). Anyhow, now when Ii am writing these lines I have finished the writing up phase, which took 10 months :-) Best regards, and let's keep in touch: Emese
(By the way, I am a Ms and my given name is Emese, family name: Boksay Pap)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Inorganic Materials
- Ceramics
- Glass