I am employing Grounded theory for my PhD study. My research design is based on 26 indepth semi-structured interviews. I have started the data collection, however i think i should do concurrent data collection and analysis. For this reason, i am planning to pause the data collection after achieving half no. Of interviews and then first analyze those for constructivist approach (GT) for theory building. Please share thoughts on this.
Combining the data collection and data analysis is indeed a feature of GT in general and especially in Constructivist GT. In fact, the general recommendation is that you should begin coding as soon as you have completed your first interview, so I am not sure that waiting until you are half way along will be good enough.
Instead, you might want to investigate Thematic Analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), which does not begin coding until all the data has been collected.
Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate that your answer coincides with my understanding of Constructivist GT. The reason why i was waiting until now for coding, is because the abrupt and unexpected schedule of interviews till date. The participants are higher-rank and busy officials from public & private sector and getting appointment for interview has been a challenging factor in data collection. So to avoid the missing of any important interview across the diverse type of participants, i just went on collecting data to appropriately touched each participant from one particular type (Stakeholder). However, in mid-way, i believe that i shall must take break to first analyze and code the collected interviews. and then on behalf of emerging categories and themes, i should go for remaining interviews by transforming my interview questionnaire accordingly.
the practical issues with concurrent data collection and analysis has been discussed previously as well in the literature too but in a limited manner, specifically for urban research focusing on housing. A research process that grounds theory-building within the data satisfies the method’s requirements, even when data generation does not adhere to the ideal sequence as argued by Timonen, Foley, and Conlon, 2018.
Would looking forward to your response.
thank you for your insightful answer to my question. My study is GT based and not thematic analytical study.
I am familiar with the article by Timonen, Foley, and Conlon, and they do indeed list as one of their myths that "Data Collection and Analysis Must Always Happen in Tandem." However, they offer very little support for this claim. They do cite a book chapter by Corbin & Holt, but the example there indicates a delay between data collection and analysis of a few days, so that "the interplay between data analysis and data collection was limited at times" (p.117). If this is all evidence Timonen, Foley, and Conlon could find to support their claim, then this is only a "myth" because they say so.
Overall, I think the argument you are making is that GT should be modified to take into account the realities of data collection in some circumstances. The contrasting argument is that GT is not practical in every circumstance, and that when it can't be done properly, a more appropriate method should be used instead. So, I wonder why it is so important to you to say that you are doing GT when there are other alternatives available.
Well, once again i thank you for such insightful arguments. To maintain the integrity of GT, i shall complete the analysis procedure before starting the second phase of data collection.
My study is cross-sector investigation of stakeholder perceptions and experiences about low-income housing in Pakistan. Moreover, resources each stakeholder from three groups (state, market and civil society) compromises five types.
Such cross-resource analysis and exploratory inquiry has not been done previously, that directs the resource approach towards GT. The study is premised to develop theory for suggesting collaborative frameworks among stakeholders for effective provision of low-income housing. No other qualitative methodology would fit the context of the study.
Hope this explanation serves your query.
While I'm less concerned with the rules of 'true' grounded theory, I very much like its principle of concurrent data analysis and data collection. I see at least two purposes of this principle that are difficult to meet with only a mid-term break. First, I try to analyse the first interview before conducting any others in order to see whether my interview guide produces all the data I need for the analysis. Although we usually read through the interview transcripts in order to learn whether interview guides 'work', this is not enough in my experience.
Secondly, early data analysis helps you to adjust the case selection. Your data are data about empirical variance, among other things. In my analyses of first interviews I sometimes discover a relevant class of cases I did not think about / did not know about during the inital case selection.
Thank you Professor Jochen Glaser, I am very much agreed with this, and doing the analysis of interviews that i have conducted so far to find the sequence and relevance for next set of interviews.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching