I would like to get some clarification from qualitative experts. My study is a multiple case study rooted in Grounded theory. My plan is to formulate a new theory. I have 16 emergent themes, to be included in the theory. From these 16 themes nine are related with initial constructs, and so literature review is done earlier.
But now my confusion is about totally new seven emergent themes. should I include the related literature in literature review chapter? or to be substantiated in the chapter where themes are described in detail with evidences?
Yes. I suggest including the review of the 7 new emerging themes in the last half of your literature review. Even if it is to show that they are supported thus far by little evidence. This will establish their pedigree, and prepare the reader to accept them into your global study.
Thank you sir.
It's a helpful suggestion. I was anxiously waiting to know how do others think.
Mollykutty P V
Generally speaking you do not being with GT with a set of themes from the literature. Instead, you would develop the themes from your qualitative work, and then compare them to the literature.
Also, 16 would be a very large number of themes (which are usually called either categories or concepts in GT). Indeed, some would argue for organizing the analysis around a single "core category."
@Mollykutty: Having read what David wrote, I ask, do you HAVE to follow Grounded Theory?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory
Dr. Morgan your answer encourages me for more reflection and reading. I have seen studies with seven point and nine point theory using the same design of Eisenhardt's theory building from case studies.It' not purely GT.
Any way it was a serious question within me. But I had ignored it. Now sir you showed me the need for more reflection and further clarification.
Thank you so much.
I consulted with a few, they too shared with me as Ian Kennedy opined.Thank you for considering my problem seriously.
My design is adapted from Eisenhardt's theory building from case study. It's positivist approach of searching for replication.
Any way, both of you invited me for more reading and reflection.
Thank you
I was deeply reflecting on your valuable suggestion of Morgan to reconsider the themes. And Kennedy's question should I adopt GT.
I would like to explain my analysis a bit more, expecting your valuable suggestions and commends.
I started open coding of my ten cases inductively. I found it a huge task. Then I shifted to code with NVivo. Still my trouble was not reduced, but found better because of convenience in checking, merging etc. Initially around 350 codes were there after analyzing three cases- 15 interviews and 3 focus group discussions . Then on further reflection, reconsideration, merging etc. they were categorized into 72 secondary codes. and further five cases were coded deductively.
At next level, these 72 secondary codes were grouped into 16 themes. on the basis two more cases were coded deductively. then a manual coding is done for methodological consistency. From there a model is obtained.
On the basis of Morgan's recommendation, I could group them maximum into three groups (themes) viz. Empowerment, ensuring process and evaluation. It's an education research. So to gather literature on the basis of ensuring process is difficult know?. But literature is available for each underlying approach.
Please, I would like to get further opinion from your valuable experience.
Thank you very much.
Give the literature for the underlying approaches, and show that you are the first to combine them.
Could you say more about the nine themes from "initial constructs" versus the seven emergent themes, and how those related to your coding process.
From what you said above, it sounds like all 16 themes originated ruing your coding process.
Thank you very much.
In fact it is not nine versus seven. All sixteen are related to my coding itself.
I had nine initial constructs- seven from literature and two extra emerged from pilot study.
Thus I formulated a proposed model, and started data collection with corresponding semi-structured interview guide. From long interviews of 1 -1 1/2 hours, and focus group discussions (1- 1 1/2 hours) so many points came up which was not initially thought of. That's why During the coding process 16 themes came up connected with data,out of which nine themes were related to the initial constructs (not totally new), and seven themes totally new. Thus sixteen.
If deductive coding was done, those seven themes were overlooked. Our NVivo Trainer had insisted on inductive coding, and I feel it is a real strength of my study.
350 nodes-> 72 secondary codes ->16 themes. There I had stopped.
As Dr. Morgan said, a bit more wider perspective abstract-ideation has done, and thus I asked about three final themes as I mentioned yesterday. That's fourth level in fact.
Congratulations. You have successfully identified what the strength of your study is!
The only remaining task I can think of is to consider sub-themes under your three main themes. Rather than retaining the full set of 16, you should look at how those fit in their next "context" and possibly consolidate some of them. I would recommend starting with each of the three main themes, and then ask: if I were to subdivide this theme, what would be the most important ways that a reader could benefit from that additional information.
It's very valid and helpful suggestion. Thank you so much.
As I am in the final process, I am very happy that I got right information in the right time.
Let me work on.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics