I haven"t heard of either the Gioia approach or the twin-slate approach to GT. What is the source for this two-part choice? All the GT approaches that I know would advocate completing a full analysis before comparing your results to the existing literature.

In doing an exploratory mixed methods study to generate questions for a survey, you can indeed borrow existing items, but it is also common to write your own questions to ensure a match with your qualitative content.

Hello,

Barney Glaser and the Grounded Theory Institute may be able to help. There is a journal devoted to classical Glaserian GT analysis methodology.  

Are you using a 4th generation approach which is not GT but is called GT and which is actually a QDA method?  I am curious to know if it will lead to conceptual description or to allowing a theory to emerge. 

Perhaps Glaser's Theoretical Sensitivity will have some pertinent answers? 

Ruth

http://www.sociologypress.com/

http://www.groundedtheory.com/

As David points out above, generally, Grounded Theory advocates first completing the analysis of data for substantive theory 'grounded' in the data, before engaging this with existing theory.

The 'Gioia' approach to GT that you mention, expounded in for instance, Gioia et al (2012) Organizational Research 16 (1) 15-31 seems to me as much like classic Strauss and Corbin with perhaps more emphasis on schematics; while, with respect, I cannot find a 'Twin-Slate' approach to Grounded Theory, and wonder whether you have in mind here, the mistaken notion by some new to Grounded Theory that using this methodology requires approaching a GT analysis with a 'Blank Slate' in terms of knowledge of existing literature related to one's research topic, when what was actually  intended by GT's founders (Glaser and Strauss) was/is that the researcher does not in the first instance, allow existing theory to constrain her/his ongoing analysis.

I must point out that you seem to have allowed existing theory to constrain your ongoing analysis---"In my coding process I have tried to relate emerging themes with established constructs...".

You can indeed continue with your Sequential Mixed Methods research; however, do not relate (or compare) emergent Grounded Theory coding to established constructs from the literature until after you have completed your analysis; this strategy 'let's you se what you've got' from the analysis---which can THEN be related to established literature; and you will either have something new to add to existing literature, or confirm established constructs.

I guess it would be helpful to read Strauss on theoretical sensitivity. This does not solve your problem immediately, but will hopefully give you a background to solve it.

Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) was written by Barney G. Glaser

@ David Telles-Langdon: True, Barney Glasey has written a helpful book on Theoretical Sensitivity. I read it years ago with great benefit. It is the one you mentioned.The notion is far older and dates back to the time when Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss did function as a dyadic team. Obviously, it plays a role in The Discovery of Grounded Theory, and is also used by Strauss and Corbin. Whatever entry you choose or find, you cannot drop this corner stone concept of GTM. That is the point I wanted to draw the attention to.

 Hola Pallavi: Muy interesante su trabajo de investigación y debo reconocer difícil de resolver, sin embargo creo que debieras acudir a la resolución de dilemas éticos, en los sujetos de investigación, pues ello arrojará cuales son los imaginarios éticos de los actores del proceso a nivel personal y corporativo.

El otro factor a tener en cuenta, es si tanto directivos, como subordinados participan como actores activos del proceso de investigación, porque de lo contrario la investigación quedaría fragmentada y no tendría resultados de manera holística, ya que tanto las decisiones de los directivos como los actos de los subordinados, afectan significativamente el componente ético de la empresa y como tal afectará para bien o para mal no solo a los implicados en la organización, sino en los resultados eficientes hacia los clientes o beneficiarios de los productos o servicios que ofrece, la corporación.

Abrazos,

Jairo

Wow, it looks like high grade question from the expert. I can't wait the answers

Hi all, I agree with the discussion to date. From my perspective, whichever stream you follow - Glaser, Strauss & Corbin, or Charmaz), GT demands that the researcher 'follow the data'. As a GT researcher your first priority should be to the data (and therefore to your participants' voices, perspectives and contexts) and the codes that you developed are based on comparing data to data. I would be cautious of seeking to force your data into pre-defined codes based on other research in other contexts in the initial stages of your comparative analysis process. I would suggest that if the data doesn't 'match' with the items already developed in other research available in the literature, then there is potentially a good reason for this and you (as the researcher representing, interpreting and immersed within your data and your participants' voices) need to uncover this situatedness and develop your theory (and therefore at a later stage test your items) based on your data.  

Cheers,

Kylie Radel