Appendix: Qualitative Approaches in SoBT



INSTRUCTIONS: Qualitative Dissertation Research PlINSTRUCTIONSDissertation Research Plan QUALITATIVE STUDIES ONLYSoBT Proficient - 85% CriteriaPurposeThe purpose of this document is to provide insight into expectations for successful completion of Milestone 5. Specific instructions about using the Qualitative Dissertation Research Plan form are found in the form itself. Expectations of performance ratings are detailed in each section of the document.Sections in this document correspond directly to sections in the Qualitative Dissertation Research Plan form. At the end of this document you will find the 16 evaluation criteria including performance rating descriptions at each level (Non-Performance, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished).Scientific MeritOverall scientific merit of the Dissertation Research Plan (DRP) based on three overarching criteria:Advances the scientific knowledge base.Makes a contribution to research theory.Meets certain “hallmarks” of good research methodology.The specifics of scientific merit are further described in the DRP Rubric.DRP RubricThe DRP Rubric is used to determine whether the research plan meets the scientific merit criteria. Each performance level is described for each “core” criteria in the rubric.**All Rubric criteria must be assessed at the “Proficient” 85% level or greater to obtain approval.DRP Rubric Scale:Non- performanceBasicProficientDistinguished0%70%85%100%Based on the rubric, the reviewer will designate the DRP as one of the following: Approved or Not Approved. Reviewers provide feedback specific to each criterion that was marked Non-performance or Basic. Learners will also find other helpful resources in the feedback document.Reviewers will use the SoBT Proficient – 85% Criteria in this document to help them define the“minimum” requirements for each DRP section.Milestone 5 (SMR approval) is achieved with a rubric score of 85% and all performance criteria marked Proficient or Distinguished.SoBT Proficient - 85% CriteriaThis document is a “supplement” to the DRP Rubric by providing additional details on the “definition” of Proficient - 85% for each DRP Section in the DRP template. The 85% criteria are intended to “assist” both SoBT learners and faculty in assessing a DRP to ensure it meets the “minimum” requirements of scientific merit.Resource DocumentsPrograms of ResearchSoBT PhD Dissertation Guidebook 16 Evaluation Criteria**Note – This document describes the criteria for QUALITATIVE DRPs. If you are proposing a quantitative study use the SoBT Proficient – 85% Criteria for quantitative studies.Section 1. Topic Endorsement1.1 Research Topic (2 paragraphs)?Proficient – 85% CriteriaThe topic falls within the learners’ specialization fieldKey constructs are identified.Key relationships among the constructs are identifiedIdentifies the target population.Discussion is supported with current peerreviewed references (last 5 to 7 years).What this section should provideis a clear, conciseand coherent but brief(ideally 2 paragraphs but no more tha n 3 paragraphs of 5-6 sentences each)summary, with a view from the balcony, of the extant research on the topical area within which the proposed research fits. The view from the balcony means that the content is not descriptiveof the various scholarly research but rather the content describes the general threads of research speaking to the constructs as well as the interrelationships among constructs researched by scholars over the last 5 to 7 years. So this is not simply a series of citations or a bulleted list of researchers but rather a narrativedepicting/describing the background of the topical area of the proposed research1.2 Research ProblemProficient – 85% CriteriaWhat is known relative to the phenomenon/experience/event from the scholarly research in the peerreviewed literature is made evidentDiscussion of existing knowledge must be supported with solid peerreviewed references including both seminal and current citationsThe symptoms of the problem in organizations/population must be supported with solid peer-reviewed referencesWhat is not yet known, the specificgap in knowledge concerning the phenomenon/experience/event in the peer reviewed literature is identifiedA lack of research fora particularpopulation, by itself, is not a theory gapA lack of research fora particularmanagement practice, by itself, is not a theory gapThe theory gap has to be specificenough to allow the readerto identify the research questionsThe symptoms of the problem in organizations/populationmust be clear.oThe theory gap preventing us from solving the problem must be supported with solid peer-reviewed referencesThe content in this section is a more granularand detailed discussion–no longerfrom the balcony but a ground level view—explaining what is known as a result from specificresearchers. This includes not only current but also seminal scholarly research in the topical areaof the proposal that touches proposed research issue/problem. Establishing what is known (especially in regards to relationships among variables for quantitative proposals and subjectiveexperiences in regards to related phenomenon/processes/events forqualitative proposals) from the peerreviewed scholarly literature on the issue brings to the surface what is not known—it is only by identifying the known can we uncoverwhat is not known, the knowledgethat needs to be created in order to fill agap in the knowledge landscapeon the topic. This is again is to be concise—2 paragraphs but no more than 3 paragraphs -- brief yet complete in its characterization of what is known.Section 2. Research Overview2.1 Research Problem Background (3 paragraphs)Proficient – 85% CriteriaA coherent scholarly discussion is presentedDiscussion identifies and summarizes current, most relevant and significant research on the topic/issueunderstudyPresents a logical credibly supported argument connecting findings in this brief review of the literature to the research problemDiscussion is specificto the problem and knowledgegap. Avoids high-level“global” problems of society and focuses on the dimensions relevant to organization/populationThis is a Reader’s Digest version of a literature review on the topicof this research, thus contains that research (both qualitative and quantitative) directly relevant to the research issue of what is being proposed. It is a coherent descriptive narrativeof the most pertinent research informing what is being proposed.Research Question.Proficient – 85% CriteriaThere is a clear link between the research problem and research questionThe constructs in the question(s) are identical to those discussed in the problem and specific theory gapQuestions are appropriate forthe theory gap and current state of our knowledge regarding the constructs and relationshipsPrimary research question re-casts the purpose in question formSub-questions, if needed, represent deeper/furtherinquiry into relevant sub-issue such as constructs of the overarching phenomenon/experience/event understudyResearch question is characteristicof the research methodologyWhen answered, questions will make acontribution to theory. Specifically the contribution to theory that is needed to help fill the theory gap identified in the problem statement (1.2 and 2.1)The questions must 1st follow directly from the research purpose and 2nd must explicitly speak to the phenomenon/experience/event and associated constructs understudy and 3rd must align with the methodological approach identified in the research purpose.The contribution to the academicfield, to the theory, must speak to how understanding the what/how/why of the phenomenon/experience/event and associated constructs in regards to addressing the knowledgegap previously identified.Purpose of the StudyProficient – 85% CriteriaType of study is identified (e.g., case study, phenomenology, grounded theory)Basic purpose is identified (e.g., understand, explore,develop, or discover)Main phenomenon being studied is identified and definedParticipants, groups, organizations, and locations or sites are identifiedThe expected contribution of the study (theory and practice) is described and aligned with the problem (2.1) and research questions (2.2)Supported with peer-reviewed references specific to the phenomena and methodsUse of the following template is desired:The purpose of this_ (qualitative inquiry, phenomenological, case study, grounded theory) research is to(understand, describe, develop, discover) the (central phenomenon, experience/event, process) for(the target population of participants such as the individual, groups, organizations) at/in (site/location) informed by the(theory or theories). At this stage in the research, the(central phenomenon, event, process) being studied willbe generally defined as(provide acredibly supported definition).Methodology and Basic Design OverviewPlease see appendix to this instruction documentfor general descriptions of qualitative methods and associated list of references. Proficient – 85% CriteriaThere is a specificand precise naming of the methodological approach as well as the model within the methodology—not just the general categoryIdentifies acceptable and established qualitative research methodologies as described in the SOBT Dissertation GuideExplains the methodological approach and how it is appropriate forthe research purpose and question in terms of the phenomenon/experience/event understudySupported with peer-reviewed research methods references specific to that methodology. Forexample:Case studies follow established methods such as Eisenhardt, Yin, Stake, etc.Phenomenologystudies follow established methods such as Moustakis, Giorgi, etc.Grounded Theory studies follow established methods such as Strauss, Corbin, etc.Exploratory Qualitative studies followmethods as described by Miles and Huberman and others focused on qualitativemethods to develop theory.Genericqualitativemethods references such as program evaluation are not used to support the genericexploratory design (e.g., Patton).Note – the specificmethodology/model identified must be followed throughout the DRP.This explanation must be specificto the particularstudy being proposed (e.g. case study, phenomenology, etc.)—to the research purpose, research question and aligned methodological approach. It is not sufficient/acceptableto simply provide general statements/citations about qualitativeresearch. The content here must provide the researcher’s own understanding of the rationale for the methodology and design of what is being proposed, appropriately supported. Citations are to support not supplant the researcher’s voice.2.5 Dissertation Title?Proficient – 85% CriteriaIdentifies the topicoTitle is concisely descriptive of inquiry into phenomenon/experience/event of the studyIdentifies the methodology as specified in 2.3Identifies the population/sampleSection 3. Research Theory3.1 Advancing Scientific KnowledgeProficient – 85% CriteriaDescribes how the answer to the research question(s) helps to fill the gap in the literature identified in the problem (1.2) and purpose (2.3).Identifies and describes the key theories that provide the foundation forthe studyDescribes in a diagram and text the theoretical or conceptual framework including key constructs and relationshipsAligned with the specifictheory gap identified in the problem statement 1.2Describes the specificcontribution to theory and how it advances scientificknowledge.Discussion supported with peer-reviewed references related to the specifictheories.3.2 Theoretical ImplicationsProficient – 85% CriteriaDescribes how understanding of the phenomenon/experience/event understudy:Relates to and represents an addition to current theoryExplains the contribution to building theory and whetherit is the inductive development of new or revise frameworks ordeductive explorations of existing frameworks and theories.Enhances conceptual understanding of phenomenon/experience/eventDiscussion supported with peer-reviewed references related to the specifictheories.The theoretical foundation underlies the connection of the constructs (of Section 1) with phenomenon/experience/event under study (Section 2). From theory emerges constructs associated with phenomenon/experience/event/process. The researchermust demonstrate, provide evidence, of this understanding in this section. A series of citations alone willnot be sufficient or acceptable.3.3 Practical ImplicationsProficient – 85% CriteriaExplains how the knowledge created by the study will inform those in practice with regard to the phenomenon/experience/event as expressed by the research problemIdentifies how the contribution will help address the symptoms in the problem identified in 1.2Identifies what practitioners will be able to do, ordo better, once they have the benefit of the new insights described in 3.1 and 3.2Discussion supported with peer-reviewed references specificto the problem and theories.When speaking to the practical implications, whateverimplications are discussed must not extend beyond the scope and sample of the research.If there are indirect ortangential applications, not derivable directly or solely from the study itself but from the synthesis of this study’s findings with otherresearch, then such adiscussion can also be offered.Section 4.Research Methodology4.1 Research Design.Proficient – 85% CriteriaPhilosophical tradition underlying the research methodology is describedProvidesscholarly rationale forthe chosen methodology within the context of the study supported by relevant citationsThe methodological approach and corresponding model within that approach is outlined in detailAligned with the specificmethod identified in 2.3Specificstep-by-step methodologydescribed.Step-by-step methodology is consistent with the specificmodel identified in 2.4 (e.g., Eisenhardt Case Study Methodology).The content must represent the researcher’s understanding/grasp of the proposed methodology in relation to the purpose of the proposed research. Offering aseries of citations speaking in general about qualitative research is not acceptable; citations are to support not supplant the researcher’s explanation.4.2 Population and SampleProficient – 85% CriteriaThe larger target population is named and describedThe sample frame used to identify & access potential participants from the population is evidentThe inclusion/exclusion criteria of selection is delineated and credibly supportedThe method of sampling/selection (e.g. type of purposive sampling, snowball) is described and is consistent with the research purpose & questionThe stated size of the sample is consistent with established practice for the research methodology in the scholarly literatureSample size must be based on saturation and supported with peer-reviewed references.Interview designs require at least 12 to 15 homogeneous participants.Case study samples includes two phases: (a) selection of the case(s) and (b) the numberof participants foreach case.This must be consistent with the stated purpose (using the templatenoted in section 2.3).4.3 Ethical ConsiderationsProficient – 85% CriteriaIdentifies the risks to the participantsDescribes the mitigation of the risksSample and date source ethical issues are addressed including respect forpersons and justice.Describes how participants will be protected throughout the collection and analysis of the dataData collection issues of participant and organization anonymity and/orconfidentiality are addressed with specificissues identified and specific procedures identified to address those issues.Quality and credibility of the research is discussed and how it addresses the principle of beneficence.Describes how the integrity of the research willbe maintained particularly how the researcherwill conduct him/herself as the research instrument.The content must be specificto the research methodology and design as proposed above and therefore general statements about ethics are not sufficient.Section 5. Research Data5.1 Data Collection - Sampling ProceduresProficient – 85% CriteriaThe specifictype of sampling is clearly stated and supported.The process of recruitment is described in detailStep-by-step procedures in sequence are described for the entire process from participant recruitment to informed consent. Details are sufficient forreplication.Permissions from organizations (sites) are obtained and included in the appendixAll mediaused to recruit participants is described and included in the appendixParticipant contact and selection procedures are described in enough detailforreplication5.2 Data Collection ProceduresProficient – 85% CriteriaUnambiguous and detailed step-by-step procedure fordata collectionIdentifies the source (s) (i.e. interview subjects, organization, documents etc.)Identifies the type of data(i.e. interviews, observations, text etc.) to be collectedDescribes the method (s) as to how each data type will be gathered/collectedStep-by-step procedures specificto the research project are included foreach datacollection method (interviews, document reviews, observations)Data collection is specificand detailed enough to replicate without additionalinformation beyond the DRPData collection follows the guidelines in the chosen methodologyDescription is supported with references specificto the methodology identified in 2.4 and 4.1Guiding InterviewQuestionsProficient – 85% CriteriaIdentifies the type of interview to be conducted and how it aligns with the study’s purposeThe rationale forthe interview approach and guide is described.The qualitative interview guide and protocol:Presents atopical conversational flow, not a list of direct questions.The connection between the interview questions and the research questions is described and explicit.Clear Step-by-step plan for Field Testing/Expert Panel Review of the interview guide is evident to ensure validity and usability— that the data to be collected aligns with research purposeand research question. This is to be carried out priorto IRB submission and overseen by mentor.Lists 3 – 5 membersubject matterexpert panel to review for face and content validityCredentials of each memberis providedThe scheduling and timing of the panel reveiw is providedMock interview plan is outlined. Mock interviews are ‘dry run’ practice interviews to be carried out post expert panel review results.Participants are from the target population but are not and will not be included in the sample forthe studySee addendum to this instruction document for an explanation of field testing5.4 Data AnalysesProficient – 85% CriteriaProvides adetailed step-by-step process from collecting/compiling datato coding to interpreting to concluding resultsDescribes in detail the dataanalysis procedures based on the selected methodology identified in 2.3Description goes beyond coding and the identification of themes and includes specificdataanalysis techniques and toolsThe specific Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) softwarethat will be used is identified (e.g., NVivo, Atlas ti…)Description is detailed enough forreplicationProcess of analysis is credibly supported with citations from the relevant literatureThe analytical approach must support the very nature of the research purpose—specific to the particular study being proposed. For example approaches such as hermeneutic (e.g. Heidegger), phenomenological (e.g. Moustakas) and grounded theory (e.g. Glaser & Strauss). The discussion must address approaches to compiling, dis-assembling/coding, re- assembling/identifying patterns interpreting/contextualize or connect wrt literature, concluding/capturing the study’s significance.5.5 Role of the ResearcherProficient – 85% CriteriaThe researcher’s understanding of the role is clearDiscussion includes role as datacollectorDiscussion includes role as analyzerof dataFully acknowledges the responsibility (maintaining rapport, listening, maintaining flow of the conversation, analyzing…etc) he/she has as the researcherMakes clearhis/herbackground’s relationship/connection to the phenomenon/experience/event understudy including previous experiences with the phenomenon and/or setting and participants.Describes how he/she will minimizebias and maximize validity of the data/results.Includes personal biases and how those will beaddressed.5.6 Credibility, Dependability and TransferabilityProficient – 85% CriteriaDescribes how triangulation will be used to address the bias and validity threats specificto this study.Describes how the accuracy and validity of the datacollected will be addressed.Describes what process information willbe reported in the findings to support the evaluation of the study findings.oe.g. Memoing, epoche, memberchecking, etc.Section 6. ReferencesIn the field below, provide your references for the research about your topic, and key theorists/researchers associated with the selected methodology. You will continue to build on this list of references for your Chapter 1 Background of the Problem, Chapter 2 Literature Review and Chapter 5, where you will discuss your findings in the context of the literature.*Use APA style for all references.Proficient – 85% CriteriaThe topic areas including conceptual framework must be supported with 20 to 25 solid peer reviewed references.Of those topic related references, 15 must be dated within the last 5 to 7 years at the time of DRP submission forapproval.The research methodology sections must be supported with 10 to 15 solid peer reviewed or research method specific references.The most recent versions should be cited.Appendix: Qualitative Approaches in SoBTAdapted from Kim Kostere, PhD and William H. Percy, PhD, LP Revised: July 2008 Harold Abel School of Psychology Qualitative Research Approaches in Psychology and revised by the faculty of the School of Business and Technology Qualitative Research Roundtable.The faculty of the School of Business and Technology (SoBT) require that all dissertation designs meet the highest standards of rigor and consistency. To ensure that dissertations using qualitative designs meet such standards, there are five approaches that the faculty consider appropriate to guide a qualitative inquiry in SoBT. The faculty has chosen these approaches because they:can be applied to research topics and questions typically studied in organization and management;have clear, coherent, and rigorous data collection and data analysis procedures;are well-supported in the standard methodology literatures used in our courses;are found in qualitative studies published in many peer-reviewed journals in organization and management research; andThe approaches currently supported by the SoBT faculty are as follows:Case studyGrounded theoryPhenomenologyGeneric qualitative inquiry.Other (with mentor support) Delphi; etc.The sections that follow briefly describe each approach and provide primary and secondary sources for further review.Case StudyCase study is the in-depth study – using multiple methods and data sources – of a single case. Sometimes a number of cases are studied and reported together. The “case” in a case study is the object of study. A case study is an exploration of a “bounded system” over time. The phrase“bounded system” means that the target to be studied is easily distinguished for other instances of the same phenomenon: it has a clear boundary differentiating it from all othersCase studies have roots in sociology (primarily the University of Chicago Department of Sociology from the early 1900’s until 1935); in medicine (case study is a common way to present evidence of emerging illnesses or treatments before more focused studies can be done; for instance, Freud presented his new ideas about hysteria and his new ideas about treatment by means of richly detailed case studies); and in psychology (Piaget’s first findings about childhood cognitive development were presented as case studies of his own and others’ children). When a subject is not well described in the scientific literature, or is newly emergent, descriptive case studies are often the best way to generate a lot of information about the case on which to base future more tightly focused studies. It is because of the highly descriptive nature of the approach coupled with the fact that the subject is usually not previously well-studied, that case studies seek numerous sources and types of information about the case, including its various contexts.One could study a single case (in which a single instance is investigated in depth) or multiple cases (in which a number of instances of the target are studied and then compared with one another). For example, a single case study about leadership practices might investigate a single department (the bounded system being that department and no other) or adoption of a new technology in one organization (the bounded system being that particular organization and those employees using the new technology). Or one could do a multiple case study by comparing and contrasting aspects of the leadership practice as implemented in three different departments or adoption of the same new technology by three different organizations. In both instances, the boundary would define the scope of the study. All the information, perspectives or records relevant to the subject, within the context of the selected case or cases, could be collected and analyzed.Data collection in case studiesCase studies always include multiple sources of information, because the case includes multiple kinds of issues. In addition to multiple information sources, every case study provides an in- depth study of the context of the case: its setting. The setting and context are an intrinsic part of the case.Consequently, because cases contain many kinds of information and of contexts, case study uses many different methods of data collection. These can include the full range of qualitative methods – interviews and field, naturalistic or participant observations; reviews of documents, records, and other materials; evaluation of audiovisual materials; descriptions of contexts and collateral materials. A well-designed case study does not rely on a single method and source of data, because any true case (bounded system) will have many characteristics and it is not known ahead of time which characteristics are important. Determining that is the work of the case study.Data analysis in case studiesTwo types of data analysis for a case study are sometimes referred to (for example, Patton, 2005): holistic analysis, in which the information about the entire case is analyzed; and embedded analysis, in which information about a specific but limited aspect of the case is analyzed. For example, in a case study of learners’ experiences with online education, if all aspects of the experience are studied – the nature of the online platform, the IT support structure, the type of educational company providing the online learning, the quality and training of the teachers, the nature of the curriculum, the demographics of the learners, the costs and benefits perceived by the learners, the work load of the faculty, and so on and so forth – the analysis is said to be holistic. However, if out of that mass of data only one aspect is analyzed and reported– for example, the learners’ perceptions of the learning platform and of the instructors’ competence – this would be an embedded analysis. A case study dissertation would most likely be a holistic analysis of a case or set of cases.There is no consensus format for case study data analysis, but a common series of steps can be found in many sources. The following description is adapted from Creswell (1998) and Stake (1995):The opening step of data analysis – sometimes referred to as description – involves creating a detailed description of the case as a whole and of its setting(s) and contexts. The objective is both clarity and detail, creating a rich and textured picture of the case and its settings.The case study researcher looks at single instances in the described data and draws meaning from each without (yet) looking for multiple instances. This process pulls the described data apart and puts them back together in more meaningful ways. This may be called direct interpretation.Next, the researcher seeks a collection of meaning-rich instances from the data, aggregating these into categories of meaning, giving rise to the term categorical aggregation.By analyzing the categories (and the underlying instances and data of the various categories), the researcher will identify themes – common statements of recurring description and patterns of meaning - and connections between or among the themes. These themes will be developed using verbatim passages and direct quotes from the data to elucidate each theme. At this point, data from the case itself are used, without being compared yet with data and themes from other cases; this is within-case analysis.The same steps are followed for each case in the series, so that each is analyzed within itself. (For instance, if the study investigates ten cases of multiple sclerosis in young married people, each person’s data are analyzed separately first, as a single case, before taking the next step)Then, the researcher will develop a thematic analysis across cases (across case analysis) as well as interpretations of the integrated meaning of all the cases in the study.In the final, interpretive, phase, the researcher develops naturalistic generalizations from the data as a whole and reports on the lessons learned from the case study.The type of questions typically used to guide a case studyCase study asks questions that involve an intense study of an individual or an organization. The case to be studied is often chosen due to its uniqueness. The case is a single research subject – a person, a program, an event, an activity or an individual(s). What are the contexts of the case? What are its boundaries? What is involved? What happens? When does it happen? What is like to be in the case?References related to case studyCrowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 100–10.Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888.Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) (pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Pegram, A. (2000). What is case study research? Nurse Researcher, 7(2), 5–16.Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 58–65.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford PressGrounded TheoryGrounded Theory is a qualitative research approach that attempts to develop theories of understanding based on data from the real world that is, grounded in the data collected frompeople actually involved in the issues under investigation. A grounded theory is one that is uncovered, developed, and conditionally confirmed through collecting and making sense of data related to the issue at hand. The hope is that such theories will lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon of interest and to ideas of exerting some control over the phenomenon.Grounded Theory (Strauss, Corbin, 1990, 1998; Corbin & Strauss, 2008) has its origins in symbolic interactionism, taking the perspective that reality is negotiated between people, always changing, and constantly evolving. Several schools of thought exist among grounded theory researchers. Some look at social process from systematic (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) or constructivist (Charmaz, 2006) perspectives, while others look at the social or organizational situation by using a form of grounded theory called situational analysis (Clarke, 2005).The key word is “theory,” which in science means an explanatory statement or model based on research evidence. Unlike some other forms of qualitative inquiry, grounded theory attempts to go beyond rich description (which it also strives for) to an explanation of the phenomena of interest.The second key word is grounded. This implies that the explanation is derived from the “ground,” the actual experiences, words, behaviors, and other data obtained from people directly involved or engaged in the topic. For example, if one wished to derive a grounded theory aboutthe effects of rapid technology change on workers' levels of stress, one would gather many kinds of data from persons who had these kinds of experiences, and would build the theory of how rapid technology influences workers' stress obtained from those people. Another unique feature of grounded theory is its tendency to “return” to the ground by taking preliminary insights back to the participants and asking them to further comment on and refine the researcher’sconclusions.Although grounded theory is designed to be a precise rigorous process, creativity plays an important part in that process in that the formulations of the data – “to create new order out of old.” The use of literature also differs in the grounded theory approach. There is a recommendation against reviewing extant literature too thoroughly before using this approach because knowing the categories, classifications, and conclusions of previous researchers may constrain your creativity in finding new formulas.Data collection methods in grounded theory researchSimilar to the data collection methods used by ethnographers, the primary tools of discovery are interviews and observations. However, the participants in a grounded theory study are often interviewed more than once, or researchers interview a new round of participants. Multiple interviews enable grounded theorists to test and further develop their theories. In these subsequent interviews participants are asked to reflect on and refine the preliminary conclusions drawn by the researcher and to discuss how elements of the new theory actually explain their experience.Grounded theory data analysis methods and procedures: CodingBecause grounded theory goes beyond the descriptive and interpretive goals of many other qualitative models and is aimed at building theories, data analysis tends to be more complex and aims to achieve an explanatory power that is not necessary in other approaches. The heart of the grounded theory approach occurs in its use of coding, its main form of data analysis. There are three different types of coding used in a more-or-less sequential manner (this discussion is adapted from Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998, Patton, 2003; and Creswell, 1998; for dissertations, more detailed discussions in primary sources should be consulted).The first type of coding is open coding which is much like the description goal of science. Usually open coding is done first. During open coding, the researcher labels and categorizes the phenomena being studied. This involves the process of describing the data through means such as examination, comparison, conceptualization, and categorization. Labels are created to describe in one or a few words the categories one finds in the data. Examples are collected for all these categories. The categories are studied more carefully to identify subcategories, which are called properties and dimensionality in the categories. The categories, properties, and dimensions discovered in the data are fully described in the participants’ words.Then begins the second type of coding: axial coding which involves finding links among the categories, properties, and dimensions that were derived from open coding. (A link is an axis, hence the term axial.) How is axial coding actually done?Axial coding first identifies the central categories about the phenomenon. These central or core categories tend to be the most important aspect(s) of element of the phenomenon, the one that clearly has the greatest strength and appears in all or most of the participants’ reports or other data. Next, the researcher explores the data carefully to discover causal conditions, which are categories of conditions influencing the central category or categories.The researcher continues axial coding by identifying interactions among the categories (which are called strategies, although that term might be confusing). You might think of “strategies” in grounded theory as the equivalent of correlations in statistical theory-building.Axial coding continues with the identification and exploration of other supporting or weakening conditions which exert lesser influences on the central variables. These are categories in the data which label the contexts and intervening conditions.Finally, consequences are carefully identified and described. These would include all the outcomes of the presence of the central category in all its interactions (strategies) with contexts, intervening conditions, properties, dimensions, etc. Consequences describe what happens when the central category is found under specific conditions. These consequences are NOT presupposed, but are carefully teased out of the real reports and descriptions of their experiences by the many participants in the study. Preconceptions about the theory must be left at the door. See “Phenomenology,” below, and its discussion of epoche and the phenomenological reduction. Without using the terminology of phenomenology, the requirement is the same.The third type of coding, selective coding, continues the axial coding activity of relating the subsidiary categories to the central category(s). Selective coding is the process of selecting your main phenomenon (core category) around which all other phenomena (subsidiary categories) are grouped, arranging the groupings, studying the results and rearranging where necessary. It is necessary to remain faithful to the data, so in selective coding, one frequently goes “back to the things themselves” to ensure that one is capturing what one’s informants told one.From this last type of coding, the grounded theory researcher moves toward developing a model of process and a transactional system, which essentially tells the story of the outcome of the research. Creating a literal “story line” is one manner of doing selective coding. The story line tells the results of the axial coding in a coherent narrative. Many grounded theory researchers do not create a conditional matrix, a diagram or picture of the various categories, interactions, and relationships among the central category(s) and the subsidiary categories. But the conditional matrix is a very helpful tool in creating the narrative story line which embodies the grounded theory.The selective coding process typically focuses on two dimensions of the phenomenon: its process and its transactional system. Again, the conditional matrix is quite useful in elucidating these two elements of the theory. Process is the manner in which actions and interactions occur in a sequence or series. It incorporates the time element. It also incorporates the various categories which mutually influenced each other. The transactional system is a grounded theory’s analytic method that allows an examination of the interactions of different eventsThe use of the conditional matrix and the process and transactional-system analysis leads finally to the general description of the grounded theory. It might be a brief sentence distilling all the above work, or a more complex statement. But it will also be accompanied by a set of propositions or hypotheses which explain the phenomenon under study.At this stage, it is usual for grounded theory researchers to return not only to the original data to ensure that the theory fits those data, but may meet with the participants again to compare the theory with their perceptions and to ask them whether the theory fits their experiences. Their responses will be taken as new data to be incorporated into the theory, which is thought to be in a continual adaptation and evolution. Grounded theory is never complete. (Adapted from Strauss,& Corbin, 1990, 1998; Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002)The type of questions typically used to guide a study using Grounded TheoryProcess questions about changing experience over time or its stages and phases (e.g., What is the process of becoming…?) or understanding questions (e.g., What are the dimensions of this experience…?). In grounded theory the researcher may ask understanding questions, trying to elicit the understanding of the participants about their experiences.References related to Grounded TheoryAllen, L. M. (2010). A critique of four grounded theory texts. The Qualitative Report, 15(6), 1606–1620.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitativeanalysis. London: Sage.Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. Glaser, B. G. (2010). The future of grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 9(2), 1–14.Hunter, A., Murphy, K., Grealish, A., Casey, D., & Keady, J. (2011). Navigating the grounded theory terrain. Part 1. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 6–10Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory.International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 1–10.Parry, K. W. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85.Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Strauss, A., Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and theory for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Web Site:The Grounded Theory Institute (2012). Retrieved from . gro undedtheory.co m/PhenomenologyResearchers choose phenomenology when they want to understand the meaning of research participants’ individual or shared experiences, attitudes or understanding of the phenomenon. The key to understanding phenomenology lies in the phrase “lived experience.” Phenomenological research methods provide a way to investigate some phenomenon through the perceptions of research participants. Put most simply, phenomenology is the study of the lived experience of persons who are going through the phenomenon to be understood. By using the terms “lived experience” and “going through,” we put the focus squarely on exactly how a phenomenon reveals itself to the experiencing person in all its specificity and concreteness. What does this mean, exactly?First of all, “lived” suggests everyday experiencing, which is “pre-reflective.” That means that the phenomenon for the research study must be something that people experience in their everyday lives prior to reflecting on it. A foundational idea for the phenomenological research approach was initiated by the theorist Husserl, who distinguished between “noema,” that which is experienced and “noesis,” the act of experiencing in his 1931 book, Ideas (Husserl, 1994).Phenomenological methods allow the researcher to study the phenomenon of interest (or noema) through the lens of individuals with direct knowledge of it (or noesis).The phenomenon can be anything that a person experiences–but it must always be conscious experience. If the research participants were not conscious of the experience they will be unable to report how they felt, thought about, observed or responded to the phenomenon. It would not focus on actual happenings (what was said in a meeting or an objective recounting of related facts of the case) or “experiences” in the sense of external objective occurrences.Another key principle of the phenomenological approach is that researchers intentionally reduce their own pre-conceived notions or biases, allowing for an open mind to the participants' perceptions of the phenomenon. This process of suspending one’s preconceptions about the phenomena under inquiry is a process often referred to in phenomenology as epoche (pronounced “eh-poh-kay”), from a Greek root meaning “to suspend” or (from another root) “to keep steady or hold steady.”For example, as a researcher, I may have been fired from a position for what I considered frivolous reasons or have learned from reading or from many previous interviews that people in large corporations are seldom fired for frivolous reasons. I need to find a way to clear my mind so that I can listen to and build on the actual conscious experiences as reported by my participants for a better understanding of the phenomenon. I cannot allow myself to assume that my previous knowledge applies to these people. Their lived everyday experience of things may be different. Indeed, being-fired often feels capricious to the victim, and it is that lived everyday quality of the experience that phenomenology wishes to capture, not the objective “facts.”Contemporary business researchers use phenomenological approaches to study the managers', employees' or customers' perceptions of policies, practices, technology, training or other workplace phenomena.Goals of phenomenological psychological researchThe goals of the phenomenological method are as follows: The researcher seeks first to describe the phenomena in rich detail, illuminating the lived experience of the participants mediated through their reports. Through those descriptions, the researcher aims at the apprehension (literally, the mental grasping) of the structure of the phenomenon as it appears in the consciousness of the participants. By bringing to light these structures of experiences, the research investigates the foundations (bases or origins) of the phenomenon-as-experienced, seeking finally to know the possible ways of perceiving all such phenomena (known as the “essence” of the phenomenon). Keep in mind that the term “phenomena” always implies the thing-as-experienced in the consciousness of the person who experiences. Consequently, phenomenology as such is not concerned with objective descriptions of “things- in-themselves,” without reference to the perceiver or knower. Thus, terms like “structure” and “essence” should not be interpreted as being about the external thing (phenomenon), but about the structure or essence of how the participants experience the external thing.The task of the phenomenological researcher is to investigate the processes of intuition, reflection, and description with which the participants experience the phenomenon. Accordingly, phenomena are not manipulated but rather are permitted to reveal themselves. The substance of phenomenology consists of the data of experience and their meaning for the experiencing individual. Paradoxically, although psychological phenomenological research is certainly about “real” phenomena, but always as experienced by people – there is no “subject-object split” in phenomenological research. Both are considered an integral part of any happening – there is the external world and its manifestations which are manifested in the consciousness of the one who experiences. The proper subject matter of phenomenology is not consciousness alone, but always consciousness-of-phenomena-being-experienced (Merleau-Ponty, 1964).Phenomenological Data Collection Methods: The ReductionIn all stages of conducting a phenomenological inquiry, the researcher will use the process of epoche--conducting a “reduction” of his or her biases and preconceptions (see above). This method will involve setting aside or “bracketing” the researcher’s preconceptions whilecollecting and working with the data. The aim is to adopt the “phenomenological attitude,” being as open to whatever reveals itself in the data as possible. This is contrasted with the “natural attitude,” which is our ordinary, non-reflective state of mind in everyday life.In the natural attitude, for instance, one unreflectively takes all one’s assumptions as being the truth – Republicans are “big-government lackeys of business,” Democrats are “tax-and-spend liberals,” the sun and moon do travel across the sky, evolution means we really are no different from apes, and so on. In the natural attitude, one does not reflect, theorize, or critically examine on one’s experience. In the phenomenological attitude, on the other hand, one assumes nothing about the truth of things, and instead tries to remain open to how phenomena actually appear as they appear. Now, when we assume the phenomenological attitude, Republicans can reveal themselves in all their actuality. Democrats, too.The researcher cannot expect participants in the psychological phenomenological study to be phenomenologists and, thus, capable of assuming the attitude of the phenomenological reduction (setting aside their natural attitude). Moreover, the preconceptions, details, biases, errors, and prejudices that participants carry with them in everyday life are exactly what have to be understood in psychological phenomenological research. What is critical is that the description be as precise and detailed as possible with a minimum number of generalities and abstractions.However, the phenomenological attitude – which the researcher adopts - does demand that the researcher be able to do his/her work from within the attitude of the reduction or else no phenomenological claims for the analysis could be made.Phenomenological Data Collection MethodsThere are two descriptive levels of the empirical phenomenological model which arise from the data collected:Level 1, the original data are comprised of na?ve descriptions obtained through open- ended questions and dialogue.Level II, the researcher describes the structures of the experiences based on reflectiveanalysis and interpretation of the research participant’s account or story.To collect data for these levels of analysis, the primary tool is the in-depth personal interview. Interviews typically are open – that is, beyond initial orienting information, usually the only pre- formed questions will be open-ended, designed carefully to inquire into the participant’s lived experience of the phenomenon under investigation and to allow the respondent the maximum freedom to respond from within that lived experience. Follow up questions would be asked to tease out deeper or more detailed elaborations of the earlier answers. Because the objective is to collect data which are profoundly descriptive – rich in detail – and introspective, these interviews often can be lengthy, sometimes lasting as much as an hour or more.Sometimes other sources of data are used in phenomenological studies, when those sources are equivalent in some way to the in-depth interview. For example, in a study of the experience of grief, poems or other writings by the participants (or other people) about personal grief experiences might be analyzed in the same way as the in-depth interviews. Similarly, audiovisual materials which have a direct bearing on the lived experience of grief might be included as data (e.g., photos of the participant with the deceased person) and interpreted similarly.Although other less personal data sources (such as letters, official documents, news accounts) are not often used as direct information about the lived experience, the researcher may find in a particular case that these are useful either in illuminating the participant’s story itself or in creating a rich and textured background description of the contexts and settings in which the participant experienced the phenomenon.Phenomenological Data AnalysisMost standard texts (e.g., Creswell, 1998; Lincoln & Denzin, 2000; Patton, 2002; or Taylor & Bogdan, 1984) propose a general five-step model for phenomenological analysis. These steps are elaborated in three more detailed models described in Appendix A (see “empirical phenomenology” [Amedeo Giorgi], “transcendental phenomenology” [Clark Moustakas] and the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis of Phenomenological Data). The Giorgi model, the Moustakas model, and the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method of analysis of phenomenological data are acceptable in the General Psychology specialization. Other models can be used provided they meet (are equivalent to) the criteria described in these pages.Preliminary stepsThe generic method of analysis consists of five essential steps, but is preceded by careful preparation of the data and of the researcher. First, the data must be transformed into written form – usually transcripts of interviews – which can be studied as a whole and, later, in bits or units. Word processing programs are ideal for this, allowing both retention of the original interview in “raw” form and “cutting and pasting” individual segments (phrases, sentences, paragraphs) into separate documents for deeper analysis and comparison. These segments (or “meaning units” as described above) will be organized thematically in two major ways: within the context of a single interview, and across a series of interviews.Before starting to analyze data, though, the researcher does a second preparatory step, which has been described briefly above as the “phenomenological reduction.” She attempts to reduce the impact of his or her biases, preconceptions, and beliefs about the phenomenon and opening oneself to the data and meanings that emerge from the data in their own terms. If we include these two preliminary steps with the five steps proposed by most texts, we have a generic seven- step model for data analysis, beginning with:Step 1 and 2: Prepare the data and adopt the phenomenological attitude (“reduction” or “epoche” [see below].)Steps in generic model of phenomenological data analysis:Step 3: Achieve a Sense of the Whole. The researcher reads the entire description in order to get a general sense of the whole statement.Step 4: Discrimination of Meaning Units Within a Psychological Perspective and Focused on the Phenomenon Being Researched. Once the sense of the whole has beengrasped, the researcher goes back to the beginning and reads through the text once more and delineates each time that a transition in meaning occurs. The specific aim is to discriminate “meaning units” from within a psychological perspective and with a focus on the phenomenon being researched. The meaning unit should be made with psychological criteria in mind. The researcher next eliminates redundancies and clarifies and elaborates on the meaning of the units by relating them to each other and to the sense of the whole.Step 5: Transformation of Subjects Everyday Expressions into Psychological Language with Emphasis on the Phenomenon Being Investigated. Once meaning units have been delineated and linked together, the researcher goes through all of the meaning units, which are still expressed in the concrete language of the participants, reflects on them, and comes up with the essence of the experience for the participant.The researcher next transforms each relevant unit’s essence into the language of psychological science.Step 6: Synthesis of Transformed Meaning Units into a Consistent Statement of the Structure of the Experience. Here, the researcher synthesizes all of the transformed meaning units (now expressed in the language of psychological science) into a consistent statement regarding the participant’s experience.Step 6: Final Synthesis: Finally, the researcher synthesizes all of the essence or structure statements regarding each participant’s experience into one consistent statement, which describes and captures the essence of the experience being studied.Acceptable Models of Phenomenological AnalysisThe generic model described above is elaborated in two acceptable and detailed models of phenomenological analysis developed by Amedeo Giorgi at Duquesne University and Clark Moustakas at the Center for Humanistic Studies and The Union Institute. Each of these models is detailed and provides a stepwise guide to the seven generic steps presented above. Either of the models is acceptable for phenomenological research in the General Psychology specialization.The Moustakas model is further elaborated in the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen model.The Giorgi model (usually called “empirical phenomenology” or “phenomenological psychology”) and the Moustakas model (often called “transcendental phenomenology”) and the “Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Model” synthesized by Moustakas (1994) and based on the work of Ernest Keen of Bucknell University and Paul F. Colaizzi and Emily M. Stevick of Duquesne University are described more fully in Appendix A. They differ from each other and from the generic model above only in the ways in which they outline the procedures. Each provides much more detail about how to proceed in each step or stage.The type of questions typically used to guide a study using Phenomenological Research include: What is the meaning of…? What is the experience of…? How do people experience and describe…? What is the essence of…? What is the lived experience of…? What is it like to experience . . .?References related to Phenomenological ResearchDowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen: A review of different phenomenological approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1), 131–142.Ehrich, L. C. (2005). Revisiting phenomenology: Its potential for management research. British Academy of Management Conference Proceedings 2005: Challenges of Organizations in Global Markets, Said Business School, Oxford University, 1–13. Retrieved from ut.ed u.a u/2893/1 /2893.pd f.Giorgi, A. P., & Giorgi, B. M. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243–274). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice and evaluation of phenomenological methods as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28, 235-281.Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: DuquesneUniversity Press.Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. (Trans. Colin Smith). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Moerer-Urdahl, T., & Creswell, J. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the ripple effect in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 1–28.Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Stewart, D. & Mickunas, A. (1990). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and itsliterature (2nd ed.). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Generic Qualitative InquiryMany dissertations report people’s subjective opinions, attitudes, beliefs, or experiences of things in the outer world. Many such perceptions and perspectives cannot be measured in the statistical sense, and require qualitative methods. Sometimes, the other more focused approaches (ethnography, case study, grounded theory, or phenomenology) are not appropriate for one reason or another. In those cases, researchers should consider a more generic qualitative inquiry approach.Description of Generic Qualitative InquiryQualitative inquiry investigates people’s reports of their subjective opinions, attitudes, beliefs, or reflections on their experiences, of things in the outer world. It can be selected as the methodological approach when:The research problem and question require a qualitative methodology.Case study, grounded theory, or phenomenology is inappropriate because the focus of the study, the content of the information desired, or the kind of data to be obtained do not fit those approaches.The researcher has a body of pre-knowledge/pre- understandings (categories or sub- categories of information) about the topic that he or she wants to be able to more fully describe from the participants’ perspective. For instance, suppose that prior research has shown that employee morale correlates strongly and positively with their wage bracket, but nothing more is known than that. A dissertation researcher could ask what the employees actually think and feel about being in various wage brackets (sub-question one) and how those feelings and ideas influence their morale (sub-question two). Asking these two questions may expand the previous knowledge—that the two categories are related—with the qualitative employee-perspective information.Qualitative inquiry is a useful approach when attempting survey research that includes qualitative elements along with limited quantitative data. Indeed, this approach is appropriate when a fully qualitative survey approach is desired. Actually, researchers considering any study of people’s subjective “take” on actual external happenings and events should consider generic qualitative inquiry as their approach.Qualitative Data CollectionData collection in this approach typically uses data collection methods that elicit people’s reports on their ideas about things that are outside themselves. However, its focus on real events and issues means it seldom uses unstructured data collection methods (such as open-ended conversational interviewing from phenomenology, participant and/or non-participant field observation from ethnography, and the like). Instead, it requires semi- or fully-structured interviews, questionnaires, surveys, content- or activity-specific participant observation, and the like. The core focus is external, real-world, as opposed to internal, psychological, and subjective. (Even the attitudes and opinions in opinion polling are valued for their reflection on the external issues.)By and large, generic qualitative data collection seeks information from representative samples of people about real-world events and processes, or about their experiences. We want less to “go deep” and more to get a broad range of opinions, ideas, or reflections. Occasionally, a small,non-representative, but highly informed sample can provide rich information about the topic. For instance, a few experienced nurses can often provide rich, accurate, and helpful information about common patient reactions to certain procedures, because part of a nurse’s role is to observe patients’ experience and reactions carefully.More often, however, the sampling in this approach aims for larger representation of the population in mind. Although this is not a hard-and-fast rule, generic qualitative data collection typically uses larger samples than other qualitative approaches use, because larger samples tend to be more widely representative. Nor is external generalization (reliability) necessary, because the data are sometimes not quantifiable. However, as with all qualitative inquiry, if the sample is transparently and fairly representative of the target population or is clearly information-rich about the topic, readers may be persuaded to apply the findings to similar people or situations outside the sample itself.Most generic qualitative studies rely on the following data collection methods:Semi- or fully-structured (closed-ended) interviews, either oral (the most common method) or written (uncommon). In these qualitative interviews, the questions are pre- structured based on the pre-knowledge of the researcher, although there may be opportunities for “tell me more” kinds of questions.Questionnaires. Usually these mix scaled or quantitative items (e.g., Likert-type scales asking preferences or degrees of agreement) with opportunities for qualitative comments. Again, the researcher will build these questionnaires and their items from pre-knowledge about the topic.Written or oral surveys. The standard opinion or voter poll is a good example, but survey research has its own rather deep literature and can be much more sophisticated thatsimple opinion or voter surveying. Once again, the items in the survey will be constructed on the basis of pre-knowledge about the topic.Data Analysis in Qualitative Analysis: Thematic Analysis“[T]hematic analysis involves the searching across a data set – be that a number of interviews or focus groups, or a range of texts – to find repeated patterns of meanings" (Braun & Clark, 2006, p. 86).Thematic analysis is a process used to conduct an analysis of qualitative data. While it does not represent a complete research methodology, it does offer a method of data analysis that isflexible and compatible with many approaches to qualitative research and mixed methodology in particular generic qualitative analysis.Thematic analysis can be used to analyze data collected through a qualitative survey to investigate subjective experiences of objective things. For example, many qualitative surveys investigate things such as "your experience being a leader," or "your experience of receiving treatment for X disorder," or "your experience searching for a higher-paying faculty job." The survey might ask both closed and open-ended questions, thus requiring some kind of qualitative analysis. For this, thematic analysis is frequently the basis.A thematic analysis can also be used to conduct an analysis of the qualitative data in some types of case study and in the qualitative component of mixed methodology studies. Really, thematic analysis is a generic approach to analyzing people’s reports that may form the basis for many different kinds of qualitative interpretation.There are three main types of generic thematic analysis: inductive analysis, theoretical analysis, and thematic analysis with constant comparison. These three models of thematic analysis are acceptable for use in SoBT research at Capella University.Taylor and Bogdan (1998) wrote:Since this is an inductive and intuitive process, there are no simple procedures or techniques for this kind of analysis. You may find it helpful to ask yourself questions like: “What do these quotes or observations have in common?” “What's going on here?" “What does this tell me about how people view their world?” “How do these themes relate to each other?” (p. 156).Inductive AnalysisInductive analysis is data driven and does not attempt to fit the data into any preexisting categories. The researcher sets aside all pre-understandings. The data collected from each participant (interviews, observations, open-ended questionnaire, etc.) are analyzed individually. Once the data from all participants have been analyzed, the repeating patterns and themes from all participants are synthesized together into a composite synthesis, which attempts to interpret the meanings and/or implications regarding the question under investigation.Inductive Analysis Step-By-StepReview and familiarize yourself with the data collected from each participant (interviews, journals, field notes, records and documents).Read the documents and highlight intuitively any sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that appear to be meaningful. During this process the researcher immerses him/herself in each participant’s data individually.Review the highlighted data and use your research question to decide if the highlighted data are related to your question. Some information in the transcript may be interesting, but not relate to your question. Eliminate all highlighted data that are not related to your question. However, start a separate file to store unrelated data. You may want to come back and reevaluate this data in the future.Take each piece of data and code it. The code can be very simple, like a serial number or an address – simply a way to keep track of individual items of data.Cluster the items of data that are related or connected in some way and start to develop patterns. For each distinct pattern you discern, describe it in a phrase or statement that sums it up. If feasible or useful, assign a second level code to the patterns too.As you start to see patterns, identify items of data that correspond to that specific pattern. Place them in the previously assembled clusters (see 5) that manifest that pattern. Direct quotes taken from these data (transcribed interviews, field notes, documents, etc.) will elucidate the pattern. (The name or descriptor of your pattern thus is a more abstract phrase, whereas the data themselves are direct words from participants.)Take all the patterns and look for the emergence of overreaching themes. Themes are “patterns of patterns.” This process involves combining and clustering the related patterns into themes. As you see meaningful themes across patterns, assign a yet-more-abstract descriptor to the theme. This will be a third level of abstraction, supported by the patterns, in turn illustrated by the direct data.After all the data have been analyzed, arrange the themes in a kind of matrix with their corresponding supportive patterns. (The patterns are used to elucidate the themes, just as the word data are used to support and illustrate the pattern descriptors). In the matrix, include the codes or descriptors for each of the data clusters. Thus, the supporting layers of words/text can easily be accessed when discussing an individual theme in your final report.For each theme, write a detailed abstract analysis describing the scope and substance of each theme.(Complete this process for each participants’ data)Then combine the analysis of data for all participants including patterns and themes that are consistent across the participants’ data.Finally, the data are synthesized together to form composite synthesis of the data collected regarding the question under inquiry.Theoretical AnalysisTheoretical analysis is employed in a situation in which the research has some predetermined categories (themes) to examine during the data analysis. In this situation, the researcher may use his/her pre-understandings when conducting the data analysis. However, in this case the researcher also remains open to the possibilities of new themes emerging from the thematic analysis. The theoretical thematic analysis is driven by theory and the themes that are predetermined are usually located in the research question. Thus, the research question will have identified concepts from theories on the topic under inquiry. The data collected is analyzed individually and patterns that emerged from the data will be organized under the appropriate preexisting themes keeping in mind that new patterns and themes may also emerge from the data during the data analysis process.Researchers might approach this analysis in two phases: In the first phase, after preparing thedata (steps 1-4 below), one works on assigning the data units to the pre-determined themes derived from previous research and theory and carries out the analyses as described in steps 5 through 13. Then, in phase two, return to the data and work with data units and patterns that did not seem to fit the pre-determined categories, again following steps 5-13. The themes derived from this analysis will likely not be found in previous research but may contribute to it.Theoretical Analysis Step-By-StepRead, review, and familiarize yourself with the data collected from each participant (interviews, journals, field notes, records and documents). Re-read the documents and highlight intuitively any sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that appear to be meaningful. Keeping in mind the predetermined categories (themes) that are related to the theory and research question posed as well as remaining open to any new patterns and themes that are related to the research question and have emerged from the data analysis. During this process, the researcher immerses him/herself in each participant’s data individually.For each participant review the highlighted data and use your research question to decide if the highlighted data are related to your question. Some information in the transcript may be interesting, but not relate to your question.Eliminate all highlighted data that are not related to your question, however, start a separate file to store unrelated data. You may want to come back and reevaluate these data in the future.Take each item of data and code or give a descriptor for the data. The descriptor or name will often be a characteristic word from within the data.Cluster the items of data that are related or connected in some way and start to develop patterns.Patterns that are related to a preexisting theme are placed together with any other patterns that correspond with the theme along with direct quotes taken from the data (transcribed interviews, field notes, documents, etc.) to elucidate the pattern.Any patterns that do not relate to preexisting themes should be kept in a separate file for future evaluation of the meanings as they relate to the overall topic.Repeat steps 1-7 for all participants.Take all the patterns and look for the emergence of overreaching themes. This process involves combining and clustering the related patterns into the preexisting themes.After all the data have been analyzed, arrange the themes to correspond with the supporting patterns. The patterns are used to elucidate the themes.Now revisit the patterns that did not fit the preexisting categories and remain open to any new patterns and themes that are related to the research topic and have emerged from the data analysis.For each theme, the researcher needs to write a detailed analysis describing the scope and substance of each theme.Each pattern should be described and elucidated by supporting quotes from the data.Finally, the data is synthesized together to form composite synthesis of the question under inquiry.Thematic Analysis with Constant ComparisonThematic analysis with constant comparison can be either inductive analysis or theoretical analysis. The difference is that the data collected are analyzed as they are collected. The analysis begins during the collection of data. The first participant’s data are analyzed and as each subsequent participant’s data are analyzed, they are compared to the previously analyzed data. The analysis constantly moves back and forth between current data and the data that have already been coded and clustered into patterns. Patterns and themes will change and grow as the analysis continues throughout the process.Thematic Analysis with Constant Comparison Step-By-StepReview and familiarize yourself with the data collected from the first participant (interviews, journals, field notes, records and documents). Read the documents and highlight intuitively any sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that appear to be meaningful.Review the highlighted data and use your research question to decide if the highlighted data are related to your question. Some information in the transcript may be interesting, but not relate to your question.Eliminate all highlighted data that are not related to your question, however, start a separate file to store unrelated data. You may want to come back and reevaluate this data in the future.Take each set of data and code or name the data.Cluster the sets of data that are related or connected in some way and start to develop plete this process for the first participants’ data. The researcher will code and cluster the first participant's data and as each subsequent participant’s data are analyzed, they are compared to the previously analyzed data. Throughout this process, each participant’sdata are reviewed and analyzed, and the researcher is comparing and contrasting the data being analyzed with the data that have been previously analyzed in the study. Thus, a constant comparison emerges.Throughout this process, data that correspond to a specific pattern are identified and placed with the corresponding pattern and direct quotes are taken from the data (transcribed interviews, field notes, documents, etc.) to elucidate the pattern.Throughout the process, take all the patterns and look for the emergence of overreaching themes. This process involves combining and clustering the related patterns into themes.Patterns and themes may tend to shift and change throughout the process of analysis.After all the data have been analyzed, arrange the themes to correspond with the supporting patterns. The patterns are used to elucidate the themes.For each theme, the researcher writes a detailed analysis describing the scope and substance of each theme.Each pattern should be described and elucidated by supporting quotes from the data.The data is synthesized together to form composite synthesis of the question under inquiry.References related to Generic Qualitative Inquiry and Thematic AnalysisAronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2, (1).Retrieved January 20,2003, from , R., & Taylor, S. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). NewYork: John Wiley &Sons, Inc.Other ApproachesThere are other qualitative approaches in business and technology such as the Delphi Method, (see Addendum D below), discourse analysis, etc. and learners wishing to use one of these approaches may do so provided that:They have received appropriate training and education in the approach andTheir mentor or a member of the Dissertation Committee has had or obtains training and experience mentoring this approachIn addition, many qualitative studies combine elements of a number of approaches. They might combine document analysis and discourse analysis (of casual conversations) with a more traditional phenomenological analysis. In such cases, consult the mentor for guidance, but in general, use the elements outlined in this Dissertation Chapter Guide to structure your Chapter IV.Addendum A - Generic Thematic Analysis of Qualitative DataPatterns of experience or meaning unitsOnce the data are collected by observations, interviews (audio taped and transcribed), field notes, or any other sources, patterns of experience (recurring words, phrases, descriptions, etc.) are identified and listed. These patterns are derived from direct quotes and paraphrases of recurring ideas emerging from the data. These patterns form the first level of thematic analysis.Linking the data themselves to the meaning units (confirming the meaning units)Next, the researcher identifies data that correspond to the identified patterns. If, in a study of the culture of a corporation, a pattern is noted such as “males defer to hierarchically superior males, but not to hierarchically superior females,” examples that confirm this – that show it is both recurring and an accurate description of events - are located in the data (transcripts, notes, etc.) and annotated with the listed patternStep 1: Patterns of experience are identified: recurring words and phrases are identified and summarized. These are called meaning units.Step 2: Confirming data (specific words, phrases, etc.) are linked to the meaning units from step 1.Step 3: Related patterns or meaning units (steps 1 & 2) are combined into themes.Step 4: Themes are synthesized to form a comprehensive description of the phenomenon (as quotes along with citation of their source). This step is critical, because it provides confirming evidence that the meaning units have emerged directly from the data themselves and not from the researcher’s biases or preconceptions. This step also provides the material for substantiating the “results” section of the dissertation (typically Chapter Four).Creating ThemesNow, the researcher combines and catalogues related patterns into themes. This is a more abstract step, during which the researcher must beware the intrusion of bias, preconceptions, beliefs, etc. Themes are comprised of combinations and distillations of the descriptive meaning units derived from the patterns in the data. For example, if along with the earlier example this pattern emerged: “males repeatedly initiate flirting behavior with females regardless of the females’ rank and the females return the flirtation, even when they dislike it,” two themes or meaning units might be constructed as follows: “Males impose rank-dominance on subordinate males” and “males impose sexual-dominance on all females.”Synthesis of themesFinally, at the highest level of abstraction, themes that emerge from the patterns or meaning units (which emerged from the original data) are synthesized together to form a comprehensive representation of the element of the culture that is being investigated. The above meaning units or themes might constellate with other descriptive themes of the male and female interactions in the organization into a rich and textured description of the rules, customs, attitudes, and practices around gender in that organization.This distillation of the practice of thematic analysis is adapted from Aronson (1994) and Taylor and Bogdan (1984).Addendum B - Moustakas’ Description of Data Analysis in Heuristic ResearchPlace all the material drawn from one participant before you (recordings, transcriptions, journals, notes, etc.). This material may either be data gathered by self-search or by interviews with co-researchers.Immerse yourself fully in the material until you are aware of and understand everything that is before you.Put the material aside for a while. Let it settle in you. Live with it but without particular attention or focus. Return to the immersion process. Make notes where these would enable you to remember or classify the material. Continue the rhythm of working with the data and resting until an illumination or essential configuration emerges. From your core or global sense, list the essential components or themes that characterize the fundamental nature and meaning of the experience. Reflectively study the themes, dwell inside them, and develop a full depiction of the experience. The depiction must include the essential components of the experience.Illustrate the depiction of the experience with verbatim samples, poems, stories, or other materials to highlight and accentuate the person’s lived experience.Return to the “raw material” of your co-researcher (participant). Does your depiction of the experience fit the data from which you have developed it? Does it contain all that is essential?Complete the above steps for each participant. Then:Place the Reflective Depiction for each participant before you.Immerse yourself completely in the Reflective Depictions until you are fully aware of and understand what they contain.Put the material aside and engage in a rhythm of rest and work until the essentialinvariant and non-repetitive themes of the material stand out.Make a list of the essential components of the experience (these should portray the qualities, nature, and meanings that characterize the experience).From the above, develop a full reflective depiction of the experience, one that characterizes the participants as a group, reflecting core meanings not only for the individuals but the group of persons as a whole. Include in the depiction, verbatim samples, poems, stories, etc., to highlight and accentuate the lived nature of the experience. This depiction will serve as the creative synthesis, which will combine, in an esthetically pleasing way, the themes andpatterns into a representation of the whole. This synthesis will communicate the essence of the lived experience under inquiry. The synthesis is more than a summary - it is like a chemical reaction, a creation of anew.Return to the individuals, select two or three and develop portraits of these persons that are consistent with the composite depiction of the group as a whole, in such a way that the phenomenon and the person emerge as real.This distillation of the practice of data analysis in Heuristic research is adapted from adapted from Moustakas (1990).ReferencesMoustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Addendum: Delphi Method BibliographyAli Al-Busaidi, K. (2014). SWOT of social networking sites for group work in government organizations: An exploratory Delphi study from IT managers' perspective. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 44(1), 121-139. doi:10.1108/VINE-06-2012-0019Bolger, F., & Wright, G. (2011). Improving the Delphi process: Lessons from social psychological research. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1500-1512. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.07.007Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458-467. doi:10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458Fletcher, A. & Marchildon, P. (2014). Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13, 1-18. Retrieved from , F. J., Leslie, G. D., Grech, C., & Latour, J. M. (2013). Using a web-based survey tool to undertake a Delphi study: Application for nurse education research. Nurse education today, 33, 1322-1328. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2013.02.016Goluchowicz, K., & Blind, K. (2011). Identification of future fields of standardization: An explorative application of the Delphi technology. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1526-1541. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.014Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A., & Izadyar, S. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 3(4), 8–13. Retrieved from , F., & Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research.Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1695-1704. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005Hung, H. L., Altschuld, J. W., & Lee, Y. F. (2008). Methodological and conceptual issues confronting a cross-country Delphi study of educational program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 191-198. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.02.005Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. P. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International journal of nursing studies, 38, 195-200. doi:10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. (2006). Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 205-212. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03716.xLerro, A., & Schiuma, G. (2015). Assessing performance and impact of the technological districts (TDs): General modelling and measurement system. Measuring Business Excellence, 19(3), 58-75. doi:10.1108/MBE-04-2015-0023Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2011). Delphi: A brief look backward and forward. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 1712-1719. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.09.011McNichols, D. (2010). Optimal knowledge transfer methods: A Generation X perspective.Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 24-37. doi:10.1108/13673271011015543Meijering, J. V., Kampen, J. K., & Tobi, H. (2013). Quantifying the development of agreement among experts in Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 1607-1614. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.01.003Nowack, M., Endrikat, J., & Guenther, E. (2011). Review of Delphi-based scenario studies: Quality and design considerations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 1603-1615. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.006Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002Pare, G., Cameron, A. F., Poba-Nzaou, P., & Templier, M. (2013). A systematic assessment of rigor in information systems ranking-type Delphi studies. Information & management, 50, 207-217. doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.03.003Skinner, R., Nelson, R. R., Chin, W. W., & Land, L. (2015). The Delphi method research strategy in studies of information systems. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37, 31-63. Retrieved from , G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research.Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21. Retrieved from der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 1525-1536. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013Worrell, J. L., Di Gangi, P. M., & Bush, A. A. (2013). Exploring the use of the Delphi method in accounting information systems research. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 14, 193-208. doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2012.03.003These life or organizational stories are created in a process not unlike thematic analysis. Here, however, the stories of the participants’ experience in the culture, group, society, or organization are culled for the initial patterns of recurring experiences, behaviors, etc. These in turn are organized into themes or meaning units which in a robust way exemplify important aspects of the larger culture, society, group, or organization. Finally, as in thematic analysis, the meaning units are woven into a richly evocative description of the meaning of the persons experience in this culture which stands for many others’ similar experiences. In effect, the life story (or the organization story, if you will) of the exemplar “stands for” the essence of the ethnographic description of what it means to be a member of this culture, group, or organization.The type of questions typically used to guide an ethnographic study should be descriptive questions about values, beliefs, and practices of members of the culture under inquiry and include questions such as:“What are the behavioral patterns of…?” “What is the culture of ……?”Appendum: Expert Panel Review & Mock InterviewThere are two parts to the field testing process: expert panel review and mock interviews.First, an expert panel consisting of 3-5 subject matter experts will review the draft interview questionsfor face and content validity by assessing the understandability and clarity of the interview questions as well as the accuracy and alignment of the interview questions with the research question(s). Based on the feedback from the expert panel, the researcher will document and modify the draft interview guide accordingly.Following the expert panel review and updates to the interview questions, the researcher will conduct mock interviews with two or more role players to check the face validity of the expert- reviewed instrument guide and as such assess the clarity and understandability of the interview questions. The role players will be representative of the study sample but not included in the actual research sample. No actual data will be recorded or collected in the mock interviews.Based on the feedback from the role players, the researcher will document and modify the expert-reviewed interview guide accordingly. The mock interview process will also provide information about the length of time it takes to conduct the interviews. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download