Skip to content
Permalink
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
861 lines (790 sloc) 57.1 KB
@article{kinnunen2012phenomenography,
title={Phenomenography and grounded theory as research methods in computing education research field},
author={Kinnunen, P{}ivi and Simon, Beth},
journal={Computer Science Education},
volume={22},
number={2},
pages={199--218},
year={2012},
publisher={Taylor \& Francis}
}
@book{2007Creswell,
author={Creswell},
title={Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, Choosing Among Five Approaches},
edition=2,
year=2007,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage}}
@book{2009Creswell,
author={Cresswell},
title={Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches},
edition=3,
year=2009,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage},
annote={}}
@book{2003Creswell,
author={Creswell},
title={Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches},
edition=2,
year=2003,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage},
annote={useful checklist of questions for designing qualitative procedure,
includes\\
basic characterestics of qual studies\\
is specific type of qualitative strategy of inquiry to be used in the study mentioned?\\
Is the history of, a definition of, and applications for the strategy mentioned?\\
does the reader gain an understanding of the researcher's role in the study (past experiences, personal connections to sites and people, steps in gining entry and sensitive ethical issues)?\\
Is the purposeful sampling strategy for sites and individuals identified?\\Are the specific forms of data collection mentioned and a rationale given for their use?\\
Are the prodcuedres for recording infomration (such as protocols) during the data collection producere mentioned?\\
are the data analysis setps identified?\\
is there evidence that the researcher has organized the data for analysis?\\
Has the researcher reviewed thedata generally to obtain a sense of the information?\\
has coding been used with the data?\\
have the codes been developed to forma description or to identiy themes?\\
are the themes interrelated to show a higher level of analysis and abstraction?\\
are the ways that the data will be represened--such as tables, graphs and figures--mentioned?\\
have the bases for interpreting the analysis (personal experience, the literature, questions, action agenda) been specified?\\
has the researcher mentioned the outcome of the study? (develop a theory? provide a complex picture of themes?)\\
Have multiple strategies been cited for validating the findings?\\
}}
%[Tiefel 2005] Tiefel, Sandra: Kodierung nach der Grounded Theory lern- und bildungstheoretisch
%modifiziert: Kodierleitlinien f¨ur die Analyse biographischen Lernens.
%In: Zeitschrift f¨ur qualitative Bildungs-, Beratungs- und Sozialforschung 6 (2005), Nr. 1,
%S. 65–84
@article{Tiefel,
author={Sandra Tiefel},
title={Kodierung nach der Grounded Theory lern- und bildungstheoretisch
modifiziert: Kodierleitlinien f\"ur die Analyse biographischen Lernens},
journal={Zeitschrift f\"ur qualitative Bildungs-, Beratungs- und Sozialforschung},
volume=6,
number=1,
pages={64-85},
year=2005,
annote={}}
@book{Vygotsky,
title={The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky},
author={L. S. Vygotsky},
year=1999,
publisher={Kluwer},
annote={}}
@article{YamagataLynch2003,
title={Using Activity Theory as an Analytic Lens for Examining Technology Professional Development in Schools},
author={Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch},
year=2003,
journal={Mind, Culture and Activity},
page={100-119},
annote={
this paper is beautifully written.
Vygotsky was with Piaget one of the first to use constructivist epistemology\\
semiotic process includes situations in which people learn as they interact with each other and a mediating artifact-tool, (Isay seems to match with computer) and people interact with the tool, mediated action
She writes }}
@inbook{GubaLincoln1994,
author={E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincoln},
title={Competing paradigms in qualitative research},
booktitle={Handbook of qualitative research},
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage},
pages={105-117},
year=1994}
@article{Charmaz,
author={Charmaz},
annote={}}
%from Caelli
@inbook{1997Thorne,
author={Thorne},
title={the art (and science) of critiquing qualitative research},
booktitle={Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue},
year=1997,
pages={117-132},
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage},
annote={}}
@article{2000Sandelowski,
author={Sandelowski},
year=2000,
title={Focus on research methods: Whatever happened to qualitative description?},
journal={Research in Nursing and Health},
number=23,
pages={334-340},
annote={}}
@book{Kvale,
author={S. Kvale},
title={InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing},
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage},
year=1996,
annote={}}
@book{LincolnGuba,
author={Lincoln and Guba},
title={Naturalistic Inquiry},
year=1985,
publisher={Newbury Park, CA: Sage},
annote={}}
@book{Silverman,
author={D. Silverman},
title={Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook},
year=2000,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage},
annote={}}
%from Caelli, about methodology
@book{vanManen1998,
author={M. van Manen},
title={Researching Lived Experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy},
year=1998,
publisher={London, Canada: The Althouse Press},
annote={}}
@article{Rawnsley1998,
author={M. M. Rawnsley},
title={Ontology, epistemology, and methodology: A clarification},
journal={Nursing Science Quarterly},
year=1998,
volume=11,
number=1,
pages={2-4}}
@article{King1995,
author={K. E. King},
title={Method and methodology in feminist research: What is the difference?},
journal={Journal of Advanced Nursing},
year=1995,
volume=20,
pages={19-22}}
@book{Creswell2012,
author={John W. Creswell},
title={Educational Research Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research},
year=2012,
edition=4,
publisher={Pearson},
annote={}}
@book{StraussCorbin,
author={Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin},
title={Grounded Theory in Practice},
year=1997,
publisher={Sage: Thousand Oaks},
annote={}}
@book{Crotty,
author={Michael Crotty},
title={The Foundations of Social Research Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process},
year=1998,
publisher={Sage: Thousand Oaks},
annote={scaffold, framework for guidance, ``bewilderment at the array of methodologies and methods laid out before their gaze'', ``terminology is far from consistent in research literature and social science texts. One frequently finds the same term used in a number of different, sometimes even contradictory, ways.''
What methodologies and methods will we employ, and how do we justify those?\\
We need a process that can answer our questions.\\
More: reaches to the assumptions about reality that we make.
What kind of knowledge do we believe will be attained.
Research outcomes: how should observers regard?, take seriously? These are epistemological questions.
What methods do we propose to use:\\
What methodology governs our choice and use of methods?\\
What theoretical perspective lies behind the methodology in question?\\
What epistemology informs this theoretical perspective?\\
Ethnography: a methodology\\
Symbolic interactionism: a theoretical perspective\\
constructionism: an epistemology (way of understanding how we know what we know)\\
epistemology informs the theoretical perspective that informs the methodology that informst the methods\\
Epistemologies:usually one of: objectivism, constructionism, subjectivism\\
Research methods: concrete techniques, described in detail with examples
Methodology: our strategy or plan, our research design, describing choice and use of methods and the links to desired outcomes\\
Theoretical perspective\\
philosophical stance behind our chosen methodology\\
how it provides a context for our process\\
how it provides a basis for the logic and the criteria\\
state the assumptions we bring, and incorporate into methodology\\
our view of the world and the social life within it\\
Ontology is the study of being\cite{Crotty}, with what entities exist.\\
consistently constructivist, because we do not believe that all understandings, scientific and non-scientific alike are on the same footing as constructions. \\
in our observing, interpreting, reporting and everything we do as researchers, we inject assumptions\\
Has the very nice table 1, with a representative sampling of each category, not exhaustive\\
Epistemologies\\
Objectivism, Constructionism, Subjectivism, and their variants.\\
Theoretical frameworks, theoretical perspectives\\
Postivism and postpostivism, interpretivism, having these three subdivisions: symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and hermeneutics (which could be remembered as many people, one person, no people), then another theoretical perspective is critical inquiry, another is feminism, postmodernism and more.\\
Methodologies:\\
Experimental research\\
Survey research\\
Ethnography\\
Phenomenological research\\
Grounded theory\\
Heuristic inquiry\\
Action research\\
Discourse Analysis\\
Feminist standpoint research, etc.\\
Now for methods:\\
Sampling\\
Measurement and scaling\\
Questionnaire\\
Observation, with participant and non-participant subdivisions\\
Interview\\
Focus group\\
Case study\\
Life history\\
Narrative\\
Visual ethnographic methods\\
Statistical analysis\\
Data reduction\\
Theme identification\\
Cooperative analysis\\
Cognitive mapping\\
Interpretive methods\\
Document analysis\\
Content analysis\\
Conversational analysis, etc.\\
}}
@book{Grbich,
author={C. Grbich},
title={Qualitative Data Analysis: An introduction},
publisher={Thousand Oaks, Sage},
year=2007,
annote={}}
@book{Wolcott,
author={H. F. Wolcott},
title={Writing up qualitative research},
edition=3,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, Sage},
year=2009,
annote={}}
@book{Patton,
author={M. Q. Patton},
title={Qualitative research and evaluation methods},
edition=3,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, Sage},
year=2002,
annote={}}
@book{MilesH,
author={M. B. Miles and A. Huberman},
title={Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods},
edition=2,
publisher={London: Sage},
year=1994,
annote={}}
@book{Merriam2002,
author={Sharan B. Merriam},
title={Qualitative Research in Practice},
year=2002,
publisher={Jossey-Bass},
annote={\begin{itemize}
\item Problem
\begin{itemize}
\item Is the problem appropriate for qualitative inquiry?
Is the question one of meaning, understanding, or process?
\item Is the problem clearly stated?
\item Is the problem situated in the literature? That is, is the literature used to put the problem in context?
\item Is the relationship of the problem to previous research made clear?
\item Is the researcher's perspective and relationship to the problem discussed?
Are assumptions and biases revealed?
\item Is a convincing argument explicitly or implicitly made for the importance or significance of this research? Do we know how it will contribute to the knowledge base and practice?
\end{itemize}
\item Methods
\begin{itemize}
\item Is the particular qualitative research design identified and described (basic interprestive, grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, and so on)?
\item Is sample selection described including rationale for criteria used in the selection?
\item Are data collection methods described and are they congruent with the problem being investigated and the type of qualitative design?
\item How were the data managed and analyzed'?
\item What stragegies were used to ensure for validity and reliability?
\item What ethical considerations are discussed?
\end{itemize}
\item Findings
\begin{itemize}
\item Are the participants of the study descirbed? (This may be in Methods.)
\item Are the findings clearly organized and easy to follow?
\item Are the findings directly responsive to the problem of the study? that is, do they ``answer'' the question(s) raised by the study?
\item Do the data presented in support of the findings (quotatios from interviews, incidents from field notes, material from documents, and so on) provide adequate and convincing evidence for the findings?
\end{itemize}
\item Discussion
\begin{itemize}
\item Are the findings ``positioned'' and discussed in terms of the literature and previous research?
\item Are the study's insights and contributions to the larger body of knowledge clearly stated and discussed:
\item Are implications for practice discussed?
\item Do the study's implications follow from the data?
\item Are there suggestions for future research?
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}}}
@article{Seale1999,
author={C. Seale},
title={Quality in qualitative research},
journal={Qualitative Inquiry},
year=1999,
volume=5,
number=4,
pages={465-478},
annote={Think of social research as a craft skill.
Learn it by reading from any of many sources, and by watching others perform.
Recognize quality (i.e., good work) when we see it.
Triangulation is helpful.
achieving validity and reliability are goals, want to see connection between social research, theory and philosophy (this last because underpinning of social research),
so philosophy can have value, but does not have to be governing.
Over time( 1980's-1990's) ``bewildering variety'' of new concepts about validity
for qual. research, ``conceptual proliferation'', Lincoln and guba 1985, trustworthiness from 4: truth value, applicability, consistency and neutrality.\\
vs. mulitple constructed realities,\\
The above being criticized, the following are suggested:\\
concern with credibility, member checking, transferability rather than applicability,
dependability instead of consistency,\\
auditing (self-criticism) instead of consistency\\
auditng also for confirmability, which is instead of neutrality or objectivity\\
Is there really a conflict between multiple constructed realities and single tangible reality.\\
Add authenticity, by representing a range of different realities.\\
``The issue of quality criteria in constructivism is \ldots not well resolved, and further critique is needed''.
Philosophy: inconclusive, but claimed as foundational.\\
Partial solution: an approach to social research that takes the view that, although we always perceive the world from a particular viewpoint, the world acts back on us to constrain the points of view that are possible. The researcher treading this middle way is continually aware of the somewhat constructed nature of research but avoids the wholesale application of constructivism to his or her own practice, which would result in a descent into nihilism. \ldots some accounts are more plausible than others \ldots plausibility can be judged \ldots
How dhoulf we make contact with an external reality that affirms or disaffirms claims? Is not all observation funcamentally driven by preexisting theoretical assumptions? Subtle realism seems inadequate \ldots foundationalist habit of thought which I believe researchers should break.\\
validity and reiability no longer seem adequate \ldots peer auditing \ldots expose to a critical readership the judgements and methodological decisions made in the course of the research study.\\
craft skill: triangulation\\
use of several methods at once so that biases of any one method might be cancelled out by those of others (Denzin, -70's and onwards\\
``has no relevance for genuine interpretivists''(Blaikie)\\
vs. not necessary to connect with ontological and epistemological positions\\
``How can we reliably reason that the basis of past experience that the sun will rise tomorrow?''\\
triangulation as constructivist: way of explaining how accounts or actions in one setting (I say: viewpoint) are influenced or constrained in the other\\
soft constructivist version of triangulation: triangulation is less a strategy for validating than an alternative to validation, \ldots which increases scope, depth and consistency\\
triangulation is good for enhancing quality \ldots craft skill\\
possible to benefit from just about any of the key methodological discussions\\
}}
@book{Merriam2009,
author={Sharan B. Merriam},
title={Qualitative Research A Guide to Design and Implementation},
year=2009,
publisher={Jossey-Bass},
annote={}}
@book{Creswell2007,
author={J. W. Creswell},
title={Qualitative Inquiry \& Research Design: Choosing among five approaches},
edition=2,
pages={15-33},
year=2007,
publisher={Sage, Inc., US},
annote={begins with philosophical assumptions, also researcher's own world view, paradigms, sets of beliefs,\\
Creswell wants to bridge philosophy and practice.
five philosophical assumptions lead to an individual's choice of qualitative research:\\
ontology (nature of reality)\\
epistemology (how we know what we know) get close to the participants\\
axiology (the role of values in research)(values that shape the narrative, e.g., education is good), so, report your values and biases\\
rhetorical assumptions (the language of research: use first person, literary, informal limited definitions)\\
methodological assumptions (methods used in the process, inductive, emerging)\\
Then there are paradigms for research (for making claims about knowledge), lots, change with time, but note these four:\\
postpositivism--scientific approach, reductionist, logical, collect data, seek cause-effect, a priori use of theory\\
constructivism--participants have subjective meanings of their experiences, inquirers do not start from theory, they inductively develop theory , e.g. Crotty, Charmaz, participants develop their subjective meanings in conversations, researcher trying to make sense of the meanings that the participants have constructed\\
advocacy/participatory --where constructivism does not advocate action, and postpositivism fails to consider these people, power relationships, create a political debate/discussion so to effect change\\
pragmatism--freedom to choose, mixed methods, choose what and how to research based upon where they want to do with their research\\
There are theoretical frameworks (interpretive communities, inform procedures)\\
postmodern theories\\
feminist research\\
critical theory, critical race theory\\
queer theory\\
disability inquiry\\
}
}
@article{Kawulich,
author={B. B. Kawulich},
year=2005,
month={May},
title={Participant observation as a data collection method},
journal={Forum: Qualitative Social Research},
volume= 6,
number=2,
annote={}
}
@article{Roulston2003,
author={K. Roulston and K. deMarrais and J. B. Lewis},
year=2003,
title={Learning to interview in the social sciences},
journal={Qualitative Inquiry},
volume=9,
number=4,
pages={643-668},
annote={}
}
@article{Caelli,
author={Kate Caelli and Lynne Ray and J. Mill},
year=2003,
title={'Clear as mud''' Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research},
journal={International Journal of Qualitative Methods},
howpublished={\url={https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/viewArticle/4521}},
annote={concerned about how to do a (generic qualitative) study well,
especially if the work is not according to an established qualitative approach\\
generic studies are common and will continue\\
infeasible for researchers to engage in deeply theoretical and methodologically sophisticated study\\
seek to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process of the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved(p.11), Merriam 1998, cited in Caeli\\
many generic qual: a sparse understanding of the importance of an epistemological or theoreical position from which to begin research\\
processes are of necessity rigorous, demanding and meticulous, must be scrupulously applied throughout\\
Thorne: more interpretive, Sandelowski, less interpretivem more descriptive\\
want quality criteria that apply specifically to generic qualitative approaches\\
What needs to be there, for generic research to be credible (as qualitative)?\\
cites Sandelowski and Barroso as proposing shift from epistemology to aesthetic and rhetorical concerns\\
responsibility for laying out the merits of a particulary study lies with the author, enough detail so that the reader can judge\\
research reports must address:\\
the theoretical positioning of the researcher\\
congruence between methodology and methods\\
strategies to establish rigor\\
analytic lens through which data are examined\\
researchers should speak about the research and the approach and the methods chosen to explore the topic\\
researchers should specify their disciplinary affiliation\\
methodology reflects the beliefs about knowledge and existence that arise from the values in the philosophic framework that is to be employed (van Manen 1998)\\
Methodology also reflects theoretical frameworks that guide how the research should proceed,
(according to Rawnsley 1998, King 1995, Guba and Lincoln 1994, Harding 1987)
clear recognition of the values and assumptions inherent in the theoretical framework\\
BAD:lack of methodological clarity\\
researchers need to articular a knowledgable, theoretically informed choice regarding their approach to rigor and slect an approach that is philosophically and methodologically congruent with their inquiry. Researchers approache to these two issues must reflect an understanding that rigor is deeply theoretical issue, not a technical one.\\
We use the term ``analytic lens'' to refer to the methodologic and interpretive presuppositions that a researcher brings to bear on his or her data.\\
the analytic lens is about how the researcher engages with his or her data\\
closely examine the assumptios they bring to bear on the study, and explain them in any manuscript\\
the study should be contiguous to the positions and assumptions that led to the research question\\
it is only through understanding these elements that the quality of a study can be evaluated.\\
The researcher's position is of utmost importance, must make assumptions clear, ensure methods are congruent
to assumptions, especially when borrowing methods from established approaches, because these methods can
have attached a deeply theoretical whole, and their use implies allegiance to a set of assumptions,
which the borrower might contravene, or ignore, making hard for reviewers, don't be claiming things, like ``saturation'', without inquiring into the real definition. Don't be claiming approach wihtout the methodological depth and interpretation that go with that method. \\
Thematic analysis might add not at all to an understanding of the topic of interest, e.g., identifying themes without taking research to next step to show meaning beyond the themes, and it is the meanings that need to be embedded into the theoretical and historical context of the research.
key issues 1 declaration of researcher's position\\
2 congruence between methodology and method\\
3 clear articulation of the researcher's approach to rigor\\
4 explanation of his or her analytic lens
}
}
@article{Cary1999,
author={L. J. Cary},
title={Unexpected stories: Life history and the limits of representation},
journal={Qualitative Inquiry},
year=1999,
volume=5,
number=3,
pages={411-427},
annote={}
}
@inbook{Belize,
author={K. Altork},
title={You never know when you might be a red head in Belize},
booktitle={Inside Stories: Qualitative Research Reflections},
publisher={Lawrence Erlbaum Associates},
year=1998,
pages={111-126},
annote={This is about the researcher promising a participant, who trusts the researcher, having known her for 15 years, not to make her sound bad, repeatedly, and then making he sound as if she were under the influence of too much alcohol, and mentioned a breakup with a lover, and also did not recheck her data often enough, and embroidered it, entertainingly but it was false.\\
ethical considerations, improve without fictionalizing}}
@article {JCOP:JCOP20074,
author = {Arcidiacono, Caterina and Procentese, Fortuna},
title = {Distinctiveness and sense of community in the historical center of Naples: A piece of participatory action research},
journal = {Journal of Community Psychology},
volume = {33},
number = {6},
publisher = {Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company},
issn = {1520-6629},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20074},
doi = {10.1002/jcop.20074},
pages = {631--638},
year = {2005},
abstract = {Inspired by the impact of an increase in tourism in the Old Center of Naples, Fondazione Laboratorio Mediterraneo, a nonprofit organization that promotes sustainable town development and encourages participation, has undertaken the participatory action research described in this article. The inhabitants' sense of community (McMillan \& Chavis, 1986) with regard to the distinctiveness of the area (Puddifoot, 1995) and its representation are also explored. The collection of socioenvironmental data (Arcidiacono, 1999), 15 semistructured interviews with key people, and photodialogue (Legewie, 2003) are followed by relational activities carried out together with local inhabitants and group associations in the area. The inductive analysis of the established categories and networks has been carried out with the aid of Atlas.ti. Our findings emphasize that the distinctiveness of the Center and the pride of belonging felt by its inhabitants are expressed ambivalently and negatively, evidence of the inhabitants' lack of a sense of community. },
annote={Nice statement about grounded theory:\\
When speaking of theory, we do not mean formal theory but substantive theory, theory derived inductively from the study of the phenomenon (i.e., explanation and interpretation of a specific phenomenon whose peculiarity is that it is constructed as a theory).
This is nicer than Pomrenke, because it elaborates the type of interpretation of a phenomenon to make clear that the explanation about a phenomenon is a theory about that phenomenon.
They developed macrocategories, relations and networks among categories, }
}
@article{Pomrenkec,
author={Marlene Pomrenke},
title={Using Grounded Theory to Understand Resiliency in Pre-Teen Children of High-Conflict Families},
journal={Qualitative Report},
volume=12,
number=3,
year=2007,
pages={356-374},
annote={ Then a proposition is formed from the coding paradigm. It provides a broader systemic view of the information gained through the study. the example given in the paper is a finding, saying in effect that coherence in families helps children be resilient, which takes the research question and answers it with the word coherence, defining that as blending, extending, adapting. It also takes the word community from the research question, and defines that to be friends, teachers, counselors (pay the researcher) and extra curricular activities.
The proposition ties the coding paradigm together. (Maybe this means the proposition is a proposed interrelationship of the codes obtained by coding the data and postulating various interrelationships, and observing a most favored interrelationship.)}}
@article{Pomrenkeb,
author={Marlene Pomrenke},
title={Using Grounded Theory to Understand Resiliency in Pre-Teen Children of High-Conflict Families},
journal={Qualitative Report},
volume=12,
number=3,
year=2007,
pages={356-374},
annote={ Data gained from describing these interactions was used as a background to explore the phenomenon of resilience within the children of these families. From this background, specific categories related to protective factors emerged. For example, ideas associated with the external support systems fo the children emerged as a category.
(so she says)
Part of this analysis included discovering the relationships amongst and then between the categories. For example, included in the category of ``post-separation changes'' were ideas associated with the differences in communication as well as how the parents coped with the separation. the relationships defined within this category allowed for a thorought examination of the issues and how they then fit with other categories. Grounded theory methodology allows for the development of specific relationships between categories as a way to substantiate an emerging hypothesis from the data. The final phase of the research analysis consisted of constructing a proposition and sutstantive-level theory about the interactions of family members and how this relates to the phenomenon of resilience.
Steps in open coding\\
1. ideas expressed are coded\\
2. codes clustered into categories of related ideas\\
some categories cover the space of ideas,\\
others, now called subcategories, explain scope, nature and level, are of less interest or relevance\\
Steps in axial coding\\
goal is to identify ``the central phenomenon'' from the categories, and define how this distinguished category is related to the others\\
there is an approach called ``contant comparison'', used to identify the central phenomenon and initial categories are refined in this process. The stuff being compared is at first the raw text, then later applies to data within categories. Categories are reviewed and changed, resulting in the categories being more complex and inclusive. Categories were merged. Ultimately one category achieves a central role, and connections between it and the remaining categories are drawn and these relationships are described.
then there is also the concept of coding paradigm. Coding paradigm includes the notions of causal relationships. implying antecedents, and causal chains are linked into the phenomenon. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc might be a problem here.) The putative causal chain is considered in its context, and there is the notion of intermediaries, called intervening conditions or intervening interactions, in the context, (presumably this could be the empty set, though that is not clear from this writing) These intervening interactions help to determine the consequences. So, there is inherent in grounded theory procedure the notion that there are consequences, there are causes, there can be intermediary contributing contextual factors, and moreover, the grounded theory procedure is intended to reveal these. Furthermore, ideas gained through conducting the process give rise to more questions. (Isay It sounds like detective work.) these questions can be asked in a different context with the participants in an attempt to gain furhter understanding of the phenomenon.
The determination of the core category occurs during ``selective coding'', and relating this distinguished core category to the others. This determines the ``shape'' of the final theory. It involves noting patterns. The example in this article takes the research question, which was of the form ``How does A cause B?''
Because axial coding does this same process, of choosing, in turn, each category and placing it centrally and relating it to the other categories, it sounds as if selecting coding is just picking the one of these axial coding trials that generated the most appealing set of relationships. Selective coding also uses the subcategories to see how they affect the (at this point, chosen) central (core category) phenomenon.
At the end of the selective coding portion of this paper, it has added detail to the initial research question (which is really a premise), modifying it to, the particular means by which family and community interactions promote resilience in children (Isay, when they do) is discuss together, try to trust one another, try to cohere. Then, this conjecture is supported with evidence, namely that in those extended families that do not cohere well, the children are not as resilient.
}}
@article{Pomrenke,
author={Marlene Pomrenke},
title={Using Grounded Theory to Understand Resiliency in Pre-Teen Children of High-Conflict Families},
journal={Qualitative Report},
volume=12,
number=3,
year=2007,
pages={356-374},
annote={This article was selected for the class as a good article but I'm having a bad reaction to it.
The researcher works as a counsellor, and the conclusion is self-serving, namely, if the state would pay counsellors to get these children connected with their other relatives, then the kids will be able to withstand the aggression of the parents. The initial research question is biased, because it contains a suggested solution ``How family and community interations promote resilient behaviours in children within this population''. It would be a lot more useful to have a question with fewer premises, for example, can we distinguish which children in which contexts are not going to be able to survive from the ones who will be able to ``tough it out''? The recently murdered children in the high profile case in Canada (Shafia) shows that this would be a useful research area.\\
This article has a helpful collection of references on social constructivism:\\
Social constructioninsm ``references knowledge neigher in the observed nor the observer, but rather in the place between the two, in the social arena among interpreting subjects'' (Pare, 1995, p. 5). ``Social construction theory sees meaning as a fluid process of constrantly changing narratives that are socialy derived and exist in language'' (Slovik and Griffith, 1992, p. 232). It emphasizes social interaction as a basis for creating meaning. Social constructionism uses ``The intersubjective influence of language and culture, as well as the hermeneutical tradition of textual interpretation'' (Pare, p. 5). If our exerience is regarded as the basis of meaning, discussing this experience through our language gives us a way of understanding the meaning of the experience. ``People consider and reconsider reality through their conceptions of and experience with it. It is not discovered; rather, it is created and recreated'' (Laird, 1995, p. 152). ``Realities are socially constructed, constituted through language and organized and maintained throug narrative'' (Freedman and Combs, 1996, p. 22). In other words, realities are organized and maintained through stories. These stories represent how people know themselves and their worlds. Within this study the stories told be the children represented their ideas of resilience and how they managed to adapt to the ongoing parental conflict. \\
There is also a summary of grounded theory:\\
Grounded theory is a method of social inquiry associated with a qualitative approach to research. This inductive research process utilized generalized knowledge that is derived from specific observations of phenomena from the field. In turn, this can be used to build theory. For example, grounded theorists aim to create theoretical categories from collected data and then analyze relationships between key categories (charmaz 1990). In dded the main purpose of using a grounded theory approach is to develop theory through understandin concepts that are related by means of statements of relationships (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Using the concepts from gournded theory, this study starts from understanding the experience of the research participants (i.e., how they construct their worlds). The data analysis stage focused on finding recurrent themes or issues in the data, and finally into developing or refining a theory about the phenomenon.
Within the grounded theory approach developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990) there are three basic elements. They are referred to as concepts, categories and propositions. According to Strauss and Corbin, it is from the conceptualization of the data, not the actual data per se, that theory is developed. Within this study, the research consdiered the interactions of family members in the context of high-conflict separated parents.
The article goes on to say that the idea of external support systems emerged from the data, which in my mind is highly suspect, because the research question stipulates that community support systems are involved. In effect the research question establishes the category, and any statement the childrem might make matching what is sought is used as evidence that the sought item is found. For example, if we postulate a research question that children say ``x'', and we observe children reciting the alphabet, we obtain evidence that children do indeed say ``x'', but the result is misleading.
}}
@misc{GrenierTrust,
key={EDCI6000Trust},
author={Robin Grenier},
title={Criteria for establishing trustworthiness},
howpublished={classnotes},
annote={Trustiworthiness is her favorite of this kind of term\\
Credibility(in preference to internal validity) extent to which the results appear to be acceptable representations of the data\\
Transferability (in preference to external validity/generalizability) extent to which the findings from one study in one context will apply to other contexts\\
Dependability(in preference to reliability) extent to which findingd are unique to time and place, the stability or consistency of explanations (same in beginning to end, across participants vs based on subset of participants)\\
Confirmability (in preference to objectivity) extent to which interpretations are the result of the participants and the phenomenon as opposed to the researcher bias\\
strategies for promoting trustworthiness, see Johnson 1997\\
\begin{tabular}{|p{2cm}|p{12cm}|}\hline
Strategy & Description\\ \hline \hline
Researcher as ``Detective'' & A metaphor: consider potential cause/effect, systematically eliminate, until one left and is beyond reasoable doube\\
Extended fieldwork & collect over an extended period of time\\
low inference & stay close to participants words\\
triangulation& cross-check, multiple procedures and/or sources, want corroboration\\
data triangulation&multiple sources\\
method triangulation&multiple methods\\
investigator triangulation & multiple investigators\\
theory triangulation & multiple theories, perspectives\\
participant feedback & feedback and discussion of researcher's interpretations, with participants and others in participant community\\
peer review & discussion of researcher's interpretations, with peers, including devil's advocate\\
negative case sampling & locating and examining cases that disconfirm researcher's expectations and tentative explanation\\
reflexivity & self-awareness, critical self-reflection, by researher on his or her potential biases and predispositions\\
pattern matching & predicting a series of results that forma pattern then determinint the degree to which the actual results fit the predicted patther\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}}
@book{RichieLewis2003,
author={J. Ritchie and J. Lewis},
title={Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers},
year=2003,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications},
annote={key elements commonly agreed to give qualitative research its distinctive character include samples that are small in scale and purposeively selected on the basis of salient criteria\\
this book has a very nice introduction\\
}}
@book{Navigator,
author={David A. Westbroook},
title={Navigators of the contemporary: why ethnography matters},
year=2008,
publisher={The University of Chicago Press}}
@article{multiculture,
author={Kathleen Gregory},
title={Native-view Pardigms: Multiple Cultures and Culture conflicts in Organizations},
year=1983,
journal={Adminstrative Science Quarterly},
annote={}}
@book{Reissman,
author={Catherine Kohler Riessman},
title={Narrative Analysis},
year=1993,
publisher={Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage},
annote={}}
@article{Cary,
author={Lisa J. Cary},
title={Unexpected Stories: Life Histoyr and the Limits of Representation},
year=1999,
journal={Qualitative Inquiry},
volume=5,
pages={411-427},
publisher={Sage Publications, Inc.},
annote={}}
@article{suddaby,
author={Roy Suddaby},
title={From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is not},
journal={Academy of Management Journal},
year=2006,
volume=49,
number=4,
pages={633-642},
annote={}}
@article{FQS466b,
author = {Barbara Kawulich},
title = {Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method},
journal = {Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research},
volume = {6},
number = {2},
year = {2005},
annote={DeWalt and DeWalt (2002) where people stand or sit, whose opinions are respected, who has power and who does not, sometimes counting is useful, try also to remember nonverbal expressions and gestures, include spatial maps in field notes\\
Wocott(2001): be tolerant of ambiguity\\
Geertz(1973): thick description. This essay is available through UConn library electronic access.
``From one point of view, that of the textbook, doing ethnography is establishing rapport, selecting informants, transcribing texts, taking genealogies, mapping fields, keeping a diary, and so on. But it is not these things, techniques and received procedures, that define the enterprise. What defines it is the kind of intellectual effort it is: an elaborate venture in, to borrow a notion from Gilbert Ryle, 'thick description'.''
``But the point is that between what Ryle calls the 'thin description' of what the rehearser (parodist, winker, twitcher \ldots) is doing ('rapidly contracting his right eyelids') and the 'thick description' of what he is doing ('practicing a burlesque of a friend faking a wink to deceive an innocent into thinking a conspiracy is in motion') lies the object of ethnography: a stratified hierarchy of meaningful structures in terms of which twitches, windks, fake-winks, parodies, rehearsals of parodies are produced, perceived and interpreted, and without which they would not (not even the zero-form twitches, which, \textit{as a cultural category}, are as much nonwinks as winks are nontwitches) exist, no matter what anyone did or didn't do with his eyelids.''
``\ldots culture is not a power, something to which social events, behaviors, institutions or processes can be causally attributed; it is a context, something within which they can be intelligibly--that is thickly--described'' (Isay thick description tuus means a description that conveys connotations as well as denotations, conveys not just a depiction of an event, but its ramifications in the culture)
A good interpretation of anything--a poem, a person, a history, a ritual, an institution, a society--takes us into the heart of that of which it is the interpretation.\\
Notes on silent television, and on radio are good practice.\\
Field notes are to be taken as soon as possible after observations occur, without intervening conversations or drinking.\\
Patton (2002) does not discuss basic or generic interpretive, buth find under his discussion of social construction and constructivism\\
basic/generic is not guided by an established philosophic assumption, and to avoid a common error,
we should carefully explain processes, procedures and analysis in relation to the purpose of the study (Patton 2002)\\
description is a key attribute of this approach\\}}
@misc{Grenier,
key={EDCI6000},
author={Robin Grenier},
title={Considerations for Making Choices Regarding Sample Size in Qualitative Studies},
howpublished={classnotes},
annote={process of selecting participants is generally evolving based on patterns, categories and dimensions emerging from the data, researchers see out participant who may be able to provide deeper insights, so when number of participants is fixed, it might happen that sample sizes have to be increased, and small-scale sampling}}
@misc{GrenierGT,
key={EDCI6000GT},
author={Robin Grenier},
title={GroundedTheory},
howpublished={classnotes},
annote={start with initial generative questions, expect them to be modified\\
from gathered data, identify core theoretical concepts\\
develop linkages between core theoretical concepts and data\\
maybe take months, expect to evolve toward one central core category\\
Use these strategies:\\
Coding, to categorize data, describe implications and details of categories\\
first open coding=see data in minute detail and develop initial categories\\
later selective coding=code systematically with respect to a core concept\\
Memoing: process of recording ideas as they evolve, think of as extensive marginal notes and comments\\
early memos are open, later memos focus in on the core concept\\
Integrative diagrams, discussion sessions: diagrams are any useful graphic, directed graphs are allowed,
multiple people talking to increase insight\\
this process eventually approaches conceptually dense theory because new observations lead to new linkages, which review the theory and stimulate more data collection, so one core category is identified and described in detail, ``Essentially the project ends when the researcher decides to quit.'', i.e., nothing new they want to add, finished product is extremely well-considered explanation for some phenomenon of interest --the grounded theory. This theory can be explained in words and is usually presented with much of the contextually relevant detail collected.
}}
@article{FQS466,
author = {Barbara Kawulich},
title = {Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method},
journal = {Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research},
volume = {6},
number = {2},
year = {2005},
keywords = {participant observation; qualitative research methods; field notes},
abstract = {Observation, particularly participant observation, has been used in a variety of disciplines as a tool for collecting data about people, processes, and cultures in qualitative research. This paper provides a look at various definitions of participant observation, the history of its use, the purposes for which it is used, the stances of the observer, and when, what, and how to observe. Information on keeping field notes and writing them up is also discussed, along with some exercises for teaching observation techniques to researchers-in-training.
URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502430},
issn = {1438-5627},
url = {http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466},
annote={Participant observation has been applied to education,
citing Bernard, 1994, that a certain amount of deception and impression management is needed\\
establishing rapport and learning to act in such a way as to blend into the community, so its members will act naturally, then remove so as to be able to concentrate on the collected data\\
not only passive observation but also natural conversations and other methods\\
characterized by having an open, nonjudgmental attitiude, \\
Fine (2003) is cited as stating that the observer is expected to become part of the group being studied to the extent that the members themselves include the observer in the activity\\
DeMunck and Sobo 1988 say a source of richly detailed description, \\
DeWalt and DeWalt 2002 say improves the quality of data collections and interpretation and facilitates the development of new research questions or hypotheses\\
Johnson and Sackett (1998) point out that what researchers find interesting to report on can govern the amount of effort they put into attending to it, producing a skewed representation of the culture, so systematic procedures are advocated\\
DeWalt and DeWalt (2002) note that gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class and theoretical approach may affect observation, analysis and interpretation\\
Schensul, Schensul and LeCompt (1999) mention appearance, ethnicity, age, gender and class as things affecting acceptance of the observer into the community\\
DeWalt, DeWalt and Wayland(1998) mention researcher bias, as does Ratner (2002) as a source of distortion of research results. Reflection on oneself is to be used to attempt to reduce this effect.\\
Schensul, Schensul and LeCompt (1999) suggest that accurate observation field notes without imposing preconceived categories from the researcher's theoretical perspective, to allow categories representative of the culture under study to emerge.\\
Gold (1958) has extended Junker's four theoretical stances: Complete participant, participant as observer, observers as participant and complete observer, which differ in degree of visibility of the research activity, and degree of visibility of the researcher, and the membership in the group of the person participating and researching.\\
The impact of the visible presence of the participant observer has been the concern of many. Merriam 1998, according to Kawulich, states that this is not the appropriate question; instead the question is how the observer is to account for those effects in explaining the data. (My thought on this is, it is a feedback control system of unknown order, and accounting for the effects is no simple matter.)
DeWalt and DeWalt(2002) and also Spradley (1980, pp. 58-62) and Adler and Adler(1987) all describe degrees of pariticpation and observation for the researcher role.\\
DeWalt and DeWalt(2002) state that in the report, the role taken by the researcher ``should be made clear''.\\
What to observe: observe enough to be able to sort the regular from the irregular\\
look for variation, to see the viewpoints\\
look for exceptions, negative cases\\
when finding data felicitous for the theoretical purposes, take note of the context, so as to be able to seek similar opportunities; be persistent\\
Wolcott(2001) Making good use of the opportunity for what's wanted to learn, and also, is what's wanted to learn the best thing to be learned from this opportunity?\\
DeMunck and Sobo, rapport is over time, it involves establishing a trusting relationship with the community, \\
active listening, showing respect and empathy, being truthful, showing a committment to th well-being of the community\\
How to observe: take notes on what is seen and heard\\
get (e.g., through interviews) hits about participants' insights about what's relevant\\
focus of different activities, to help delineate what's different among them\\
Merriam 1988 observation guide: includes physical environment, activities, interactions in the setting, their frequency and duration and subtle factors such as informal, unplanned activities, symbolic meaning, nonverbal communication, physical clues and absence of expected happenings, who speaks to whom, who listens, and silences, and how the researcher's role affects (though I think this is difficult to disentangle) those one is observing\\
need to occupy the context enough to achieve prolonged engagement, so as to achieve trustworthy findings see Lincoln and Guba 1994, time, interaction, (Isay quality time?)\\
Fennell: ask the informants to treat the researcher like a child who knew nothing, inviting researcher to activities that were important for understanding culture\\
Kottak 1994, enculturation is a process of learning and transmitting culture\\
DeWalt and DeWalt, informal interviewing, recording detailed field notes, \\
Angrosino and DePerez (2000) structured observation process\\
Bernard(1994) going into the field with prepared questions, checklist of data\\
}
}
@article{doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oab,
author = {Braun, Virginia and Clarke, Victoria},
title = {Using thematic analysis in psychology},
journal = {Qualitative Research in Psychology},
volume = {3},
number = {2},
pages = {77-101},
year = {2006},
doi = {10.1191/1478088706qp063oa},
URL = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa},
eprint = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa},
annote = {Phase 1 familiarize = read actively, search for meaning, start taking notes\\
put into written form\\
Phase 2 initial coding= identify a feature of data, develop a sense of what is a unit of meaning, which is different, samller than the unit of analysis or theme\\
equal attention to each data item\\
identify interesting aspects in the data items that may form the basis of repeated patterns (themes)\\
make sure all data extracts are coded, and collate the coded extracts\\
text segments can have many codes\\
a satisfactory thematic 'map' that will eventually be produced, an overall conceptualization of the data patterns, and relationship between them\\
phase 3 searching for themes\\
starts with long list of codes\\
refocus at higher level of abstraction, themes\\
analyze codes, think how to combine them into themes, maybe visuals,\\
different levels of themes, relationships among themes\\
Phase 4: reviewing themes\\
have a set of candidate themes, will refine them\\
is there enough data, or really not theme\\
can two be combined?\\
need to split a theme into 2?\\
consider internal homgeneity and external heterogenity\\
do all the coded extracts collated here belong together here?\\
fix first, then proceed: do candidate themes capture the contours of the coded extracts?\\
part 2 of phase 4 is review the themes with respect to one another, and for the dataset\\
phase 5, defining and naming themes, starts with thematic map\\
identify the essence of the theme by organizing the collated extracts into a coherent and internally consistent account, with accompanying narrative, identify what is of interest and why\\
for each theme, write a detailed analysis, tell its story and see how it fits into the overall story\\
concise punchy names, immediately communicative\\
phase 6: report\\
tell the compulicated story of your data in a way that convinces the reader of the merit and validity of your analysis,\\
choose particularly vivid examples,\\
embed withing an analytic narrative that compellingly illustrates the story your are telling about your data\\
go beyond descriptoin, make an argument in relation to the research question\\
good example: each theme is clearly linked back to the overall research question, but each is distinct\\
Ask: what does this theme mean?\\
what are the assumptions underpinning it?\\
what are the implications of this theme?\\
what conditions are likely to have given rise to it?\\
why do people talk about this thing in this way?\\
}}
@article{Shaw01122008,
author = {Shaw, Ian},
title = {Ethics and the Practice of Qualitative Research},
volume = {7},
number = {4},
pages = {400-414},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1177/1473325008097137},
abstract ={This article stems from a concern that relying only on codes of research ethics risks compartmentalizing ethical aspects of research, and shutting them off into a preamble to research. I explore ways in which the practice of qualitative research ethics is presented afresh and contextualized in distinct forms at every stage of research. I develop three linked arguments. First, the ethics of qualitative research design pose distinctive demands on principles of informed consent, confidentiality and privacy, social justice, and practitioner research. I focus on consent for its topicality, not because it is more important or difficult and social justice. Second, fieldwork ethics raise special considerations regarding power, reciprocity and contextual relevance. Third, ethical issues raised by the analysis and uses of qualitative inquiry evoke illustrative questions regarding the ethics of narrative research and the utilization of research.},
URL = {http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/7/4/400.abstract},
eprint = {http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/7/4/400.full.pdf+html},
journal = {Qualitative Social Work} ,
annote={ethics of qual. researhc design pose distinctive demands upon principles of informed consent, condigentiality and privacy, social justice and prctitioner research,\\
fieldwork ethics raise special considerations regarding power, recipricity and contextual relevance\\
ethical issues raised by the analysis and uses of qualitative inquiry evoke illustrative questions regarding the ethics of narrative research and the utilization of research\\
applies, in distinct forms, at each stage of research\\
there are personal ethics and research ethics, intellectual, professional and corporate ethics\\
Design: informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, social justice, practitioner research\\
fieldwork: special considerations of power, reciprocity and contextual relevance\\
analysis and use: narrative research, utilization of research\\
participants face the consequent risk of involuntary disclosure, and unwittingly the researcher becomes a covert investigator\\
covert evaluation is a dangerous example of covert social research\\
informed consent implies that the researcher knows before the event, though not so\\
issue of genuine voluntariness of consent\\
primarily researchers and secondarily advocates for participants\\
principles for moral basis of evaluation: moral equality, moral autonomy, impartiality and reciprocity, justice as prior\\
fair evaluation agreement: participants:\\
not be coerced\\
be able to argue their position\\
accept the terms under which the agreement is reached\\
negotiate. This is not simply a coincidence among individual choices\\
not pay excessive attention to one's own interests\\
adopnt an agreement that affects all equally\\
select a policy for evaluation that is in the interests of the group to which it applies\\
have equal and full information on relevant facts\\
avoid undue risk to participants arising from incompetent and arbitrary evaluations\\
examiners of research bids look for data about ethics issues\\
}
}
@book{Yin1994,
author={Robert K. Yin},
title={Case Study Research, Design and Methods},
edition=2,
publisher={Sage Publications},
annote={
This book is about case studies for research and publication, rather than for teaching in, e.g., law school.
The types of research question for which case study is the appropriate technique are those questions starting with ``How'', and ``Why'', so perhaps ``How did we figure out that the relevant items to students learning the pumping lemma include use of the contrapositive, and negation of statements using quantifiers?'', or ``Why didn't Makan learn the pumping lemma until now?''
Case study adds direct observation and systematic interviewing to methods available with historical data (primary and secondary documents, cultural and physical artifacts).
Reviewing literature on a topic serves to develop sharper and more insightful questions on it.
from p.15: ``And, yes, case studies have a distinctive place in evaluation research (gives references). there are at least five different applications. The most important is to explain the causal links in real-life interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies. In evaluation language, the explanations would link program implementation with program effects. \\
the case study strategy may be used to explore those siutation in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes.\\
Case study research is remarkably hard.\\}
}
You can’t perform that action at this time.