Staying True to the Data A Visual and Quantitative Approach to Showcase Coding Rigour and Theoretical Saturation
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper describes a data-based and transparent approach that was followed during classic grounded theory data analysis to ensure rigor and theoretical saturation. Firstly, a visual approach was followed to ensure that the theory discovery stayed as close to the story told by the data set as possible, thus ensuring both rigor and accuracy. Secondly, process data in the form of a coding rate time study and theoretical contribution rate, were tracked to monitor theoretical saturation objectively. The presented approach offers a novel approach to showcasing classic grounded theory rigor during the data coding process, as well as a way to prove that theoretical saturation was reached. The approach presented in this paper thus provides grounded theory researchers with a way in which to both ensure and defend the rigor and accuracy of their research.
Downloads
Article Details
The Grounded Theory Review is an open-access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the international Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.
References
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, 2, 347-365.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.
Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory: A practical guide for management, business, and market researchers,[e-book]. Available through: LUSEM Library website http://www.lusem. lu. se/library.
Hallberg, L. R. (2006). The “core category” of grounded theory: Making constant comparisons. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 1(3), 141-148.
Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2015). Contrasting classic, Straussian, and constructivist grounded theory: Methodological and philosophical conflicts. The Qualitative Report, 20(8), 1270-1289.
Thomson, S. B. (2011). Sample size and grounded theory.
Urquhart, C. (2019). Grounded theory’s best kept secret: The ability to build theory. The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory, 89-106.
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information systems journal, 20(4), 357-381.
Vander Linden, K. L., & Palmieri, P. A. (2023). Developing a classic grounded theory research study protocol: A primer for doctoral students and novice researchers. Grounded Theory Review, 22(01), 23-40.
Vander Linden, K. L., & Palmieri, P. A. (2021). Criteria for Assessing a Classic Grounded Theory Study: A Brief Methodological Review with Minimum Reporting Recommendations. Grounded Theory Review, 20(2).
Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2017). How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 714-725.