Editing Grounded theory (section)

==Methodology==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!'''Stage'''
!'''Purpose'''
|-
|''Codes''
| Identifying anchors that allow the key points of the data to be gathered
|-
|''Concepts''
| Collections of ''codes'' of similar content that allows the data to be grouped
|-
|''Categories''
| Broad groups of similar ''concepts'' that are used to generate a theory
|-
|''Theory''
| A collection of ''categories'' that detail the subject of the research
|-
|}
Once the data are collected, grounded theory analysis involves the following basic steps:

# Coding text and theorizing: In grounded theory research, the search for a theory starts with the first line of the first interview that one codes. Small chunks of the text are coded line-by-line. Useful concepts are identified where key phrases are marked. The concepts are named. Another chunk of text is then taken and the above-mentioned steps are continued. According to Strauss and Corbin,<ref name = "Strauss-Corbin 1990"/> this process is called [[open coding]]. The process involves analyzing data such that conceptual components emerge. The next step involves theorizing, which partly includes pulling concepts together and thinking through how each concept can be related to a larger more inclusive concept. The constant comparative method plays an important role here.
# Memoing and theorizing: Memoing is the process by which a researcher writes running notes bearing on each of the concepts being identified. The running notes constitute an intermediate step between coding and the first draft of the completed analysis. Memos are field notes about the concepts and insights that emerge from the observations. Memoing starts with the first concept identified and continues right through the processing of all the concepts. Memoing contributes to theory building. 
# Integrating, refining and writing up theories: Once coding categories emerge, the next step is to link them together in a theoretical model constructed around a central category that holds the concepts together. The constant comparative method comes into play, along with negative case analysis. Negative case analysis refers to the researcher looking for cases that are inconsistent with the theoretical model.

Theorizing is involved in all these steps. One is required to build and test theory all the way through till the end of a project.<ref>Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. California, CA: Sage Publication.</ref>

The idea that ''all is data'' is a fundamental property of grounded theory. The idea means that everything that the researcher encounters when studying a certain area is data, including not only interviews or observations but anything that helps the researcher generate concepts for the emerging theory. According to Ralph, Birks, and Chapman field notes can come from informal interviews, lectures, seminars, expert group meetings, newspaper articles, Internet mail lists, even television shows, conversations with friends etc.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Ralph|first1=N.|last2=Birks|first2=M.|last3=Chapman|first3=Y.|title=Contextual Positioning: Using Documents as Extant Data in Grounded Theory Research|journal=SAGE Open|date=29 September 2014|volume=4|issue=3|pages=215824401455242|doi=10.1177/2158244014552425|doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Coding ===
''Coding'' places incidents into categories and then creates one or more hierarchies out of these categories in terms of categories and subcategories or ''properties'' of a categories. A property might be on a continuum such as from low to high, this may be referred to as a ''dimension''.{{Efn|See the section: "The emergence of categories and their properties from the data" in:<ref name="sage-handbook">{{cite book|author1=Antony Bryant|author2=Kathy Charmaz|title=The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HlHHVV8qt4gC|date=23 August 2007|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4462-7572-6}}</ref>{{rp|p. 193}}  "It becomes possible to differentiate incidents in the data  or  text  passages  classified as  dealing  with  social  loss  according  to  the  subcategory ‘degree of social loss’ by forming further subcategories ‘high social loss,’ ‘medium  social  loss,’ and  ‘low  social  loss.’ The  whole  range  or  set  of  these three subcategories then represents a theoretical property of the category social loss."|name=|group=}} ''Constant comparison'' where categories are continually compared to one another is used to create both subcategories and properties.{{Efn|"The purpose of  constant  comparison  is  to  see  if  the  data  support  and  continue  to  support merging categories. At the same time, the process further builds and substantiates the  emerging  categories  by  defining  their  properties  and  dimensions" <ref name="sage-handbook"/> {{rp|277}}|name=|group=}} There is some variation in the meanings of the terms code, concept and category with some authors viewing a code as identical to category while others consider a concept to be more abstract than a code, which a code being more like a ''substantive code''.{{Efn|See the section "Codes, categories, concepts" of <ref name="sage-handbook" />|name=|group=}} Different researchers have identified different types of codes and encourage different methods of coding, with Strauss and Glaser both going on to extend their work with different forms of coding.

The core variable explains most of the participants' main concern with as much variation as possible. It has the most powerful properties to picture what's going on, but with as few properties as possible needed to do so. A popular type of core variable can be theoretically modeled as a ''basic social process'' that accounts for most of the variation in change over time, context, and behavior in the studied area.
"grounded theory is multivariate. It happens sequentially, subsequently, simultaneously, serendipitously, and scheduled" (Glaser, 1998).

''Open coding'' or ''substantive coding'' is conceptualizing on the first level of abstraction. Written data from field notes or transcripts are conceptualized line by line. In the beginning of a study everything is coded in order to find out about the problem and how it is being resolved. The coding is often done in the margin of the field notes.
This phase is often tedious since it involves conceptualizing all the incidents in the data, which yields many concepts. These are compared as more data is coded, merged into new concepts, and eventually renamed and modified.
The grounded theory researcher goes back and forth while comparing data, constantly modifying, and sharpening the growing theory at the same time they follow the build-up schedule of grounded theory's different steps.

Strauss and Corbin proposed ''[[axial coding]]'' and defined it in 1990 as "a set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories."<ref name = "Strauss-Corbin 1990">Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). ''Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques''. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</ref>  Glaser proposed a similar concept called ''theoretical coding.'' Theoretical codes help to develop an integrated theory by weaving fractured concepts into hypotheses that work together. The theory, of which the just-mentioned hypotheses are constituents, explains the main concern of the participants. It is, however, important that the theory is not forced on the data beforehand but is allowed to emerge during the comparative process of grounded theory. Theoretical codes, like substantive codes, should emerge from the process of constantly comparing the data in field notes and memos.

''Selective coding'' is conducted after the researcher has found the core variable or what is thought to be the tentative core. The core explains the behavior of the participants in addressing their main concern. The tentative core is never wrong. It just more or less fits with the data.
After the core variable is chosen, researchers selectively code data with the core guiding their coding, not bothering about concepts of little relevance to the core and its sub-cores. In addition, the researcher now selectively samples new data with the core in mind, a process that is called ''theoretical sampling'' – a deductive component of grounded theory.
Selective coding delimits the scope of the study (Glaser, 1998). Grounded theory is less concerned with data accuracy than with generating concepts that are abstract and general. 
Selective coding could be conducted by reviewing old field notes and/or memos that have already been coded once at an earlier stage or by coding newly gathered data.

Strauss and Corbin proposed a "coding paradigm" that involved "conditions, context, action/interactional strategies and consequences."<ref name = "Strauss-Corbin 1990"/>

===Memoing===
''Theoretical memoing'' is "the core stage of grounded theory methodology" (Glaser 1998).
"Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about substantive codes and their theoretically coded relationships as they emerge during coding, collecting and analyzing data, and during memoing" (Glaser 1998).

Memoing is also important in the early phase of a grounded theory study (e.g., during open coding). In memoing, the researcher conceptualizes incidents, helping the process along. Theoretical memos can be anything written or drawn in the context of the constant comparative method, an important component of grounded theory.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Savin-Baden, M. |author2=Major, C.|title=Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|location=London and New York|isbn=978-0-415-67478-2|url=http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415674782/}}</ref> 
''Memos'' are important tools to both refine and keep track of ideas that develop when researchers compare incidents to incidents and then concepts to concepts in the evolving theory. In memos, investigators develop ideas about naming concepts and relating them to each other. They examine relationships between concepts with the help of fourfold tables, diagrams, figures, or other means generating comparative power.

Without memoing, the theory is superficial and the concepts generated are not very original. Memoing works as an accumulation of written ideas into a bank of ideas about concepts and how they relate to each other. This bank contains rich parts of what will later be the written theory.
Memoing is total creative freedom without rules of writing, grammar or style (Glaser 1998). The writing must be an instrument for outflow of ideas, and nothing else. When people write memos, the ideas become more realistic, being converted from thoughts into words, and thus ideas communicable to the afterworld.

In grounded theory the ''preconscious processing'' that occurs when coding and comparing is recognized. The researcher is encouraged to register ideas about the ongoing study that eventually pop up in everyday situations, and awareness of the [[serendipity]] of the method is also necessary to achieve good results.

===Serendipity pattern===
Building on the work of sociologist [[Robert K. Merton]],<ref>Merton, R.K. (1949). ''Social theory and social structure''. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.</ref> his idea of ''serendipity patterns'' has come to be applied in grounded theory research. Serendipity patterns refer to fairly common experiences when observing the world. Serendipity patterns include unanticipated and anomalous events. These patterns can become the impetus for the development of a new theory or the extension of an existing theory. Merton also coauthored (with Elinor Barber) ''The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity'',<ref>Merton, R.K., & Barber, E. (2003). ''The travels and adventures of serendipity: A study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science''. Princeton: Princeton University Press.</ref> which traces the origins and uses of the word "serendipity" since it was coined. The book is "a study in sociological semantics and the sociology of science," as the subtitle declares. Merton and Barber further develop the idea of serendipity as scientific "method," as contrasted with purposeful discovery by experiment or retrospective prophecy.

===Sorting===
In the next step memos are sorted, which is the key to formulating a theory that could be clearly presented to others. ''Sorting'' puts fractured data back together. During sorting new ideas can emerge. The new ideas can, in turn, be recorded in new memos, giving rise to the memo-on-memos phenomenon. Sorting memos can help generate theory that explains the main action in the studied area. A theory written from unsorted memos may be rich in ideas but the connections among concepts are likely to be weak.

===Writing===
''Writing up'' the sorted memos follows the sorting process. At this stage, a written theory takes shape. The different categories are now related to each other and the core variable. The theory should encompass the important emergent concepts and their careful description. The researcher may also construct tables and/or figures to optimize readability.

In a later ''rewriting'' stage, the relevant scholarly literature is woven into the theory. Finally, the theory is edited for style and language. Eventually, the researcher submits the resulting scholarly paper for publication. Most books on grounded theory do not explain what methodological details should be included in a scholarly article; however, some guidelines have been suggested.<ref>Stol, K., Ralph, P. & Fitzgerald, B. (2016) Grounded Theory Research in Software Engineering: A Critical Review and Guidelines? Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering. Austin, Texas: ACM, May.</ref>

===No pre-research literature review and no talk===
Grounded theory gives the researcher freedom to generate new concepts in explaining human behavior.<ref name="Glaser-Strauss" /> Research based on grounded theory, however, follows a number of rules. These rules make grounded theory different from most other methods employed in qualitative research.

''No pre-research literature review.'' Reviewing the literature of the area under study is thought to generate preconceptions about what to find. The researcher is said to become sensitized to concepts in the extant literature. According to grounded theory, theoretical concepts should emerge from the data unsullied by what has come before. The literature should only be read at the sorting stage and be treated as more data to code and compared with what has already been coded and generated.

''No talk.'' Talking about the theory before it is written up drains the researcher of motivational energy. Talking can either render praise or criticism. Both can diminish the motivational drive to write memos that develop and refine the concepts and the theory.<ref name="Glaser, 1998"/> Positive feedback, according to Glaser, can make researchers content with what they have and negative feedback hampers their self-confidence. Talking about the grounded theory should be restricted to persons capable of helping the researcher without influencing their final judgments.<ref name="Glaser, 1998"/>