Demo

["Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 79 3.3 Comparing the Three Types of Grounded Theory Research This section has discussed the underpinning research philosophies of conducting grounded theory research. Principally, a researcher choosing this method prefers its speci\ufb01c characteristics to suit the studies regarding the systematic, iterative theory-building process and the variable-oriented investigative focus and expects to deliver a theory developed in the form of an emerging causal explanation. Concerning the \ufb02exibility of designs, which is the fundamental property of qualitative research, grounded theory as a research methodology can o\ufb00er di\ufb00erent methods for practical investigation due to the various ontological and epistemological stances chosen by the researcher. This section has discussed the debates on this matter and then eventually presented the classi\ufb01cation of methods into three designs: positivist, pragmatic and constructivist grounded theory, see Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Alternatives for Doing Grounded Theory Research Source: the author. Fundamentally, the three types of grounded theory study similarly use iterative attempts to codify and systematize the traditional implicit practice of qualitative data analysis into producing explicit theoretical statements. However, it is essential that a grounded theory researcher speci\ufb01cally choose a grounded theory type claimed as the most suitable for the proposed study. Given the di\ufb00erent histories of development, this speci\ufb01c choice will a\ufb00ect the practical conduct of the grounded theory method regarding the data analysis and how the researcher \ufb01nalizes the theory development as the study\u2019s outcome. Notwithstanding the departed directions, the three types of grounded theory study similarly attempt to codify and systematize qualitative data analysis using the technique for a theory-based analysis approach (Patton, 2002). According to Corbin and Strauss (2015) the typical characteristic of grounded theory is a procedure of theorizing, which entails not only conceiving or intuiting ideas (concepts) but also formulating them into a logical, systematic, and explanatory scheme. Thus, the vital processes of theoretical sampling,","80 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory constant comparison, variable-oriented, iterative theory-building, and the essence of emerging theoretical saturation remain in all grounded theory studies, regardless of the speci\ufb01c direction chosen by the grounded theory researcher. Based on the clari\ufb01cation previously provided in Table 3.1, Table 3.2, o\ufb00ers an extended explanation of the comprehensive philosophical characteristics of the three alternatives of grounded theory study. Despite all the three types adopt similar grounded theory procedure, the di\ufb00erent speci\ufb01cation of underpinning philosophies will lead to di\ufb00erent expected results hence the critical debates on the research evaluation criteria. Table 3.2: Philosophical Underpinnings in Di\ufb00erent Grounded Theory Designs Source: the author. 3.4 Chapter Summary and Key Terms The chapter discussed diverse philosophical underpinnings of the grounded theory methodology. It presented that di\ufb00erent research paradigms led to the classi\ufb01cation of three grounded theory types: classical, pragmatic and constructivist. It is very important that once","Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 81 grounded theory is chosen as an appropriate method, the researcher needs to specify their underpinning philosophies and clarify the type of grounded theory study they propose as the research project. The next chapter will deal with using the grounded theory method in practice. It will outline the design and management of the grounded theory study. Key Terms Classical grounded theory, 74 Interpretive pragmatism, 72 Constructivist grounded theory, 77 Pragmatic grounded theory, 74 Glaserian grounded theory, 82 Straussian grounded theory, 74 3.5 Exercises 1. Explain the di\ufb00erences between classical, pragmatic, and constructivist grounded theory studies. 2. Explain Glassarian grounded theory. 3. Explain Straussian grounded theory. 4. Considering the three types of grounded theory study, answer the following questions: \u2022 Which type(s) believe in \ufb01nding the objective meaning of those being investigated? \u2022 Which type(s) is rooted in the Interpretivism epistemological paradigm? \u2022 Which type(s) accepts the researcher\u2019s subjective values and biases to inevitably include in interpreting the social meaning of those being studied? 5. Assuming you have chosen the grounded theory method to investigate the in\ufb02uences of Thailand\u2019s national economic development concept, known as Thailand 4.0, on the business adaptations of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism industry. Finish the tasks below: \u2022 Discuss and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of your proposed project: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. \u2022 Considering your answers, do you expect to deliver a formal or substantive grounded theory as the research outcome? Explain.","82 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Appendix: Practical Examples Case 3.1: Classical Case 3.1: Classical Grounded Theory in Management Research Grounded Theory in Case 3.1 is a practical example of how supply chain research Management Research discussed philosophical underpinnings leading to the design \\\"Grounded theory: an and employment of a grounded theory study. Randall (2012) inductive method for supply conducted supply chain research using a grounded theory chain research\\\" method. The study chose grounded theory as an appropriate method concerning its inductive and holistic approach. The use of grounded theory allowed the investigation to fully understand the behaviors associated with the studied phenomena, which is a complex behavioral dimension at the individual and organizational levels involving supply chain management. As part of the methodological design, the researcher discuss the underpinning research paradigms. The thorough consideration helped the researcher position the study\u2019s investigative perspectives: either to rely on objective or subjective determinants or to choose quantitative or qualitative methods. Eventually, the researcher decided to position in the classical grounded theory, also known as the Glaserian grounded theory, and chose qualitative research as an appropriate method. After the researcher chose to conduct a classical grounded theory using qualitative data, the study designed the process \ufb01lled with essential elements of the classic pattern of grounded theory to comprise multi-phase data collections, memos writing, and constant continuing constant comparisons. Then, as part of the research publication, the researcher clari\ufb01ed the step-by-step of the grounded theory process as a two- dimensional \ufb02ow moving back and forth through the analysis and comparing concepts articulated by study participants. The eventual outcome was an emerging theory with the possibility to further theoretical sampling to test the theory before declaring its saturation.","Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 83 Case 3.2: Pragmatic Grounded Theory in Economics Research Case 3.2: Pragmatic Grounded Theory in Case 3.2 is an empirical economics research by Turek and Economics Research Krupnik (2014). The researchers followed Str\u00fcbing (2007, \\\"Using Pragmatic Grounded p.595)\u2019s logic of inquiry in pragmatic grounded theorya then Theory in the Evaluation of employed pragmatic grounded theory in the evaluation of Public Policies\\\" public policies in Poland. See also Case 3.2 Table Turek and Krupnik (2014, p.35) conducted an empirical study asking, \u201cwhat was the real in\ufb02uence of investment subsidies on the national economy?\u201d The researchers chose a pragmatic grounded theory design and collected data from small and medium enterprises in Poland. The theory- building processes were claimed to include inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning throughout the data collection and analysis. Eventually, the theory was constructed as presented in Case 3.2 Table. aSee page 76, Figure 3.3 of this chapter has presented the details of the logic of inquiry in pragmatic grounded theory.","84 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Case 3.2 Table: Production of Results in Pragmatic Grounded Theory Study Source: Based on Turek and Krupnik (2014, p.42). Explanation: Case 3.2 Table is a practical example of pragmatic grounded theory. Turek and Krupnik (2014) used the grounded theory method with an open-mindedness to not only the theory development but also the \ufb02exible process. As part of the iterative process, the researcher discovered various incomplete observations that needed further data starting from the early coding process of the observation. The researcher allowed this incomplete process, known as abductive reasoning, to guide possible hypothetical explanations as part of the theoretical sampling. Then later, \ufb01nd the veri\ufb01cation methods before completing the earlier version of the hypothetical explanation. This process is considered consistent with the logic of pragmatic grounded theory, in which the emerging approach is as equal importance as the emerging theory development.","Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 85 Case 3.3: Pragmatic Grounded Theory in Management Research Case 3.3: Pragmatic from Thailand Grounded Theory in Management Research Case 3.3 is a practical example of management research from from Thailand Thailand using a pragmatic grounded theory. \\\"The Study of The De\ufb01nition And Market Potential for Kolkitchaiwan and Siriwong (2016) used the grounded Premium Soy Milk for theory method to explore the de\ufb01nition and market potential Premium Soy Milk: a Study for premium soy milk. The \ufb01rst research aimed to identify the of Grounded Theory\\\" meaning of premium soy milk brand grounding in customers\u2019 perception in the context of Thailand. The second aim was to forecast and identify a potential marketing mix and its elements that allow the creation of a new premium market segment for the future aging population. The researchers collected research data using multiple phases of the data collection with three tools: focus group discussion, observation, and not taking. The researcher claimed to minimize the researcher\u2019s biases in the data analysis. This claim is an essential characteristic of pragmatic grounded theory. While trying to interpret the data from the observed individuals\u2019 perspectives, the researchers tried to exclude their biases using various research triangulation techniques, including data, investigator, and theoretical triangulation. The primary reason for excluding the researcher\u2019s biases from the theory building was relevant to the research\u2019s aim of focusing on the customer\u2019s perspectives in the selected market. Eventually, this management-grounded theory research delivered study outcomes as a substantive theory claimed to de\ufb01ne premium soymilk products for the future aging population sector. The researcher proposed thirteen dimensions required for a soy milk product to be considered premium in the soymilk industry of Thailand.","86 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Case 3.4: Constructivist Case 3.4: Constructivist Grounded Theory in Management Research Grounded Theory in Case 3.4 is a practical example of a constructivist grounded Management Research theory considering that the researcher claimed to include their \\\"Grounded in Practice: Using subjective perceptions while trying to make sense of the studied Interpretive Research to problem. Build Theory\\\" In grounded theory research by Rowlands (2005), the researcher claimed the epistemological stance as an interpretive analysis of the texts drawn from the empirical research data sources. The empirical case selected for this research was a training program o\ufb00ered for companies in the Information Technology Industry. The program was provided for employees with recognized quali\ufb01cations and competencies in networking, communications equipment, and personal computer (PC) hardware implementation. Rowlands (2005) aimed to examine why of the participation decision-making behavior and the mechanics of the how within the particular context of the research question regarding the problem of a lack of employer participation in the national scheme for promoting employee\u2019s skills in the IT industry in Australia. The research speci\ufb01cally focused on understanding the inquired decision-making behavior in small and medium- sized enterprises. This research project was considered an interpretive constructivist grounded theory regarding the researcher\u2019s claim on choosing the interpretive grounded theory to allow the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is being explored and the situational constraints shaping this. The claim is consistent with the de\ufb01nition of the constructivism paradigm, as pointed out by Bryant (2017), believing that both researcher and research participant construct the knowledge to interpret the empirical evidence within the research context. The researcher designed eight steps throughout the three investigative phases, the researcher claimed the intimacy of the researcher\u2019s analytic viewpoints to include in interpreting the observed behavior of those studied individuals. The acceptance of this involvement in trying to make sense of the studied phenomenon as interpreted from the insider\u2019s viewpoint is a critical characteristic of constructivist grounded theory in which the researcher\u2019s interpretive perspective is accepted to inevitably included.","Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 87 References \u00c5ge, L. (2014) \u2018Grounded Theory Methodology: Positivism, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism\u2019, The Qualitative Report. doi: 10.46743\/2160-3715\/2011.1319. Alammar, F. M. et al. (2018) \u2018Grounded Theory in Practice: Novice Researchers\u2019 Choice Between Straussian and Glaserian\u2019, Journal of Management Inquiry. SAGE Publications Inc, 28(2), pp. 228\u2013245. doi: 10.1177\/1056492618770743. Bryant, A. (2017) Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford University Press. Cassiani, S. H., Caliri, M. H. and Pel\u00e1, N. T. (1996) \u2018Grounded theory as an approach to interpretive research\u2019, Revista latino-americana de enfermagem. Brazil, 4(3), pp. 75\u201388. doi: 10.1590\/s0104-11691996000300007. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications (Introducing Qualitative Methods series). Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Core textbook). Finch, J. H. (2002) \u2018The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory\u2019, Journal of Economic Methodology. Routledge, 9(2), pp. 213\u2013234. doi: 10.1080\/13501780210137119. Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine (Observations (Chicago, Ill.)). Glaser, B. G. (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press (Advances in the methodology of grounded theory). Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers. SAGE Publications. Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C. A. (2019) \u2018Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research\u2019, Social Sciences. doi: 10.3390\/socsci8090255. Kolkitchaiwan, P. and Siriwong, P. (2016) \u2018The Study of The De\ufb01nition And Market Potential for Premium Soy Milk for Premium Soy Milk: a Study of Grounded Theory\u2019, Journal of Nakornratchasima College, 10(2), pp. 72\u201384. Levers, M.-J. (2013) \u2018Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence\u2019, Sage Open, 3. doi: 10.1177\/2158 244013517243. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series).","88 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications. Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006) \u2018The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory\u2019, International Journal of Qualitative Methods. SAGE Publications Inc, 5(1), pp. 25\u201335. doi: 10.1177\/160940690600500103. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications. Randall, W. S. (2012) \u2018Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Research\u2019, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8\/9), pp. 863\u2013880. Str\u00fcbing, J. (2007) \u2018Research as pragmatic problem-solving: the pragmatist roots of empirically-grounded theorizing.\u2019, in Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds) The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 580\u2013601. doi: 10.4135\/9781848607941. Timonen, V., Foley, G. and Conlon, C. (2018) \u2018Challenges When Using Grounded Theory: A Pragmatic Introduction to Doing GT Research\u2019, International Journal of Qualitative Methods. SAGE Publications Inc, 17(1), p. 1609406918758086. doi: 10.1177\/1609406918758086. Turek, K. and Krupnik, S. (2014) \u2018Using Pragmatic Grounded Theory in the Evaluation of Public Policies\u2019, Zarz\u0105dzanie Publiczne, 2(28), pp. 32\u201348. doi: 10.7366\/1898352922803. Wertz, F. J. et al. (2011) Five Ways of Doing Qualitative Analysis: Phenomenological Psychology, Grounded Theory, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Research, and Intuitive Inquiry. Guilford Publications.","PART II Grounded Theory in Practice","","C4 Qualitative Data 4.1 Introduction In this Chapter: Interviews, page 93 The previous part of this book outlined philosophical discussions to Focus group discussions, guide economics and management researchers in determining when page 95 to consider using qualitative approaches. It then speci\ufb01cally guided Observations, page 98 when the grounded theory study should be considered as an Documentary analysis, appropriate method for their research. This second part will guide the page 100 researchers on the design and management of the grounded theory Audiovisual resources, method in practice. page 102 Practical example, Given the philosophical discussions in the previous part of the page 106 book, emphasis has been placed on the rationale for selecting qualitative grounded theory as an appropriate method for economics and management research. In order to prepare the ground for doing grounded theory research in practice, which is the purpose of this second part of the book, this chapter will provide details on various types of qualitative data and di\ufb00erent techniques for collecting the data. Considering that research questions usually shape subsequent data and analysis, the researchers must carefully consider why and how to gather the required, su\ufb03cient and abundant data. Selecting appropriate data sources is known as the process of instrumentation (Miles et al., 2014). The quality and credibility begin with its data. The breadth and depth of the data are signi\ufb01cant. A study with abundant, substantial, and pertinent data is recognized as well-conducted, reliable and strengthened in terms of credibility. The chapter will begin by stressing the advantages of adopting the grounded theory method to approach qualitative data needed for pursing qualitative analysis. Then, the following section will outline","92 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data qualitative data sources that are frequently used in qualitative research. The essential advantage 4.2 Qualitative Grounded Theory Study of the grounded theory method is that more There is one signi\ufb01cant advantage qualitative researchers have over permits the pursuit of quantitative investigators. While gathering data, they can add new emerging leads, compared pieces to the research puzzle or create new puzzles, which can occur to other qualitative even late in the analysis. The adaptability of qualitative research methods. permits the pursuit of emerging leads. Grounded theory methods The critical criticisms increase this adaptability and provide greater focus than other on the higher level methods. Utilized e\ufb00ectively, grounded theory expedites the process of adaptability of of understanding clearly what is occurring in the data without grounded theory relate sacri\ufb01cing the speci\ufb01city of enacted scenes. Like a camera with to questionable separation multiple lenses, the landscape is initially viewed in its entirety. The of facts and values. researcher then switches lenses numerous times to bring scenes closer and closer into view. Despite the advantage, qualitative grounded theory researchers also need to be aware of possible criticism against the adaptability perceived as a negative quality of the research\u2019s credibility. Most critical arguments are from the positivist tradition. Positivist methods assumed an impartial and passive observer who collected facts but did not contribute to their creation, the separation of facts and values. The existence of an external world distinct from scienti\ufb01c observers and their methods is the accumulation of generalizable knowledge about this world. Positivism prompted a search for valid instruments, technical procedures, replicable research designs, and veri\ufb01able quantitative information. Positivists viewed as valid only narrowly scienti\ufb01c, that is, quantitative, modes of knowing; they rejected other possible modes of knowing, such as through interpreting meanings or intuitive realizations. Therefore, qualitative research that analyzed and interpreted the meanings of research participants sparked debates regarding its scienti\ufb01c value. Furthermore, qualitative research can be viewed as impressionistic, anecdotal, unsystematic, and biased. Nonetheless, the arguments for and against the adaptable qualitative processes are less retaliatory in economics and management research (Jemna, 2016; Oast and De Allegri, 2018; Radovi\u0107-Markovi\u0107 and Alecchi, 2016). The two disciplines are signi\ufb01cantly involved with human problems. Many scholars, including those believing in the positivist paradigm, accept that some human problems and research questions may not \ufb01t positivistic research designs, and they were not to be overlooked due to the emphasis placed on replication and veri\ufb01cation. If quanti\ufb01cation proponents acknowledged qualitative research at all, they viewed it as a preliminary step in re\ufb01ning quantitative instruments.","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 93 It is common that, in qualitative research, multiple techniques1 are frequently employed to gather and collect data in diverse forms seen as social proof of the examined phenomenon for theory-building research, which is exploratory by nature (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). For instance, some quantitative researchers utilized interviews or observations to design more accurate surveys or e\ufb00ective experiments. Additionally, Patton (2014) supports the idea that no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective on the investigation. For this reason, most qualitative researchers use various data-gathering and collection techniques. The following section will provide details on the various qualitative data sources commonly used in economics and management research. 4.3 Qualitative Data Sources Qualitative data are presented in various ways since they include many kinds of human communications, actions, interactions, perspectives and other qualities which are not necessarily countable and quanti\ufb01able. For instance, these materials include audio and visual recordings, written materials, photographs, motion pictures, web pages, anthropological participant observation, radio and television broadcasts, archives, interview transcripts, memos, and research \ufb01eld notes (Miles et al., 2014). This section will outline various sorts of qualitative data can be classi\ufb01ed into \ufb01ve fundamental groups: interviews, focus group discussions, observations, documents, and audiovisual resources. The section will provide details, characteristics and the analysis of instrumentation actions on the \ufb01ve sorts of qualitative data. 4.3.1 Interviews There are three types of interviews commonly used by qualitative Three types of interview: researchers: structured, semi-structured, and non-structured. 1. Strcutured interviews Di\ufb00erent interviews have di\ufb00erent levels of \ufb02exibility, speci\ufb01city, and 2. Unstrcutred interviews standardization of contact with the respondents (Corbetta, 2011). The 3. Semi-structured selection of interview type should be based on the study\u2019s objectives as interviews. each kind serves di\ufb00erent purposes for data collecting (Kumar, 2010). An explanation of each interview type is provided below: 1See Case 4.1, \\\"Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\\\" by Chanthes (2021) at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example from Thailand.","94 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Structured interview uses Structured Interviews standardized questions A collection of standardized questions are used to conduct structured listed for closed \ufb01xed interviews. Both closed \ufb01xed response and standardized open-ended responses and allow open- questions are employed in this form of interview (Patton, 2014). In ended answers. addition, this interview type is typically used to substitute Unstructured and semi- self-completion questionnaires in quantitative studies (Bryman, 2021). structured interviews are In practice, despite the \ufb01xed question, these interview questions the two types of in-depth usually require the researcher to directly communicate with the interviews. respondents, e.g. asking questions one by one and recording the The key di\ufb00erence between respondents\u2019 answers. By doing so, the interviewer must explain any unstructured and semi- complex items on the questionnaire that the responder could \ufb01nd structured interviews is confusing. a formality: the former is usually informal, while the Although structured interviews are employed when the inquiry latter is typically a formal covers a wide range of disciplinary topics (Corbetta (2011), some organization. scholars (Bryman, 2021; Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) \ufb01nd that a set of standardized open-ended questions provide limited room to produce exploratory or emerging data and my not \ufb01t how and why questions. Nonetheless, the key advantage of using \ufb01xed and structured questions is ensuring all the topics and issues listed as signi\ufb01cant to the researcher questions are asked. If the researcher requires deeper details to emerge, they can opt for the other two types of interviews: unstructured and semi-structured. These two alternatives are both recognized as in-depth interviews intending to promote data generation from the respondent\u2019s viewpoints which may be beyond the researcher\u2019s ingenuity concerning the topics and subject areas relevant to the research. The critical di\ufb00erence between these two in-depth interviews is the predominance of content and the format of the interview questions, which will be discussed next. An unstructured interview Unstructured Interviews uses go-with-the-\ufb02ow Unstructured interview entails a complicated exchange of information interview technique; between interviewers and interviewees to learn more about their no listed questions are thought processes, social environments, and personal experiences. required. Researchers conduct mostly unstructured interviews, which are Unstructured interviews di\ufb00erent from scheduled interviews yet similar to casual chats. often uses a guide for predetermined speci\ufb01c Unstructured interviews are relaxed, casual conversations in themes or subjects to create which the subjects may not even be aware that they are being informal conversations. questioned (Patton, 2014). An established list of questions is not used in unstructured interviews. Instead, interviewers adopt a \\\"go with the \ufb02ow\\\" conversation style determined by their function in the \ufb01eld environment, as described by Patton. On the other hand, semi-structured interviews employ a written guide to concentrate the interview on speci\ufb01c subjects or issues. Before the interview, the topic","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 95 guide is created, and interviewers tend to stick to the predetermined themes. Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured interview In semi-structured interviews , also referred to as the interview guide requires the researcher to approach (Patton, 2014), the researcher predetermines the content but prepare a pre-determined not the form of the interview; in spite of predetermined questions, the content of a formal order of questions and the interview conversation may di\ufb00er from conversation to stimulate one respondent to the next. According to Corbetta (2011), in an emerging data generation unstructured interview, only a predetermined topic serves as a guide under the prede\ufb01ned scope for the interview discourse; neither the interview\u2019s shape nor its of the content. substance is preset. A semi-structured interview is referred to by Burgess (2015, p.84) as \\\"conversations with a purpose\\\" as he outlines the characteristics of this interview type as follows: \u2022 The interviewer and respondents engage in a formal interview. \u2022 An interview guide is required. The interviewer must prepare the guide and provide it to the respondent before the interview starts. The interview conversation must cover the listed open- ended questions and subjects, usually in the speci\ufb01ed sequence. \u2022 The questions listed usually are open-ended and de\ufb01ned by the topic under investigation. The open-ended questioning should allow opportunities for both the interviewer and the respondents to discuss more details, aspects or additional angles of the data emerging during the interviews. \u2022 The interviewer follows the prepared script. Then, when appropriate, they should be able to follow the leads of data towards any relevant lines of the enquires pertinent to the context of the live conversation. Grounded theory researchers are advised to use in-depth Similarities between in- interviews, either unstructured or semi-structured, to allow emerging depth interviews and focus data generation (Bryant, 2017). Agreeing, Jemna (2016) provided group discussions: scholarly dialogues on emphasizing the use of these two interview 1. The propensity to reveal types as e\ufb00ective data generation techniques for economics research the perceptions and values using qualitative or mixed methods. of individuals 2. A making conversations 4.3.2 Focus Group Discussions environment. Many scholars de\ufb01ne focus groups as synonymous with interviews: some refer to this data collection technique as a type of in-depth interview (Mishra, 2016), while some indicate it as a group interview","96 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data The crucial distinction (Morgan, 2012). Similarities between these tools include their between in-depth propensity to reveal the perceptions and values of individuals and the interviews and focus \ufb01eldwork setting to foster a making conversations environment. group discussions is the Thus, in some circumstances, researchers have confused and muddled moderator: in-depth these two methods in some instances. interviews do not have moderators while these However, although they share some similarities, focus group actors is a requisite in focus discussions are not identical to in-depth interviews (Smithson, 2000). group settings. For the in-depth interview method, existing information on the function of the researcher and the relationship with the participants indicates, however, that there is a fundamental distinction between the two methods. Interviews are qualitative, in-depth, one-on-one discussions in which the researcher assumes the position of investigator. This procedure suggests that the researcher asks questions, directs the dynamics of the discussion, or converses with a single individual at a time. In contrast, researchers assume the position of facilitator or moderator during a focus group discussion. In this context, the researcher facilitates or moderates a group conversation amongst participants rather than between the researcher and participants. In contrast to interviews, the researcher assumes a peripheral rather than a central role in a focus group discussion. O.Nyumba et al. (2018, p.24) recognize seven types of focus group discussions. The \ufb01rst \ufb01ve types were typical techniques having been identi\ufb01ed in the literature. The last two have increasingly been used concerning the growth in access and variety of online platforms. An explanation of each type is provided below: 1. Single Focus Group: A single focus group\u2019s main characteristic is the interactive discussion of a topic by a group of all participants and a team of facilitators in one location. The most typical and traditional style of focus group discussion is this type. 2. Two-way Focus Group: Two moderators intentionally take opposite positions on a subject or topic under investigation. To achieve a more comprehensive disclosure of data and information, proponents think introducing opposing viewpoints by moderators is essential. 3. Dual Moderator Focus Group: This method consists of two moderators collaborating. Each performs a distinct function inside the same focus group. The distribution of roles ensures that the session \ufb02ows smoothly and that all topics are covered. 4. Duelling Moderator Focus Group: This focus group discussion involves two moderators who adopt con\ufb02icting","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 97 positions on an issue or topic being investigated. In order to get a more thorough exposure to data and information, proponents believe it is essential for moderators to include opposing viewpoints in the discussion. 5. Respondent Moderator Focus Group: In this sort of focus group discussion, researchers temporarily enlist some participants to serve as moderators. It is believed that having one of the group members lead the conversation will a\ufb00ect the group\u2019s dynamics by in\ufb02uencing the participants\u2019 comments, boosting the likelihood of diverse and more honest responses. 6. Mini Focus Group: Typically, researchers face a circumstance Seven types of settings of in which a small pool of possible participants is di\ufb03cult to reach focus group discussions: or contact in person as a face-to-face group discussion. Still, the 1. Single focus group research design necessitates that the topic is addressed in a group. 2. Two-way focus group Under these conditions, researchers can only assemble a small 3. Dual moderator focus group of two to \ufb01ve individuals. Typically, these organizations group consist of persons with a high level of knowledge. 4. Duelling moderator focus group 7. Online Focus Group: Online focus groups are not a distinct 5. Respondent moderator sort of focus group discussion but rather an adaption of existing focus Group methodologies brought about by the advent of the Internet. It is 6. Mini focus group implemented in an online environment by using conference 7. Online focus group calling, chat rooms, or other online tools. Online focus groups (O.Nyumba et al., 2018, exude an atmosphere of vitality, modernity, and competition p.24). that transcends the traditional issues associated with in-person focus group debate. However, these discussion platforms are restricted to Internet-connected participants and are susceptible to technical problems such as poor or lost connectivity and failure to capture non-verbal data. Regarding the bene\ufb01t of utilizing focus group discussions, this kind of data collection is particularly advantageous when the researcher attempts to corroborate the analysis with a diverse range of consumer pro\ufb01les. Indeed, focus groups are the ideal approach to exchanging perspectives and discussing consumer disagreements. This relationship cannot be portrayed through an in-person interview. In addition, focus groups may be less expensive than interviews if the analytic process is minimal. There are, however, several disadvantages to focus groups that the researcher must be aware of. First, certain participants\u2019 speaking time will probably be signi\ufb01cantly longer than others, making their contributions disproportionate. Second, there may be less average speaking time, particularly if the moderator has failed to encourage individuals to talk and connect. However, the danger of failure is","98 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data signi\ufb01cantly greater without a well-prepared interview guide. Finally, there is the di\ufb03cult-to-avoid potential of moderator bias. Choosing between individual interviews and focus groups may appear challenging. Several considerations are suggested. Qualitative interviews should be selected when the research aims to acquire speci\ufb01c experiences and viewpoints that may be explored in greater depth with the interviewee. This method allows respondents to con\ufb01de in providing data without fear of being judged (a feeling of trust and closeness with the interviewer) and prevents prejudice. Otherwise, focus groups will be especially useful for challenging an idea with various experts, consumers, or prospects in a brainstorming session. In particular, it will be bene\ufb01cial to engage others with complementary experiences to identify the future issues the researcher will need to address. Qualitative observation 4.3.3 Observations in economics and management also allows Observation can be either quantitative or qualitative research tools the involvement of (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017). Traditionally, observations in quantitative features, economics and hard management sciences favor quanti\ufb01cation, and such as quanti\ufb01able data, the preferred process is observing with measuring. However, the statistics, and mathematical di\ufb00erent perceptions of modern economics research towards the models, to serve as inputs observation and the observing process wildly cover both qualitative for models and testing and qualitative approaches. grounds for ideas and conceptual re\ufb01nement. According to Maas and Morgan (2013), following the econometric revolution of the 1930s and the emergence of statistical thought in the nineteenth century, economists came to associate \\\"observations\\\" with statistical data sets compiled by statistical bureaus worldwide. Therefore, these measures came to be considered the \\\"observations\\\" economists deal with. These data sets, which are produced by others and for other purposes, are frequently thought to serve as inputs for models and the testing ground for ideas and conceptual re\ufb01nement. Only relatively recently have economists used controlled experiments to generate their own observations; despite paying close attention to the experimentation method, they nevertheless have a strong feeling about the results. Such observations are typically not readily accessible to the entire profession because they are frequently tied to the site of scienti\ufb01c observation. In order to make an observation, one must \ufb01rst combine and think about information from many sources with personal experience. It is better to think of quantitative (statistical) data as a speci\ufb01c category of observation. Quanti\ufb01cation is not always associated with the location of means and variances (Lee and Cronin, 2016). These are well-established research methodologies, each with a","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 99 logic that does not reduce to statistics, although they are frequently Consistent with the discovered concealed in the basis of statistical data. logic of grounded theory construction, quantitative The current debates over the value of \\\"real-time data\\\" for measurements can serve modeling and policymaking, as well as the resurgence of interest in as a building block of surveys and \ufb01eld research, demonstrate how economists are aware observation. that there is a disconnect between the recorded measurement and Four observer roles: what it intends to express, as well as that such measurements do not 1. The complete participant capture all that may be observable. As a result, in many disciplinary 2. The participant as subjects, economics and management included, the process is observer reversed, with quantitative measurement serving as a building block 3. The observer as for observation rather than the other way around. For instance, the participant several technical components and human knowledge acquisition 4. The complete observer procedures that underlie the observation provided in a GNP chart are (Gold, 1958, pp.213-217). equally as di\ufb03cult to understand, in part because they cross disciplinary boundaries. Maas and Morgan (2013) recommends that researchers conduct observations, but doing so requires active participation on the part of scientists , both individually and collectively. It is necessary to employ observations when thinking and speculating, using tools and instruments, and learning new abilities. In recent economics and management research, observation is more than just statistics, meaning observation is more than just the passive recording of facts. Instead, observation helps develop standards for the \\\"quality\\\" of observations by raising concerns about the objectivity of the individual observer, whether in the past or the present. In terms of the researcher\u2019s stance, the classic classi\ufb01cation of the researcher\u2019s role in qualitative observation is provided by Gold (1958). Most qualitative scholars refer to Gold\u2019s classi\ufb01cation as the typology of the participant observer roles, wildly accepted as the fundamental guide for designing observational \ufb01eldwork. The four stances of the observer roles are explained below (Gold, 1958, pp.213-217): 1. The complete participant takes an insider role, is fully part of the setting, and often observes covertly. 2. The participant as observer is the researcher gaining access to a setting by having a natural and non-research reason for being part of the setting. As observers, they are part of the group being studied. 3. The observer as participant refers to the researcher or observer having only minimal involvement in the social setting being studied. There is some connection to the setting, but the observer is not naturally and normally part of the social setting.","100 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Two types of observation 4. The complete observer refers to the researcher not taking part settings: in the social setting at all. An example of complete observation 1. Participant observation might be watching children play from behind a two-way mirror. 2. Direct observation. In terms of the observation setting, Kawulich (2012) recognizes two major types of observations: participant and direct observations, explanation below: 1. Participant observation: researchers conducting the formal type involve in the setting under study as both observers and participants. This technique is often used by action research which requires the researcher\u2019s participation while analytically observing other participants in the setting (Manuell and Graham, 2017). 2. Direct observation: this observation setting requires the researcher to observe without interacting with the objects or people under the study in the setting. This technique is often conducted in public \ufb01eldwork, hence also known as public observation (Stewart-Withers et al., 2014), concerning the ethical manners and con\ufb01nes of obtaining individual participatory consent. It can be seen that observation is a \ufb02exible research technique for collecting research data. It can be used to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. When used in qualitative research, such as in a qualitative grounded theory study, the researcher needs to design the most appropriate observational process with a precise clari\ufb01cation of the role of the researcher, or the observer, and the observation setting. Two types of documents 4.3.4 Documents used in doing research: professional and non- Documents contain text, words, and visual representations, such as professional documents. illustrations, images, photos, tables, and such, that were captured without the participation of a researcher. Documents used in qualitative research can be classi\ufb01ed into professional and non-professional documents; details below: 1. Professional documents refer to research reports, articles, or disciplinary literature. Empirical research does not use these document types as the data. Instead, they only serve disciplinary knowledge discussions and be used for reference purposes. 2. Non-professional documents, on the other hand, can be used as a secondary data source for the research. (Glaser, 1992, pp. 36-37) regards this type of document as \u201cpure descriptions of various sorts with virtually no or minimal conceptualizations.\u201d","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 101 According to Patton (2014), using documents as a source of research data requires speci\ufb01c systems and purposes of analysis. Also, it needs to be aware that, compared with research data obtained from interviews, documents usually provide less reality and reactivity between the researcher and the informants (Corbetta, 2011). Document analysis, also known synonymously as documentary Five purposes for analyzing analysis, is a systematic process for studying or assessing papers. document as the source of According to a recent study, documents include both printed and research data: electronic, known as computer-based and internet-transmitted 1. To analyze the contextual content (Bowen, 2009). Like other qualitative research methodologies, condition. document analysis needs the examination and interpretation of 2. To re\ufb01ne the data evidence to elicit meaning, gain insight, and develop empirical analysis direction. knowledge (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). 3. To scrutinize more insights. There are \ufb01ve speci\ufb01c purposes for using documents in qualitative 4. To determine possible research (Bowen, 2009, pp. 29-30), details below: data analysis modi\ufb01cation. 5. To serve data 1. Documents can provide information about the context in triangulation purpose which research participants operate; they can provide context if (Bowen, 2009, pp. 29-30). you will. Documents that bear testimony to past events provide background knowledge and historical context. Such knowledge and insight can assist researchers in comprehending the historical origins of particular challenges and elucidating the conditions that impact the phenomena currently under examination. For instance, the researcher can contextualize interview data by using data extracted from documents. 2. The information included in documents might o\ufb00er questions to ask and scenarios to observe as part of the research process. When analyzing documents alongside interviews, for instance, the interview data helped to focus speci\ufb01c participant observation activities, document analysis helped to produce new interview topics, and participant observation at community events o\ufb00ered opportunities to collect documents. 3. Documents o\ufb00er more study data. Document-derived data and insights can be signi\ufb01cant contributions to a knowledge base. Therefore, researchers should examine library catalogs and archives for documents to analyze as part of their research. 4. Documents allow for the tracking of change and development. When multiple versions of a particular document are available, the researcher can compare them to determine the modi\ufb01cations. Even minute alterations to a draft can imply substantial changes to a project. When accessible, the researcher","102 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data may also analyze periodic and \ufb01nal reports to understand how an organization or program performed over time comprehensively. 5. Documents can be analyzed to verify conclusions or corroborate other sources\u2019 evidence. Document analysis can be utilized to validate and triangulate the research \ufb01ndings2. The researcher must conduct an additional investigation if the documented evidence contradicts rather than corroborates. When there is a convergence of information from multiple sources, viewers of a study report are typically more con\ufb01dent in the \ufb01ndings\u2019 integrity or reliability. 4.3.5 Audiovisual Resources Traditionally, audiovisual resources have represented a minor portion of the sources studied by humanities scholars and social scientists. However, recent qualitative nowadays increasingly use audiovisual and digital materials, including social media material (Braun et al., 2017). These resources have recently been incorporated into traditionally text-based \ufb01elds. Their use continues to expand within the disciplines that research them. This information may include photographs, works of art, videotapes, internet homepages, e-mails, text messages, social media texts, or any type of sound. In addition, include innovative data-gathering techniques that fall under the visual ethnographic category, such as life stories, metaphorical visual narratives, and digital archives. Notwithstanding the usefulness of the audiovisual resources, their usage, which broadly includes \ufb01lm, television, radio, sound recordings, and any other form that mixes image and sound, can also complicate the process of making educated software selections for several reasons: 1. First, despite the rapid development of automatic indexing of audiovisual sources, they still form a \\\"blind medium\\\" for retrieval. In contrast to text, these sources typically require manual sequential viewing and annotation to transcode the material (e.g., making a transcription) or to identify relevant units at various levels, such as objects or actions, spoken words, or abstract ideas. In the case of text, search tools or natural language processing techniques can provide signs of reoccurring terms or even aid in identifying abstract concepts during the preliminary examination. 2Data triangulation will be explained later in the next chapter as part of the grounded theory research process. See Section 5.7.1 on page 137 for details.","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 103 2. Second, audiovisual sources are rarely employed as the sole source of information; hence, contextualization through textual content or other media is also essential. Consequently, systems must allow data analysis, data preparation, manual annotation, and the use of diverse media formats. 3. Third, there is a need for a more profound knowledge of the software\u2019s a\ufb00ordances and how their use a\ufb00ects the analysis process and its outcome, as modern researchers rely heavily on software to assist with these activities. When using audiovisual resources, the researcher needs to be aware that the contextualization-related tasks such as linking and commenting on the materials are essential to the qualitative researcher as part of the research tool to process the data (Melgar Estrada and Koolen, 2018). All the underpinning methodological philosophies and fundamental qualitative data analysis procedures still need to be applied to all types of data sources used. In other words, while collecting and analyzing audiovisual data, the contextualization-related tasks remain the human task. The researcher remains the essential tool for conceptualizing the data from all sources, audiovisual materials included. No software or any computing assistance can replace this role. 4.4 Chapter Summary and Key Terms Given the rationale for researchers choosing qualitative research as an appropriate strategy for their studies, this chapter has outlined the \ufb01ve types of qualitative data commonly used in qualitative studies. Theses sources are interviews, focus group discussions, observations, documentary analysis and audiovisual resources. By based on the explanation of all the common qualitative data sources this chapter has provided, Table 4.1, next page, summarizes the instrumentation actions of all the data collection instruments. The next chapter will focus on the design and management of grounded theory studies in practice. Key Terms Audiovisual resources, 102 Observations, 98 Data instrumentation, 103 Participant observation, 100 Direct observations, 100 Professional documents, 100 Documentary analysis, 100 Semi-structured interview, 95 Focus group discussions, 95 Structured interview, 94 Non-professional documents, 100 Unstructured interview, 94","104 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Table 4.1: Qualitative Data Instrumentation Actions Source: the author. Explanation: Five instrumentation actions are to be considered by qualitative researchers as they decide on suitable sources of research data to be collected. Each data source type requires di\ufb00erent actions as the researcher collects the data. For instance, interviews allow the researcher to participate in the data generation and gain generative data. However, it does not necessarily mean that the data collection must occur at the time of the live phenomenon being inquired as the research problems; only contact with the informants is required. The storage and retrieval of the data for analysis purposes are often in the form of transcribed texts.","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 105 4.5 Exercises 1. Provide examples of economics and management research questions that require qualitative data as an essential source of data. 2. Discuss the advantages for using multiple, rather than single qualitative data sources. 3. Explain the di\ufb00erences between unstructured interviews and focus group discussions. 4. Explain the di\ufb00erences between participant and direct observations. 5. Explain the di\ufb00erences between professional and non-professional documents. 6. Given the online communication technology, what types of qualitative data can be collected via online platforms?, Discuss the possibilities and advantages of using the online communication for collecting qualitative research data. 7. Assuming you have chosen the grounded theory method to investigate the in\ufb02uences of the national economic development concept of Thailand, known as Thailand 4.0, on the business adaptations of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the tourism industry. Finish the tasks below: \u2022 Identify the bene\ufb01ts and key advantages of using qualitative research. \u2022 Provide the rationales for choosing the grounded theory method. \u2022 Specify possible sources for collecting qualitative data and discuss the necessity for colleting data from those sources.","106 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Appendix: Practical Example Case 4.1: Using Multiple Case 4.1: Using Multiple Sources of Qualitative Data in a Grounded Sources of Qualitative Data Theory Study in a Grounded Theory Study Case 4.1 is a practical example of how a grounded theory \\\"Using a Grounded Theory study collects research data from multiple sources. Chanthes Method in an Empirical Case (2021) adopted the grounded theory method to examine Study of Knowledge-Based the development of knowledge-based entrepreneurship in an Entrepreneurship organic rice farming community enterprise in Thailand. The Development in an Organic empirical setting of this study was a case study of the selected Rice Farming Community enterprise, and the researcher identi\ufb01ed the unit of analysis Enterprise in Thailand\\\" and the individuals who were the members of this enterprise responsible for its business management and entrepreneurial development. Given the bounded system of the case study and the various investigative aspects requiring the researcher to approach the richness of data concerning the management and entrepreneurial experiences of the members undertaking various roles in promoting the enterprise\u2019s knowledge-based entrepreneurship, the researcher decided to use the grounded theory method and collected research data using multiple techniques, including a focus group discussion, a documentary analysis, and audiovisual resources. The researcher also collected the data using multi-phase data collection, meaning that the data was collected multiple times throughout the project duration towards the delivery of research outcomes. The data obtained from the focus group discussion was considered the primary research data, while the data from the other sources was processed as secondary research data. The documents\u2019 sources included public documents and enterprise organizational reports.The audiovisual sources included the o\ufb03cial websites of various national and regional authorities responsible for organic agricultural promotion in Thailand. Additionally, throughout the grounded theory analysis processes, the researcher generated analytical memos, both early and advanced memos, and revisited the transcribed discussions as part of the research triangulationsa of the study. aResearch triangulations will be explained later in the next chapter as part of the grounded theory research process. See Section 5.7.1 on page 137 for details.","Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 107 References Bowen, G. (2009) \u2018Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method\u2019, \\\"ualitative Research Journal 9, pp. 27\u201340. doi: 10.3316\/QRJ0902027. Braun, V., Clarke, V. and Gray, D. (2017) \u2018Collecting textual, media and virtual data in qualitative research\u2019, in Braun, V., Clarke, V., and Gray, D. (eds) Collecting Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide to Textual and Virtual Techniques. First. Cambridge University Press (CUP), pp. 1\u201312. Bryant, A. (2017) Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press. Burgess, R. G. (2002) \\\"n the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. Taylor & Francis (Contemporary social research series). Chanthes, S. (2021) \u2018Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\u2019, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72\u201381. doi: 10.34190\/ERM.21.066. Corbetta, P. (2011) Social Research: Theory, Methods and Techniques. Sage. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015) Basics of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications (Core textbook). Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V. L. (2017) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Glaser, B. G. (1992) Emergence Vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press (Emergence vs. forcing). Gold, R. (1958) \u2018Roles in Sociological Field Observations\u2019, Social Forces, 36(3), pp. 217\u2013223. doi: 10.2307\/2573808. Jemna, L. M. (2016) \u2018Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods In Economics: the Added Value When Using Qualitative Research Methods\u2019, Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 9(9), pp. 154\u2013167. Kawulich, B. (2012) \u2018Collecting data through observation\u2019, in Wagner, C., Kawulich, B., and Garner, M. (eds) Doing Social Research: A global context. McGraw Hill, pp. 150\u2013160. Kumar, R. (2010) Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. SAGE Publications. Lee, F. S. and Cronin, B. (2016) \u2018Qualitative and Ethnographic Methods in Economics\u2019, in Lee, F. S. and Cronin, B. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Heterodox Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing (Handbooks of research methods and applications), pp. 135\u2013164.","108 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Maas, H. and Morgan, M. (2013) \u2018Observation and Observing in Economics\u2019, History of Political Economy, 44, pp. 1\u201324. doi: 10.1215\/00182702-1631761. Manuell, P. and Graham, W. (2017) \u2018Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers\u2019, e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 8(1), pp. 74\u201390. Melgar Estrada, L. and Koolen, M. (2018) \u2018Audiovisual Media Annotation Using Qualitative Data Analysis Software: A Comparative Analysis\u2019, The Qualitative Report, 23(13), pp. 40\u201360. Merriam, S. B. and Tisdell, E. J. (2015) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Wiley (Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications. Mishra, L. (2016) \u2018Focus Group Discussion in Qualitative Research\u2019, TechnoLEARN, 6(1), pp. 1\u20135. Morgan, D. L. (2012) \u2018Focus Groups and Social Interaction\u2019, in Gubrium, J. F. et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. 2nd edn. SAGE Publications (A Sage reference title), pp. 141\u2013155. Nyumba, T. et al. (2018) \u2018The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation\u2019, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), pp. 20\u201332. doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/2041-210X.12860. Patton, M. Q. (2014) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications. Smithson, J. (2000) \u2018Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities\u2019, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), pp. 103\u2013119. doi: 10.1080\/136455700405172. Stewart-Withers, R. et al. (2014) \u2018Development Field Work: A Practical Guide\u2019, in Stewart-Withers, R., Banks, G., and A., M. (eds) Qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Ltd, pp. 59\u201380. doi: 10.4135\/9781473921801.","C5 Grounded Theory Design and Management 5.1 Introduction In this Chapter: The earlier chapters described the philosophical foundations of social Asking research questions, research and the usage of qualitative methods in economics and page 111 management research, which led to the crucial advice on when grounded theory is an appropriate. Also, di\ufb00erent qualitative data The literature review, sources and types have been explained. page 115 Data collection and This chapter will focus on the grounded theory design and analytis, page 119: management. Originally, grounded theory was the method of Theoretical sampling constant comparison (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Over time since its Coding \ufb01rst introduction, regardless of the diversity of the practical Memos implication, its standard routine activities relevant to the method\u2019s Constant comparison constant comparison strategy remain, as outlined in the diagram in Grouned theory Figure 5.1, next page. All of the components seen in the diagram will development, page 135: be explained in detail in this chapter. Substantive theory Formal theory The chapter will begin with an overview of how to perform a grounded theory study. The \ufb01rst section will explain how researchers Research triangulations, formulate research questions, plan the grounded theory study page 137 procedure, and determine the unit of analysis as they begin conducting a grounded theory study. The signi\ufb01cance of the literature Using computer software review in grounded theory research will then be discussed in the in grounded theory data second section. This section will explain what the goals of a literature analysis, page 139 review are and how grounded theory researchers should go about doing this important task at di\ufb00erent stages of the study, such as Practical examples, during the preliminary literature review, when collecting and page 144 analyzing data, and when \ufb01nalizing the theory development that will be the research outcome.","110 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Figure 5.1: Essential Components of the Grounded Theory Process Source: the author.","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 111 Given the previous chapter\u2019s explanations that qualitative research typically collects data using multiple techniques, the third section will go over the grounded theory data collection and analysis in detail.The section will guide how the researcher undertakes the theoretical sampling producer, coding, writing memos, keeping the critical \ufb01eldwork notes, undertaking the constant comparison strategy, and the theory development using a grounded theory method, which will explain the characteristics of grounded theory as emerging, substantive, and formal theories. After that, the following section will discuss the research triangulations; it will explain four techniques of triangulation to help increase the credibility of the research and hence its outcomes. Finally, the \ufb01nal section will go over how to use computer software to analyze grounded theory data. 5.2 Asking Grounded Theory Research Questions Asking a research question in a qualitative grounded theory study di\ufb00ers from doing so in quantitative studies. The logico-deductive model of traditional quantitative research requires operationalizing established concepts in theory as precisely as possible and deducing testable hypotheses regarding the relationships between these concepts. In this model, analysis is restricted to its original concepts. In contrast, the logic of grounded theory guides the methods of data gathering and theoretical development. Charmaz (2014) suggests grounded theorists use two aptitudes, \u201csensitizing concepts\u201d and \u201cdisciplinary perspectives\u201d, to \u201cprovide a place to start as they choose this method aiming to utilize it to hold a promise to advancing the emerging ideas. Explanations are provided as follows: 1. Using the \ufb01rst aptitudes, sensitizing concepts serve as Two essential aptitudes heuristic tools for grounded theorists to develop hypotheses required in asking about processes de\ufb01ned by their data. Grounded theorists a grounded theory assess the compatibility between their initial research question: interests and new data. One should not directly apply 1. Sensitizing concepts, preconceived ideas and theories to our data. Instead, the 2. Disciplinary researcher needs to follow leads de\ufb01ned in the data or perspectives. contrive an alternative method of data collection to pursue the initial interests. Grounded theory researchers are advised to begin the studies with certain research interests and a set of general questions. These general questions should relate to the research topic.","112 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.1: Asking 2. Speci\ufb01c disciplinary perspectives are always necessary for all a grounded theory types of research, regardless of di\ufb00erent philosophical research question backgrounds, methods or subject areas. Although no (Chanthes and presumptive ideas are required for qualitative analysis, Sriboonlue, 2021, p.198) especially for exploratory purposes, Punch (2013) asserts that the researcher should not start research with a blank mind. For this reason, to ask a grounded theory research question, the researcher should identify speci\ufb01c disciplinary perspectives mostly relevant to the research topic or their interests. A practical example of grounded theory research in economics discipline by Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021) was interested in examining the role of university outreach in the triple helix collaboration adopted to promote innovative SMEsa development in the Northeast region of Thailand. The researchers sensitized three concepts potentially be used to initiate the research in this interesting topic: (1) triple helix model of collaborationb, (2) university outreach, and (3) innovation development. Additionally, the researchers identify two speci\ufb01c perspectives mostly relevant to the researcher topic: (1) business competitiveness and (2) regional development, considering that the three sensitized concepts were all related to these two subject areas within the economics and economic development subject areas. As a result, a research question of this project was shaped as \u201cto what extent the triple helix model of collaboration is practically implemented to promote innovation SMEs development in the Northeast region?\u201d (Chanthes and Sriboonlue, 2021, p.198). aSMEs = Small and Medium Enterprises bThe tri-lateral model of collaboration between university- industry-government internationally adopted to promote innovation and economic promotion in diverse countries. The unit of analysis may It can be seen from the practical example, Example 5.1, that the be individuals, groups, researchers did not use sensitized concepts and speci\ufb01c nations, organizations, disciplinary perspectives to provide any presumptive ideas of what technologies, social to be discovered. Instead, it only helps to illuminate and organize phenomena, \ufb01rms, the investigative directions given the initial research interest. countries, cities and Without such concepts and perspectives, the researcher might start such. researching with a blank mind lacking focus on what to explore. 5.3 Identifying the Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis not the topic of investigation (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Instead, a unit of analysis is the main subject or","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 113 entity on whom the researcher intends to comment in the study. Example 5.2: Identifying The research question mainly determines it. The unit of analysis is the unit of analysis the who or what the researcher is interested in analyzing. (Chanthes and Therefore, the unit of analysis may be individuals, groups, nations, Sriboonlue, 2021, organizations, technologies, social phenomena, \ufb01rms, countries, pp.198-199) cities and such. For instance, innovation would be the object of inquiry if the researcher aims to investigate why some ideas succeed more than others. However, the organization may also be identi\ufb01ed as the unit of analysis if the researcher wants to learn how some \ufb01rms innovate more frequently than others. As a result, two comparable research topics within the same study may use two completely di\ufb00erent analytical frameworks. Example 5.2 shows a practical example of how Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021) from Example 5.1 identify the unit of analysis of their study. Continuing from Example 5.1 showing how Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021, p.198) asked a research question \\\"to what extent the triple helix model of collaboration is practically implemented to promote innovation SMEs development in the Northeast region?\\\" Considering the concepts and disciplinary perspectives involved with the formation of this question, the unit of analysis can be varied, e.g. the observed outreach activity, the studied enterprise as a case organization, the selected region or the experiences of individuals participating in the research inquiry looking into the university outreach in the triple helix collaboration that helped promoting innovative SME development. In this Example 4.2, to clarify the investigation, the researcher de\ufb01ned the unit of analysis as \\\"the individual\u2019s experiences involving the enterprise\u2019s knowledge-based entrepreneurship development\\\" (Chanthes and Sriboonlue, 2021, p.199). The de\ufb01ned unit of analysis helped inform that the expected results of this research project were the analysis of the \\\"experiences\\\" of any individuals taking part in the triple helix collaboration model, which helped promote innovative SME development of the selected enterprise in the selected region of Thailand. This speci\ufb01c clari\ufb01cation consequently guided the sources and forms of data collection, the coding in the analysis process and the interpretation of results to deliver the ultimate outcomes of the study. The choice of analysis unit can in\ufb02uence a study\u2019s results in many aspects. Firstly, it can determine what type of data the researcher will be able to collect. Secondly, it can a\ufb00ect the way that data is analyzed. Finally, it can determine the conclusions that","114 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.3: Identifying can be drawn from the research. Therefore, a precise identi\ufb01cation organizations as the unit of the unit of analysis is crucial because it a\ufb00ects the kind of data of analysis (Polhong and the researcher should gather for your study and the sources from Puangpronpitag, 2020) which you should get it. For example, the researcher may identify individuals as they observed team members in various organizational teams to research teamwork in organizations, then average their results to produce a composite team-level score for team-level factors like cohesion and con\ufb02ict. In addition to Example 5.2, additional examples of how a grounded theory study identi\ufb01es its unit of analysis are provided below. In a study by Polhong and Puangpronpitag (2020), the researchers adopted the grounded theory method to examine the business development of local cross-country freight enterprises in Nakhon Phanom province. The context of the study was local \ufb01rms were facing challenges to increase their competitiveness in the industry, providing the national economic development notion of Thailand 4.0. The researchers identi\ufb01ed the unit of analysis as business organizations. This identi\ufb01cation led the researcher to scrutinize the business activities and the management strategies of those individual enterprises selected as the cases of the research project. Example 5.4: Identifying In a study by Puangpronpitag (2015), the researcher employed roles of actors as the grounded theory method to examine the implementation the unit of analysis of the triple helix model for the development of small and (Puangpronpitag, 2015) micro community enterprises (SMCEs) for rubber farming in the Northeast region of Thailand. The researcher indicated the unit of analysis as the roles of actors in the triple helix model from the three participating organizational types, namely the university, rubber farmers (as from the rubber industry) and the government agencies for rubber development in Thailand. Example 5.5: Identifying In a study by Suangsub et al. (2022), the researchers used the the population as the unit grounded theory method to analyze the key factors a\ufb00ecting of analysis (Suangsub high-performance organizations (HPO) in the logistics industry et al., 2022) in Thailand. The unit of analysis was indicated as the population of logistics business operators in Thailand.","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 115 5.4 The Literature Review in Grounded Theory Study Reviewing related literature is a compulsory process for doing Literature review in research; conducting a grounded theory study is not an exemption. grounded theory is There are two types of literature to be reviewed, technical and the requisite process non-technical (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Technical literature throughout the refers to speci\ufb01c disciplinary research articles, whereas preliminary, during, and non-technical literature refers to descriptive documents providing \ufb01nalizing of the study. general information about those under studies, such as reports, internal correspondences, and institutional records. The grounded theory method requires a literature review throughout the research processes, starting from the preliminary review stage, during the data collection and analysis and \ufb01nalizing the theory development. This section will explain the roles of literature review in these processes. It will guide grounded theory researchers on the various purposes of reviewing the literature in the di\ufb00erent stages of the research and how to perform the review productively. 5.4.1 Preliminary Literature Review A preliminary theoretical framework is not a Promising research must show the researcher\u2019s competency in requisite in grounded establishing a considerable professional and disciplinary literature theory study. background. The original design of grounded theory research by Preliminary literature Glaser and Strauss (1967) is to delay the literature review to avoid review helps identify the the contamination of preconceived ideas in developing a theory followings: genuinely grounded in the research data. However, it does not 1. The knowledge gap, imply that a preliminary literature review is not necessary for 2. Related variables to grounded theory studies. Instead, like other good research, initially direct the data adequate early literature is needed and compulsory, as Charmaz collection, and (2014, p.166) asserts that \\\"delaying the literature review di\ufb00ers 3. A foundation for from writing a scanty one.\\\" cogent emerging theory development. Timonen et al. (2018) suggest that the researcher can start doing the literature without going as far as hypothesis testing to avoid doing grounded theory research with an insu\ufb03cient initial literature review. By doing so, the researcher should arise with professional and disciplinary arguments on the existing knowledge in the \ufb01eld (Charmaz, 2014), rather than any forces on the data into theoretical accounts (Timonen et al., 2018). Hence, the formation of a theoretical framework in this process will only demonstrate how the study critically engages with the existing knowledge in the discipline. In other words, the framework will not be used as a typical conceptual framework \ufb01lled with identi\ufb01ed","116 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management variables for theoretical veri\ufb01cations of the recognized theories in deductive research.1 Therefore, the preliminary theoretical framework in grounded theory study is vital. Although not serving the testing of the recognized variables, the preliminary theoretical framework appears to bene\ufb01t the grounded theory study for multiple reasons as follows: 1. First, it presents strong fundamental arguments made prior to the investigation into the proposed inquiry. Consequently, a \ufb01rm statement of the knowledge gap and how the research can contribute knowledge can be clari\ufb01ed persuasively. 2. Secondly, considering the emphasis on openness, however, the researcher should not enter the \ufb01eld with \\\"a completely blank canvas to work from\\\" (Goulding, 2002, p.42). Therefore, with su\ufb03cient preliminary literature review, the none-testing purposed framework with the collections of signi\ufb01cant variables will help organize the research directions, given the identi\ufb01ed objectives of the investigation. 3. Finally, it needs to bear in mind that the theory development in grounded theory study is expected to be reformed throughout until the analysis completes, as far as the data guides the emerging conceptions. The systematic reformation starting with a cogent framework, will eventually help persuade the research audience, such as other scholars, the research funding bodies, or the readers of the research articles, to accept the researcher\u2019s viewpoint once the research results are \ufb01nally delivered. 5.4.2 During the Data Collection and Analysis Once entering the \ufb01eld and starting the data collection, the literature review will serve the study as a valuable source of comparison and analysis. The use of related literature during the data collection analysis should consider the following purposes. 1. First, the related literature is a source of comparison and analysis throughout the theory development processes 1See Case 5.1, \\\"Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\\\" by Chanthes (2021) at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example from Thailand.","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 117 (Charmaz, 2014). The researcher should review the The key purposes to literature, then critically discuss earlier studies by constantly review related literature comparing them with the ongoing data analysis. Essential during the data collection materials should be drawn from reviewing related previous and analysis: studies, such as variables, concepts, details on the speci\ufb01c 1. As a source of contexts of various studies, and hypothetical discussions on comparison for emerging the results. Then, the coherent, analytic and systematic concepts, comparisons will assist the researchers with revising and 2. As a source of the discussing the emerging theory to \ufb01t the speci\ufb01c tasks of disciplinary key terms their studies. 3. To help the researcher 2. Secondly, the related literature is a source of key terms and develop theoretical conceptions previously acknowledged. These terms and sensitivity. conceptions will assist the researcher with identifying the codes at various levels through the analysis processes, starting from the early coding stage (e.g., open coding), the code categorizing stage (e.g., categorization) towards the higher-level conceptual coding (e.g., axial coding and theoretical coding). Therefore, the researcher should study the use of each term comprehensively. Additionally, in a circumstance where no appropriate terms can be identi\ufb01ed for the speci\ufb01c tasks of their inquiry, the careful literature review will give a conference for their own code names and concepts when necessary. 3. Finally, the continuous review of related literature will help the researcher gradually develop theoretical sensitivity. This use of the literature is consistent with Glaser (1978), who emphasizes the necessity for grounded theorists to possess prior knowledge as they discuss the theoretical codes to be sensitive as they render the explicit and subtle theories derived from their data. Although sensitivity is subjective, the e\ufb00ective and systematic review of literature will assist the research in engaging with others in the speci\ufb01c disciplines, notwithstanding the particular contexts of their studies. 5.4.3 Finalizing the Theory Development The outcome of the grounded theory study is an emerging theory. As known, theories need the identi\ufb01cation of properties, or variables, with hypothetical relationships of the properties at the abstraction level. The production of outcome in grounded theory studies is \ufb01nalized when it reaches the stage of theoretical saturation, which Charmaz (2014, p.189) refers to as \u201cthe point at","118 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management The review of related which gathering more data about a theoretical category reveals no literature towards new properties nor yields any further theoretical insights about \ufb01nalizing the theory the emerging grounded theory.\u201d The grounded theorist must development is a part of continue the simultaneous data collection and analysis processes as comparative critical and they develop the emerging theory until they are certain that no theoretical properties. new properties of the theory are needed. Concerning the logic of theoretical saturation, the reviewed literature will help the researcher regarding the possible properties in the theory development. When the researcher is about to saturate the theory, the researcher must revisit not only the research data but also the related literature of existing theories and earlier studies. This process is vital since the researcher needs to critically compare their developed theory grounded within their particular contexts of inquiry with the knowledge in the disciplines. Any similarities and di\ufb00erences between the research outcome and the existing knowledge, which are arisen as part of the comparisons, need speci\ufb01c theoretical explanations of their presence. Therefore, the literature needs to be comprehensively reviewed at this stage of \ufb01nalizing the theory development. Considering the \ufb02exibility of qualitative research designs, the researcher can make di\ufb00erent use of the functional properties derived from reviewing the literature. Additionally, with the identifying variables, the researcher can further use these properties to design the focus and scope of the investigation. In summary, this \ufb01rst section has outlined seven purposes of the literature review throughout the grounded theory study processes. Figure 5.2 summarizes the seven functional purposes of the literature review, given the basic iterative process of the method. With the help of the adequate literature review, especially at the preliminary stage, the researcher can identify the investigative focus and scope, leading to the grounded theory design, the identi\ufb01cation of the unit of analysis, and the expected outcome. The following section will explain the grounded theory data collection and analysis. Unlike typical research procedure which the data collection and analysis can be a linear sequential procedure, the grounded theory method requires a distinctive technique in which the data collection and analysis are multiple and simultaneous.","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 119 Figure 5.2: Seven Functional Purposes of the Literature Review Source: the author. 5.5 Grounded Theory Data Collection and Analysis Required activities in the grounded theory data Grounded theory research is a type of theory-based analysis collection and analysis: (Patton, 2002). Thus, the grounded theory method o\ufb00ers the 1. Sampling using the researcher an iterative process involving both inductive theoretical sampling (theory-building) and deductive (theory-testing) analyses technique throughout the analysis, considering the fundamental reason for 2. Coding using the four choosing the research method. Fundamentally, the grounded grounded theory codes theory method uses aggressive inductive theory-building and 3. Writing memos pattern-seeking processes to relate studied phenomena, human 4. Analyzing the data experiences, and behaviors to higher-level concepts. The technique using the constant is claimed to go beyond the building of descriptions at the comparison strategy. low-level development of categories with dimensions; instead, grounded theory can assist the researcher in positing relationships between these categories (Randall, 2012). The ability of the grounded theory method to aggressive theory-building technique provides researchers with an approach to collect and interpret the data while conducting an ongoing theoretical veri\ufb01cation simultaneously. To be objectively grounded in the theory development in the data detached from subjective in\ufb02uences, researchers must conduct research without a priori","120 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Data collection and constructs. Therefore, the method emphasizes letting concepts data analysis in a emerge from the data rather than being constrained by previous grounded theory study theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). are not sequential; they are multi-phase Throughout the grounded theory study, the simultaneous and simultaneous ongoing ongoing veri\ufb01cation of the emerging theory is undertaken using a processes. unique grounded theory data collection and analysis technique known as theoretical sampling. That is, the researcher will use the emerging theory to guide further data collection required for testing the theory until it reaches saturation, meaning no indication of more data is needed to test the theory (Wertz et al., 2011). Thus, it is usual that grounded theory processes comprise multiple phases of data collection, data analysis, and theory veri\ufb01cation before the researcher can achieve the ultimate research outcomes (Goulding, 2002). This section will explain the conduct of grounded theory studies starting with its technique of theoretical sampling procedure. Then, the following part deals with coding strategies adopted in grounded theory research. Discussions of di\ufb00erent and similar coding details across di\ufb00erent types of grounded theory will also be provided. Then, it will explain techniques for writing memos and their usage in the grounded theory analysis processes. After that, the \ufb01nal two parts explain the constant comparison strategy followed by the data triangulation adopted as part of the constant analysis and theoretical saturation procedure. Theoretical sampling is 5.5.1 The Theoretical Sampling Procedure purposive sampling, also known as purposeful Theoretical sampling is also known as a type of purposeful sampling. sampling (Patton, 2002; Charmaz, 2014) and criterion-based selection (LeCompte and Schensul, 2010). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), there are three types or purposeful sampling commonly used by qualitative researchers across diverse disciplines: convenience sampling, snowball sampling (also known as a chain or network sampling), and theoretical sampling. These three di\ufb00erent forms of purposeful sampling are all involved the deliberate selection of the investigative unit, such as informants, participants, or selected individuals, based upon some speci\ufb01c criterion or criteria (Oast and De Allegri, 2018). The logic of sampling with speci\ufb01c criteria makes purposeful sampling techniques contrast with quantitative methodology, which favors random samples (Charmaz, 2014) and supports statistical generalization (Randall, 2012). Qualitative studies select the samples whose characteristics are representative of the population under the research and want to use the data to make","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 121 statistical inferences about their studied populations (Charmaz, Theoretical sampling is 2014). In contrast, purposive sampling is not about representing a iterative and multiple. population or promoting the credibility of statistical Theoretical sampling generalizability. Instead, the sampling criteria are identi\ufb01ed based needs no speci\ufb01c on the study objectives to obtain a diverse sample, ensuring that sample size as it starts various perspectives are captured across de\ufb01ned investigative because this procedure is aspects and the study context. expected to be multiple and ongoing until the Theoretical sampling begins without the total sample being research outcomes are selected ahead of time. The data collection combined with the eventually \ufb01nalized, analysis process for generating the theory allows the researcher to known as a saturated jointly collect, code, and analyze the data and decide what data to grounded theory. collect next to develop the theory as it emerges (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). According to Randall (2012, p.867), grounded theorists validate emerging conceptions and their relationships to compare \ufb01ndings from one sample to another, which is \\\"a new sample explicitly selected to con\ufb01rm or discon\ufb01rm the previous propositions\\\". Hence, the sample size is not a primary focus at the initial data collection stage; instead, the criteria ensuring the diverse captured perspectives are. Without a speci\ufb01c concern about the sample size, judgments about whether the sampling is adequate and appropriate are made regarding the research\u2019s original aims and objectives. Oast and De Allegri (2018) points out that, about the adequacy of theoretical sampling employed for economics research, the judgment is associated with the notion of theoretical saturation. In this sense, the development of grounded theory essentially focuses on whether su\ufb03cient data have been obtained to have fully explicated the developing theory. The process of theoretical sampling is iterative and multiple. The initial data collection and analysis result in initial emerging theory requiring to be validated by further data collection, hence, further analysis. The researcher goes back and forth between theory-building and theory-testing grounded in the multi-phases of data collection until the theory reaches its saturation. According to Charmaz (2014), the common use of the term saturation refers to nothing new happening; the emerging theory can be con\ufb01rmed for reaching saturation when gathering more data reveals no new properties nor obtaining any further theoretical insights about the theory. Similarly, Goulding (2002) suggests grounded theory researchers remain working in the \ufb01eld for data collection and analysis until no new information emerges from the collected data. It can be seen that theoretical saturation requires thorough interrogation of the data before the emerging theory can be concluded.","122 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Providing the explanation this section has delivered, components of the theoretical sampling procedure include data collection, data analysis, emerging theory development, hypotheses development for theory validation, theoretical saturation, and the delivery of grounded theory. Figure 5.3 illustrates the theoretical sampling procedure with its components. Figure 5.3: The Basic of Theoretical Sampling Source: Based on Chanthes (2010, p.88). Explanation: The term theoretical sample in the grounded theory method refers to the interconnecting work across essential activities as outlined in Figure 5.3. First, the researcher collects research data. Then, there is the data analysis. The results once the data is analyzed are not yet the research result. Instead, there are recognized as elements of an emerging theory or the initial interpretation of those being investigated. The theory needs to be veri\ufb01ed grounded in the research data; this is the source of the method\u2019s name, the grounded theory, meaning the results need to be veri\ufb01ed grounded within the data. Next, the theory is tested for saturation, requiring further data collection for this theory-testing procedure. Based on both prior collected and newly collected data, the researcher needs to scrutinize for any new insights. If none, the theory is saturated and recognized as a grounded theory. Data analysis is an essential part of the theoretical sampling technique. The following section will discuss the coding strategies used in the grounded theory analysis. 5.5.2 Coding Strategies Coding in grounded theory generates the bones of the data analysis, and the theoretical generation is the assembly of these bones into a working skeleton (Charmaz, 2014). The procedure of grounded theory coding requires the critical link between the data collection and the emergent theory development.","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 123 Concerning grounded theory working on qualitative data, the Picturing grounded data can be collected using various techniques ranging from theory coding: interviews, focus group discussions, documentary analysis, 1. Codes are the bones. observation \ufb01eldwork notes, and, especially for most interpretive 2. Coding is the assembly approaches, the researcher\u2019s memos. These collected data forms of the bones into a are usually transcribed into texts for record-keeping and working skeleton, organizing purposes. Hence, grounded theory data analysis works 3. The working skeleton mainly with texts. Therefore, according to Bryant (2017, p.327), pictures a grounded grounded theory method is seen as \u201cinstantiations of theory as an outcome. hermeneutics\u201d considering the iteration between data-gathering and analysis. Working with texts is consistence with the hermeneutics procedure focusing on texts analysis and using the hermeneutic circle, which aims to generate an understanding of a certain detailed aspect of the studied phenomenon. Principally, the coding procedure starts from critical grapple the collected data and assigning a code name as the meaning of the pieces of data coding. It begins with re\ufb01ning data into code names at the lower theoretical level to arrange the rich and complex qualitative data into a well-de\ufb01ned organization. Then, the coding will move to the higher theoretical level, which the researcher codes with the purpose of conceptual the relationship patterns among the codes. The researcher then needs to carefully extract the hypothetical ideas to form an emerging theory conceptually constructed from the patterns to direct further data-gathering to test and verify the theory, which is when another data collection begins. The weaving of guided data collection and the emergent theory continues until no new insights emerge from the data being directed by the ongoingly developed emerging theory. Given the basis for grounded theory coding, as explained above, however, the coding practice adopted by di\ufb00erent researchers can be \ufb02exible and varied. For instance, initially, the founders of the grounded theory method recommended four types of coding throughout the theory development: initial coding, code categorizing, generating coding families, and theoretical coding (Glaser, 1992; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Later, the coding practice was reconsidered, originated by Strauss and Corbin (1998), resulting in the reorganization of the coding practice as open, axial, and selective coding. Additionally, another practical consideration is provided by Charmaz (2014), who acknowledges the \ufb02exible and varied coding practice and points out that grounded theory coding consists of at least two main phases: initial and focused phases. Notwithstanding the \ufb02exibility and variety of coding arrangements, coding in grounded theory essentially involves","124 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Four coding levels multiple coding demeanors, beginning with the organizing in grounded theory purpose, moving to a more analytic sense, followed by a research: higher-level of hypothetical drive, and \ufb01nalized with the Level 1: open coding theoretical saturating goal. Therefore, this section classi\ufb01es the Level 2: axial coding basics of grounded theory coding strategies into four levels: open Level 3: selective coding coding, axial coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding. Level 4: theoretical coding. Level 1: Open Coding Open codes are early Open coding is the \ufb01rst level of abstraction for organizing code names conceptually qualitative data into a broad initial range of categories (Renjith organized into categories. et al., 2021). It is also known as initial coding (Rowlands, 2005; Glaser, 1978). It refers to the initial data processing stage for assigning codes to data pieces as the basis for constructing categories (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, open coding is an essential stage to help the researcher handle the commonly unstructured, richness, openness, and complexity of qualitative data. This level of coding requires the researcher to assign representative code names to the carefully read texts analytically, then conceptualize them into relevant categories. There are several techniques grounded theories can employ to assign code names and then arrange them into conceptual categories. Rowlands (2005) suggests that these terms can be drawn from the research\u2019s theoretical or conceptual models. Similarly, in case study designed studies, the researcher can utilize elements in the case\u2019s bounded system (Creswell and Creswell, 2017). Additional sources can be related literature reviewed previous studies relevant to the research (Charmaz, 2014). However, there is a critical awareness for using the related literature in grounded theory, as \ufb01rmly emphasized by Timonen et al. (2018), the researcher must not put any forces on the data into theoretical accounts. Conversely, the selected theoretical accounts are to be assigned following the critical management of data, which the researcher accordingly attempts to link the organized pieces to the existing acceptable knowledge in the disciplinary \ufb01eld. Level 2: Axial Coding The second level of grounded theory coding is axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), also known as analytic coding (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). Following the researcher\u2019s construction categories, the next step is coding beyond description and organizing conception. The purpose of axial coding is to \ufb01nd tentative schemes of the categories (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). The","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 125 researcher needs \ufb01rst to sort the categories analytically to \ufb01nd the Axial codes are themes abstraction, which is the interpretation and re\ufb02ection on meaning of connections and derived as a theme from the data. relationships that emerged across the According to Renjith et al. (2021), axial coding aims at developed categories. understanding the connections or relationships between the open codes. The procedure to de\ufb01ne such connections is seen by citeMerriam2015 to require a deductive way of thought. Once an axial code or the pattern of connection is de\ufb01ned, the researcher then revisits the research data across di\ufb00erent sources, trying to prove whether the pattern exists. Despite its clarity of purposes for axial coding, Glaser (1992) disagrees with using axial codes in the grounded theory analysis, arguing the logic of axial coding is forcing coding, which contradicts the original idea of the method for emergence theory of the grounded theory discovery. Instead, Glaser (1992, p.81) prefers to refer to coding at this second level as \\\"coding families\\\" and suggests four forms of possible connection among the categories: \\\"causality,\\\" \\\"process,\\\" \\\"classi\ufb01cation,\\\" and \\\"strategy.\\\" However, most grounded theory researchers renounce Glaser\u2019s argument concerning the use of axial codes. Instead, axial coding is widely adopted, especially among interpretivism, constructivist and pragmatic researchers, who consider the researcher\u2019s improper forces on the data controllable using the repetitive revisiting of the research data and constant comparison of the recurrent codes among the data sources. Notwithstanding the argument, it is recognized that axial coding is the analytic procedure to identify emerging schemes of connections or relations among the developed categories from the open coding level. The possible forms the researchers can discover cover four basic patterns: causality, process, classi\ufb01cation, and strategy (Glaser, 1992). Additionally, grounded theory researchers may extend the range of emerging patterns of connections and relations among categories to other forms depending on what they discover within the research data. As pointed out by Bryant (2017), it can be any form of conditional\/ consequential matrices e.g., structures, events, or coherence occurrence. Similar to the critical concern of coding, grounded theory researchers can use related literature as an essential source to guide the selection of appropriate terms or tentative patterns to be discovered. The primary concern is that they need to be aware not to force the data into the existing theoretical accounts.","126 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Selective codes are Level 3: Selective Coding hypothetical relations The third level of grounded theory coding is selective coding across axial codes (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), also known as focused coding and their associated (Charmaz, 2014). Coding at this level aims at systematically categories. relating each axial code to the others (Bryant, 2017). According to Renjith et al. (2021), selective coding is the process of formulating axial codes into a theory. Hence, the purpose of scrutinizing how the developed axial codes relate to the other codes is to re\ufb01ne the large variety of the generated axial codes into the collection of tentative hypotheses. Unlike axial codes, the emerging relations discovered at the selective coding stage are not the themes of connections among categories. Selective codes are hypothetical relations across the developed axial codes. It is called focused coding because the researcher only focuses on the axial codes with hypothetical relationships with the others. Any codes without such relationships will need to be rede\ufb01ned and examined for their necessity and importance to the theory development, e.g., it might only need to be reclassi\ufb01ed to a lower abstraction level, such as categories, in which it will need to be reconceptualized and repositioned to be under some other axial code. The reconceptualization and repositioning of codes are possible, consistency with Charmaz (2014, p.17) who notes that \u201cwe may begin our studies from those vantage points but need to remain as open as possible to whatever we see and sense in the early stages of the research.\u201d Following the critical identi\ufb01cation of axial codes with theoretical relations with the others, these focused selective codes will be examined in detail concerning their components, known as categories, under the same axial code. Then, the researcher must thoroughly examine relationships among categories across the axial code recognized as having theoretical relations. Given the number of axial codes and their associated categories, selecting coding and the recognizable hypothetical relations of categories across di\ufb00erent axial codes can be very complex and sophisticated. Therefore, as suggested by Renjith et al. (2021), the communication of grounded theory analysis can be augmented using visual representations such as \ufb02owcharts, frameworks, or diagrams. Level 4: Theoretical Coding The highest level of abstraction in the grounded theory coding procedure is theoretical coding. According to Goulding (2002), theoretical codes construct the analytic framework of the inquired","Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 127 study. According to Glaser (1978), grounded theory study Theoretical codes are ultimately aims at generating a theory that accounts for a pattern holistic abstractions of of behavior of those being studied. Therefore, the generated hypothetical relations theory, regarded as its outcome, comprises causal conditions that drawn from the selective explain the behavior of social actions and human experience under coding. the study. Theoretical codes and emerging themes are used in composing a complex theoretical explanation of the phenomena. While the empirical evidence is treated as the building blocks of theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Suppose the grounded theory, as a research outcome, pictures a building and its construction using the logic of the grounded theory method; its completion is the theoretical saturation. The processes start from the unstructured single blocks, picturing the empirical evidence, being patiently and systematically assembled to make the building successfully stand. The complexity of theory construction is not bewildering, given the systematic procedure requiring the researcher to analytically organize the theory construction through the analysis journey of levels 1, 2, and 3 before entering this stage of abstracting explanation to compose the holistic abstractions of hypothetical relations drawn from the selective coding. In practice, grounded theory coding is various and \ufb02exible, see Cases 5.22 and 5.33 in the chapter\u2019s appendix for practical examples. Furthermore, various researchers can use coding terms variously and interchangeably, e.g., open codes vs. initial codes, categories plus sub-categories, issues plus sub-issues, axial codes vs. coding families, and emerging theory vs. hypothetical patterns. The choices and designs of suitable coding practice depend on the underpinning philosophies, the di\ufb00erent practical experiences in dealing with the data, and the speci\ufb01c work, research, and professional backgrounds. Nevertheless, the basics of coding in grounded theory study following the explanation this section has provided can be outlined in Figure 5.4. Grounded theory researchers must apply the fundamental coding system for developing codes from the lower level of open codes and categories towards the higher levels of axial, selective, and theoretical codes. Then, any extra advanced coding techniques, visual presentations, and organization of 2See Case 5.2, \\\"Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand\\\" by Chanthes (2021) at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example from Thailand. 3See Case 5.3, \\\"A Constructivist Grounded Theory Investigation of Businesses\u2019 Concerns About Public-Private Partnership Responses Toward COVID-19\\\" by Mekawy (2022) at the Chapter\u2019s Appendix as a practical example.","128 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management coding structures depend on the researcher\u2019s creativity in theoretically organizing the emerging conceptions into the answers to the research question. Figure 5.4: The Basic of Coding in Grounded Theory Study Source: the author. Note: H = Hypothesis Explanation: Often, qualitative researchers need to transcribe or explain the data sources in text format as preparation for the analysis. Then, there are four coding levels in the grounded theory analysis processes to break down the texts"]