Grounded Theory Study in Economics and Management Research

Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 83 affect the practical conduct of the grounded theory method regarding the data analysis and how the researcher finalizes the theory development as the study’s outcome. Based on the clarification previously provided in Table 3.1, Table 3.2, offers 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 different specification of underpinning philosophies will lead to different expected results hence the critical debates on the research evaluation criteria. Table 3.2: Philosophical Underpinnings in Different 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 different research paradigms led to the classification of three grounded theory types: classical, pragmatic and constructivist. It is very important that once grounded theory is chosen as an appropriate method, the researcher

84 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory needs to specify their underpinning philosophies and clarify the type of grounded theory study they propose as the research project. 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, constant comparison, variable-oriented, iterative theory-building, and the essence of emerging theoretical saturation remain in all grounded theory studies, regardless of the specific direction chosen by the grounded theory researcher. 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, 75 Interpretive pragmatism, 72 Constructivist grounded theory, 79 Pragmatic grounded theory, 75 Glaserian grounded theory, 74 Straussian grounded theory, 75 3.5 Exercises 1. Explain the differences 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: • Which type(s) believe in finding the objective meaning of those being investigated? • Which type(s) is rooted in the Interpretivism epistemological paradigm? • Which type(s) accepts the researcher’s 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 influences of Thailand’s national economic

Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory 85 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: • Discuss and clarify the philosophical underpinnings of your proposed project: ontology, epistemology, and methodology. • Considering your answers, do you expect to deliver a formal or substantive grounded theory as the research outcome? Explain. References Åge, L. (2014) ‘Grounded Theory Methodology: Positivism, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism’, The Qualitative Report. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1319. Alammar, F. M. et al. (2018) ‘Grounded Theory in Practice: Novice Researchers’ Choice Between Straussian and Glaserian’, Journal of Management Inquiry. SAGE Publications Inc, 28(2), pp. 228–245. 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 Pelá, N. T. (1996) ‘Grounded theory as an approach to interpretive research’, Revista latino-americana de enfermagem. Brazil, 4(3), pp. 75–88. 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) ‘The role of grounded theory in developing economic theory’, Journal of Economic Methodology. Routledge, 9(2), pp. 213–234. 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.

86 Chapter 3. Three Types of Grounded Theory Kaushik, V. and Walsh, C. A. (2019) ‘Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research’, Social Sciences. doi: 10.3390/socsci8090255. Kolkitchaiwan, P. and Siriwong, P. (2016) ‘The Study of The Definition And Market Potential for Premium Soy Milk for Premium Soy Milk: a Study of Grounded Theory’, Journal of Nakornratchasima College, 10(2), pp. 72–84. Levers, M.-J. (2013) ‘Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence’, 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). Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE Publications. Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006) ‘The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods. SAGE Publications Inc, 5(1), pp. 25–35. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500103. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications. Randall, W. S. (2012) ‘Grounded Theory: an Inductive Method for Supply Chain Research’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(8/9), pp. 863–880. Strübing, J. (2007) ‘Research as pragmatic problem-solving: the pragmatist roots of empirically-grounded theorizing.’, in Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds) The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 580–601. doi: 10.4135/9781848607941. Timonen, V., Foley, G. and Conlon, C. (2018) ‘Challenges When Using Grounded Theory: A Pragmatic Introduction to Doing GT Research’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods. SAGE Publications Inc, 17(1), p. 1609406918758086. doi: 10.1177/1609406918758086. Turek, K. and Krupnik, S. (2014) ‘Using Pragmatic Grounded Theory in the Evaluation of Public Policies’, Zarządzanie Publiczne, 2(28), pp. 32–48. 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 91 The previous part of this book outlined philosophical discussions to Focus group guide economics and management researchers in determining when discussions, page 94 to consider using qualitative approaches. It then specifically guided Observations, page when the grounded theory study should be considered as an 96 appropriate method for their research. This second part will guide Documentary the researchers on the design and management of the grounded analysis, page 99 theory method in practice. Given the philosophical discussions in Audiovisual the previous part of the book, emphasis has been placed on the resources, page 100 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 different 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, sufficient 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 significant. 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 qualitative data sources that are frequently used in qualitative research.

90 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 4.2 Qualitative Grounded Theory Study The essential There is one significant advantage qualitative researchers have over advantage of the quantitative investigators. While gathering data, they can add new grounded theory pieces to the research puzzle or create new puzzles, which can occur method is that more even late in the analysis. The adaptability of qualitative research permits the pursuit permits the pursuit of emerging leads. Grounded theory methods of emerging leads, increase this adaptability and provide greater focus than other compared to other methods. Utilized effectively, grounded theory expedites the process qualitative methods. of understanding clearly what is occurring in the data without The critical sacrificing the specificity of enacted scenes. Like a camera with criticisms on the multiple lenses, the landscape is initially viewed in its entirety. The higher level of researcher then switches lenses numerous times to bring scenes adaptability of closer and closer into view. grounded theory relate to questionable Despite the advantage, qualitative grounded theory researchers separation of facts also need to be aware of possible criticism against the adaptability and values. perceived as a negative quality of the research’s 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 scientific 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 verifiable quantitative information. Positivists viewed as valid only narrowly scientific, 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 scientific 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; Radović-Marković and Alecchi, 2016). The two disciplines are significantly involved with human problems. Many scholars, including those believing in the positivist paradigm, accept that some human problems and research questions may not fit positivistic research designs, and they were not to be overlooked due to the emphasis placed on replication and verification. If quantification proponents acknowledged qualitative research at all, they viewed it as a preliminary step in refining quantitative instruments. It is common that, in qualitative research, multiple techniques are frequently employed to gather and collect data in diverse forms

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 91 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 effective 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 quantifiable. 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 field notes (Miles et al., 2014). This section will outline various sorts of qualitative data can be classified into five 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 five sorts of qualitative data. 4.3.1 Interviews Three types of interview: There are three types of interviews commonly used by qualitative 1. Strcutured researchers: structured, semi-structured, and non-structured. interviews Different interviews have different levels of flexibility, specificity, and 2. Unstrcutred standardization of contact with the respondents (Corbetta, 2011). interviews The selection of interview type should be based on the study’s 3. Semi-structured objectives as each kind serves different purposes for data collecting interviews. (Kumar, 2010). An explanation of each interview type is provided below:

92 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Structured interview Structured Interviews uses standardized A collection of standardized questions are used to conduct questions listed structured interviews. Both closed fixed response and standardized for closed fixed open-ended questions are employed in this form of interview (Patton, responses and allow 2014). In addition, this interview type is typically used to substitute open-ended answers. self-completion questionnaires in quantitative studies (Bryman, Unstructured and 2021). In practice, despite the fixed question, these interview semi-structured questions usually require the researcher to directly communicate interviews are the with the respondents, e.g. asking questions one by one and recording two types of in-depth the respondents’ answers. By doing so, the interviewer must explain interviews. any complex items on the questionnaire that the responder could find confusing. Although structured interviews are employed when the inquiry covers a wide range of disciplinary topics (Corbetta (2011), some scholars (Bryman, 2021; Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) find that a set of standardized open-ended questions provide limited room to produce exploratory or emerging data and my not fit how and why questions. Nonetheless, the key advantage of using fixed and structured questions is ensuring all the topics and issues listed as significant 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. The key difference between unstructured and semi-structured interviews is a formality: the former is usually informal, while the latter is typically a formal organization. These two alternatives both intend to promote data generation from the respondent’s viewpoints which may be beyond the researcher’s ingenuity concerning the topics and subject areas relevant to the research. The critical difference 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 Unstructured Interviews interview uses Unstructured interview entails a complicated exchange of go-with-the-flow information between interviewers and interviewees to learn more interview technique; about their thought processes, social environments, and personal no listed questions experiences. Researchers conduct mostly unstructured interviews, are required. which are different from scheduled interviews yet similar to casual chats. Unstructured interviews are relaxed, casual conversations in which the subjects may not even be aware that they are being questioned (Patton, 2014). An established list of questions is not used in unstructured interviews. Instead, interviewers adopt a \"go with the flow\" conversation style determined by their function in the field

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 93 environment, as described by Patton. On the other hand, semi-structured interviews employ a written guide to concentrate the interview on specific subjects or issues. Before the interview, the topic guide is created, and interviewers tend to stick to the predetermined themes. These predetermined specific themes or subjects help to create informal conversations. Semi-Structured Interviews Semi-structured In semi-structured interviews , also referred to as the interview interview requires guide approach (Patton, 2014), the researcher predetermines the the researcher content but not the form of the interview; in spite of predetermined to prepare a questions, the order of questions and the interview conversation pre-determined may differ from one respondent to the next. According to Corbetta content of a formal (2011), in an unstructured interview, only a predetermined topic conversation to serves as a guide for the interview discourse; neither the interview’s stimulate emerging shape nor its substance is preset. data generation under the predefined A semi-structured interview is referred to by Burgess (2015, p.84) scope of the content. as \"conversations with a purpose\" as he outlines the characteristics of this interview type as follows: • The interviewer and respondents engage in a formal interview. • 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 specified sequence. • The questions listed usually are open-ended and defined 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. • 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 interviews, either unstructured or semi-structured, to allow emerging data generation (Bryant, 2017). Agreeing, Jemna (2016) provided scholarly dialogues on emphasizing the use of these two interview types as effective data generation techniques for economics research using qualitative or mixed methods.

94 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Similarities between 4.3.2 Focus Group Discussions in-depth interviews and focus group Many scholars define focus groups as synonymous with interviews: discussions: some refer to this data collection technique as a type of in-depth 1. The propensity interview (Mishra, 2016), while some indicate it as a group interview to reveal the (Morgan, 2012). Similarities between these tools include their perceptions and propensity to reveal the perceptions and values of individuals and values of individuals the fieldwork setting to foster a making conversations environment. 2. A making Thus, in some circumstances, researchers have confused and conversations muddled these two methods in some instances. environment. However, although they share some similarities, focus group discussions are not identical to in-depth interviews (Smithson, 2000). 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 first five types were typical techniques having been identified 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’s 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.

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 95 3. Dual Moderator Focus Group: This method consists of two The crucial moderators collaborating. Each performs a distinct function distinction between inside the same focus group. The distribution of roles ensures in-depth interviews that the session flows smoothly and that all topics are covered. and focus group discussions is the 4. Duelling Moderator Focus Group: This focus group moderator: in-depth discussion involves two moderators who adopt conflicting interviews do not positions on an issue or topic being investigated. In order to have moderators get a more thorough exposure to data and information, while these actors is proponents believe it is essential for moderators to include a requisite in focus opposing viewpoints in the discussion. group settings. 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 affect the group’s dynamics by influencing the participants’ comments, boosting the likelihood of diverse and more honest responses. 6. Mini Focus Group: Typically, researchers face a circumstance in which a small pool of possible participants is difficult to reach or contact in person as a face-to-face group discussion. Still, the research design necessitates that the topic is addressed in a group. Under these conditions, researchers can only assemble a small group of two to five individuals. Typically, these organizations consist of persons with a high level of knowledge. 7. Online Focus Group: Online focus groups are not a distinct sort of focus group discussion but rather an adaption of existing methodologies brought about by the advent of the Internet. It is implemented in an online environment by using conference calling, chat rooms, or other online tools. Online focus groups exude an atmosphere of vitality, modernity, and competition 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 benefit 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 profiles. Indeed, focus groups are the ideal approach to exchanging perspectives and discussing consumer disagreements. This relationship cannot be portrayed through an in-person

96 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 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’ speaking time will probably be significantly 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 significantly greater without a well-prepared interview guide. Finally, there is the difficult-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 specific experiences and viewpoints that may be explored in greater depth with the interviewee. This method allows respondents to confide 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 beneficial to engage others with complementary experiences to identify the future issues the researcher will need to address. 4.3.3 Observations Observation can be either quantitative or qualitative research tools (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2017). Traditionally, observations in economics and hard management sciences favor quantification, and the preferred process is observing with measuring. However, the different perceptions of modern economics research towards the observation and the observing process wildly cover both qualitative and qualitative approaches. 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 refinement. 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

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 97 profession because they are frequently tied to the site of scientific observation. In order to make an observation, one must first combine and think about information from many sources with personal experience. It is better to think of quantitative (statistical) data as a specific category of observation. Quantification is not always associated with the location of means and variances (Lee and Cronin, 2016). These are well-established research methodologies, each with a logic that does not reduce to statistics, although they are frequently discovered concealed in the basis of statistical data. Qualitative observation in economics and management also allows the involvement of quantitative features, such as quantifiable data, statistics, and mathematical models, to serve as inputs for models and testing grounds for ideas and conceptual refinement. The current debates over the value of \"real-time data\" for Consistent with the modeling and policymaking, as well as the resurgence of interest in logic of grounded surveys and field research, demonstrate how economists are aware theory construction, that there is a disconnect between the recorded measurement and quantitative what it intends to express, as well as that such measurements do not measurements can capture all that may be observable. As a result, in many disciplinary serve as a building subjects, economics and management included, the process is block of observation. reversed, with quantitative measurement serving as a building block for observation rather than the other way around. For instance, the several technical components and human knowledge acquisition procedures that underlie the observation provided in a GNP chart are equally as difficult 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’s stance, the classic classification of the researcher’s role in qualitative observation is provided by Gold (1958). Most qualitative scholars refer to Gold’s classification as the typology of the participant observer roles, wildly accepted as the fundamental

98 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data guide for designing observational fieldwork. The four stances of the observer roles are explained below (Gold, 1958, pp.213-217): Four observer roles: 1. The complete participant takes an insider role, is fully part 1. The complete of the setting, and often observes covertly. participant 2. The participant as 2. The participant as observer is the researcher gaining access observer to a setting by having a natural and non-research reason for 3. The observer as being part of the setting. As observers, they are part of the group participant being studied. 4. The complete observer 3. The observer as participant refers to the researcher or (Gold, 1958, pp.213- observer having only minimal involvement in the social 217). setting being studied. There is some connection to the setting, but the observer is not naturally and normally part of the social setting. 4. The complete observer refers to the researcher not taking part in the social setting at all. An example of complete observation might be watching children play from behind a two-way mirror. In terms of the observation setting, Kawulich (2012) recognizes two major types of observations: participant and direct observations, explanation below: Two types of 1. Participant observation: researchers conducting the formal observation settings: type involve in the setting under study as both observers and 1. Participant participants. This technique is often used by action research observation which requires the researcher’s participation while 2. Direct observation. 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 fieldwork, hence also known as public observation (Stewart-Withers et al., 2014), concerning the ethical manners and confines of obtaining individual participatory consent. It can be seen that observation is a flexible 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 clarification of the role of the researcher, or the observer, and the observation setting.

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 99 4.3.4 Documents Two types of documents used Documents contain text, words, and visual representations, such as in doing research: illustrations, images, photos, tables, and such, that were captured professional and without the participation of a researcher. Documents used in non-professional qualitative research can be classified into professional and documents. 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 “pure descriptions of various sorts with virtually no or minimal conceptualizations.” According to Patton (2014), using documents as a source of research data requires specific 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 analysis, is a systematic process for studying or assessing papers. According to a recent study, documents include both printed and electronic, known as computer-based and internet-transmitted content (Bowen, 2009). Like other qualitative research methodologies, document analysis needs the examination and interpretation of evidence to elicit meaning, gain insight, and develop empirical knowledge (Corbin and Strauss, 2015). There are five specific purposes for using documents in qualitative research (Bowen, 2009, pp. 29-30), details below: 1. Documents can provide information about the context in which research participants operate; they can provide context if 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.

100 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 2. The information included in documents might offer 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 specific participant observation activities, document analysis helped to produce new interview topics, and participant observation at community events offered opportunities to collect documents. 3. Documents offer more study data. Document-derived data and insights can be significant 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 modifications. Even minute alterations to a draft can imply substantial changes to a project. When accessible, the researcher may also analyze periodic and final reports to understand how an organization or program performed over time comprehensively. 5. Documents can be analyzed to verify conclusions or corroborate other sources’ evidence. Document analysis can be utilized to validate and triangulate the research findings1. 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 confident in the findings’ 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 fields. 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 1Data triangulation will be explained later in the next chapter as part of the grounded theory research process. See Section 5.7.1 on page 148 for details.

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 101 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 film, 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. 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’s affordances and how their use affects 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. See 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) as a practical example from Thailand of a grounded

102 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Case 4.1: Using theory study using multiple sources of qualitative data, including Multiple Sources of audiovisual resources. Qualitative Data in a Grounded Theory Case 4.1: Using Multiple Sources of Qualitative Data in a Study Grounded Theory Study \"Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Case 4.1 is a practical example of how a grounded theory Empirical Case Study study collects research data from multiple sources. Chanthes of Knowledge-Based (2021) adopted the grounded theory method to examine Entrepreneurship the development of knowledge-based entrepreneurship in an Development in an organic rice farming community enterprise in Thailand. The Organic Rice Farming empirical setting of this study was a case study of the selected Community enterprise, and the researcher identified the unit of analysis Enterprise in and the individuals who were the members of this enterprise Thailand\" responsible for its business management and entrepreneurial (Chanthes, 2021) 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’s 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’ sources included public documents and enterprise organizational reports. The audiovisual sources included the official 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 148 for details.

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 103 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 five 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 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. 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 different 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.

104 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Key Terms Audiovisual resources, 100 Observations, 96 Data instrumentation, 103 Participant observation, 98 Direct observations, 98 Professional documents, 99 Documentary analysis, 99 Semi-structured interview, 93 Focus group discussions, 94 Structured interview, 92 Non-professional documents, 99 Unstructured interview, 92 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 differences between unstructured interviews and focus group discussions. 4. Explain the differences between participant and direct observations. 5. Explain the differences 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 influences 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: • Identify the benefits and key advantages of using qualitative research. • Provide the rationales for choosing the grounded theory method. • Specify possible sources for collecting qualitative data and discuss the necessity for colleting data from those sources.

Chapter 4. Qualitative Data 105 References Bowen, G. (2009) ‘Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method’, \"ualitative Research Journal 9, pp. 27–40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027. Braun, V., Clarke, V. and Gray, D. (2017) ‘Collecting textual, media and virtual data in qualitative research’, 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. 1–12. 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) ‘Using a Grounded Theory Method in an Empirical Case Study of Knowledge-Based Entrepreneurship Development in an Organic Rice Farming Community Enterprise in Thailand’, in European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. Aveiro, Portugal, pp. 72–81. 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) ‘Roles in Sociological Field Observations’, Social Forces, 36(3), pp. 217–223. doi: 10.2307/2573808. Jemna, L. M. (2016) ‘Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods In Economics: the Added Value When Using Qualitative Research Methods’, Journal of Public Administration, Finance and Law, 9(9), pp. 154–167. Kawulich, B. (2012) ‘Collecting data through observation’, in Wagner, C., Kawulich, B., and Garner, M. (eds) Doing Social Research: A global context. McGraw Hill, pp. 150–160. Kumar, R. (2010) Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. SAGE Publications. Lee, F. S. and Cronin, B. (2016) ‘Qualitative and Ethnographic Methods in Economics’, 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. 135–164.

106 Chapter 4. Qualitative Data Maas, H. and Morgan, M. (2013) ‘Observation and Observing in Economics’, History of Political Economy, 44, pp. 1–24. doi: 10.1215/00182702-1631761. Manuell, P. and Graham, W. (2017) ‘Grounded Theory: An Action Research Perspective with Models to Help Early Career Researchers’, e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 8(1), pp. 74–90. Melgar Estrada, L. and Koolen, M. (2018) ‘Audiovisual Media Annotation Using Qualitative Data Analysis Software: A Comparative Analysis’, The Qualitative Report, 23(13), pp. 40–60. 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) ‘Focus Group Discussion in Qualitative Research’, TechnoLEARN, 6(1), pp. 1–5. Morgan, D. L. (2012) ‘Focus Groups and Social Interaction’, 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. 141–155. Nyumba, T. et al. (2018) ‘The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation’, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), pp. 20–32. 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) ‘Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), pp. 103–119. doi: 10.1080/136455700405172. Stewart-Withers, R. et al. (2014) ‘Development Field Work: A Practical Guide’, in Stewart-Withers, R., Banks, G., and A., M. (eds) Qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Ltd, pp. 59–80. doi: 10.4135/9781473921801.

C5 Grounded Theory Design and Management 5.1 Introduction In this Chapter: The earlier chapters described the philosophical foundations of Asking research social research and the usage of qualitative methods in economics questions, page 109 and management research, which led to the crucial advice on when grounded theory is an appropriate. Also, different qualitative data The literature sources and types have been explained. review, page 113 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 first introduction, regardless of the diversity of the practical Memos implication, its standard routine activities relevant to the method’s Constant comparison constant comparison strategy remain, as outlined in the diagram in Figure 5.1, next page. All of the components seen in the diagram will Grouned theory be explained in detail in this chapter. development, page 143: The chapter will begin with an overview of how to perform a Substantive theory grounded theory study. The first section will explain how Formal theory researchers formulate research questions, plan the grounded theory study procedure, and determine the unit of analysis as they begin Research conducting a grounded theory study. The significance of the triangulations, page literature review in grounded theory research will then be discussed 148 in the second section. This section will explain what the goals of a literature review are and how grounded theory researchers should Using computer go about doing this important task at different stages of the study, software in such as during the preliminary literature review, when collecting and grounded theory analyzing data, and when finalizing the theory development that will data analysis, page be the research outcome. 149

108 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Figure 5.1: Essential Components of the Grounded Theory Process Source: the author. Explanation: The constant comparison procedure is central to the grounded theory study. Employing this procedure, the grounded theorist is required to perform constant and repetitive theoretical sampling, coding, writing memos, and reviewing the literature. The codes resulting from the coding procedure are recognized as four theoretical coding levels, namely, open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding, which range from the lower to higher levels, respectively. An emerging theory will be developed in each round of the comparison process. Theoretical assumptions will then be provided to guide the next round of data collection.The whole process will repeat until, at a certain round, there are no new insights discovered and theoretical saturation is claimed. At this final stage, the research will finalize the theories that emerged as the grounded theory outcomes. Details of these essential elements of the procedure will be thoroughly explained in this chapter.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 109 Given the previous chapter’s 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 fieldwork 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 final 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 differs 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, “sensitizing concepts” and “disciplinary perspectives”, to “provide 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 first aptitudes, sensitizing concepts serve as heuristic Two essential tools for grounded theorists to develop hypotheses about aptitudes required processes defined by their data. Grounded theorists assess the in asking a grounded compatibility between their initial research interests and new theory question: data. One should not directly apply preconceived ideas and 1. Sensitizing theories to our data. Instead, the researcher needs to follow concepts, leads defined in the data or contrive an alternative method of 2. Disciplinary data collection to pursue the initial interests. Grounded theory perspectives. 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. 2. Specific disciplinary perspectives are always necessary for all types of research, regardless of different philosophical backgrounds, methods or subject areas. Although no presumptive ideas are required for qualitative analysis,

110 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.1: Asking especially for exploratory purposes, Punch (2013) asserts that a grounded theory the researcher should not start research with a blank mind. research question For this reason, to ask a grounded theory research question, (Chanthes and the researcher should identify specific disciplinary Sriboonlue, 2021, perspectives mostly relevant to the research topic or their p.198) 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 specific 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 “to what extent the triple helix model of collaboration is practically implemented to promote innovation SMEs development in the Northeast region?” (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. It can be seen from the practical example, Example 5.1, that Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021) used sensitized concepts and specific disciplinary perspectives to help illuminate and organize the investigative directions given the initial research interest. The researchers did not use them to provide any presumptive ideas of what to be discovered. When using the grounded theory method, the specification of these two components, sensitizing concepts and disciplinary perspectives, are crucial because without such concepts and perspectives, the researcher might start researching with a blank mind lacking focus on what to explore.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 111 5.3 Identifying the Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis may be individuals, The unit of analysis not the topic of investigation (Merriam and groups, nations, Tisdell, 2015). Instead, a unit of analysis is the main subject or entity organizations, on whom the researcher intends to comment in the study. The technologies, social research question mainly determines it. The unit of analysis is the phenomena, firms, who or what the researcher is interested in analyzing. Therefore, the countries, cities and unit of analysis may be individuals, groups, nations, organizations, such. technologies, social phenomena, firms, countries, cities and such. For Example 5.2: instance, innovation would be the object of inquiry if the researcher Identifying the unit aims to investigate why some ideas succeed more than others. of analysis (Chanthes However, the organization may also be identified as the unit of and Sriboonlue, analysis if the researcher wants to learn how some firms innovate 2021, pp.198-199) more frequently than others. As a result, two comparable research topics within the same study may use two completely different 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, the research question asked by Chanthes and Sriboonlue (2021, p.198) was \"to what extent the triple helix model of collaboration is practically implemented to promote innovative SME development in the Northeast region [of Thailand]?\" Considering the concepts and disciplinary perspectives involved with the formation of the 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 promote innovative SME development. In this Example 5.2, to clarify the investigation, the researcher defined the unit of analysis as \"the individual’s experiences involving the enterprise’s knowledge-based entrepreneurship development\" (Chanthes and Sriboonlue, 2021, p.199). The defined 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 specific clarification consequently guided the sources and forms of data collection, the coding in the analysis process and the interpretation of results.

112 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.3: The choice of analysis unit can influence a study’s results in Identifying many aspects. Firstly, it can determine what type of data the organizations as researcher will be able to collect. Secondly, it can affect the way that the unit of analysis data is analyzed. Finally, it can determine the conclusions that can be (Polhong and drawn from the research. Therefore, a precise identification of the Puangpronpitag, unit of analysis is crucial because it affects the kind of data the 2020) researcher should gather for your study and the sources from which Example 5.4: you should get it. For example, the researcher may identify Identifying roles individuals as they observed team members in various of actors as the organizational teams to research teamwork in organizations, then unit of analysis average their results to produce a composite team-level score for (Puangpronpitag, team-level factors like cohesion and conflict. 2015) In addition to Example 5.2, additional examples of how a grounded theory study identifies 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 firms were facing challenges to increase their competitiveness in the industry, providing the national economic development notion of Thailand 4.0. The researchers identified the unit of analysis as business organizations. This identification led the researcher to scrutinize the business activities and the management strategies of those individual enterprises selected as the cases of the research project. In a study by Puangpronpitag (2015), the researcher employed the grounded theory method to examine the implementation of the triple helix model for the development of small and 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.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 113 In a study by Suangsub et al. (2022), the researchers Example 5.5: used the grounded theory method to analyze the key Identifying the factors affecting high-performance organizations (HPO) in population as the unit the logistics industry in Thailand. The unit of analysis was of analysis (Suangsub indicated as the population of logistics business operators in et al., 2022) Thailand. 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 refers throughout the to specific disciplinary research articles, whereas non-technical preliminary, during, literature refers to descriptive documents providing general and finalizing of the information about those under studies, such as reports, internal study. 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 finalizing 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 different stages of the research and how to perform the review productively. 5.4.1 Preliminary Literature Review A preliminary theoretical Promising research must show the researcher’s competency in framework is not a establishing a considerable professional and disciplinary literature requisite in grounded background. The original design of grounded theory research by theory study. Glaser and Strauss (1967) is to delay the literature review to avoid the contamination of preconceived ideas in developing a theory genuinely grounded in the research data. However, it does not imply that a preliminary literature review is not necessary for grounded theory studies. Instead, like other good research, adequate early literature is needed and compulsory, as Charmaz (2014, p.166) asserts that \"delaying the literature review differs from writing a scanty one.\" 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 insufficient initial literature review. By doing so, the researcher should arise with professional

114 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Preliminary and disciplinary arguments on the existing knowledge in the field literature review (Charmaz, 2014), rather than any forces on the data into theoretical helps identify the accounts (Timonen et al., 2018). Hence, the formation of a theoretical followings: framework in this process will only demonstrate how the study 1. The knowledge critically engages with the existing knowledge in the discipline. In gap, other words, the framework will not be used as a typical conceptual 2. Related variables framework filled with identified variables for theoretical to initially direct the verifications of the recognized theories in deductive research. data collection, and 3. A foundation for The preliminary theoretical framework in grounded theory cogent emerging study is vital. Although not serving the testing of the recognized theory development. variables, the preliminary theoretical framework appears to benefit 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 firm statement of the knowledge gap and how the research can contribute knowledge can be clarified persuasively. 2. Secondly, considering the emphasis on openness, however, the researcher should not enter the field with \"a completely blank canvas to work from\" (Goulding, 2002, p.42). Therefore, with sufficient preliminary literature review, the none-testing purposed framework with the collections of significant variables will help organize the research directions, given the identified 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’s viewpoint once the research results are finally delivered. See Example 5.6 for how Chanthes (2021) made use of various variables identified during the preliminary literature review of her grounded theory study.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 115 Example 5.6 is a practical example of how an empirical Example 5.6: economics researcher can utilize variables collected from the Using Functional literature to design a cases study grounded theory research. Properties Derived from the Literature Chanthes (2021) used a preliminary literature review Review (Chanthes, to help construct a case boundary of the grounded theory 2021) case study, asking a research question how is a knowledge- based entrepreneurship delivered in a local organic farming See also community? The selected case community was in the Example 5.6 Figure Northeast region of Thailand. See Example 5.6 Figure. First, following the identification of the research question, the reviewed literature helped guide the investigative propositions and the unit of analysis of the case study. It can be seen from the illustration that the researcher utilized the preliminary literature intending to allow later room for other variables and conceptions to emerge as the investigation went on, which is a core procedure of grounded theory analysis. That is, given the two study propositions, 1 and 2, the researcher aimed to explore further hypothetical properties such as forms, activities, roles, impacts, and determinants. These properties were not yet identified and required the researcher to enter the fieldwork to scrutinize their elements from the research data. Following the illustration towards its final section, the researcher provided a direction for the grounded theory analysis. It also indicated the expected outcome of this study, aiming to deliver the examination of knowledge-based entrepreneurship development in the selected specific context of organic rice farming from the Northeast region of Thailand.

116 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.6 Figure: Using Functional Properties Derived from the Literature Review in Designing a Case Study Grounded Theory Research, based on Chanthes (2021, p.74) Source: Based on Chanthes (2021, p.74). Explanation: Example 5.6 Figure is a practical example of how an economic research design a case study grounded theory research with an assistance of the preliminary literature. Chanthes (2021, p.74) asked a research question, how is knowledge-based entrepreneurship developed in a local organic farming community enterprise? This project was a case study requiring a case’s bounded system, or the specified investigative boundary for the specifically selected case, with the unit of analysis identified. The researcher reviewed preliminary literature to discover related variables to the research question and arrange those variables to help form two study propositions significant to knowledge-based entrepreneurial development: knowledge networks and innovative entrepreneurship. There was also room for emerging variables for the grounded theory to discover, given the two propositions, such as forms, activities, impacts, and determinants of the investigative properties.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 117 5.4.2 During the Data Collection and Analysis The key purposes to review related Once entering the field and starting the data collection, the literature literature during the review will serve the study as a valuable source of comparison and data collection and analysis. The use of related literature during the data collection analysis: analysis should consider the following purposes. 1. As a source of comparison for 1. First, the related literature is a source of comparison and emerging concepts, analysis throughout the theory development processes 2. As a source of (Charmaz, 2014). The researcher should review the literature, the disciplinary key then critically discuss earlier studies by constantly comparing terms them with the ongoing data analysis. Essential materials 3. To help the should be drawn from reviewing related previous studies, researcher develop such as variables, concepts, details on the specific contexts of theoretical various studies, and hypothetical discussions on the results. sensitivity. Then, the coherent, analytic and systematic comparisons will assist the researchers with revising and discussing the emerging theory to fit the specific tasks of their studies. 2. Secondly, the related literature is a source of key terms and conceptions previously acknowledged. These terms and 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 identified for the specific 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 effective and systematic review of literature will assist the research in engaging with others in the specific disciplines, notwithstanding the particular contexts of their studies.

118 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management The review of related 5.4.3 Finalizing the Theory Development literature towards finalizing the theory The outcome of the grounded theory study is an emerging theory. As development known, theories need the identification of properties, or variables, is a part of with hypothetical relationships of the properties at the abstraction comparative critical level. The production of outcome in grounded theory studies is and theoretical finalized when it reaches the stage of theoretical saturation, which properties. Charmaz (2014, p.189) refers to as “the point at which gathering more data about a theoretical category reveals no new properties nor yields any further theoretical insights about the emerging grounded theory.” The grounded theorist must continue the simultaneous data collection and analysis processes as they develop the emerging theory until they are certain that no 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 differences between the research outcome and the existing knowledge, which are arisen as part of the comparisons, need specific theoretical explanations of their presence. Therefore, the literature needs to be comprehensively reviewed at this stage of finalizing the theory development. Considering the flexibility of qualitative research designs, the researcher can make different 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 first 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 identification 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 Grounded theory research is a type of theory-based analysis (Patton, data collection and 2002). Thus, the grounded theory method offers the researcher an analysis: iterative process involving both inductive (theory-building) and 1. Sampling using the deductive (theory-testing) analyses throughout the analysis, theoretical sampling considering the fundamental reason for choosing the research technique method. Fundamentally, the grounded theory method uses 2. Coding using aggressive inductive theory-building and pattern-seeking processes the four grounded to relate studied phenomena, human experiences, and behaviors to theory codes higher-level concepts. The technique is claimed to go beyond the 3. Writing memos building of descriptions at the low-level development of categories 4. Analyzing the data with dimensions; instead, grounded theory can assist the researcher using the constant in positing relationships between these categories (Randall, 2012). comparison strategy. 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 verification simultaneously. To be objectively grounded in the theory development in the data detached from subjective influences, researchers must conduct research without a priori constructs. Therefore, the method emphasizes letting concepts emerge from the data rather than being constrained by previous theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

120 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Data collection Throughout the grounded theory study, the simultaneous and and data analysis ongoing verification of the emerging theory is undertaken using a in a grounded unique grounded theory data collection and analysis technique theory study are known as theoretical sampling. That is, the researcher will use the not sequential; emerging theory to guide further data collection required for testing they are multi- the theory until it reaches saturation, meaning no indication of more phase simultaneous data is needed to test the theory (Wertz et al., 2011). Thus, it is usual ongoing processes. that grounded theory processes comprise multiple phases of data collection, data analysis, and theory verification 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 different and similar coding details across different 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 final 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 5.5.1 The Theoretical Sampling Procedure is purposive sampling, also Theoretical sampling is also known as a type of purposeful sampling known as purposeful (Patton, 2002; Charmaz, 2014) and criterion-based selection sampling. (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 different forms of purposeful sampling are all involved the deliberate selection of the investigative unit, such as informants, participants, or selected individuals, based upon some specific criterion or criteria (Oast and De Allegri, 2018). The logic of sampling with specific 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 statistical inferences about their studied populations (Charmaz, 2014). In contrast, purposive sampling is not about representing a population or promoting the credibility of statistical generalizability. Instead, the sampling criteria are identified based on the study objectives to obtain a

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 121 diverse sample, ensuring that various perspectives are captured Theoretical sampling across defined investigative aspects and the study context. is iterative and multiple. Theoretical sampling begins without the total sample being Theoretical sampling selected ahead of time. The data collection combined with the needs no specific analysis process for generating the theory allows the researcher to sample size as jointly collect, code, and analyze the data and decide what data to it starts because collect next to develop the theory as it emerges (Glaser and Strauss, this procedure 1967). According to Randall (2012, p.867), grounded theorists is expected to be validate emerging conceptions and their relationships to compare multiple and ongoing findings from one sample to another, which is \"a new sample until the research explicitly selected to confirm or disconfirm the previous outcomes are propositions\". Hence, the sample size is not a primary focus at the eventually finalized, initial data collection stage; instead, the criteria ensuring the diverse known as a saturated captured perspectives are. grounded theory. Without a specific concern about the sample size, judgments about whether the sampling is adequate and appropriate are made regarding the research’s 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 sufficient 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 confirmed 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 field 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. 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.

122 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 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 verified grounded in the research data; this is the source of the method’s name, the grounded theory, meaning the results need to be verified 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.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 123 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 Picturing grounded theory coding: Coding in grounded theory generates the bones of the data analysis, 1. Codes are the and the theoretical generation is the assembly of these bones into a bones. working skeleton (Charmaz, 2014). The procedure of grounded 2. Coding is the theory coding requires the critical link between the data collection assembly of the and the emergent theory development. bones into a working skeleton, Concerning grounded theory working on qualitative data, the 3. The working data can be collected using various techniques ranging from skeleton pictures a interviews, focus group discussions, documentary analysis, grounded theory as observation fieldwork notes, and, especially for most interpretive an outcome. approaches, the researcher’s memos. These collected data forms are usually transcribed into texts for record-keeping and organizing purposes. Hence, grounded theory data analysis works mainly with texts. Therefore, according to Bryant (2017, p.327), grounded theory method is seen as “instantiations of hermeneutics” 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 refining data into code names at the lower theoretical level to arrange the rich and complex qualitative data into a well-defined 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 different researchers can be flexible 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

124 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Four coding levels (Glaser, 1992; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Later, the coding practice in grounded theory was reconsidered, originated by Strauss and Corbin (1998), resulting research: in the reorganization of the coding practice as open, axial, and Level 1: open coding selective coding. Additionally, another practical consideration is Level 2: axial coding provided by Charmaz (2014), who acknowledges the flexible and Level 3: selective varied coding practice and points out that grounded theory coding coding consists of at least two main phases: initial and focused phases. Level 4: theoretical coding. Notwithstanding the flexibility and variety of coding Open codes are arrangements, coding in grounded theory essentially involves early code names multiple coding demeanors, beginning with the organizing purpose, conceptually moving to a more analytic sense, followed by a higher-level of organized into hypothetical drive, and finalized with the theoretical saturating goal. categories. Therefore, this section classifies the basics of grounded theory coding strategies into four levels: open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding. Level 1: Open Coding Open coding is the first level of abstraction for organizing qualitative data into a broad initial range of categories (Renjith 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’s theoretical or conceptual models. Similarly, in case study designed studies, the researcher can utilize elements in the case’s 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 firmly 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 field.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 125 Level 2: Axial Coding The second level of grounded theory coding is axial coding (Strauss Axial codes and Corbin, 1998), also known as analytic coding (Merriam and are themes of Tisdell, 2015). Following the researcher’s construction categories, connections and the next step is coding beyond description and organizing relationships that conception. The purpose of axial coding is to find tentative schemes of emerged across the the categories (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). The researcher needs developed categories. first to sort the categories analytically to find the abstraction, which is the interpretation and reflection on meaning derived as a theme from the data. According to Renjith et al. (2021), axial coding aims at understanding the connections or relationships between the open codes. The procedure to define such connections is seen by citeMerriam2015 to require a deductive way of thought. Once an axial code or the pattern of connection is defined, the researcher then revisits the research data across different 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,\" \"classification,\" and \"strategy.\" However, most grounded theory researchers renounce Glaser’s argument concerning the use of axial codes. Instead, axial coding is widely adopted, especially among interpretivism, constructivist and pragmatic researchers, who consider the researcher’s 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, classification, 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.

126 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 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. Selective codes are Level 3: Selective Coding hypothetical relations across axial codes The third level of grounded theory coding is selective coding (Strauss and their associated and Corbin, 1998), also known as focused coding (Charmaz, 2014). categories. Coding at this level aims at systematically 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 refine 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 redefined and examined for their necessity and importance to the theory development, e.g., it might only need to be reclassified 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 “we 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.” Following the critical identification 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 different 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 flowcharts, frameworks, or diagrams.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 127 Level 4: Theoretical Coding Theoretical codes are The highest level of abstraction in the grounded theory coding holistic abstractions procedure is theoretical coding. According to Goulding (2002), of hypothetical theoretical codes construct the analytic framework of the inquired relations drawn from study. According to Glaser (1978), grounded theory study ultimately the selective coding. aims at generating a theory that accounts for a pattern of behavior of those being studied. Therefore, the generated theory, regarded as its outcome, comprises causal conditions that explain the behavior of social actions and human experience under 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. The basics of coding in grounded theory study following the explanation this section has provided can be outlined in Figure 5.4, next page. 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 coding structures depend on the researcher’s creativity in theoretically organizing the emerging conceptions into the answers to the research question. Coding in grounded theory analysis is usually more complex than the basic picture illustrated in Figure 5.4, next page.

128 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Figure 5.4: The Basic of Coding in Grounded Theory Study Source: the author. Note: H = Hypothesis

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 129 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 logically. The entry-level is open coding. At this level, the researchers need to do a line-by-line analysis technique to scrutinize any underlying meanings within the research data and assign code names, which could either be verbatim or terms commonly used in the academic discipline. Results from this level are code names being arranged into associated categories. The second coding level is axial codes. At this level, the researcher identifies the relationships among categories. The third level is selective codes. The researcher will scrutinize the axial codes and then hypothesize relationships between the attributes of each axial code attempting to select a specific hypothesis relevant to the investigative propositions. Finally, the highest coding level, the theoretical coding, requires the researcher to verify the proposed hypothesis grounding into the data before ruling the emerging theory. The theory will guide further data collection to re-verify the theory. The researcher can rule out theoretical saturation if no new insights are found in the newly collected data. Or else, any new insights will order the researcher to revise the code from the entry-level code names and categories. Researchers commonly developed a large number of codes, categories and deliver more interconnecting conceptions and theoretical patterns across axial codes, hence sophisticated selective codes and hypotheses. To effectively deliver and communicate the analytical structure to the research audience, grounded theory researchers are advised to use visual representations such as tables, graphs, diagrams, figures, illustrations, flowcharts and framework (Renjith et al., 2021; Su, 2018). See Example 5.7, next page, for a practical example of a table-formatted organized complex coding procedure. This example shows how Chanthes (2021) undertook the four stages of coding in her grounded theory research. The researcher also clarified how the codes in each of the coding levels were developed.

130 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.7: Providing a case’s bounded system, Chanthes (2021) used the Organizing the grounded theory method for examining the development of Codes in Economics knowledge-based entrepreneurship in a selected case of local Grounded Theory organic farming in the Northeast of Thailand. It can be Study (Chanthes, seen that, despite the specific boundary, the emerging codes 2021) identified throughout the coding process were not necessarily pre-determined. The boundary only helped organize the See also possible areas for logical analysis, or possible conceptions of Example 5.7 Table relevance to the research question. The terms such as forms, activities, roles, impacts and determinants allowed the openness and wide variety of codes to emerge from the research data. The researcher indicated the research motivation to involve recently Thailand’s national economic development concept known as Thailand 4.0, which included food production as one of its targeted industries driven by innovation and entrepreneurship. Also, the researcher adopted the national roadmap for organic production to create the case’ bounded system of investigation. By using the grounded theory coding procedure, the coding structure was finally developed and associated with, not forced into, the specified case’s boundary. The researcher adopted the grounded theory coding procedure comprising four code types, including open, axial, selective and theoretical coding. In order to communicate with the audiences, the research organized the emerging codes at all levels into a table format. See details in Example 5.7 Table.

Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management 131 Example 5.7 Table: Codes Collection and the Substantive Theory Development Source: Based on Chanthes (2021, p.78). Explanation: Example 5.7 Table is a practical example of how an economics grounded theory organized emerging codes from the four coding levels. Chanthes (2021) summarized the grounded theory codes in a table format. From the bottom, the researcher started from Level 1, known as open codes or initial codes and their associated categories. Then, there were codes in Level 2, identified as Axial codes, showing the relationships across categories. After that, the researcher logically organized the axial codes into selective codes, the Level 3 coding, using the two propositions of the case’s bounded system. Finally, the selective codes were used to form theoretical codes, or hypothetical relationships of the selective codes properties, or the axial codes. The highest coding level was a substantive theory of the inquired case study, investigating the knowledge-based entrepreneurship development of the selected community enterprise in the Northeast region of Thailand.

132 Chapter 5. Grounded Theory Design and Management Example 5.8: In practice, the terms used to refer to grounded theory codes Emerging Codes that emerge at different theoretical levels are various and flexible. in an Economics Different researchers can use coding terms variously and Grounded Theory interchangeably, e.g., open codes vs. initial codes, categories plus Research Mekawy sub-categories, issues plus sub-issues, axial codes vs. coding families, (2022) and emerging theory vs. hypothetical patterns. In addition to Example 5.7, another example of coding in grounded theory research See also is Example 5.8. It shows how Mekawy (2022) determined codes at Example 5.8 Table different levels using various terms and references. The choices and designs of suitable coding practice depend on the underpinning philosophies, the different practical experiences in dealing with the data, and the specific work, research, and professional backgrounds. Example 5.8 is a practical example of how economic grounded theory research organizes the codes at different levels into a table format to communicate with the research audiences. Mekawy (2022) investigate businesses’ concerns about public-private partnership (the P3 strategies) responses towards COVID-19 using a constructivist grounded theory. The researcher used the grounded theory method to conduct a set of systematic inductive procedures for this qualitative research to explore the perceptions of tourism businesses in peripheral destinations. The researcher’s objective was to develop a theory to understand better COVID-19’s impact on the future of P3 in the tourism industry in the substantive area of inquired phenomenon. The research data were collected using semi-structured interviews with purposively selected 26 participants with diverse professional backgrounds in the Marsa Alam of Egypt’s tourist industry. An additional source of the research data was 12 tourism P3s and governance reports. The researcher performed systematic coding through the open, axial and selective coding steps and critically analysis of the data. As a result, emerging concepts, issues, and concerns were identified for the research to construct a conceptual explanation of the studied area. As seen in Case 5.1 Table, the research states that codes emerging from the open coding level were derived from the primary research data, interview texts. Then, the higher-level coding, axial and selecting codes helped the researcher identify issues and concerns relevant to the research question: the perceptions of tourism businesses in the selected peripheral destinations in the studied region, Marsa Alam.