Methodological Considerations for Possibilities to Integrate the Grounded Theory and Action Research

This text is a report from the III International Symposium of Action and Participatory research that took place in Bogota (Colombia), from June 22 to 25, 2015. These conferences originated from the International Journal of Action Research’s intention of providing a regular space for action researchers to meet, share and evaluate their practices. As Colombia was the homeland of Orlando Fals Borda (1925-2008), his living memory was very much felt during the symposium, which was also intended to pay homage to this researcher who keeps influencing much of action and participatory research in Latin America. Investigacion Accion Participativa (IAP) revealed itself to be a quite well established approach within the larger context of action research. The papers were largely centered on methodological creativity, and the discussions called attention to the importance of situating research practices and projects within the present global social and economic context. Keywords: Action Research, participatory research, Investigacion accion participative (IAP), Orlando Fals Borda, participatory methodologies

Over the years after its inception in 1967 the term grounded theory has been packed with multiple meanings, but also fraught by numerous misunderstandings, and complicated by competing versions. (Charmaz, 2006, 177) Introduction I am not completely convinced that this is the right place in this book for a discussion of grounded theory; it is here because it is so often referred to as a ‘research method’. Grounded theory (see Example 16.1 on page 185) is an approach that uses ‘simultaneous data collection and analysis’ (Charmaz, 2006, 20) and as such can be applied in ethnography, case study, historical or action research. It is more about how data is collected and analysed than about the entire research design. Grounded theory is a process of qualitative analysis, not a research method; it is a ‘general method of comparative analysis’ (Glaser, 1978, 116). Although taking a grounded theory approach will influence the design of a research method – for example, in pure grounded theory the literature review very often comes after the analysis of empirical data (Charmaz, 2006) – it is not a research method in its own right. Grounded theory is described as ‘a strategy for handling data in research, providing modes of conceptualisation for describing and explaining’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, 3). This is supported by Barney Glaser, who consistently refers to ‘grounded theory analysis’ and when making reference to the ways in which data can be gathered makes no reference to this as a research method (Glaser, 1998). The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) offered a systematic approach to qualitative research practice, emphasizing that qualitative research had a logic of its own, and for the first time practical guidelines were offered in applying that logic. Since 1967 the two originators have taken very different paths. Strauss (1987) and Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994 and 1998) present a systematic and what some describe as ‘rigid’ approach to grounded theory analysis. Many claim their approach has moved too far from the original concept of grounded theory and suggest that the constant comparative method of Strauss and Corbin has changed the way data is used, from the concept of emerging theory, to theory being forced: ‘the technical tail is beginning to wag the theoretical dog’ (Melia, 1996, 371).

Grounded Theory (GT) is a latent pattern recognition research method that was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967). GT, which can use either quantitative or qualitative data, is a general research methodology and it produces empirically grounded but modifiable theory. Since the development of GT in 1967, some researchers have attempted to modify the original GT method, and remodelled GT approaches have been widely used in Information Systems (IS) research, often with unfortunate results due to disregard of the basic rules of the original GT. The continued use of remodelled GT methods has caused confusion and has prevented those in the IS research community from stimulating the development of new theory, which is the main benefit of using GT as it was originally outlined. Following publication of the original grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss (1967), Glaser (1978) went on to explain in detail how to operationalize the GT method. Despite this, some researchers mistakenly continued to classify GT as a subset of the qualitative data analysis research methodology. In doing so, they reveal that they have misunderstood both the purpose of GT and how to use it correctly. In this paper the author will concentrate on the authentic approach to GT, which is termed “Classic Ground Theory” (CGT), so as to differentiate it from any misconceived remodelled version of the theory. This paper explains how CGT can be carried out in an IS context by trusting in the emergence from the data of the required information, rather than forcing it.

Grounded theory has been evolving methodologically since Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss first described it in the late 1960s. Initially underpinned by modernist philosophy, grounded theory has had recent turns including the adoption of both constructivism and postmodernism. This article explores ontological offerings of critical realism as a basis for transformational grounded theory informed by participatory action research and decolonizing research methodologies. The potential for both theory and action to result from this critical grounded theory methodology, which promotes greater participation and equity of power for positive change, is the transformational in transformational grounded theory.

Background: The quality of a research study is a key issue for clinical practitioners committed to the delivery of ‘best-practice’ patient care. With the increasing use of grounded theory in nursing research, attention is now focusing on the quality of studies using this research methodology. Indeed, within the growing body of grounded theory in nursing some methodological problems are emerging that raise questions about the quality of the research. Aim: This paper recognises that clinical practitioners need to be critical readers of grounded theory research, so that they recognise ‘quality’ research studies and can develop their clinical practice based on sound research findings. Conclusion: Grounded theory should be viewed as a package of research methods that includes the use of concurrent data collection and constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling and memoing, all of which can create an awareness and an appreciation of the scientific merit required of grounded theory research and promote quality standards relating to research practices in grounded theory methodology.

Grounded Theory (GT) is a latent pattern recognition research method discovered by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Due to GTs power and transcendence many research papers across several academic disciplines including Information Systems claimed to have used GT when in fact they have used pseudo GT methods. It is argued in this paper that any other research method which adopts the GT label without following orthodoxy of the authentic GT research method should not be called GT. All of the pseudo GT methods make the false assumption that GT is a sub set of Qualitative Data Analysis. This is a false assumption because authentic GT can use either quantitative or qualitative data and it is a general research methodology and produces empirically grounded but modifiable propositions. Within the Information Systems (IS) research community it is therefore not surprising that many, who claim to use GT, have used different types of pseudo GT. They have adopted vocabulary of the GT without following its original tenets. This paper explains how authentic GT can be carried out in an information systems context by trusting in emergence rather than forcing the data.

This chapter highlights the roots of grounded theory research, outlines the critical concepts and processes used in grounded theory, and describes how grounded theory research, and especially constructivist grounded theory, can promote social justice. I provide examples of justice-oriented grounded theory research from my own work with LGBTQ+ individuals who grew up as Christians and from the work of others.

Who is sensitising whom? A participatory interview guide development as an awareness tool within a health care research project

Grounded theory (GT) has been a popularly used qualitative research methodology in the social sciences and has become increasingly popular for doctoral theses and dissertations. Yet, issues such as the changing nature of grounded theory, time constraints, theses advisors, doctoral committee procedures and Institutional Review Board regulations create challenges for doctoral candidates (researchers) who choose to use GT for their dissertations. In this paper, we present the general and specific challenges of using GT for doctoral theses and dissertations by sharing our personal experiences from our Ph.D. programmes in the USA. We conclude by providing practical suggestions for doctoral researchers who are considering using GT for their theses and dissertations.

In this paper we take inspiration from Levin’s (2003) provocation “can universities ever become a greenhouse for education in action research?” His assertion that creating action research learning opportunities within universities is possible becomes particularly relevant in the context of a changing Higher Degree Research (HDR) landscape, notably in Australia. The increasing emphasis on industry-focused doctorates and the demand for post-doctoral career pathways beyond academia necessitates a deeper understanding of supporting engaged and impact-oriented research training. To address these challenges, we present a reflexive discussion centred around the HDR Participatory Action Research (PAR) Collaborative—a year-long peer-learning initiative designed to cultivate a community of practice on transdisciplinary participatory research among graduate researchers at the University of Technology Sydney. This was conducted as a participatory action research project, with a systems-thinking orientation. We articulate lessons learned around the blockers and enablers for training HDR candidates engaged in participatory research to tackle wicked problems and ways to enhance HDR researcher development in this area, including the prototyping of new peer learning and mentoring approaches. By aligning with Levin’s emphasis on practical and useful knowledge, we highlight the importance of curriculum design for synchronous and asynchronous hybrid delivery, collective peer learning practices, and transdisciplinary orientations to research as crucial factors for success in action research programs within the academic context. By addressing the evolving needs of HDR training and research cultures, our study contributes to the ongoing dialogue on holistic and integrative research approaches and ways to support them within higher education.

Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 14 No. 2 (2004) ISSN: 1546-2250 Youth Participatory Evaluation: A Field in the Making Sabo, Kim (2000). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 112 pages. $27.00. ISBN 0787970743. The objective of this slim but powerful volume is to share field experience about how, when and why to include children in participatory evaluation. It emerges from rapidly converging methods in community development, participatory action research and cognitive science and is underpinned by the need for greater inclusivity across all domains. Sabo carefully sets the stage for the contributions of leaders in the field by illustrating theories of community development through action research, participatory evaluation, positive youth development and the emergence of youth participatory evaluation. A group of leaders in the field of youth and child participation, including international researchers, evaluators and practitioners, gathered in June 1999 for the Children’s Participation in Community Settings conference, sponsored by Child watch International Research Network and the Growing Up in Cities project of the MOST program of UNESCO. Eventually three related conferences took place, culminating with a symposium on Youth Participation in Community Research and Evaluation in 2002. Each chapter in Sabo’s volume deals with one or more arguments for including youth participation in evaluation made during this conference. One key observation made in this book is that youth participation fundamentally changes relationships between youth, between adults, and between youth and adults, supporting all to perform in advance of their current level of development (Sabo 2001). An important assertion is that youth are best situated to collect data from other youth and therefore might produce data that is more valid and reliable than that collected by adults. Further, this more effective collection of data lends itself to actively changing, modifying 352 and adapting programs while they are in process, a form of participatory action research. One of the most significant contributions of this volume is to introduce or remind international scholars and professionals about the seminal role of Lev Vygotsky in participatory research and practice. A Russian educator and psychologist, Vygotsky worked with children in the1930s. In some ways, this collection mirrors an intentional Vygotskian learning environment, with the 2002 Youth Participation in Community Research and Evaluation conference as a performance and participatory evaluation tool, emerging from the collaborative research and practice of international experts working with children today. In the introductory article, “A Vygotskian Perspective on Youth Participatory Evaluation,” Sabo quotes Vygotsky’s work on the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to explain that “’What is in the zone of proximal development today will be the actual developmental level tomorrow– that is, what a child can do with assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow’” (1978, 87). Sabo cites her undergraduate mentor, Lois Holzman, a highly respected Vygotskian scholar and professional, who suggests that the ZPD is the continuously changing “distance” between being and becoming (2000, 88). As Vygotsky(1978) would say, people learn “by performing a head taller than they are” (102). Professionals in participatory research and practice recognize that the many ways group activities inform individual and group thinking are important characteristics of participation but difficult to measure. Vygotsky and his colleagues Luria and L’eontev developed Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) or socio-cultural activity theory to explain how collaborative performance, activity or learning leads to development. In this theoretical perspective, collaborative practices are situated within cultural and historical contexts. Rather than being easily parsed for further research into independent and dependent variables, these influences overlap, fade into, engage with and 353 supercede each other over time to co-create and mutually constitute learning environments. Barbara Rogoff (2003) suggests that human development is a process of people’s changing participation in the socio-cultural activities of their communities. She theorizes that children’s thinking tools are provided by culture and especially through more skilled partners in the ZPD, suggesting that these tools are both inherited and transformed by successive use in dynamic cultural changes. Babbie (2004) describes the role of researcher as resource and suggests that those affected by participatory action research should be responsible for its design (Whyte, Greenwood and Lazes 1991). In a similar vein, Gaventa (1991) believes...

Grounded Theory (GT) has become a fundamental Qualitative research methodology for developing theories from empirical data. However, its application varies across disciplines, leading to methodological inconsistencies and debates regarding rigor, coding techniques, and researcher subjectivity. This systematic review examines methodological approaches in GT research, analyzing their implementation, strengths, challenges, and emerging trends. Following PRISMA guidelines, relevant studies were selected from academic databases, and a thematic synthesis was conducted to identify methodological patterns. The review highlights the prevalence of Classical, Straussian, and Constructivist GT approaches, each differing in coding strategies, theoretical sampling, and researcher involvement. Findings indicate that GT is widely used in sociology, psychology, healthcare, and software engineering, demonstrating its adaptability across diverse fields. Key strengths of GT include its iterative data collection process and deep contextual grounding, while challenges involve coding complexity, inter-rater reliability, and researcher bias. Emerging trends suggest increasing integration of GT with technological tools, such as Qualitative data analysis software and AI-assisted coding. Additionally, mixed-methods GT approaches are gaining traction to enhance theoretical robustness. This review underscores the need for standardized methodological guidelines to ensure consistency and rigor in GT studies. Future research should explore the intersection of GT with digital advancements and interdisciplinary applications to strengthen its methodological integrity. By synthesizing best practices and identifying methodological gaps, this study provides valuable insights for researchers seeking to apply GT effectively in Qualitative inquiry.

Grounded Theory (GT) is used within HCI research, but nuances and more modern interpretations of the method are rarely discussed. This paper has two intentions: to offer guidance on practical issues when applying GT, and to clarify the space of methodological possibilities. We describe an extended GT study on understanding why practitioners choose particular usability evaluation methods. We describe five stages in this study to highlight our experiences and choices made. We draw out seven practical and methodological considerations in applying GT in a CHI context. This challenges the more traditional inductive and objective positions on GT use; it sensitizes novices of GT to these issues; and through the extended case study it provides substance for debate on issues that affect those that use qualitative methods more broadly.

IntroductionHearing loss is a chronic condition affecting 12 million individuals in the UK. People with hearing loss regularly experience difficulties interacting in everyday conversations. These difficulties in communication can result...

This study aims to develop employee organizations' role in implementing risk management in public sector organizations. This study's character uses several indicators, including values, attitudes, interests, and religion. The research was conducted at public sector organizations in the non-profit category, Infaq Amal Zakat and Shodaqoh Muhammadiyah (LAZISMU) in Malang City. The research method used is grounded theory research with a qualitative approach, in which data research uses structured and open interview techniques. The collected data will be analyzed using grounded theory analysis techniques. The study results found several factors, as seen from their abilities, values, attitudes, interests, and religiosity, in supporting the implementation of risk management in Malang. These characteristics include working with time, the right placement of human resources, mastery of job descriptions, information, ability, and transfer of knowledge, in terms of values, including cooperation, responsibility, democracy, solidarity, humanity, honesty, order, and discipline. In terms of attitude, including being wise, with integrity, cooperative, open, and selective. In terms of interest, it is shown by being participatory, actualizing, and proactive.Meanwhile, in terms of religiosity, it includes the mandate to carry out duties, desire in preaching, and personal needs to fill charity activities with full volunteerism.