Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Curiosity, Creativity, and Surprise as Analytic Tools: Grounded Theory Method

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Ways of Knowing in HCI

Abstract

Grounded Theory Method offers a rigorous way to explore a domain, with an emphasis on discovering new insights, testing those insights, and building partial understandings into a broader theory of the domain. It begins with observations of a phenomenon for which no theory yet exists. Through layered coding of these observations and continual reexamination of the data, a theory emerges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more discussion of pragmatism, see Hayes’ chapter on Action Research in this volume.

  2. 2.

    This approach is similar to HCI ideas of iterative design, and the quick, in-process evaluations of designs through formative evaluation (Nielsen, 1992). GTM adds methodological rigor and the coordinated development of both data and theory.

  3. 3.

    Note that there is controversy among GTM researchers about the appropriate time to consult Formal Theory (i.e., the research literature). See “Creativity and Imagination,” below.

  4. 4.

    In other cases, the “situation” could be a group, or an organization, or a document, or a conversation.

  5. 5.

    All URLs were accessed successfully during July 2012.

References

All URLs were accessed successfully during July 2012.

  • Adolph, S., Hall, W., & Kruchten, P. (2008). A methodological leg to stand on: Lessons learned using grounded theory to study software development. Proceedings of Conference on the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research 2008. Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, T. C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). How do new ventures evolve? An inductive study of archetype changes in science-based ventures. Organization Science, 21(6), 1125–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awbrey, J., & Awbrey, S. (1995). Interpretation as action: The risk of inquiry. Inquiry Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 15, 40–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babchuk, W. A. (2010). Grounded theory as a “Family of Methods”: A genealogical analysis to guide research. US-China Education Review, 8(9). http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2010/proceedings/babchuk.pdf

  • Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan-Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2009). Critical methods and user generated content: The iPhone on YouTube. Proceedings of the CHI 2009, pp. 1467–1476

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., Douglass, S.A., Vernon, M., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Promoting creativity in the computer science design studio. Proceedings of the SIGCSE 2011, pp. 649–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 203–241). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetty, M., Hashim, D., Baird, A., Ofoha, U., Sumner, B., & Grinter, R.E. (2011). Why is my internet slow? Making network speeds visible. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 1889–1898

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, A. (2011). Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London, UK: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, B. (2005). Grounded theory (paper 59). Previously Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch. http://www.aral.com.au/DLitt/DLitt_P59ground.pdf

  • Elliott, N., & Lazenbatt, A. (2005). How to recognise a “quality” grounded theory research study. Australian Journal of Nursing, 22(3), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyrich-Garg, K. M. (2011). Sheltered in cyberspace? Computer use among the unsheltered “street” homeless. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 296–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faily, S., & Flechals, I. (2011). Persona cases: A technique for grounding personas. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2267–2270

    Google Scholar 

  • Faste, H., & Lin, H. (2012). The untapped potential of digital mind maps. Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1017–1026

    Google Scholar 

  • Funder, M. (2005). Bias, intimacy, and power in qualitative fieldwork strategies. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studes, 4(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furniss, D., Blandford, A., & Curson, P. (2011). Confessions from a grounded theory phd: Experiences and lessons learnt. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, S. (2003). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In M. Whitman & A. Woszczynski (Eds.), Handbook for information systems research (pp. 79–102). Hershey, PA, US: Idea Group.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine [[[e.g., ‘The published word is not the final one, but only a pause in the never-ending process of generating theory’]]].

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). A time for dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold, J., Walton, J., Cureton, P., & Anderson, L. (2011). Theorising and practitioners in HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 35(3), 230–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haig, B. D. (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. In Philosophy of education yearbook 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haig, B.D. (2005). Grounded theory as scientific method. Philosophy of Education Yearbook 2005. Philosophy of Education Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, W., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoda, R. (2011). Self-organizing agile teams: A grounded theory. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University of Wellington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, J. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage [[[coding practices + Charmaz + Corbin]]].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, U. (2005). “Emergence” vs. “Forcing” of Empirical Data? A crucial problem of “Grounded Theory” reconsidered [52 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 27, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502275

  • Kelle, U. (2007). The development of categories: Different approaches in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 191–213). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Lee, W. (2012). Framing creative users for describing cases of appropriation (poster). Proceedings of the CSCW 2012, pp. 135–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T., Hong, H., & Magerko, B. (2010). Design requirements for ambient display that supports sustainable lifestyle. Proceeding of the DIS 2010, pp. 103–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjeldskov, J., & Paay, J. (2005). Just-for-us: A context-aware mobile information system facilitating sociality. Proceedings of the MobileCHI 2005, pp. 23–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S., & Lewis, D.A. (2012). Examining technology that supports community policing. Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1371–1380

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1995). Naturalistic inquiry. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163–188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, E. (2010). A grounded theory of decision-making under uncertainty and complexity. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrì, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for resistance to change in a small organization. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 15(3), 292–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matavire, R. & Brown, I. 2008. Investigating the use of “Grounded Theory” in information systems research. Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2008, pp. 139–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiasen, N.R., & Bødker, S. (2011). Experiencing security in interaction design. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2325–2334

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T., & Yuen, S. (2011). Collaboration personas: A new approach to designing workplace collaboration. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2247–2256

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M., & Kogan, S. (2012). Ground theory method in HCI. In J. Jacko (Ed.), Human computer interaction handbook. Florence, KY, USA: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J. (2009). Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service. Proceedings of the ECSCW 2009. Vienna, Austria: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1992). The usability engineering lifecycle. IEEE Computer, 25(3), 12–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odom, W., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). Designing for dynamic family structures: Divorced families and interactive systems. Proceedings of the DIS 2010, pp. 151–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paay, J., Kjeldskov, J., Howard, S., & Dave, B. (2009). Out on the town: A socio-physical approach to the design of a context-aware urban guide. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16(2), 1–34. article 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauleen, D. J., & Yoong, P. (2004). Studying human-centered IT innovation using a grounded action learning approach. The Qualitative Report, 9(1), 137–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, S. (2012). On the origin of ideas: An abductivist approach to discovery. University of Helsinki, Saabrücken, DE: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing. Excerpts available at http://helsinki.academia.edu/SamiPaavola/Books/1585338/On_the_Origin_of_Ideas._An_Abductivist_Approach_to_Discovery._Revised_and_enlarged_edition. Original PhD thesis (2006) available at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/filos/vk/paavola/

  • Peirce, C.S. (1903). Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Collected Papers 5.1, pp. 71–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Torchbook [[[falsifiability]]].

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 214–228). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 11(1), 16. Art 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitta, H., Urquhart, C., & Iivari, N. (2009). “Who's in charge, and whose rules are followed…?” Power in an inter-organisational IS project. Proceedings of the ECIS 2009, pp. 943–956

    Google Scholar 

  • Riitta, H., & Newman, M. (2011). The complex nature of emotions in an inter-organisational information system project. Proceedings of the ECIS 2011, pp. 943–956

    Google Scholar 

  • Rode, J. (2009). Digital parenting: Designing for children’s safety. Proceedings of the BCS HCI 2009, pp. 244–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2009). About the relevance of accessibility barriers in the everyday interactions of older people with th web. Proc. W4A2009-Technical, 104–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, S., & Recker, J. (2009). Using grounded theory for studying business process management phenomena. Proc. ECIS 2009, 490–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannak, R. O., & Aldhmour, F. M. (2009). Grounded theory as methodology for theory generation in information systems research. European Journal of Economics, Finance, and Administrative Services, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (2007). Living grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S.L. (2002). Got infrastructure? How standards, categories, and other aspects of infrastructure influence communication. 2nd Social Study of IT Workshop at the LSE ICT and Globalization. http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/events/ssit2/LeighStar.pdf .

  • Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1985). Scientific work and uncertainty. Social Studies of Science, 15(3), 391–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. N. (2007). Properties for growing grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York, NY, USA: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Glaser, B. G. (1970). Anguish. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R. (2008) Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders. Proceedings of the CHI 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C., & Fernández, W.D. (2006). Grounded theory method: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Proceedings of the ICIS 2006, pp. 457–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Vines, J., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Monk, A., & Olivier, P. (2012). Questionable concepts: Critique as a resource for designing with eighty-somethings. Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1169–1178

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyche, S.P., & Grinter, R.E. (2009). Extraordinary computing: Religion as a lens for reconsidering the home. Proceedings of the CHI 2009, pp. 749–758

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyche, S.P., Smyth, T.N., Chetty, M., Aoki, P.M., & Grinter, R.E. (2010). Deliberate interactions: Characterizing technology use in Nairobi, Kenya. Proceedings of the CHI 2010, pp. 2593–2602

    Google Scholar 

  • Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class: Exploiting socioeconomic differences in family technology use. Proceedings of the CHI 20120, pp. 3041–3050

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IBM Research, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Michael Muller

Authors
  1. Michael Muller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Muller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA

    Judith S. Olson

  2. Group Social Computing, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, USA

    Wendy A. Kellogg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Muller, M. (2014). Curiosity, Creativity, and Surprise as Analytic Tools: Grounded Theory Method. In: Olson, J., Kellogg, W. (eds) Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0377-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0378-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation