Abstract
The validity and reliability of a grounded theory research based on interpretivism involves four dimensions: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In order to enhance the credibility of a qualitative study, the findings of the grounded theory need to be checked for consistency with reality. Traditional checking approaches lack universal applicability and are difficult for researchers to implement. This paper proposes a qualitative simulation checking approach for programmed grounded theory research, which can enhance the validity and reliability of programmed grounded theory research in terms of credibility, transferability, and dependability dimensions. This approach is not only a more generally applicable checking approach, but also provides a virtual experiment platform for qualitative research. To overcome the deficiencies caused by following a single approach, a checking framework that integrates programmed grounded theory, qualitative simulation checking, and member checking was proposed. The methodology of this paper is validated by applying to a case of sanitation workers’ involvement in the Internet of Things environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bozionelos, N.: The big five of personality and work involvement. J. Manag. Psychol. 19(1), 69–81 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940410520664
Candela, A.G.: Exploring the function of member checking. The Qualit. Rep. 24(3), 619–628 (2019). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3726
Cao, Q., Yu, K., Zhou, L., Wang, L., Li, C.: In-depth research on qualitative simulation of coal miners’ group safety behaviors. Saf. Sci. 113(3), 210–232 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.012
Carson, J. S.: Verification and validation: a consultant's perspective. In Proceedings of the 21st conference on Winter simulation. 1989; pp. 552–558
Charmaz, K.: Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage (2006)
Cho, J., Allen, T.: Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qual. Res. 6(3), 319–340 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006
Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications (2014)
Cypress, B.S.: Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimens. Crit. Care Nurs. 36(4), 253–263 (2017)
Dahwa, C.: Adapting and blending grounded theory with case study: a practical guide. Qual. Quant. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01783-9
De Jong, H., Geiselmann, J., Hernandez, C., Page, M.: Genetic network analyzer: qualitative simulation of genetic regulatory networks. Bioinformatics 19(3), 336–344 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btf851
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., Schaufeli, W.B.: The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(3), 499–512 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D.: Rhoades, L: reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 86(1), 42–51 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E.: Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50(1), 25–32 (2007). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L.: Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Org. Res. Methods 16(1), 15–31 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151
Glaser, B., Strauss, A.: The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine De Gruyter, New York (1976)
Glaser, B.: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CF (1992)
Glaser, B.: Theoretical sensitivity. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA (1978)
Grodal, S., Anteby, M., Holm, A.L.: Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: the role of active categorization in theory building. Acad. Manag. Rev. 46(3), 591–612 (2021). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0482
Guerrin, F., Dumas, J.: Knowledge representation and qualitative simulation of salmon redd functioning. Part I: qualitative modeling and simulation. Biosystems 59(2), 75–84 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-2647(01)00100-9
Hansen, S., Baroody, A.J.: Electronic health records and the logics of care: complementarity and conflict in the US healthcare system. Inf. Syst. Res. 31(1), 57–75 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2019.0875
Hu, B., Xia, N.: Cusp catastrophe model for sudden changes in a person’s behavior. Inf. Sci. 294(10), 489–512 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.09.055
Johnson, J.S., Matthes, J.M.: Sales-to-marketing job transitions. J. Market. 82(4), 32–48 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.17.0279
Kanungo, R.N.: Measurement of job and work involvement. J. Appl. Psychol. 67(3), 341–349 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341
Karjalainen, M., Sarker, S., Siponen, M.: Toward a theory of information systems security behaviors of organizational employees: a dialectical process perspective. Inf. Syst. Res. 30(2), 687–704 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0827
Kellogg, K.C., Valentine, M.A., Christin, A.: Algorithms at work: the new contested terrain of control. Acad. Manag. Ann. 14(1), 366–410 (2020). https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Khoury, T.A., Shymko, Y., Vermeire, J.: Simulating the cause: how grassroots organizations advance their credibility through the dramaturgical curation of events. Organ. Sci. 33(4), 1470–1500 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1489
Kim, D.S., Chung, C.K.: Qualitative simulation on the dynamics between social capital and business performance in strategic networks. J. Distrib. Sci. 14(9), 31–45 (2016). https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.14.9.201609.31
Kirk J., Miller M. L.: Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Sage publications (1986)
Kleindorfer, G.B., O’Neill, L., Ganeshan, R.: Validation in simulation: various positions in the philosophy of science. Manage. Sci. 44(8), 1087–1099 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.8.1087
Knight, C., Patterson, M., Dawson, J.: Building work engagement: a Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. J. Organ. Behav. 38(6), 792–812 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2167
Kohnke, E.J., Mukherjee, U.K., Sinha, K.K.: Delivering long-term surgical care in underserved communities: the enabling role of international NPO s as partners. Prod. Oper. Manag. 26(6), 1092–1119 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12705
Kuipers, B.: Qualitative simulation. Artif. Intell. 29(3), 289–338 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(86)90073-1
Kunze, L., Beetz, M.: Envisioning the qualitative effects of robot manipulation actions using simulation-based projections. Artif. Intell. 247(6), 352–380 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.12.004
Lesener, T., Gusy, B., Wolter, C.: The job demands-resources model: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work Stress. 33(1), 76–103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065
Leung, L.: Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care. 4(3), 324–327 (2015)
Liu, Q., Qu, X., Zhao, D., Guo, Y.: Qualitative simulation of organization quality specific immune decision-making of manufacturing enterprises based on QSIM algorithm simulation. J. Comput. Methods Sci. Eng. 21(6), 2059–2076 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3233/JCM-215523
Lu, Y., Wang, F., Jia, M., Qi, Y.: Centrifugal compressor fault diagnosis based on qualitative simulation and thermal parameters. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 81(12), 259–273 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.03.018
Lubet, S.: Interrogating ethnography: Why evidence matters. Oxford University Press, New York (2017)
Markus, M.L., Robey, D.: Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Manage. Sci. 34(5), 583–598 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583
Martínez-Miranda, J., Pavón, J.: Modeling the influence of trust on work team performance. SIMULATION 88(4), 408–436 (2012)
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., Spiers, J.: Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 1(2), 13–22 (2002)
Oh, T.T., Pham, M.T.: A liberating-engagement theory of consumer fun. J. Cons. Res. 49(1), 46–73 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucab051
Oliver, D., Cole, B.M.: The interplay of product and process in skunkworks identity work: an inductive model. Strateg. Manag. J. 40(9), 1491–1514 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3034
Ropers, D., De Jong, H., Page, M., Schneider, D., Geiselmann, J.: Qualitative simulation of the carbon starvation response in Escherichia coli. Biosystems 84(2), 124–152 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2005.10.005
Ruesch, L., Tarakci, M., Besiou, M., Van Quaquebeke, N.: Orchestrating coordination among humanitarian organizations. Prod. Oper. Manag. 31(5), 1977–1996 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13660
Saadatpour, A., Albert, R.: A comparative study of qualitative and quantitative dynamic models of biological regulatory networks. EPJ Nonlinear Biomed. Phys. 4(1), 1–13 (2016)
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., Jinks, C.: Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52(4), 1893–1907 (2018)
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., Bakker, A.B.: The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J. Happiness Stud. 3, 71–92 (2002)
Small, M.L.: Causal thinking and ethnographic research. Am. J. Sociol. 119(3), 597–601 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1086/675893
Sting, F.J., Stevens, M., Tarakci, M.: Temporary deembedding buyer–supplier relationships: a complexity perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 65(2), 114–135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1008
Strauss, A.: Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge university press (1987)
Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Adm. Sci. Q. 40(3), 371–384 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788
Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M.C., Yetton, P.W., Krcmar, H.: Grounded theory methodology in information systems research. MIS Quarter. 41(3), 685–701 (2017)
Zhao, X., Hu, B.: Qualitative simulation on staff counterproductive work behaviors based on stochastic catastrophe theory. J. Manag. Sci. China 19(2), 13–30 (2016)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants in the study discussed in this paper as well as the managers of the sanitation work in Shenzhen, China.
Funding
This work was supported by the [National Natural Science Foundation of China] (grant number [72371110], [71971093], [72132001]) and the [Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities] (grant number [2023WKZDJC007]).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by HW, BH and YD. The first draft of the manuscript was written by HW and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
The study does not include any procedure which involves danger, harm, distress or discomfort to research participants. Participants requested anonymity, and we only required the identification of their job type as well as their position in our study. We used codes to identify individuals. All participants gave verbal consent for us to disclose the codes representing their personal information and the results of this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, H., Hu, B. & Duan, Y. A qualitative simulation checking approach of programmed grounded theory and its application in workers’ involvement: extending Corbin and Struss’ grounded theory checking mechanism. Qual Quant (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01864-3
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-024-01864-3