Advertisement

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

  • Michael Muller
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Open Code Core Concept Ground Theory Constant Comparison Axial Code 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References5

  1. 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, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Awbrey, J., & Awbrey, S. (1995). Interpretation as action: The risk of inquiry. Inquiry Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 15, 40–52.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan-Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2009). Critical methods and user generated content: The iPhone on YouTube. Proceedings of the CHI 2009, pp. 1467–1476Google Scholar
  7. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. 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. 649–654Google Scholar
  10. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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. 1889–1898Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Cooney, A. (2011). Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Dick, B. (2005). Grounded theory (paper 59). Previously Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch. http://www.aral.com.au/DLitt/DLitt_P59ground.pdf
  19. Elliott, N., & Lazenbatt, A. (2005). How to recognise a “quality” grounded theory research study. Australian Journal of Nursing, 22(3), 48–52.Google Scholar
  20. Eyrich-Garg, K. M. (2011). Sheltered in cyberspace? Computer use among the unsheltered “street” homeless. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faily, S., & Flechals, I. (2011). Persona cases: A technique for grounding personas. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2267–2270Google Scholar
  22. Faste, H., & Lin, H. (2012). The untapped potential of digital mind maps. Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1017–1026Google Scholar
  23. Funder, M. (2005). Bias, intimacy, and power in qualitative fieldwork strategies. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studes, 4(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  24. Furniss, D., Blandford, A., & Curson, P. (2011). Confessions from a grounded theory phd: Experiences and lessons learnt. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 113–122Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  29. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). A time for dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine.Google Scholar
  32. Gold, J., Walton, J., Cureton, P., & Anderson, L. (2011). Theorising and practitioners in HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 35(3), 230–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haig, B. D. (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. In Philosophy of education yearbook 1995.Google Scholar
  34. Haig, B.D. (2005). Grounded theory as scientific method. Philosophy of Education Yearbook 2005. Philosophy of Education Society.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, W., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoda, R. (2011). Self-organizing agile teams: A grounded theory. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Kim, H., & Lee, W. (2012). Framing creative users for describing cases of appropriation (poster). Proceedings of the CSCW 2012, pp. 135–138Google Scholar
  41. Kim, T., Hong, H., & Magerko, B. (2010). Design requirements for ambient display that supports sustainable lifestyle. Proceeding of the DIS 2010, pp. 103–112Google Scholar
  42. Kjeldskov, J., & Paay, J. (2005). Just-for-us: A context-aware mobile information system facilitating sociality. Proceedings of the MobileCHI 2005, pp. 23–30Google Scholar
  43. Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lewis, S., & Lewis, D.A. (2012). Examining technology that supports community policing. Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1371–1380Google Scholar
  45. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1995). Naturalistic inquiry. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Lopes, E. (2010). A grounded theory of decision-making under uncertainty and complexity. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Matavire, R. & Brown, I. 2008. Investigating the use of “Grounded Theory” in information systems research. Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2008, pp. 139–147Google Scholar
  51. Mathiasen, N.R., & Bødker, S. (2011). Experiencing security in interaction design. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2325–2334Google Scholar
  52. Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T., & Yuen, S. (2011). Collaboration personas: A new approach to designing workplace collaboration. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2247–2256Google Scholar
  53. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Muller, M., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J. (2009). Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service. Proceedings of the ECSCW 2009. Vienna, Austria: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  57. Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Nielsen, J. (1992). The usability engineering lifecycle. IEEE Computer, 25(3), 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Odom, W., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). Designing for dynamic family structures: Divorced families and interactive systems. Proceedings of the DIS 2010, pp. 151–160Google Scholar
  60. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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/
  64. Peirce, C.S. (1903). Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Collected Papers 5.1, pp. 71–172Google Scholar
  65. Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Torchbook [[[falsifiability]]].Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 11(1), 16. Art 13.Google Scholar
  68. 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. 943–956Google Scholar
  69. Riitta, H., & Newman, M. (2011). The complex nature of emotions in an inter-organisational information system project. Proceedings of the ECIS 2011, pp. 943–956Google Scholar
  70. Rode, J. (2009). Digital parenting: Designing for children’s safety. Proceedings of the BCS HCI 2009, pp. 244–251Google Scholar
  71. Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2009). About the relevance of accessibility barriers in the everyday interactions of older people with th web. Proc. W4A2009-Technical, 104–113Google Scholar
  72. Seidel, S., & Recker, J. (2009). Using grounded theory for studying business process management phenomena. Proc. ECIS 2009, 490–501Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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 .
  76. Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Star, S. L. (1985). Scientific work and uncertainty. Social Studies of Science, 15(3), 391–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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
  80. Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York, NY, USA: Aldine.Google Scholar
  81. Strauss, A. L., & Glaser, B. G. (1970). Anguish. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  82. Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R. (2008) Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders. Proceedings of the CHI 2008 Google Scholar
  83. Urquhart, C., & Fernández, W.D. (2006). Grounded theory method: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Proceedings of the ICIS 2006, pp. 457–464Google Scholar
  84. 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. 1169–1178Google Scholar
  85. Wyche, S.P., & Grinter, R.E. (2009). Extraordinary computing: Religion as a lens for reconsidering the home. Proceedings of the CHI 2009, pp. 749–758Google Scholar
  86. 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. 2593–2602Google Scholar
  87. Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class: Exploiting socioeconomic differences in family technology use. Proceedings of the CHI 20120, pp. 3041–3050Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IBM ResearchCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations