這是用戶在 2024-6-27 11:58 為 https://app.immersivetranslate.com/pdf-pro/0da851f4-87ec-42b2-96af-c24853c6ab06 保存的雙語快照頁面,由 沉浸式翻譯 提供雙語支持。了解如何保存?
a structured approach for novice researchers. It may be too structured for some qualitative researchers. On the other hand, phenomenology requires at least some understanding of the broader philosophical assumptions, and researchers should identify these assumptions in their studies. These philosophical ideas are abstract concepts and not easily seen in a written phenomenological study. In addition, the participants in the study need to be carefully chosen to be individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon in question, so that the researcher, in the end, can forge a common understanding. Finding individuals who have all experienced the phenomenon may be difficult given a research topic. As mentioned earlier, bracketing personal experiences may be difficult for the researcher to implement because interpretations of the data always incorporate the assumptions that the researcher brings to the topic (van Manen, 1990). Perhaps we need a new definition of epoche or bracketing, such as suspending our understandings in a reflective move that cultivates curiosity (LeVasseur, 2003). Thus, the researcher needs to decide how and in what way his or her personal understandings will be introduced into the study.
為新手研究人員提供結構化方法。對於一些定性研究人員來說,它可能過於結構化。另一方面,現象學至少需要對更廣泛的哲學假設有一定的瞭解,研究人員應該在他們的研究中確定這些假設。這些哲學思想是抽象的概念,在書面現象學研究中不容易看到。此外,需要仔細選擇研究的參與者是所有經歷過相關現象的個人,以便研究人員最終能夠達成共識。考慮到一個研究課題,找到所有經歷過這種現象的人可能很困難。如前所述,將個人經驗括起來對研究人員來說可能很難實施,因為對數據的解釋總是包含研究人員為該主題帶來的假設(van Manen,1990)。也許我們需要一個新的時代或括弧的定義,例如在培養好奇心的反思中暫停我們的理解(LeVasseur,2003)。因此,研究人員需要決定如何以及以何種方式將他或她的個人理解引入研究。


Definition and Background

While narrative research focuses on individual stories told by participants, and phenomenology emphasizes the common experiences for a number of individuals, the intent of a grounded theory study is to move beyond description and to generate or discover a theory, a "unified theoretical explanation" (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 107) for a process or an action. Participants in the study would all have experienced the process, and the development of the theory might help explain practice or provide a framework for further research. A key idea is that this theory development does not come "off the shelf," but rather is generated or "grounded" in data from participants who have experienced the process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Thus, grounded theory is a qualitative research design in which the inquirer generates a general explanation (a theory) of a process, an action, or an interaction shaped by the views of a large number of participants.
This qualitative design was developed in sociology in 1967 by two researchers, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, who felt that theories
這種定性設計是由兩位研究人員巴尼·格拉澤(Barney Glaser)和安塞姆·施特勞斯(Anselm Strauss)於1967年在社會學中提出的,他們認為理論

used in research were often inappropriate and ill suited for participants under study. They elaborated on their ideas through several books (Corbin & Strauss, 2007; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). In contrast to the a priori, theoretical orientations in sociology, grounded theorists held that theories should be "grounded" in data from the field, especially in the actions, interactions, and social processes of people. Thus, grounded theory provided for the generation of a theory (complete with a diagram and hypotheses) of actions, interactions, or processes through interrelating categories of information based on data collected from individuals.
用於研究通常不合適且不適合正在研究的參與者。他們通過幾本書詳細闡述了他們的想法(Corbin&Strauss,2007;格拉澤,1978 年;格拉澤和施特勞斯,1967年;施特勞斯,1987 年;Strauss&Corbin,1990,1998)。與社會學中先驗的理論取向相反,紮根理論家認為理論應該“紮根”於來自該領域的數據,特別是在人們的行動、互動和社會過程中。因此,紮根理論通過基於從個人收集的數據相互關聯的信息類別,為行動、互動或過程的理論(配有圖表和假設)提供了生成。
Despite the initial collaboration of Glaser and Strauss that produced such works as Awareness of Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1965) and Time for Dying (Glaser & Strauss, 1968), the two authors ultimately disagreed about the meaning and procedures of grounded theory. Glaser has criticized Strauss's approach to grounded theory as too prescribed and structured (Glaser, 1992). More recently, Charmaz (2006) has advocated for a constructivist grounded theory, thus introducing yet another perspective into the conversation about procedures. Through these different interpretations, grounded theory has gained popularity in fields such as sociology, nursing, education, and psychology, as well as in other social science fields.
Another recent grounded theory perspective is that of Clarke (2005) who, along with Charmaz, seeks to reclaim grounded theory from its "positivist underpinnings" (p. xxiii). Clarke, however, goes further than Charmaz, suggesting that social "situations" should form our unit of analysis in grounded theory and that three sociological modes can be useful in analyzing these situations-situational, social world/arenas, and positional cartographic maps for collecting and analyzing qualitative data. She further expands grounded theory "after the postmodern turn" (Clarke, 2005, p. xxiv) and relies on postmodern perspectives (i.e., the political nature of research and interpretation, reflexivity on the part of researchers, a recognition of problems of representing information, questions of legitimacy and authority, and repositioning the researcher away from the "all knowing analyst" to the "acknowledged participant") (Clarke, 2005, pp. xxvii, xxviii). Clarke frequently turns to the postmodern, poststructural writer Michael Foucault (1972) to base the grounded theory discourse. In my discussion of grounded theory, I will be relying on the books by Corbin and Strauss (2007) who provide a structured approach to grounded theory and Charmaz (2006) who offers a constructivist and interpretive perspective on grounded theory.
另一個最近的紮根理論觀點是克拉克(2005)的觀點,他與查爾馬茲一起試圖從其“實證主義基礎”(第xxiii頁)中恢復紮根理論。然而,克拉克比查爾馬茲走得更遠,他建議社會“情境”應該構成我們在紮根理論中的分析單位,並且三種社會學模式可用於分析這些情境——情境、社會世界/競技場和用於收集和分析定性數據的位置製圖。她進一步擴展了「後現代轉向之後」的紮根理論(Clarke,2005,第xxiv頁),並依賴於後現代的觀點(即研究和解釋的政治性質,研究人員的反身性,對表示資訊問題的認識,合法性和權威問題,以及將研究人員從「全知分析師」重新置放為「公認的參與者」)(克拉克, 2005年,第XXVII、XXVIII頁)。克拉克經常求助於後現代、後結構作家邁克爾·福柯(Michael Foucault,1972)作為紮根理論話語的基礎。在我討論紮根理論時,我將依靠Corbin和Strauss(2007)的書,他們為紮根理論提供了結構化的方法,而Charmaz(2006)則為紮根理論提供了建構主義和解釋性的觀點。

Defining Features of Grounded Theory

There are several major characteristics of grounded theory that might be incorporated into a research study:
  • The researcher focuses on a process or an action that has distinct steps or phases that occur over time. Thus, a grounded theory study has "movement" or some action that the researcher is attempting to explain. A process might be "developing a general education program" or the process of "supporting faculty to become good researchers."
    研究人員專注於一個過程或一個動作,該過程或動作具有隨時間推移而發生的不同步驟或階段。因此,紮根的理論研究具有研究人員試圖解釋的「運動」或某些動作。一個過程可能是「制定通識教育計劃」或「支持教師成為優秀研究人員」 的過程。
  • The researcher also seeks, in the end, to develop a theory of this process or action. There are many definitions of a theory available in the literature, but, in general, a theory is an explanation of something or an understanding that the researcher develops. This explanation or understanding is a drawing together, in grounded theory, of theoretical categories that are arrayed to show how the theory works. For example, a theory of support for faculty may show how faculty are supported over time, by specific resources, by specific actions taken by individuals, with individual outcomes that enhance the research performance of a faculty member (Creswell & Brown, 1992).
  • Memoing becomes part of developing the theory as the researcher writes down ideas as data are collected and analyzed. In these memos, the ideas attempt to formulate the process that is being seen by the researcher and to sketch out the flow of this process.
  • The primary form of data collection is often interviewing in which the researcher is constantly comparing data gleaned from participants with ideas about the emerging theory. The process consists of going back and forth between the participants, gathering new interviews, and then returning to the evolving theory to fill in the gaps and to elaborate on how it works.
  • Data analysis can be structured and follow the pattern of developing open categories, selecting one category to be the focus of the theory, and then detailing additional categories (axial coding) to form a theoretical model. The intersection of the categories becomes the theory (called selective coding). This theory can be presented as a diagram, as propositions (or hypotheses), or as a discussion (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Data analysis can also be less structured and based on developing a theory by piecing together implicit meanings about a category (Charmaz, 2006).

Types of Grounded Theory Studies

The two popular approaches to grounded theory are the systematic procedures of Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) and the constructivist approach of Charmaz . In the more systematic, analytic procedures of Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), the investigator seeks to systematically develop a theory that explains process, action, or interaction on a topic (e.g., the process of developing a curriculum, the therapeutic benefits of sharing psychological test results with clients). The researcher typically conducts 20 to 30 interviews based on several visits "to the field" to collect interview data to saturate the categories (or find information that continues to add to them until no more can be found). A category represents a unit of information composed of events, happenings, and instances (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The researcher also collects and analyzes observations and documents, but these data forms are often not used. While the researcher collects data, she or he begins analysis. My image for data collection in a grounded theory study is a "zigzag" process: out to the field to gather information, into the office to analyze the data, back to the field to gather more information, into the office, and so forth. The participants interviewed are theoretically chosen (called theoretical sampling) to help the researcher best form the theory. How many passes one makes to the field depends on whether the categories of information become saturated and whether the theory is elaborated in all of its complexity. This process of taking information from data collection and comparing it to emerging categories is called the constant comparative method of data analysis.
紮根理論的兩種流行方法是施特勞斯和科爾賓(1990,1998)的系統程式和Charmaz的建構主義方法 。在 Strauss 和 Corbin (1990, 1998) 更系統的分析程式中,研究者試圖系統地發展一種理論來解釋一個主題的過程、行動或互動(例如,開發課程的過程,與客戶分享心理測試結果的治療益處)。研究人員通常會根據幾次「實地」訪問進行 20 到 30 次訪談,以收集訪談數據以飽和類別(或找到繼續添加到其中的資訊,直到找不到更多)。類別表示由事件,事件和實例組成的資訊單元(Strauss&Corbin,1990)。研究人員還收集和分析觀察結果和檔,但這些數據形式通常不被使用。當研究人員收集數據時,她或他開始分析。我在紮根理論研究中收集數據的形象是一個「曲折」的過程:到現場收集資訊,到辦公室分析數據,回到現場收集更多資訊,到辦公室,等等。從理論上選擇接受採訪的參與者(稱為理論抽樣),以説明研究人員最好地形成理論。一個人向該領域傳遞了多少次,取決於資訊類別是否飽和,以及理論是否在其所有複雜性中得到闡述。這種從數據收集中獲取資訊並將其與新興類別進行比較的過程稱為數據分析的恆定比較方法。
The researcher begins with open coding, coding the data for its major categories of information. From this coding, axial coding emerges in which the researcher identifies one open coding category to focus on (called the "core" phenomenon), and then goes back to the data and creates categories around this core phenomenon. Strauss and Corbin (1990) prescribe the types of categories identified around the core phenomenon. They consist of causal conditions (what factors caused the core phenomenon), strategies (actions taken in response to the core phenomenon), contextual and intervening conditions (broad and specific situational factors that influence the strategies), and consequences (outcomes from using the strategies). These categories relate to and surround the core phenomenon in a visual model called the axial coding paradigm. The final step, then, is selective coding, in which the researcher takes the model and develops propositions (or hypotheses) that interrelate the categories in the model

or assembles a story that describes the interrelationship of categories in the model. This theory, developed by the researcher, is articulated toward the end of a study and can assume several forms, such as a narrative statement (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), a visual picture (Morrow & Smith, 1995), or a series of hypotheses or propositions (Creswell & Brown, 1992).
In their discussion of grounded theory, Strauss and Corbin (1998) take the model one step further to develop a conditional matrix. They advance the conditional matrix as a coding device to help the researcher make connections between the macro and micro conditions influencing the phenomenon. This matrix is a set of expanding concentric circles with labels that build outward from the individual, group, and organization to the community, region, nation, and global world. In my experience, this matrix is seldom used in grounded theory research, and researchers typically end their studies with a theory developed in selective coding, a theory that might be viewed as a substantive, low-level theory rather than an abstract, grand theory (e.g., see Creswell & Brown, 1992). Although making connections between the substantive theory and its larger implications for the community, nation, and world in the conditional matrix is important (e.g., a model of work flow in a hospital, the shortage of gloves, and the national guidelines on AIDS may all be connected; see this example provided by Strauss & Corbin, 1998), grounded theorists seldom have the data, time, or resources to employ the conditional matrix.
在對紮根理論的討論中,Strauss和Corbin(1998)將模型向前推進了一步,開發了一個條件矩陣。他們將條件矩陣推進為編碼設備,以説明研究人員在影響現象的宏觀和微觀條件之間建立聯繫。這個矩陣是一組不斷擴展的同心圓,帶有從個人、團體和組織向外構建的社區、地區、國家和全球世界的標籤。根據我的經驗,這個矩陣很少用於紮根理論研究,研究人員通常以選擇性編碼開發的理論結束他們的研究,這種理論可能被視為一個實質性的、低級的理論,而不是一個抽象的、宏大的理論(例如,參見Creswell&Brown,1992)。儘管在條件矩陣中,在實質性理論及其對社區、國家和世界的更大影響之間建立聯繫是很重要的(例如,醫院的工作流程模型、手套短缺和國家愛滋病指南可能都是相互關聯的;參見Strauss&Corbin,1998)提供的這個例子),但紮根的理論家很少擁有數據。 使用條件矩陣的時間或資源。
A second variant of grounded theory is found in the constructivist writing of Charmaz (2005, 2006). Instead of embracing the study of a single process or core category as in the Strauss and Corbin (1998) approach, Charmaz advocates for a social constructivist perspective that includes emphasizing diverse local worlds, multiple realities, and the complexities of particular worlds, views, and actions. Constructivist grounded theory, according to Charmaz (2006), lies squarely within the interpretive approach to qualitative research with flexible guidelines, a focus on theory developed that depends on the researcher's view, learning about the experience within embedded, hidden networks, situations, and relationships, and making visible hierarchies of power, communication, and opportunity. Charmaz places more emphasis on the views, values, beliefs, feelings, assumptions, and ideologies of individuals than on the methods of research, although she does describe the practices of gathering rich data, coding the data, memoing, and using theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006). She suggests that complex terms or jargon, diagrams, conceptual maps, and systematic approaches (such as Strauss & Corbin, 1990) detract from grounded theory and represent an attempt to gain power in their
紮根理論的第二種變體是在Charmaz(2005,2006)的建構主義著作中發現的。Charmaz 沒有像 Strauss 和 Corbin (1998) 那樣接受對單一過程或核心類別的研究,而是倡導社會建構主義視角,包括強調不同的局部世界、多種現實以及特定世界、觀點和行動的複雜性。根據 Charmaz (2006) 的說法,建構主義紮根理論完全在於定性研究的解釋方法,具有靈活的指導方針,專注於取決於研究人員觀點的理論,瞭解嵌入式、隱藏的網路、情境和關係中的經驗,並使權力、溝通和機會的等級可見。Charmaz 更強調個人的觀點、價值觀、信仰、感受、假設和意識形態,而不是研究方法,儘管她確實描述了收集豐富數據、編碼數據、記憶和使用理論抽樣的做法(Charmaz,2006年)。她認為,複雜的術語或行話、圖表、概念圖和系統方法(如Strauss&Corbin,1990)有損於紮根的理論,並代表了一種試圖獲得權力的嘗試。

use. She advocates using active codes, such as gerund-based phrases like recasting life. Moreover, for Charmaz, a grounded theory procedure does not minimize the role of the researcher in the process. The researcher makes decisions about the categories throughout the process, brings questions to the data, and advances personal values, experiences, and priorities. Any conclusions developed by grounded theorists are, according to Charmaz (2005), suggestive, incomplete, and inconclusive.
用。她主張使用主動代碼,例如基於動名詞的短語,例如重鑄生活。此外,對於Charmaz來說,紮根的理論程序並沒有最小化研究人員在這個過程中的作用。研究人員在整個過程中對類別做出決策,對數據提出問題,並推進個人價值觀、經驗和優先事項。根據 Charmaz (2005) 的說法,紮根理論家得出的任何結論都是暗示性的、不完整的和不確定的。

Procedures for Conducting Grounded Theory Research

In this discussion I include Charmaz's interpretive approach (e.g., reflexivity, being flexible in structure, as discussed in Chapter 2), and I rely on Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) and Corbin and Strauss (2007) to illustrate grounded theory procedures because their systematic approach is helpful to individuals learning about and applying grounded theory research.
The researcher needs to begin by determining if grounded theory is best suited to study his or her research problem. Grounded theory is a good design to use when a theory is not available to explain or understand a process. The literature may have models available, but they were developed and tested on samples and populations other than those of interest to the qualitative researcher. Also, theories may be present, but they are incomplete because they do not address potentially valuable variables or categories of interest to the researcher. On the practical side, a theory may be needed to explain how people are experiencing a phenomenon, and the grounded theory developed by the researcher will provide such a general framework.
The research questions that the inquirer asks of participants will focus on understanding how individuals experience the process and identify the steps in the process (What was the process? How did it unfold?). After initially exploring these issues, the researcher then returns to the participants and asks more detailed questions that help to shape the axial coding phase, questions such as these: What was central to the process (the core phenomenon)? What influenced or caused this phenomenon to occur (causal conditions)? What strategies were employed during the process (strategies)? What effect occurred (consequences)?
These questions are typically asked in interviews, although other forms of data may also be collected, such as observations, documents, and

audiovisual materials. The point is to gather enough information to fully develop (or saturate) the model. This may involve 20 to 60 interviews.
視聽材料。關鍵是要收集足夠的資訊來充分開發(或飽和)模型。這可能涉及 20 到 60 次面試。
The analysis of the data proceeds in stages. In open coding, the researcher forms categories of information about the phenomenon being studied by segmenting information. Within each category, the investigator finds several properties, or subcategories, and looks for data to dimensionalize, or show the extreme possibilities on a continuum of the property.
In axial coding, the investigator assembles the data in new ways after open coding. In this structured approach, the investigator presents a coding paradigm or logic diagram (i.e., a visual model) in which the researcher identifies a central phenomenon (i.e., a central category about the phenomenon), explores causal conditions (i.e., categories of conditions that influence the phenomenon), specifies strategies (i.e., the actions or interactions that result from the central phenomenon), identifies the context and intervening conditions (i.e., the narrow and broad conditions that influence the strategies), and delineates the consequences (i.e., the outcomes of the strategies) for this phenomenon.
在軸向編碼中,研究人員在開放編碼后以新的方式組裝數據。在這種結構化方法中,研究者提出了一個編碼範式或邏輯圖(即視覺模型),其中研究者識別一個中心現象(即關於該現象的中心類別),探索因果條件(即影響現象的條件類別),指定策略(即由中心現象產生的動作或相互作用), 確定背景和干預條件(即影響策略的狹義和廣義條件),並描述這種現象的後果(即策略的結果)。
In selective coding, the researcher may write a "story line" that connects the categories. Alternatively, propositions or hypotheses may be specified that state predicted relationships.
The result of this process of data collection and analysis is a theory, a substantive-level theory, written by a researcher close to a specific problem or population of people. The theory emerges with help from the process of memoing, in which the researcher writes down ideas about the evolving theory throughout the process of open, axial, and selective coding. The substantive-level theory may be tested later for its empirical verification with quantitative data to determine if it can be generalized to a sample and population (see mixed methods design procedures, Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Alternatively, the study may end at this point with the generation of a theory as the goal of the research.
這種數據收集和分析過程的結果是一種理論,一種實質層面的理論,由接近特定問題或人群的研究人員撰寫。該理論是在記憶過程的幫助下出現的,在這個過程中,研究人員在整個開放、軸向和選擇性編碼過程中寫下有關不斷發展的理論的想法。實體水準理論可以在以後進行測試,以便用定量數據進行實證驗證,以確定它是否可以推廣到樣本和總體(參見混合方法設計程式,Creswell和Plano Clark,2011)。或者,研究可能在這一點上結束,以產生理論作為研究的目標。

Challenges 挑戰

A grounded theory study challenges researchers for the following reasons. The investigator needs to set aside, as much as possible, theoretical ideas or notions so that the analytic, substantive theory can emerge. Despite the evolving, inductive nature of this form of qualitative inquiry, the researcher must recognize that this is a systematic approach to research with specific steps in data analysis, if approached from the Corbin and Strauss (2007)

perspective. The researcher faces the difficulty of determining when categories are saturated or when the theory is sufficiently detailed. One strategy that might be used to move toward saturation is to use discriminant sampling, in which the researcher gathers additional information from individuals different from those people initially interviewed to determine if the theory holds true for these additional participants. The researcher needs to recognize that the primary outcome of this study is a theory with specific components: a central phenomenon, causal conditions, strategies, conditions and context, and consequences. These are prescribed categories of information in the theory, so the Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) or Corbin and Strauss (2007) approach may not have the flexibility desired by some qualitative researchers. In this case, the Charmaz (2006) approach, which is less structured and more adaptable, may be used.


Definition and Background

Although a grounded theory researcher develops a theory from examining many individuals who share in the same process, action, or interaction, the study participants are not likely to be located in the same place or interacting on so frequent a basis that they develop shared patterns of behavior, beliefs, and language. An ethnographer is interested in examining these shared patterns, and the unit of analysis is typically larger than the 20 or so individuals involved in a grounded theory study. An ethnograpby focuses on an entire culture-sharing group. Granted, sometimes this cultural group may be small (a few teachers, a few social workers), but typically it is large, involving many people who interact over time (teachers in an entire school, a community social work group). Thus, ethnography is a qualitative design in which the researcher describes and interprets the shared and learned patterns of values, bebaviors, beliefs, and language of a culture-sharing group (Harris, 1968). As both a process and an outcome of research (Agar, 1980), ethnography is a way of studying a culture-sharing group as well as the final, written product of that research. As a process, ethnography involves extended observations of the group, most often through participant observation, in which the researcher is immersed in the day-to-day lives of the people and observes and interviews the group participants. Ethnographers study the meaning of the behavior, the language, and the interaction among members of the culture-sharing group.
儘管紮根理論研究人員通過檢查許多共用相同過程、行動或互動的個體來發展理論,但研究參與者不太可能位於同一個地方或如此頻繁地互動,以至於他們發展出共同的行為模式、信念和語言。民族志學家有興趣研究這些共同的模式,分析單位通常大於參與紮根理論研究的 20 個左右的個人。民族志專注於整個文化共享群體。誠然,有時這個文化團體可能很小(幾個老師,幾個社會工作者),但通常它很大,涉及許多隨著時間的推移互動的人(整個學校的教師,一個社區社會工作小組)。因此,民族志是一種定性設計,研究人員在其中描述和解釋文化共用群體的價值觀、行為、信仰和語言的共用和學習模式(Harris,1968)。作為研究的過程和結果(Agar,1980),民族志是研究文化共享群體的一種方式,也是該研究的最終書面產品。作為一個過程,民族志涉及對群體的擴展觀察,通常是通過參與者觀察,其中研究人員沉浸在人們的日常生活中,觀察和採訪群體參與者。民族志學家研究行為、語言的意義以及文化共享群體成員之間的互動。