英语论文网

em. It transcends specific data collection methods.’

Using grounded theory for analysis involves making the transition from transcribed text to symbolic representation. The information is broken into units and then coded so it can easily be categorized for analysis. This is referred to as coding and as Greener (2008, p.57) points out, it is important to, ‘keep a “code book” or list of exactly how the codes you devise for your data relate to the questionnaire or other research element’ so anyone can correctly verify what each code represents.

A paper by Mills et al. (2006) relates the ‘epistemological orientation’ of Grounded Theory and in doing so places the development of grounded theory in context and reveals divided approaches without a single systematic way to create codes. Currently, Strauss and Corbin’s approach to code creation and abstraction from the raw qualitative data seems favoured over Strauss’ approach. Benaquisto (2008, pp.51-52) gives a clear explanation of Strauss and Corbin’s coding which I have summarised below (fig.6).

Fig.6: Summary of coding after Benaquisto (2008 pp.51-52)

However, recently Corbin and Strauss (2008, p.198) have pointed out that the steps in this process are not fully discrete and ‘open coding and axial coding go hand-in-hand’ - the distinction is ‘artificial’.

As this will be my first time doing this type of qualitative analysis I would expect it to be a steep learning curve, much of which will simply involve learning from failure and success.

Consequently, I have tried to leave ample room in my timetable for analysis because of this. Qualitative analysis software is available to help make analysis easier, however, as mentioned previously with few transcripts these tools may not be necessary.

I want to try this methodology for two reasons. The first is that if I don’t experience it I will never fully appreciate the method nor get any better. Secondly, there is a vast body of support for using grounded theory analysis. For example, Calloway and Knapp (1995) explored grounded theory methodology involving group and one-to-one interviews and their comparison showed grounded theory was not only applicable to analyze and interpret interview data but that theory can be detected regardless of methodological differences.

The next issue though is how reliable and valid the relationships, data and the methodology generated are and whether the research question is indeed being answered.

10. Validity and reliability

No research can avoid bias. Even quantitative, empirical studies in physics are not immune to biases. Qualitative studies involve far more biases by their nature of involving the views, opinions and perspectives of people. These biases all affect the validity of a study and as Cohen et al. (2005, pp.105-106) state,

‘Validity is an important key to effective research. If a piece of research is invalid then it is worthless. Validity is thus a requirement for both quantitative and qualitative/naturalistic research.’

Cohen et al. continue by paraphrasing Gronlund,

‘Validity, then, should be seen as a matter of degree rather than as an absolute state (Gronlund, 1981). Hence at best we strive to minimize invalidity and maximize validity.’

Therefore, what is more important is