Grounded Theory

“Whenever possible, stay away from it”

“It is too complicated, and difficult to handle and manage.”

Yesterday, I attended a PhD short proposal defence (the very first one. In our school we have to do at least three defences in the course of doctoral project. Some students have to do five or six defences.).

It was so hard for the student (he was clearly disappointed and discouraged, although I tried to encourage, motivate and cheer him up by saying that it is supposed to be hard, challenging and so difficult, and he was not alone who is under severe, deadly, attacks at the defence panel. At defence panel, every (at least almost every) student has the same terrible, intellectually humiliating, experience.  It is, in fact, the panle members' job to question, criticise, interrogate and make sure students know what they are going to do in their long research project. But unfortunately and unintentionally they usually also intimidate us. In fact all of panel member as well as professors, lectures are our intellectual and academic parents.

Although most of the defence panel members were kind, as always they are, and considerate, (however, they still did not restrain asking several hard questions and made couple of cruel, but at the same time very helpful comments) one panel member, who is primarily responsible for research methodology, was so tough and a bit (or may be very) aggressive. I was allowed to ask questions there but I decided not to ask any questions.

One of the lessons that I have learnt at the defence is about grounded theory, so well-known among research students but most of us do not really know about it. In his proposal, the student said he is going to use “grounded theory” as his research methodology.

After the student’s 20 minutes presentation, one panel member, who is mainly responsible for the quantitative research methodology and statistical issues, started asking about sampling size of the study briefly, and then he said then your research is not a quantitative research because your sample size is too small (the student said his study is going to use mixed methods, i.e, using qualitative and quantitative methods). After that he asked about “grounded theory”.  He said it is great if you can handle and successfully apply the grounded theory but in his view, grounded theory approach needs to be structured extremely well. The one panel member quickly interrupted: “my best advice to students is “stay away from the grounded theory whenever possible. It is too difficult and most students cannot manage it.”  The another panel member entered the discussion: “Everybody told me not to do grounded theory, but I did not listen when I did my PhD, and it gave me a lot of trouble, stress, hard works along my PhD project, but I eventually completed my PhD with grounded theory. It is not impossible, it is just too complicated and you need to plan and structure your research methodology very well if you are going to use the grounded theory.”

After the defence, I left the room with deep insatiable intellectual curiosity about that monster called "grounded theory". My research does not use grounded theory; I use “case study” methodology, so I do not really need to bother myself and to spend my time with it but I still cannot control myself to study about it. Okay, then, what really is the grounded theory? The following is a few very short notes on it. I hope my notes will be some helpful for students, who are like me, love studying, learning and reading.

Grounded Theory



Anselm L. Strauss, co-founder of Grounded Theory.
Image from Amazon, http://www.amazon.de/Anselm-Strauss-Klassiker-Wissenssoziologie-Str%C3%BCbing/dp/3896695487



Barney G. Glaser, co-founder of the grounded theory, at his 75th birthday with wife Carolyn. Photo: Hans Thulesius. Image from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glasr75.jpg. (This photo has been released into the public domain by its author, Thulesius.)

First of all, grounded theory is a research method originated, developed, introduced and popularised by Barney G Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967: 2). It is a "systematic, qualitative process used to generate a theory that explains, at a broad conceptual level, a process, an action, or interaction about a substantive topic" (Creswell, 2002: 439).

The aim of the research using grounded theory is, according to Yee (2001) “to know what is going on, to look at areas that have either never been studied before or those that are inundated with disparate theories’.

The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research by Glaser and Strauss(1967). Image from Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Barney-Glaser-Anselm-Strauss-Qualitative/dp/B004RPNIU8

In their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967), Glaser and Strauss (1967) stated that most research in their time (around 1967) was designed just to verify existing theories, but not to generate new ones. Instead of exploring new areas that were not covered by existing theories, current (around 1967) researchers were just eeking out small pieces of knowledge from existing “grand theories”.

Grounded Theory takes a research approach, which is contrary to most of the more conventional research models (Figure 1). Unlike conventional research methods, in grounded theory approach, data collection, coding and analysis are done immediately, concurrently, and throughout. The process is not impeded by the development of research problems, theoretical understanding or literature review (Jones, Kriflik & Zanko, 2005: 6).




Figure 1. Comparison of Conventional Research Methods to Grounded Theory (Jones, 2005, cited inJones, Kriflik & Zanko, 2005: 7).

  

 I will talk more about it later. I have to do some urgent works now :-)

Reference

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.  

Jones, M. L., Kriflik, G., and Zanko, M. (2005) Grounded Theory: A theoretical and practical application in the Australian Film Industry. Retrieved April 26, 2012, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=commpapers
Yee, B. (2001). Enhancing Security: a Grounded Theory of Chinese Survival in New Zealand. Education Department, University of Canterbury. Retrieved April 26, 2012, from http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/1771

Four roots of the service delivery problem

Image from Bazaar International, http://www.bazaarint.com/

The World Bank (2003), in its 2004 World Development Report, argues that there are four root causes for the service delivery problem.

Misallocating Resources

The first cause is about resource allocation or budgeting. The service delivery becomes weak and poor when the government misallocates resources (or budget), i.e., spending on the ‘wrong’ goods or the ‘wrong’ people (not to the actual service providers). Without resources, the necessary service could not be delivered. It is a fault of budging or resource allocation system.

Expenditure ‘Leakages’

The second cause is about expenditure. Even if the resources (budget) are allocated correctly, the resources (money) do not reach its ultimate destination because of expenditure ‘leakages’. It is a fault of expenditure tracking system.

Weak Incentive

The third cause is about incentive. Even when the resources (money) reach the service providers, the service delivery may still be weak because the service providers do not deliver the service. The reason might be there is no or weak incentive for the service provider to deliver the service. It is a fault of accountability and monitoring system.

Demand Side Failure

The last one is called “demand side failure”, i.e., people (community members) may not be aware of their rights and services they are entitled to and may not avail of the services provided to them. It simply means that people do not know what they can get from the government as their rights. It is a fault of public awareness and participation system.

Reference

World Bank (2003) World Development Report 2004. Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington D.C.: World Bank. Retrieved February 14, 2012, from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2003/10/07/000090341_20031007150121/Rendered/PDF/268950PAPER0WDR02004.pdf

Edith M. Stokey

Edith M. Stokey (1923-2012),

Photo credit: Tom Fitzsimmons.

Image from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/articles/stokey-tribute

Edith Stokey is considered one of the founders of Harvard Kennedy (Harvard Kennedy School, 2012). She is an economist, teacher, administrator, and a true believer in the Kennedy School’s mission, i.e., “to train enlightened public leaders and to generate the ideas that provide the solutions to our most challenging public problems” (Harvard University, 2012; Harvard Kennedy School, 2012).

In 1971 she returned to Harvard to pursue a Ph.D. in economics, but she was asked by Richard J. Zeckhauser, a professor of political economy at the Kennedy School, to lecture in microeconomics and work as a secretary at the fledgling graduate school of government at Harvard. Then, she become too busy with the dual position as lecturer and secretary, and abandoned her PhD plan (Miraval, 2012).

Since then, she taught microeconomics as well as public sector operations research to many generations of Kennedy School students (Harvard University, 2012) and served as secretary of the school and associate academic dean for over 40 years. She worked with many deans, serving as a councilor on many subjects to each. Stokey helped shape many aspects of today’s curriculum (Harvard Kennedy School, 2012). She died on 16 January 2012. She was 88

In 1978, Stokey and Zeckhauser co-wrote a book entitled “A Primer for Policy Analysis” that is still taught in public policy courses around the world and is still widely influential in public administration.



Image from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Policy-Analysis-Edith-Stokey/dp/images/0393090981



In their book, Stokey and Zeckhauser argue that policy-making decisions are economic decisions and economic theory is applicable to policy-making.

The book is divided into three parts: the foundations of an economic framework for policy analysis, models and methods of analysis, and the goals of policy-making. In the Part 2, it introduces a variety of tools of policy analysis such as queues, simulations, benefit-cost analysis.  The Part 3 discusses on the government's role when the market fails, addressing social welfare, and putting policy analysis to work.

However, the critics argue that it is grounded on the utilitarianism that has been subjected to fatal criticisms in the philosophical literature and market failure approach to public policy has severe limitations and can often be misleading (Brown, 1992: 1, 3).

It is a difficult but outstanding book. Even though it is three decades old now, it is still a major resource for the policy analyst.


References

Brown, P. G. (1992) The Failure of Market Failures. In The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 1-24. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/105353579290022Y

Harvard Kennedy School (2012) Giving Society Profiles. (Online). Retrieved April 19, 2012, from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/giving/honor_roll_of_donors/profiles

Harvard University (2012) (Online). Edith Stokey, 1923-2012. In Harvard Gazette, 18 January 2012. Retrieved April 19, 2012, from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/edith-stokey-1923-2012/

Miraval, N. R. (2012) Kennedy School "Founding Mother" Dies at 88. In The Harvard Crimson, 27 January 2012. Retrieved March 10, 2012, from http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/27/Stokey-HKS-Obituary/

Stokey, E. & Zeckhauser, R. (1978) A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: WW Norton & Company Inc. 

Institutionalism: Old and New



Image from Amglifestyle
http://amglifestyle.com/2011/12/08/good-read-the-wealth-of-nations-by-adam-smith/

According to Adam Smith (1976), the productivity of the economic system depends on specialisation (the division of labour). The more the specialisation is, the greater the productivity of the economic system will be.



Ronald Coase ( Nobel Laureate, is now 101 years old, born 29 December 1910).
Image from The Ronald Coase Institute http://coase.org/aboutronaldcoase.htm



Coase (1997: 73) argues that specialisation is only possible only when there is exchange and the costs of exchange (transaction costs) is low. Moreover, the costs of exchange depend on the institutions such as legal system, political system, social system, education system, culture, and so on) of a country. Therefore, the performance of an economy is, in effect, governed by the institutions (Coase,1998: 73).

According to Ronald Coase the basic difference is that “the old institutionalists were concerned in the main with describing institutions rather than with analysing them” (Ferrarini, Nye, Bullard & Eyzaguirre, 1998).


References

Coase, R. (1998) The New Institutional Economics. In the American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 2, pp. 72-74. Retrieved on April 18, 2012 on http://www.coase.org/coaseonline.htm

Ferrarini, T., Nye, J., Bullard, A. & Eyzaguirre, H. (1998) Interview with Ronald Coase. At Inaugural Conference, International Society for New Institutional Economics, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, on September 17, 1997. Retrieved on April 18, 2012 on www.coase.org/coaseinterview.htm

Smith, A. (1976) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. (edited by E. Cannan). Retrieved on February 03, 2005 on http://www.adelaide.edu.au/library/etext/s/s64w/s64w.zip

Theory-based Evaluation

It is an approach that based on theory or theories that explains the issues, or programme in question. It "has similarities to the logic model but allows a much more in-depth understanding of the workings of a programe or activity - the 'programme theory' or 'programme logic' (World Bank, 2004: 10). As its name suggestes, a theory (or theories) underlying the causal relationship between outputs and outcomes and between outcomes on different levels in an outcome chain plays important roles in it. In my understanding, it is not looking directly at the ultimate outcomes, instead at one step or two steps back-ward of it (in the outcome chain or an logical framework explained by the theory). It would be easier to understand it if we discuss it with some real life examples.


Example (1)

The World Bank, in the World Development Report 2004, argues that there are four roots of the service delivery problem. Among them, the third roots cause is, according to the World Bank (2003), the lack of (or weak) incentive to the service providers. The theory states that the service delivery will be low and poor when there is no or weak incentive to the service providers. To solve this problem, the World Bank recommends establishing an effective mechanism of monitoring and holding the service providers accountable.

This theory has three parts: (1) the service delivery will be low and poor; (2) if the service providers do not have incentive to deliver (or even if they have, it is weak), (3) it can be solved by means of holding the service providers accountable through an effective mechanism of monitoring.

In applying the theory-based evaluation, the evaluators do not look at the level and quality of service delivery (which is the ultimate outcome of the programme or policy), instead it looks either at the level and quality of incentive to the service providers (one step back-ward of the outcome), or at the mechanisms of accountability that can hold the service providers accountable, or at the mechanism of monitoring (two steps back-ward of the outcome).

It should be aware that there are still other factors that affect the level and quality of service delivery. But theory-based evaluation focuses on a theory that explains about just one factor.


Example (2)
An education theory states that educational outcomes will be improved, if learner-teacher contact time is increased. Then, the first step to improve the educational outcomes is, according to the theory, to increase learner-teacher contact time. It should be noted that this is not the only determinant of education outcomes, there are also several other factors that cause the level and quanlity of economic outcome.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention (aiming to improve the eduational outcomes) the theory-based evalutation approach will be used to look at effectiveness of the intervention on increasing the learner-teacher contact time (which is the first step to improve the eduational outcomes), instead of looking at the actual improvement of educational outcomes (which is the overall objective of the programme or project). 

This is what I have learnt and understood this morning. My understanding will be improved as I have read and studied more.


Reference

World Bank (2003) World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on April 01, 2012 on http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2003/10/07/000090341_20031007150121/Rendered/PDF/268950PAPER0WDR02004.pdf.

World Bank (2004) Monitoring and Evaluation. Some tools, methods and approaches. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Retrieved on April 19, 2012 on http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEVACAPDEV/Resources/4585672-1251481378590/MandE_tools_methods_approaches.pdf