Grounded Theory (GT) and Content Analysis (CA) are widely known methodologies applied within multiple scientific communities, sharing a close background with social sciences. Each of these approaches has been developed and tested throughout distinct historical pathways, both shaped by different aims, results and theoretical constructions. Whereas GT belongs to what could be described as “inductive science”, CA is tagged under the motto of “deductive sciences”, assuming essentially different epistemological positions (Bernard & Ryan, 2009). They are also contrasted by their qualitative and quantitative data insights. Content Analysis is generally described as a process where data are “quantified”, in which key words and phrases are commonly interpreted into statistical terms, associated as a quantitative focus (Weber, 1990). Grounded Theory on the other side, remains as a predominantly qualitative analysis throughout the overall process. But the reason why I put these differences side by side is to ask simple yet complex questions: Are these distinctions enough to be talking about strictly different approaches? And do these differences mean that both methodologies are essentially incompatible and aim to separate prospects? What comes to my attention, and what I will further present throughout this brief paper, is that, although both methods are defined within separate boundaries, their differences do not constitute an epistemological incompatibility. In fact, their paired use could lead us to alternative means for data exploration and theoretical constructions. Are there any significant commonalities between these methodologies? To what extents could they be used side by side, simultaneously and/or as triangulation source for th... ... middle of paper ... ...ison qualitative data analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(1), 70. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 587. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage publications. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. London: Routledge Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Second edition. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. (Vol. 49). Sage Publications. Yu, C. H., Jannasch-Pennell, A., & DiGangi, S. (2011). Compatibility between Text Mining and Qualitative Research in the Perspectives of Grounded Theory, Content Analysis, and Reliability. Qualitative Report, 16(3), 730-744.
Pure qualitative research uses the idea that there are multiple realities that may shift or evolve due to changes in events and situations. In one sense, qualitative researchers might, as Tanya R. Berry reported in “Qualitative researchers as modern day Sophists? Reflections on the qualitative-quantitative divide” (2011), say “there is no reality – just experience.” Thus, qualitative research studies may produce glimpses of the more slippery version of “truth” that quantitative research would never real. However, the more structured and disciplined constructs used by quantitative researchers may also be necessary to nail down the trends, opinions, and ideas revealed through qualitative
Qualitative research is one of the main types of the scientific investigation. The qualitative research seeks to explore the research 's issue from the perspectives of the involved population. Qualitative research is effective for gaining culturally specific information about particular social contexts and identifying intangible social factors. The most popular methodologies of this research are consensual qualitative research, grounded theory, phenomenology and heuristic inquiry. Since all these methods have certain differences, their comparison and contrast will be helpful for improving proficiency in qualitative research.
To fulfill accuracy in this research, the main strategy that is used is the mixed methods, which lies under the post-positivist philosophy. This strategy is mainly the result of the combination of the positivist and the anti-positivist philosophies. In their book Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011, p. 5) state that the mixed methods technique “[…] involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative data in a single study or series of studies.”
The type of data collection for a qualitative research study depends on the research design. The qualitative design itself originates out of the disciplines and flow throughout the process of research (Creswell, 2014). Creswell (2014) recommends narrative, phenomenology, ethnography, case study, and grounded theory as common qualitative research methods. These were recommended because of they are popular across the social and health and science research studies. Hays and Woods (2011) asserted that selecting a research tradition congruent with one's research orientation and study purpose, and at the same time, infusing it in all phases of qualitative inquiry, is one of the key criterions for trustworthiness of the research results. Hays and Woods (2011) recommends six qualitative research traditions, including ground theory, phenomenology, consensual qualitative research, ethnography, narratology, and participative action research. Indeed, while there are additional qualitative research methods available, scholars have identified these six qualitative traditions consistently or identified them as emerging and common methods of qualitative research (Hays & Woods, 2011).
For the most part over and over again qualitative investigation is habitually contrasted with quantitative investigation. The big representation is problematical while researcher give consideration to over inside every one of the wide-ranging categories. Nevertheless, there are various significant issues in which researchers have an inclination to leap in one approach as well as another, depending on the position of their way of life.
Using two theoretical approaches to social research namely, Positivism and Standpoint theory, I have demonstrated implicit connections in their respective assumptions. The ontological, epistemological and methodical assumptions are all integral facets of the understanding of social research. Once these are understood one can then draw conclusions as to which type or types of methods are appropriate to use.
Qualitative research has gained significant recognition in the social science sphere with its holistic and purposeful pursuit in illuminating new areas for research lacking through quantitative research. (Carey, 2012; Cleary, Horsfall, & Hayter, 2014; Reeves, Kuper, & Hodges, 2008; Stevenson, Britten, Barry, Barber, & Bradley, 2000; Thyer, 2012). Qualitative research uses a variety of methodologies to explore an individual’s inner world, expand our understanding of a social phenomenon, and advance and discover new theories (Carey, 2012; Fortune, Reid, & Miller, 2013; Saldana, 2011; Thyer, 2012). Stevenson (2000) describes qualitative research as an in-depth investigation into the inner world of reasoning, decision-making and meaning. Furthermore, qualitative research takes into account the context and history that shapes presented information and ventures to understand participant’s experiences, thoughts, opinions, and feelings towards their social reality (Ivey, 2012; Nielsen, 2011; Thyer, 2012).
The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research is a book by Strauss and Glaser that seeks to address how theory from data is discovered, systematically obtained, analyzed in social research and how it can furthered. According to the book, grounded theory is the discovery of theory from data. They argue that this is a major task that confronts sociology. They also stated that this provided relevant explanations prediction interpretation and application. I found this book useful in the explanation of grounded theory. The book aims at improving the capacity to generate theory relevant to social research. This book is useful for anyone who study’s social phenomena especially when the study focuses on qualitative
Corbin, Juliet & Strauss, Anselm (1990), Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria. Zeitschrift fur Sociology 19:418-427
Quantitative and qualitative research methods are the two central methods for conducting research. Although there are both advantages and disadvantages to each of these research methods, many researchers decide to merely utilize one of the methods, without exploring the other method at all. This is a problem as these researchers only get to analyze their research from one point of view rather than from differing points of view. In other words, these researchers will solely rely on numbers and statistics or solely rely on interviews and observations. The researchers Bonta and Gendreau are open to utilizing both research methods, however, instead of simply using quantitative research methods. Conversely, the researchers Roberts and Jackson are
Therefore, in a quantitative study the theoretical framework is often discussed are the literate review (Coughlan, Cronin, & Ryan, 2007). In addition, the theory can be used as a conceptual model that is used as guide for the research study (Coughlan et al., 2007). Therefore, a quantitative research study contributes to theory by building on the theory through empirical observation. On the other hand, qualitative research contributes to theory by developing new theories (Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2007). As a result, majority of qualitative research does not test a theory compared to the quantitative research studies. Therefore, qualitative research is often known as grounded theory (Ryan et al., 2007). However, some qualitative research can use theories as a frame for the study. Finally, research contributes to theory by improving the efficiency and reducing errors (Wacker, 1998). Therefore, theory is improved and it enhances the knowledge in the topic area of interest. Overall, research is conducted built on a theory that provides an explanation of the phenomena (Stam, 2009). In the end, theory and research are closely linked together and without the use of a theoretical framework to build the research from it will be difficult to provide an understanding of the research results regarding the
Content analysis is commonly used in qualitative research as a way of analyzing text through the use of coding by words with the purpose to be who said what and to whom, and why. Where as thematic analysis is a way of reporting patterns and analyzing them within the data. Both sets of data look at the narrative, but thematic analysis keeps the data in a purely qualitative form when analyzed and content analysis becomes quantitative when coded (Vaismoradi, Turunen, and Bondas, 2013). Meaning that content analysis becomes about the numbers in the end to describe the results and thematic analysis has more depth and detail in the final
Thematic analysis is espoused to be the foundational approach to qualitative analysis and methods (Saunders et al., 2016 as stated in Braun and Clarke, 2006: 78) and it is a useful method used to identify and analyse the order and patterns of qualitative data (Attride-Stirling, 2001). Qualitative research method depicts the correlation that exists between data and events, creating the pictorial representation of what one thinks a given data says (Saunders et al., 2016). They also opined that, qualitative data analysis is cogent, interactive and iterative. Also, Joana and Jill (2011) and Saunders et al (2016) postulate that, qualitative research brings meanings from words and images as opposed to numbers. However, despite its robustness and rigour of its application, it is skewed more to the interpretivist ideologies since researchers draw conclusion from participants and the hypothesis being forecasted (Joana and Jill, 2011; Saunders et al., 2016).
A core phenomenon in a substantive study has clear implications for a formal grounded theory (Strauss 1987).
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine.