Nitel Araştırma Yöntemine Dayalı Bir Kuramın Gelişim Süreci: Gömülü Kuram Örneği/ Development Process of a Theory Based on Qualitative Research Method: The Case of Grounded Theory

Year 2023, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 191 - 210, 31.12.2023

Hakan Kara , Serpil Gül Ersöz , Emine Oyur

https://doi.org/10.47105/nsb.1276851

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Gömülü Kuram (GK), nitel verilerin toplanması ve analizi için bir dizi sistematik prosedür aracılığıyla bir olgu hakkında tümevarımsal kuram gelişimini desteklemek için tasarlanmış genel bir araştırma metodolojisidir. Bu çalışmada, yerli alanyazında kullanımı az olduğu değerlendirilen GK, ana hatları açıklanmış ve sosyal bilimlerde kullanılabilir olduğuna yönelik araştırma konu başlıkları verilmiştir. GK’nın tarihi gelişimi içerisinde, Glaser & Strauss’un görüş ve katkılarının temelinde diğer görüş ve katkılar karşılaştırılarak olgunlaşma süreci anlatılmıştır. Değerlendirmeler için ihtiyaç duyulan bulguların elde edilmesinde nitel yönteme dayalı tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Google akademik üzerinden yabancı alanyazın taraması yapılmıştır. Yabancı alanyazında GK üzerine yapılan çalışmışlardan elde olunan bulgular, GK’nın arka planı, metodolojik tasarım, değer ve amaç, veri ve analizi, alanyazın taraması ve araştırmacı temelinde sistematize edilerek değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

Gömülü Kuram, nitel araştırma, metodoloji

Nitel Araştırma Yöntemine Dayalı Bir Kuramın Gelişim Süreci: Gömülü Kuram Örneği/ Development Process of a Theory Based on Qualitative Research Method: The Case of Grounded Theory

Abstract

Grounded Theory (GT) is a general research methodology designed to support inductive theory development about a phenomenon through a set of systematic procedures for the collection and analysis of qualitative data (Noble & Mitchell, 2016). In the historical development of GT, the maturation process of GT was explained by comparing other views and contributions based on Glaser and Strauss' views and contributions. Based on the findings obtained, the background of GT, the views and contributions of Glaser and Strauss, methodological design, data analysis, literature review, and researcher were systematized and evaluated.
The idea that the researcher must somehow be 'removed' from the research process in order for an objective theory to be discovered or allowed to emerge is among the topics of positivist/post-positivist epistemology. However, the idea that the researcher can be purified from the research results through the appropriate use of methodologies is highly controversial, especially in qualitative research. In qualitative research, since the epistemological process is interactional and structural, the influence of the researcher on the research outcome can be more easily recognised. However, in order to see and/or criticise understanding knowledge as interpretation, it is necessary to refer to hermeneutics, where interpretation is considered historically and culturally situated (Ramalho et al., 2015).
Qualitative methodologies facilitate in-depth and detailed examination of issues and provide a broad approach to the study of social phenomena based on interpretive and lived experiences (Holton, 2008). This is because Glaser and Strauss designed GT to bridge the gap between theory and research and to improve the capacity of social scientists to generate theory (La Rossa, 2005). Within the framework of these basic reasons, GT should be evaluated on the basis of the findings (Allan, 2003; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goulding, 2000; Kenny & Fourie, 2014; Pandit, 1996).
Especially when it is considered that the origins of social events are formed by broad cultural dynamics, the phenomena that occur in societies will also differ from society to society. Although science is universal, the formation of social phenomena or the solution of emerging problems will still be within that society. Therefore, in order to understand the phenomena occurring in societies in their own speciality or to get more specific, it will be necessary to search for the dynamics and solutions caused by the phenomena within that society. In this direction, GT is a qualitative-based research methodology that has and will have a significant impact on social science research. GT -based research makes important contributions to the formation of new theories to be used in understanding and describing new social events by systematising the information coming from the practice through communication between the researcher and the participants from whom the data are taken.
Achieving the expected benefits in GT research depends on its applicability. Therefore, knowing the theoretical background of GT will guide researchers. On the other hand, it should be noted that determining the theoretical sample (participants) from which the findings will be obtained in the implementation process or expanding the sample for the findings is an important factor in reaching broader findings that can be evaluated. However, starting with the first sample (participant) who has extensive knowledge of the subject will form a basis for reaching the findings and the next sample. The fact that the research topic is certain or that the reference to the literature has been postponed or is still being discussed in the research process with the thought that it will affect the design of the GT may cause difficulties for the researchers. For this, researchers are expected to be highly competent and proficient in their field. In this direction, when the researcher follows the stages of GT (determining the phenomenon to be researched, determining the sample -participants-, coding the findings obtained, combining the codes with categories, making a general inference from the responses in the categories, and reaching a general conclusion by combining the inferences in the categories), he/she can develop a theory that can be put forward for the phenomena. However, the constant change of social phenomena will make it necessary to re-check the theory put forward.

Keywords

Grounded theory, qualitative research, methodology

References

• Age, L. J. (2011). Grounded theory methodology: Positivism, hermeneutics, and pragmatism. Qualitative Report, 16(6), 1599-1615.
• Aksakal, N., & Kırkaya İ. (2013). Gömülü teori: spor bilimlerinde kullanılabilirliği. CBÜ Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(1),1-10.
• Aldiabat, K. M., & Le Navenec, C. L. (2018). Data saturation: the mysterious step in grounded theory methodology. The Qualitative Report, 23(1), 245-261.
• Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1),1-10
• Babchuk, W. A. (2011). Grounded theory as a “family of methods”: A genealogical analysis to guide research. US-China Education Review, A (3), 383-388.
• Backman, K., & Kyngäs, H. A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice researcher. Nursing & Health Sciences, 1(3), 147-153.
• Belgrave, L. L., & Seide, K. (2019). Grounded theory methodology: Principles and practices. PhilPapers.
• Birks, M., Hoare, K., & Mills, J. (2019). Grounded theory: The FAQs. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1-7.
• Breckenridge, J., & Jones, D. (2009). Demystifying theoretical sampling in grounded theory research. Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 113-126.
• Bulduklu, Y. (2019). Eleştirel çalışmalarda nitel araştırma yöntemi olarak gömülü teori. Kritik İletişim Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 1-14.
• Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21 st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. (Ed.: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousands Oaks: Sage,
• Charmaz, K. (2006).Constructing grounded theory a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
• Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305-327.
• Cutcliffe, J. R. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1476-1484.
• Çetinkaya, A., & Özsoy, S. (2016). Gebeliği önleyici yöntem kullanımı: Bir gömülü kuram çalışması. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 100-117.
• Goulding, C. (2000). Grounded theory methodology and consumer behaviour, procedures, practice and pitfalls. (Eds.: Hoch, S. J., Robert J. Meyer, R. J., & Provo, UT), in NA Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, 27, 261-266.
• Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111-124.
• Eaves, Y. D. (2001). A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. Jurnal of Advanced Nursing, 35(5), 654-663.
• Engward, H. (2013). Understanding grounded theory. Art & Science, 28(7), 37-41.
• Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607.
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick & London: Aldine Trancastion A Division of Transaction Publishers.
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2014). Applying grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), 46-50.
• Gligor, D. M., Esmark, C. L., & Gölgeci, I. (2016). Building international business theory: A grounded theory approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 93-111.
• Güzeler, F. B., & Arkan, Z. (2022). Zekeriyyâ Tâmir‟in El-Aʿdâʾ adlı öyküsünün Türkçe çevirisinde deyiş kaydırmaları. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 24(4), 1241-1252.
• Haig, B. D. (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. Philosophy of Education, 28(1), 1-11.
• Harris, T. (2014) Grounded theory. Nursing Standard, 29(35), 37‐43.
• Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: A comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(2), 141-150.
• Can, N., & Himmetoğlu, B. (2021). Eğitim yönetimi araştırmalarında Gömülü Teori deseninin kullanımına ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Uşak Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(3), 1-20.
• Hernandez, C. A. (2009). Theoretical coding in grounded theory methodology. Grounded Theory Review, 8(3), 51-60.
• Holton, J. A. (2008). Grounded theory as a general research methodology. The Grounded Theory Review, 7(2), 67-93.
• Ilgar, M. Z., Ilgar, S. C. (2013). Nitel bir araştırma deseni olarak gömülü teori (Temellendirilmiş kuram). İstanbul Zaim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 197-247.
• Jørgensen, U. (2001). Grounded theory: Methodology and theory construction. International Encyclopedia of The Social & Behavioral Sciences, 1, 6396-6399.
• Kara, H. (2021). Yaratıcı yönetim ve yaratıcı örgüt -seramik tasarım ve üretimine dayandırılmış keşfedici bir araştırma. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 69, 220-231.
• Kenny, M., & Fourie, R. (2014). Tracing the history of grounded theory methodology: From formation to fragmentation. Qualitative Report, 19(52), 1-9.
• Kocabıyık, O. O. (2016). Olgubilim ve gömülü kuram: Bazı özellikler açısından karşılaştırma. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 55-66.
• Lai, L. S., & To, W. M. (2015). Content analysis of social media: A grounded theory approach. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 16(2), 138-152.
• Lambert, M. (2019). Grounded Theory. In Practical Research Methods İn Education, Routledge.
• LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 837-857.
• Levers, M. J. D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. Sage Open, 3(4).
• Locke, K. (2002). The grounded theory approach to qualitative research. In (Eds.: Drasgow, F. & Schmitt, N.) Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis, Sage.
• McCallin, A. (2003). Grappling with the literature in a grounded theory study. Contemporary Nurse, 15(1-2), 61-69.
• McCallin, A. M. (2003). Designing a grounded theory study: Some practicalities. Nursing in Critical Care, 8(5), 203-208.
• Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25-35.
• Noble, H. & Mitchell, G. (2016). What is grounded theory? Evidence-Based Nursing, 19(2), 34-35.
• Özsoy, S., & Çetinkaya, A. (2014). Nitel araştırma desenlerinden gömülü kuram (Grounded theory). Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(1), 153-164.
• Pandit, N. R. (1996). The creation of theory: A recent application of the grounded theory method. The Qualitative Report, 2(4), 1-15.
• Partington, D. (2000). Building grounded theories of management action. British Journal of Management, 11(2), 91-102.
• Ramalho, R., Adams, P., Huggard, P., & Hoare, K. (2015). Literature review and constructivist grounded theory methodology. In Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(3), 1-13).
• Ruppel, P. S., & Mey, G. (2015). Grounded theory methodology—narrativity revisited. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 174-186.
• Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
• Şener, E. (2019). Gömülü Teori yaklaşımının yönetim araştırmalarında kullanımı. Nitel Sosyal Bilimler, 1(1), 22-47.
• Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767-795.
• Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243-259.
• Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the ‘theory’ back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357-381.
• Walker, D. & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547-559.
• Wolfswinkel, J. F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. P. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45-55.
• Yaşar, M. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda nitelik sorunu. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 55-73.