Grounded Theory: A Comprehensive Examination of Data Coding

Abstract

This study focuses on Grounded Theory, which is one of the qualitative research designs. Glaser and Strauss developed Grounded Theory; it has been revised by other scientists, resulting in three distinct Grounded Theory approaches: the systematic design (Corbin and Strauss approach), the classical design (Glaser approach), and the constructivist approach (Charmaz approach). The purpose of this research is to discover the key characteristics of grounded theory through a comprehensive examination of these three methods, as well as to show the systematic design in depth. In Grounded Theory research, the systematic design is favoured above other designs, so it is essential to understand the application steps carefully. As a result, the systematic design, which is similar to other designs in terms of fundamental characteristics, exhibits coding stage variances. In this regard, it is intended that the study will alleviate ambiguity in Grounded Theory research, particularly during the coding phase.

Keywords

• Grounded Theory
• systematic design
• classic design
• coding the data

References

1. Anderson, J. S. (2007). Boys in crisis: A grounded theory study of male high school dropouts in a rural setting. PhD thesis, University of Phoenix, Education in Educational Leadership.
2. Balcı, A. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (11. b.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
3. Birgili, B. (2015). Temellendirilmiş Kuram. F. N. Seggie ve Y. Bayyurt (Dü) içinde, Nitel araştırma: Yöntem, teknik, analiz ve yaklaşımları. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
4. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
5. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
6. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
7. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five design (3.edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.
8. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Publication.

9. Çelik, H. ve Ekşi, H. (2015). Gömülü teori. İstanbul: EDAM Yayınları.
10. Eaves, Y. D. (2001). A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(5), 654-663.
11. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (2006). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
12. Goulding, C. (2002). Grounded theory a practical guide for management, business and market researchers. London: SAGE Publications.
13. Hildenbrand, B. (2004). Anselm Strauss. U. Flick, E. v. Kardoff and I. Steinke ed., A compain to qualitaive research (T. B. Jenner, trans.). London: SAGE Publications.
14. Ilgar, M. Z. ve Coşgun Ilgar, S. (2013). Nitel Bir Araştırma Deseni Olarak Gömülü Teori. Sebahattin Zaim Üniversitesi Dergisi, 197-247. Nisan 1, 2016 tarihinde http://www.izu.edu.tr/tr-TR/2013-guz-donemi/1807/Page.aspx#_ adresinden alındı
15. Jones, M. and Alony, I. (2011). Guiding the use of grounded theory in doctoral studies-An example from the Australian film industry. International Journal of Doctoral Studies(6), 95-114. Nisan 1, 2016 tarihinde http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=commpapers adresinden alındı.
16. Kaya, Ö. (2015). Temellendirilmiş teori. M. Metin içinde, Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (s. 241). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
17. Locke, K. D. (2003). Grounded theory in management research (2. edition). London: SAGE Publications. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber. (S. Turan, Dü., F. Canbaz ve M. Öz, Çev.) Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
18. Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006). The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory. İnternational Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 10-19.
19. Moriarty, J. (2011). Qualitative Methods Overview. Methods Review(1), 10-42.
20. Neuman, W. L. (2008). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri: Nitel ve nicel yaklaşımlar (Cilt 2). (Ö. Sedef, Çev.) İstanbul: Yayınodası.
21. Onat Kocabıyık, O. (2016). Olgubilim ve Gömülü Kuram: Bazı Özellikler Açısından Karşılaştırma. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 55-66. Sönmez, V. ve Alacapınar, F. (2013). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (2. b.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
22. Vatansever, Ç., Çalışkan, S. ve Işık, İ. (2014). Bir Dünya Şiketinin Türkiye'deki Çalışanlarına göre Çeşitliliklerin Yönetimi: Gömülü Kuram Analiziyle Modelleme. Başkent Üniversitesi İİBF Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(1), 10-44.
23. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (9. b.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.