CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
This chapter is concerned with providing information on the methodology utilized in the present study which is a modification of the classic or Glaserian grounded theory approach. A brief discussion of the classic grounded theory methodology is included as a starting point and foundation of this approach. A qualitative design suits to address the problem statement and research questions with the aim of emerging a conceptual framework of leadership among academic leaders in Philippine HEIs. The modified GT approach was discussed in-depth and at length in this chapter as well as the rationale for its utilization in and suitability to this study. The various grounding processes entailed in this approach was also described and discussed in detail based on the work of its originators and proponents – Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2002, 2010), who are practitioners in the field of information systems and have published papers on their modified GT approach since early 2000. They challenged the cornerstones of the classic GT method and proposed an extended and partially alternative approach to address the various weaknesses and issues classic GT faced even from one of its original authors (Strauss who did his own modifications with Corbin: Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The discussion includes a comparison of the classic GT approach with the modified GT methodology used in the present study as well as the principles and measures of what comprises good grounded theory as defined by Glaser (1978,1998) and Charmaz (2014).
This chapter also includes a discussion of the process of choosing sample respondents following theoretical sampling in grounded theory until theoretical saturation was reached, a profile of the participants who were interviewed for the study, the criteria for selection of participant HEIs,
how the data was collected, the process of data analysis including the various phases of coding, and the instrument used.
Research Design
A qualitative research design was used as it answers the question ‘What?” which involves a conceptualization of the matter being investigated as a whole and in its various parts including how these parts are related and organized as a whole and how this whole is similar to and different from other things. Knowing the “what” of something may also involve conceptualization of its “how”, its process and temporal unfolding in time (Wertz,et.al., 2011).
“Qualitative knowledge may also include an understanding of the context, the
consequences/outcomes, and even the significance of what is investigated in the larger world. The construction of theories, hypothetical explanation, prediction, and measurement of a subject matter presupposes qualitative knowledge—that is, knowledge of the basic characteristics of the subject matter” (Wertz, et al., 2011,p.2).
Based on Denzin and Lincoln’s definition (2011, as cited in Cresswell & Poth, 2018), the study is appropriately designed as qualitative since this type of research “involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world”…where the researcher “studies things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the
meanings people bring to them” (p.41). As the present study is concerned with studying the phenomena of leadership in the Philippine context and what meaning is ascribed to it or how it is conceptualized by purposively-sampled participants interviewed in their natural local settings (in HEIs), then the nature of this study suits a qualitative design. Moreover, based on Cresswell and Poth’s (2018) definition of qualitative research design, as the research focus of this study is concerned with the meaning individuals ascribe to a human/ social problem –
such as leadership – then researchers in such cases use an “emerging qualitative approach to inquiry”, where “collection of data is done in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study” and where data analysis is both inductive and deductive eventually establishing patterns or themes (p.42). The researcher then chose the qualitative research design for the present study as it fulfils these descriptions of how, when, and why such a design is used.
This research design and subsequent choice of methodology follows the above-mentioned rationale as the purpose of the study is to explore and discover whether there is a distinctly Filipino conceptualization of leadership among HEI leaders. However, due to apparent limitations, the study only covers those who are within the local context (NCR) and selected according to a set of criteria described in a later section. Since the study is conceptual in nature, adopting a qualitative design and consequent methodology was imperative as “…Asking good qualitative questions and using careful, self-critical, methodical, and accountable procedures to answer them is crucial for science.” (Wertz, et al., 2011, p.3). The process of research involves emerging questions and procedures, where data is typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis involves inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making interpretations of the meaning of the data (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018, p.43).
For Glaser and Strauss (1967), conceptual thinking and theory building is interrelated with the qualitative research method approach: with grounded theory (GT), using inductive reasoning to arrive at or develop a theory. Gray (2009, cited in Khan, 2014) essays how inductive reasoning aims to discover a binding principle and to construct generalizations, relationships, and even theories by analysing the data purposely collected toward this end; in
contrast to deductive reasoning which involves hypothesis-testing to verify, refuse or modify a theory based on experimentally-gathered data (p.224). However, Gray (cited in Khan, 2014) highlighted as well that “the inductive process may still have some pre-existing
theories or ideas when approaching a problem. Nonetheless, it does not pursue to approve or negate the existing theories, but endeavours to create outlines, stabilities and significances by collecting data” (p.224) (italics added). In the present study on the conceptualization of leadership, it was inevitable that there were some of these pre-existing theories or ideas with regard to the problem, thus a suitable methodology that allows for this is applied.
Grounded Theory
Glaser (1998), an originator of the GT method, defined grounded theory as the “systematic generation of theory from data acquired by a rigorous research method . . . grounded theory is the discovery of what is there and emerges” (pp.3-4). Glaser and Strauss, in their landmark original work The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (1967) described it as “the discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research” (p. 2), further explaining that “theory in sociology is a strategy for handling data in research providing modes of conceptualization for describing and explaining… theory must fit the situation being researched and work when put into use.” (p.3). Strauss and Corbin (1990)
explained that GT is designed to “develop a well-integrated set of concepts that provide a thorough theoretical explanation of social phenomena under study. A grounded theory should explain as well as describe. It may also implicitly give some degree of predictability, but only with regard to specific conditions.” (p.5). In their updated Basics of Qualitative Research book (Strauss & Corbin, 2015), the authors explained the value of using GT over other methods of descriptive and theory-building qualitative research (pp.32-33):
1. the procedures used “enable researchers to examine topics and related behaviours from many different angles, thus developing comprehensive explanations”;
2. It can be used to “gain new insights into old problems as well as to study new and emerging areas to be investigated”;
3. Also, “to uncover the beliefs and meanings that underlie action”, 4. “to examine rational as well as nonrational aspects of behaviour”, and
5. “to demonstrate how logic and emotion combine to influence how persons respond to events or handle problems through action and interaction”.
It is additionally important to note that GT procedures have been proven to be culturally- sensitive and applicable to individuals as well as to larger organizations and societies. It can be used to generate both substantive and general theories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.11). Grounded theory has evolved from a purely inductivist approach and versions now use both the inductive and deductive methods to develop theory. Deduction happens during the theoretical sampling phase, where theory emerges after the inductive process of coding, collecting and analysing data, then based on initially emerged categorizations more data is collected from theoretical samples. Charmaz (2014) adds that grounded theory allows researchers to construct a theory ‘grounded’ in their data. It begins with inductive data where constant comparison or iterative strategies are used between data collected and its analysis so that one keeps interacting with in-depth involvement with the data to advance theory development until there is an emergent theory constructed from the data itself.
Although GT methodology has its strengths as proven by its longevity and extensive use since Glaser and Straus first used it in their ground-breaking study [published as: Awareness of Dying (1965, cited in Strauss & Corbin, 2015)], it has spawned numerous versions with a smorgasbord and
diversity of applications and procedures. Neither of them saw that GT, also known as the constant comparative method, will be adopted in a multi-disciplinary way and across a range of professions (Charmaz, et.al, 2011). In fact, it is widely-known that these two sociologists have diverged more manifestly upon the publication of Strauss’ book Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists (1987).
Even the rationale for their divergence is still debated in academia today, Glaser (1998) calls it a
‘rhetoric wrestle’, meanwhile Corbin (2015) states: ‘It’s not that he (Strauss) departed from the methodology developed by him and Glaser, but that he had his own techniques or ways of thinking about data when doing analysis” (p.7). Kelle (2005) attributes it to the question of whether the researcher uses a well-defined 'coding paradigm' and always looking systematically for 'causal conditions,' 'phenomena/context, intervening conditions, action strategies' and 'consequences' in the data (Straussian), or whether theoretical codes are employed as they emerge in the same way as substantive codes emerge, but drawing on a huge fund of 'coding families (Glaserian).' (paragraphs 49 & 50). Another GT school of thought has surfaced in more recent years and this is the Constructivist grounded theory as proposed by Charmaz (2000, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2014, Bryant, 2002).
Charmaz (2014) attests that grounded theory has “generated innovative ideas” since its inception and that its “concepts can travel within and beyond their disciplinary origins”, accounting for the multiple variations of its application. In fact, Charmaz confirms that a researcher can “adopt and adapt” methodological guidelines to help them “solve varied problems and to conduct diverse studies, whether or not you aim for theory development” (p.16). Mey and Mruck (2011) confirm that further developments of grounded theory resulted in different methodologies and procedures, thus it has been suggested to talk about a plurality of GT methodologies or at the very least acknowledge
that there are numerous modi operandi involving GT methods in different disciplines and areas of research as well as different traditions even across nations (cited in Vollsted & Rezat, 2019).
Bulawa (2014) who adapted GT methodology for his research in basic education noted that the literature on research shows that there is no particular way of doing GT studies. He mentions Glaser & Strauss’ statement in their original work (1967) where they mention: “Our principal aim is to stimulate other theorists to codify and publish their own methods for generating theory” (p.8), suggesting that they never intended GT to be prescriptive. La Rossa (2005 cited in Bulawa, 2014) asserts that such comments indicates that the initial approach was not intended by the authors to be dogmatic. In the same way, Strauss & Corbin (1998) did modify their position with regards to coding and the process of construction explaining that it was not their intention to advocate for a ‘rigidly- staged process’ (cited in Bulawa, 2014).
Charmaz further elucidates this point in her book Constructing Grounded Theory (2014) saying how she sees the major versions of GT as “constituting a constellation of methods rather than an array of different methods”. The multiplicity of methodologies share much in common although differing on “foundational assumptions” shaping their studies. These researchers/ authors may have different viewpoints and ‘conceptual agendas‘- yet all begin with inductive logic, impose rigorous comparative analysis on the data, emerge a theory from this thorough, in-depth analytical process, and find GT studies to be of tremendous value especially as it informs policy and practice (pp.14-15).
Bryant (2017) a co-editor/ co-author of Charmaz (2007, 2011) wrote that he has always argued that GT is best thought of as a family of methods and suggests that rather than dwelling on variant
GT methodologies and their acceptability within the GT family, instead ‘orient around clarifying the relationships and derivations between different generations and offspring of the method…as taken together, they attest to the vibrancy and vitality that the method engendered in the research community’(p.84). He noted though the irony of how a method that came from a “motivation to provide novice researchers with a flexible and open approach to research has become a subject of claims regarding classic forms, orthodoxy, remodeling, intellectual property and even jargonizing”
(p.104), and how Glaser has characterized alterations as either ‘remodeling’ or ‘not GT’ at all. Bryant (2017) argues that these GTM-claims are not as important as the research outcomes. He makes a strongly valid point: “Use of research methods is not a case of taking sides, rather one of whatever works” (p.87). Raising the question as to why there should be ‘boundary disputes as long as these methodological developments and innovations lead to insightful and useful outcomes’, he offered for consideration two key criteria for GT research, which are: that outcomes should be both useful and modifiable; these he claimed should also apply to the method itself (p.87). As Glaser and Strauss highlighted the importance of developing or having ‘theoretical sensitivity’, the same skills likewise are necessary for choosing and implementing research methods or what you can call ‘methodological sensitivity’ (p.88). Bryant has likened methods to sharks, as they ‘have to keep moving or die’ (2017, p.87).
Because of this variance in methodologies, it is beneficial to go back to what the progenitors of this qualitative approach actually look for in terms of ‘grounded-ness’ of a theory. Cited below are what comprises or are considered as measures of good grounded theory as Glaser (1978) described it: a ‘'completed' grounded theory is a theory that comprises a core category and related categories.
Each category will have either properties and/ or dimensions. A property may also have dimensions.
A grounded theory however must adhere to four principles of grounded-ness when evaluated (Glaser, 1978, 1998). These principles are summarized as follows (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, pp. 237):
1. Fit – does the theory fit the incidents that they are representing?
2. Understandability/Relevance– will a non-professional concerned with the substantive area understand the theory?
3. Generalizability/Workability – does the theory apply to most situations or contexts?
4. Control/Modifiability – does the theory allow the user to alter it when new and relevant data is available?
“In terms of credibility, validity and rigor, it should be observed that grounded theory is based on a systematic and formal process of data collection, analysis and theory
generation. Inaccuracies and misleading interpretations are guarded against by various means including comparative analysis, investigation of different slices of data, and integration of theoretical concepts” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Charmaz (2014) on the other hand, has expertly distinguished what stands as grounded theory by giving the following core criteria which Bryant (2017) also includes in his recent book Grounded Theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Bryant believes these sensitizes the GT researcher/ theorist to the GT process and what is distinctively a GT methodology. Charmaz (2014) listed the following criteria which are useful for guiding researchers’ actions (p.15):
1. Conduct data collection and analysis simultaneously in an iterative process 2. Analyze actions and processes rather than themes and structure
3. Use comparative methods
4. Draw on data (e.g. narratives and descriptions) in service of developing new conceptual categories
5. Develop inductive abstract analytic categories through systematic data analysis
6. Emphasize theory construction rather than description or application of current theories 7. Engage in theoretical sampling
8. Search for variation in the studied categories or process
9. Pursue developing a category rather than covering a specific empirical topic (also in Charmaz, 2010a, p.11 and Bryant, 2017, p.111).
Multi-Grounded Theory
A Multi-Grounded Theory (MGT) approach was utilized as the method for the development of a conceptual framework as the researcher deemed its processes to be rightly contributing to satisfactorily address the statement of the problem. This version of GT
methodology certainly acknowledges its origins and foundations in classical GT. The researcher sought to employ a methodology that fulfils the above-mentioned criteria by Charmaz (2014) and at the same time has suitability to enable outcomes that are useful, insightful, and modifiable – a modified GT methodology proposed by Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2003, 2010) they termed as ‘multi- grounded theory’.
Timonen, et.al., (2018) explains that recent developments in the ‘family’ or ‘constellation’ of GT methodologies, such as MGT, align with a critical realist perspective – “a perspective that adheres to one reality that is open, fluid, and shaped by how people interpret (construct meaning) in it”. Critical realist GT methods focus on “the human perspective, and on the structures, processes, and social relations that shape events and outcomes” (Oliver cited in Timonen, et.al, 2018, p.3), thus it potentially navigates between the positivist (classical) and radical constructivist positions within
the GT approach. MGT apparently falls within this category of GT methodologies because it has the central feature of critical realism (and other forms of critical inquiry) – which is retroduction. Bhaskar (1986/ 2009 as cited in Timonen, et. al, 2018) defines retroduction as moving from description to causal inference via engaging with pre-existing theories and knowledge (thus, a priori review of literature is done). To gain conceptual clarity about phenomena, critical realist GT entails combining the processes of induction, deduction and retroduction. In contrast to classical GT, “the critical grounded theorist begins with critical observations, and/ or experiences of the critical issues prior to the study and seeks to enact change – the field research in critical GT is always intended to be emancipatory” (p.3). Critical GT, similar to other GT variants, “can be further developed or modified as new data are gathered, thus it is well-suited to achieving greater conceptual clarity and to the refinement and reconstruction of existing theory” (Belfrage & Hauf, 2017; Hadley, 2015 as cited in Timonen, et. al, 2018, p.3).
In the present study, critical issues regarding leadership and experiences of these critical issues – for example: the empowerment of people, engaging in strategic collaboration, and acquiring a global perspective (categories later emerged through induction) - were easily observable within the researcher’s local context, with a variety of leaders on display whether in the political, community, or educational stage. Having taken a number of courses within the academic program has also exposed the researcher to various issues surrounding leadership, thus the necessity for change which leaders can enact, has been another forceful impetus to pursue this research study. Additionally, as espoused in critical GT, it is certainly desirable and ideal that when new data on the substantive area is gathered, that consequently the theorized framework is expected/ permitted to be further developed and modified. Because of these elements, MGT methodology which can be categorized under critical GT
has a good fit with the aim of the study, which is to arrive at and contribute to “greater conceptual clarity and refinement of existing theories” about leadership in the Philippine setting.
A major characteristic of MGT is the comprehensive grounding view consisting of three explicit grounding processes, which was originated by Goldkuhl (1993, 1999) and can be found also in Lind and Goldkuhl (2002). In the present study on the conceptualization of leadership among Filipino HEI leaders, the researcher applied Goldkuhl and Cronholm’s (2003) Multi-Grounded Theory (MGT) method synthesizing inductivism and deductivism in its approach. The diagram below illustrates this dialectical synthesis (p.4):
Rationale for using a Multi-Grounded Theory (MGT) Approach
The MGT approach was developed within the information systems (IS) discipline, a social science concerned with the design and use of information technology in practices (Goldkuhl &
Cronholm, 2018).Articulation of MGT was based on (1) a critical analysis of identified strengths and weaknesses of GT and (2) an integration of the three grounding principles into MGT (p.2). The
5
following discussion further expounds a rationale for using MGT in the current study, besides primarily addressing the weaknesses of classic GT:
1. A priori review of related literature to find out gaps in the field of inquiry is allowed in MGT. An initial review of related literature was necessary to find out whether there is actually a gap in the existing knowledge in the specific area of a Filipino conceptualization of leadership especially in HEI’s. Also, what specific topics regarding leadership in the Philippine context have been studied (e.g. leadership development, factors affecting leadership effectiveness, business leadership, etc.)
2. The MGT Approach involves enhanced ways of grounding theory as there are three explicit grounding processes instead of one, thus strengthening any evolved theory because of triangulation in grounding: Empirical grounding, theoretical grounding, and internal grounding. This approach also increases validity. These three grounding processes are explained as follows:
2.1 Empirical grounding – analysis of empirical data based mainly on an inductive approach (similar to classic GT);
2.2 Theoretical grounding – from pre-existing theories well-selected as relevant to the theorized phenomena;
2.3 Internal grounding - explicit congruence and consistency within the theory itself (between elements in the theory) (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010)
The figure below provides illustration of these multi-grounding processes (p.193)
Theoretical grounding
Internal grounding
Empirical grounding
3. The theoretical matching aspect in the MGT approach enables the researcher to compare the emerged theory with other theories of a similar phenomenon studied
by other researchers/ leadership scholars. This may warrant revisions to ensure adequacy and further theoretical saturation. Theory development then becomes more robust as
categories, subcategories, and concepts drawn from the coding process are refined and more systematically organized based on this ‘constant comparison’ process with other extant theories. This theoretical matching process can lead to 3 types of results according to the authors (Goldkuhl & Crönholm, 2010, p.198):
3.1 adaptation of evolving theory;
3.2 explicit theoretical grounding
3.3 comments and/ or criticisms toward existing theories
The risk of over-generalizations from a few cases can also be avoided through the use of pre-existing theories, whether in integrating or relating it to the currently evolved one
External Theories
Theory
Empirical Data FIGURE 6 : MGT Multi-grounding
processes ( Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010)
because of their explanatory power. Other theories can actually help in condensing the presently emerged one, an explicit aim in GT (p.200). For example, in the present study this process has helped condense from in vivo codes to pattern codes the category of global perspectives which is an element in Project Globe’s culturally-endorsed leadership theory and is also found in the study of Valdez, et.al., (2017). Below is a diagram of this process:
4. Another grounding process which is an evaluation of internal theoretical cohesion systematizes the “investigation of the conceptual structure of the evolving theory, where consistency and congruency are checked” (p.198). The authors strongly proposed the use of appropriate diagrams to describe the conceptual structures as they deem it important for theory construction as well as for presentation of the theory to others. Theoretical cohesion involves assessing a part of the theory in relation to other parts, indicating internal
grounding with clarity and soundness (p.199).
The authors conclude that with theoretical grounding they aim to “avoid an isolated knowledge development” with a risk to ‘introvert theorizing’ (p.200) to which this researcher concurs. Other relevant sources can definitely help in refining, re-arranging,
FIGURE 7: THEORETICAL MATCHING PROCESS (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010)
reconceptualizing abstracted generalizations. A strong argument for this is indeed that we do not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ and that ‘science does evolve through cumulative
knowledge development’ (p.200).
The following Table 3 provides a comparison of the GT and MGT approach:
Grounded Theory (GT)
Multi-grounded theory Comparison
- Research interest reflection & revision Not existing explicitly in GT
Open coding Inductive coding Similar approach
- Conceptual refinement Not existing explicitly in GT
Axial coding Pattern coding Similar approach
Selective coding Theory condensation No requirement in MGT for
one core category
- Theoretical matching Not existing explicitly in GT
- Explicit empirical validation Not existing explicitly in GT
- Evaluation of theoretical cohesion Not existing explicitly in GT
Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010, p.200) also cited numerous research papers and studies that have utilized the MGT approach in various areas and disciplines including technology,
business, government, and healthcare. The diagram of the MGT process flow (Figure 6) is provided for easier perusal. It shows how the inductive and deductive approaches are both used in the
method. Constant comparison essential to all GT approaches, is applied throughout from beginning to final stage. The diagram also shows the three explicit grounding processes proposed by Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2003, 2010) which are characteristic of MGT methodology. This process flow was followed by the researcher:
TABLE 3 : Comparison of Classic Grounded Theory and Multi-Grounded Theory
DIAGRAM FIGURE 8
Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2018, p.4), in an update to their theory discussed the following core principles as distilled by Timonen, et. al (2018) which underpin the different variants of the GT method. These MGT authors provided their own explanations for how these core principles are embedded or are applied specific to MGT:
• CORE Principle 1: Taking the word “grounded” seriously. MGT shares this principle, as
“grounding” is a cornerstone of MGT where there is emphasis on the importance of both the emergence of codes and concepts from empirical data and the importance of theoretical and internal grounding.
• CORE Principle 2: Capturing and Explaining Context-Related Processes and Phenomena – Timonen, et. al (2018, p.6) claim “In GT-based interviews and focus groups, the researcher must seek to probe into, and seek clarification about, how key events, incidents, and behaviors grounded in the data are shaped by context”. In MGT, the process of theory generation is always contextual. MGT stresses the importance of understanding identified phenomena based on their contexts (which aligns with the present study as it is specifically concerned about leadership within the context of the Philippines). MGT also claims that the context of a phenomenon has a great impact on the phenomenon.
• CORE Principle 3: Pursuing Theory Through Engagement with Data – Timonen, et. al (2018, p.7) state that “…argumentation and theorizing must ultimately be brought back to, and justified against the data”- meaning data are the most central component in GT. MGT’s authors explain that in MGT data are also regarded as the most central component, but at the same time it puts a strong emphasis on extant theories, which are/ should be well- curated for the theorized phenomena. The rationale is that MGT’s authors have experienced GT-based analysis can sometimes be “too unfocused both in the empirical and theoretical phases”.
• CORE Principle 4: Pursuing Theory through Theoretical Sampling – According to Timonen, et. al. (2018, p.8) “…a GT study must always seek to theories, that is, try to elucidate and explain all other parts of a process or phenomenon under study.” Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2018) agree with this principle, claiming that it is not sufficient to ground the evolving theory in data and that grounding means more than empirical grounding. In MGT, there is an explicit recommendation to conduct “theoretical matching”. Theoretical matching means that the evolving theory, including the categories, is confronted with and is compared to external theories.
Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2018) conclude that these 4 core principles as outlined by Timonen, et. al., largely correspond to MGT. However, whereas Timonen, et. al. (2018) formulated these as a
response to a widespread misunderstanding of how to use GT (p.2), contending that the different formats “appear to be partly in contradiction or dispute each other”, with “students and even experienced researchers frequently wondering whether they are applying the GT method correctly or whether they are able to deploy the method in full” (p.1). Goldkuhl and Cronholm developed MGT to address classic GT’s various issues and weaknesses, uphold its strengths, and to explicitly apply the integration of the three grounding principles in MGT (i.e. empirical, theoretical, internal).
Process
In the current study a conceptualization of leadership, its nature, and processes as elucidated by the respondents was analyzed from interviews, field notes, transcribed video recordings, and from published literature. This triangulation of data is shown in the following diagram:
A detailed (line-by-line) manual micro-analysis of responses was done to establish ‘meaning units’ (words and phrases that are relevant and may contribute to the generation of conceptual
Participant Interviews/
Video recording/
Field notes/ CHED docs/
HEI infos including history, institutional profile, etc/
Books, journals, other literature & publications
Figure 9: Triangulation of Data
categories) and ultimately a conceptual framework of Filipino of leadership among HEI leaders in the local setting. The study is also developmental since process was utilized throughout the development of a conceptual framework. Process was used in the constant comparison of responses from various participants during the coding phase and writing of the categories, in the integration of categories, in the search for samples based on what is relevant theoretically and in the iterative nature of the method to achieve what Glaser calls ‘theoretical saturation’, delimiting collection and analysis, and stabilization of categories leading to ‘theoretical completeness’ (Glaser, 1967, pp.157,159).
Theoretical saturation of a category is defined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as “the criterion for judging when to stop sampling the different groups, pertinent to a category” where saturation means that there “are no additional data being found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category” and is reached “by joint collection and analysis of data” (p.61). Theoretical saturation cannot be reached without first the process of theoretical sampling, so purposive sampling is done to
“discover categories and their properties and to suggest interrelationships into a theory” (p.62).
Limited and selected archival research was done to find preliminary studies in the field, also later on in the process, after categories were emerged, so as to engage in theoretical grounding where one does a constant comparison of the emergent theory/ conceptual framework to other relevant pre- existing theories. One of the foundational and consistent aspects of grounded theory, through the many versions evolved over the years is the constant comparative method. As comparison with extant literature and other relevant studies preferably of a similar nature using the same methodology is done, another level of ‘theoretical saturation’ and completeness is hopefully achieved. Glaser (1967) pointed out that the search and reading of literature can be done when the grounded theory is nearly completed, however it was necessary to do preliminary archival research when the study commenced
in order to find gaps in extant literature, particularly studies on Filipino definitions and practice of leadership. This gave a sense of what is lacking and what contributions the present study can make to current published literature as well as to qualitative local studies on the subject. Additional information from literature are woven into the theory as more data for constant comparison (p.67).
“The literature is discovered just as the theory is. Once discovered, the literature is compared as simply more data” (p.69). This process is also part of MGT, which diverges from classic GT where it is rigidly advised to withhold this activity (review of related literature) so that the researcher may avoid any preconceived notions or biases that may affect or influence theory development. In MGT a review can be done so that the researcher does not embark on the process naively. MGT’s authors Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2003) reason that “being un-prejudiced can mean being uninformed” and argue that “there in such cases is a risk of being too naïve and even ignorant when entering the empirical field” (p.3). For them, it is “important to relate the evolving theory to established research during the process of theorizing. Existing theory can be used as a building block that supports the empirical data forming the new emergent theory” (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010, p.191). The process MGT authors call ‘theoretical matching’ is when literature is reviewed to find similar extant theories and see if the emergent theory can be further refined and more systematically organized through another iterative process of constant comparison, which actually makes the method more rigorous and consequently the theory more robust. This is an additional grounding process or the ‘theoretical grounding’ phase of MGT (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2003, 2010).Also, another grounding process is done for internal cohesion within the emergent theory itself so that there is internal consistency and congruency. These two additional grounding processes distinguishes MGT from classic GT and makes it a more “grounded’ methodological approach.
To give a visual summary of theory development in MGT, Figure 7 below indicates the three elements informing this process as explained by Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010, p.194): (1) empirical data from the interviews and related literature; (2) the research interest or substantive area of study (Filipino concepts of leadership among educational leaders); (3) existing theories (six were used for theoretical matching/ grounding).
Sampling Procedure
A multi-stage process was used for getting the samples for the study. Grounded theory research necessitates that a preliminary purposive sampling be undertaken. Thus, an initial sample set of four participants from the identified institutions which fit the specified criteria were included in
FIGURE 10: MGT THEORY DEVELOPMENT
the study. Sampling in grounded theory is ‘theoretically driven’ and involves ‘dynamic sample building’ (Münster, 2013), as participants are incrementally added after coding has been applied to the initial data collected. Theoretical sampling is used to focus on participants knowledgeable within the field of inquiry who can provide data and increase understanding of the subject being analyzed.
As discussed in their original work: “Theoretical sampling is the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges” (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967, p.45). This process is undertaken until ‘theoretical saturation’ is reached whereby any new data falls within all the named categories already and no new categories are emerged. MGT authors Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010) identify theoretical sampling as a strength of classic GT, defining it as a process of gathering new data to enrich evolving theory; that it is aimed at discovering variations among concepts and to enrich the categories in terms of their properties and dimensions.
They argued that there is a need to take a critical stance toward empirical data and “theoretical sampling provides an opportunity not only to enrich categories, but also to triangulate in order to validate or to achieve an improved and deepened understanding of earlier utterances” (p.190).
Locke (2001) explains that sampling comes from across different groups. “Sampling similar and different groups and situations ensures that researchers will collect enough information to stabilize and saturate each of the conceptual elements in their working theory … sampling across diverse groups and situations can help researchers to discriminate the boundaries of the theory – those situations where it is more or less useful” (p.57). Thus, the samples for this study has included respondents from both public and private higher educational institutions (HEIs) as well as from various levels of leadership in the education sector within the NCR.
According to Locke (2001), Glaser and Strauss suggested that the practice of actively searching for and ‘sampling’ data in order to provide the best possible information for theorizing a substantive topic area is a foundation of the GT method. Again, Glaser defines this as theoretical sampling. The point of theoretical sampling is to find relevant data that supports the development of conceptual categories until theoretical saturation is reached and consequently the completeness of the theoretical framework. Stern (in Locke, 2001) commented that randomly selecting informants which is common to hypothetico-deductive methods “makes as much sense as seeking information in the library by randomly selecting a book from a randomly selected shelf” (p.55). The basis then for doing theoretical sampling or theoretically-driven sampling is “to direct all data gathering efforts towards gathering information that will best support development of the theoretical framework” (p.55). Stern added that the researcher cannot know beforehand the number of participants necessary for the study to reach saturation and stability of categories. In fact, also “how long an interview will last or when the analysis will be complete” (cited in Glaser, 1998, p.159).
Participants
For this research on Filipino leadership concepts as found among HEI leaders of selected Philippine institutions, it was necessary to have purposive samples from as much a range of respondents as necessary to reach theoretical saturation. In this case, a total number of eight respondents was enough to reach a point of saturation to address the stated problem. According to Glaser (1998), “data completeness is based only on theoretical completeness not on number or length of interviews or number of interviewees” (p.159). Thus, in the proposal for this study no exact number of respondents was specified. Eventually, the researcher was able to sample first four participants as representatives of both public and private institutions which then expanded to a total of 10 but due to
unforeseen circumstances two dropped out. Theoretical saturation was reached with responses from these eight participants. They are of varying genders and ages so that the samples offer diversity and a range, although purposively selected first, then theoretically sampled.
The study includes participants from both public and private HEIs within Metro Manila that fulfils the following:
1) awarded an autonomous and deregulated status by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) on a number of programs/ courses;
2) high percentage of board passers in the various courses the HEI offers;
3) ranked as a top HEI in the Philippines by an independent poll body within the last ten years, and
4) has been in existence as an HEI for at least 30 years* at the time of this study
*(average years of a generation / source: ISOGG – International Society of Genetic Genealogy, Devine, D., 2016)
The HEIs selected must fulfill all of the above-mentioned criteria to be part of the
sample. A list of public and private HEIs in Metro Manila was easily procured from CHED to know which ones have been awarded an autonomous and deregulated status. Two major criteria for an HEI to be awarded an autonomous status are: the institution: a) has centers of excellence; and b) level 3 accreditation. Respondents from the institutions included key educational leaders particularly department chairperson, college deans/ vice-dean, registrar and presidents. Sampling of these key leaders was done purposively in terms of the HEIs they represent. They must have been in their official positions within the institution for at least two years so they would already have settled in their leadership roles and responsibilities as such. Those who have been identified as fulfilling this purposive requirement was then sampled at random based on willingness to participate in the study
and availability. Random purposive sampling at this point may have contributed to reduce some researcher bias in identifying samples since self-elected samples from the narrowed purposive samples was utilized. Data then came from a triangulated source: 1) the educational leaders themselves, 2) from published literature (i.e. books, articles, journals) relevant to a culturally-based understanding of leadership by Filipinos, and published studies on concepts of Filipino leadership, 3) from field notes and video recordings of the participants.
The following table shows details of the educational leaders who participated in the present study including their positions and institutions they served in at the time of the study.
Summary of Participant Profiles:
As previously detailed the participants of the study were purposively sampled from both public and private HEIs within Metro Manila according to a specified set of criteria. Below is a table summarizing their profiles:
TABLE 4 : Participant Profiles PARTICIPANT
(According to Sampling Order)
AGE RANGE (Approx)
GENDER Male (M) Female (F)
EDUC’L ATTAIN MENT
POSITION INSTITUTION
Participant 1 (P1) 60-65 yo M PhD Uni President DLSU
Participant 2 (P2) 55-60 yo M MBA Dean ATENEO
Participant 3 (P3) 55-60 yo M PhD Registrar ATENEO
Participant 4 (P4) 35-40 yo M MBA Curriculum Coordinator
ATENEO
Participant 5 (P5) 40-45 yo F PhD Assoc Dean UP
Participant 6 (P6) 45-50 yo M PhD Dean PNU
Participant 7 (P7) 55-60 F MA Dept Chair DLSU
Participant 8 (P8) 60-65 yo M MA (x2) College President DLSU-CSB Participant 9 (P9) 30-35 yo F PhD Assoc Dean UP (dropped)*
Particpant10(P10) 30-35 yo M PhD Stud Services DLSU (dropped)*
*Those who eventually dropped either did so for health reasons or unavailability
From the above table it can be seen that most of the participants are males and the average age is between 40’s-50’s. Also, most have at least attained a master’s degree and come from private HEIs which are well-known Catholic educational institutions [the country is 86% Catholic or more than 86 million Catholics: statistics derived from the Vatican's official publication, Statistical Yearbook of the Church, 2017 ( Vatican City: Librera Editrice Vaticana, 2019)]. The academic positions of these educational leader-participants ranged from curriculum coordinator (also the youngest in the group) to former university president. All have been in their respective positions for more than 2 years. There was an attempt to balance the gender of participants represented so that there may be an equal number of both males and females. However, as mentioned earlier due to unforeseen circumstances such as declining health due to a life-threatening disease as well as tightened schedules, a couple of the participants eventually dropped out.
Instruments
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to have the necessary data that may divulge information relevant to the substantive topic being investigated. The following questions based on the suggested revisions to the proposal of the study were asked of the participants. There were three main exploratory questions, then questions were added as the study progressed and clarifications of participants’ responses were needed or when there was a gap in the initial data collected with regard to their concept of leadership (for list of interview questions see Appendix):
• How would you define Leadership?
• How would you define Educational Leadership?
• How would you define Leadership in HEIs?
Added were:
• What is a great or exemplary Filipino educational leader in the context of Philippine HEIs?
• How would you define effective leadership in the context of Philippine HEI’s?
Other questions evolved as the study progressed which are listed in the appendix. The interviews also included some background information and data for the profiles of the participants at the time the research study was conducted. For the educational leaders the following was included in the survey to answer questions stated in the research problem: educational attainment and HEI represented (must be local public or private HEI with autonomous status).
Based on initial responses, different additional questions were formulated until concepts were clarified and stabilized (please see Appendix). In fact, Glaser (1967) expounds that the first step in grounded theory is to enter the field for research “without knowing” the problem. He stated that the researcher must take a ‘no preconceived interest’ approach and not ask questions that might be on his mind. Suspending knowledge applies to both the conceptual and descriptive level. “The researcher goes into the study with a totally open mind as best he can” (p.122). Questions though may be asked of the data to start the researcher’s collection, coding, and analyzing. These crucial questions include:
1) What is this a study of? 2) What category does the incident indicate? 3) What property of the category does this incident indicate? (p.123). Tuettemann (2003) states four questions from Glaser’s book (1978, p.53), and according to her the basic set of questions governing open coding are:
1) What are these data a study of?
2) What category does this incident indicate?
3) What is actually happening in the data?
4) What accounts for the basic problem and process?
However, it must be mentioned that in the MGT approach, Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2003) assert that there is “a need for defining a relative explicit research question that supports and governs you in the data collection” (p.3), although this does not have to be too restricted and should have possibilities for refining the formulations of the question as the study progresses. They recognize that being un-prejudiced in data collection and analysis is imperative in the GT method, but this can also mean being “uninformed and that there is in such cases a risk of being too naïve and even ignorant when entering the empirical field” (p.3). They explain further saying that if the researcher is too open- minded in the data collection phase, he may end up with a large and diverging amount of data which
“often results in frustration because there are no clues about where to start categorization” (2010, p.190) and this is “especially valid for novice users” (Goldkuhl, 2002 as cited in Goldkuhl &
Cronholm, 2010, p.190). Having clear initial questions on a specific topic in the present study has indeed helped the researcher to organize the data collected and gave direction for refining the questions to elicit what is needed to address the problem statement.
Glaser (1978) discussed that in theoretical sampling, the researcher is not “collecting the same data over and over based on the same questions which ignore the interchangeability of indices…Questions may constantly change with the requirements of the emergent theory and theoretical sampling. Once saturation occurs new questions must be asked pertinent to the new emergent issues of the main concern of the perhaps new interviewees” (pp. 157-158). Thus, in terms of interview questions, these evolved during and post-interviews (video recordings are available) and as analysis of the data gathered progressed from the initial set of questions to the final set specified above.
Data Collection Procedure
After determining which HEIs in Metro Manila fulfilled the sampling criteria set forth, letters of request for participation in the study were given to the relevant offices/ persons for permission to conduct it. When the college presidents, deans/ vice-deans, registrar, and department chairperson from the selected HEIs were identified through purposive sampling, the researcher started correspondence with regards to their willingness to participate in the study and to schedule interview dates. From the pool of positive respondents who were willing to participate, random sampling was done based on availability and schedules. Those willing to participate were followed up for interview schedules then eventually interviewed. Representatives from these various levels of educational leadership in different representative HEIs eventually numbered 10 persons but as noted earlier due to unavailability or busyness in schedule and in one case a health issue arose- thus, only eight persons in total became participants in the study. The number of participants, as described in both the GT and MGT methodology, should depend on theoretical saturation and category stability. In the course of the research, new interviewees were added purposively and selected at random to adhere to the process of theoretical sampling for further data collection, until data completeness or theoretical saturation was reached.
From the interviews, field notes were initially recorded but because of the limitation of not being able to go back to responses and the difficulties of taking field notes which are quickly scribbled and sometimes ending up illegible, this process was abandoned in favor of video recordings which were done with the permission of at least six of the (later interviewed) participants in the study. The first two participants responses were manually written then transcribed, after which the video recordings of the last six participants were also transcribed. Analysis of the data were conducted, line
by line as prescribed in the methodology, manually with no software used. Responses were analyzed and compared to elicit and abstract categories that led to the definition and theoretical formulation of a conceptual framework of Filipino leadership among educational leaders in selected HEIs. The various stages of the MGT method, as earlier discussed in this chapter, was the pattern followed by the researcher. The researcher went back to some of the participants in selected HEIs until the point of theoretical saturation and category stability was perceived to have been achieved. As the researcher realized from the analysis of data that a theory was emerging with unifying concepts and categories, and no new information is bringing forth more categories, then a closure of analysis was done together with the end of further interviews.
The researcher then proceeded to further archival research aside from the preliminary one done when the study commenced, where additional information was gleaned from different sources – mostly published literature from the last thirty years. The initial review of literature included published work written mainly within the Philippine context by Filipino authors. The data gathered from this source serves as secondary data. These data were then compared with the categories already named and if any refinement was necessary the categories were modified toward a more ‘complete’
theoretical framework. When published literature and extant studies were more or less exhausted, the theorized conceptual framework had more supportive documentation and was stabilized. Another literature review was done to fulfill the MGT approach requirement of reviewing extant theories so that the emergent theory could also undergo constant comparison with these. Theoretically matching with existing ones help achieve ‘theoretical grounding’ and strengthens validation as prescribed in the MGT method. MGT’s authors claim that not only the evolving theory but other theories, too,
should inform theoretical sampling. Theoretical grounding is the latter, more focused process of data generation, according to GT (Strauss & Corbin, 1998 cited in Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010).
Data Analysis
Data analysis proceeded simultaneously as the interviews were being done. Glaser discouraged taped interviews, although for the sake of proper and complete documentation this may be utilized. He advocated field notes to be analyzed immediately for meaning and content relative to the topic under study. However, there are researchers like Tuettemann (2003) who did taped interviews. She noted preferring this as it freed her from note-taking and “gave greater opportunity to be ‘present’ to the individual – and later repeatedly to listen to and reflect upon the conversation”
(p. 17). It was also the preferred option for the conduct of this study, using video recordings instead of audio tapes. Moreover, there was no such limitation prescribed in the use of the MGT approach.
As Glaser (1998) himself describes it, doing grounded theory is “subsequent, sequential, simultaneous, serendipitous, and scheduled”. By simultaneous, he means “doing many things at once which will happen as the researcher sifts through data, analyzes, codes, memos, sorts, and writes while collecting more data” (p.15). Analysis will not happen in sequence but throughout and while gathering data. Locke (2001), on the other hand, explained “composing an emerging theoretical framework from data requires that data sampling or collection and analysis should be done together as much as possible” (p. 58).
There are several stages to data analysis, it is important to note though that these stages are not linear or sequential, rather they overlap. Once data was acquired, the researcher did what Strauss and Corbin termed as “open coding” (1998, p.102) or inductive coding in MGT. This is the first
analytic step where data were fractured into discrete parts, closely examined, and compared for similarities and differences. As data incidents were examined, they were named. The researcher then engaged in the process of conceptualizing. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), a concept is a labeled phenomenon (p.103). Names of these data incidents may actually be taken directly from the respondents’ words – referred to as “in vivo” codes (p.105), so the researcher actually began with in vivo codes. In vivo codes were done to start the codification process in the present study. When data incidents were found to be similar conceptually or related in meaning they were grouped under more abstract concepts termed as categories.
Researchers may then dig deeper to discover something new or gain greater understanding from the data. This more detailed and discriminate type of analysis is called microanalysis. This needs to be done to discern the “range of potential meanings” contained within the words used by respondents and develop them more fully in terms of properties and dimensions (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.109). When the researcher realized that several concepts can be grouped under more abstract higher order concepts then these were classified into categories, as explained earlier. This process of categorization is important as it lessens the number of units the researcher has to work on. Moreover, categories have “analytic power” because they have the potential to explain and predict (p.113). The researcher applied the abstraction process in order to codify methodically all empirical data and arrive at categories. Charmaz (2014), recommends to use categories as tools to build context and asserts that
“carefully crafted grounded theory categories work well as signposts” (p.298).
Since the present study utilized the MGT approach, then the terms used for the various coding phases also followed those that MGT’s authors used. Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010) employed these
coding terms in their description of the work of theory generation and it consisted of the following (p.193):
• inductive coding
• conceptual refinement,
• pattern coding, and
• theory condensation.
This MGT process of theory generation was done methodically continuing with the rigor of empirical grounding similarly practiced in the inductive approach of classic GT methodology.
After naming categories, which are broader, more comprehensive and more abstract labels for classes of objects or events that share similarities, subcategories may emerge, as they did in the present study. These are subheadings that specify a category further by denoting information such as when, where, why, and how a phenomenon is likely to occur (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.119).
Simultaneously, subcategories can also provide signposts for the reader, and Charmaz (2014) suggested to “consider including only those subcategories as explicit headings that explain new ideas”
as well as to “keep the ideas but subjugate them to the main heading or purpose” (p. 298). Once categories are identified, the researcher started developing each category’s specific properties and dimensions. Specificity is given to categories by defining its particular characteristics. Variation within properties along a dimensional range must also be identified and emerge. Categories become more precise as each is differentiated from another through these identified properties and dimensions. Properties are the general or specific characteristics or attributes of a category.
Dimensions represent the location of a property along a continuum or range (p.117). Delineating categories through its specific properties and dimensions is important because patterns begin to emerge along the variations within a property. In the present study, these categories were clearly delineated based on the conceptual refinement process where each one was defined according to the
data as well as according to sources such as dictionaries, thesauruses, and usage in journal articles pertaining to leadership or at least related to higher education. Charmaz (2014) further recommends at this point to think about including diagrams which may help clarify the researcher’s analysis and argument for the reader, something that MGT’s authors also strongly recommend.
Open coding or termed as Inductive coding in the MGT approach ( Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010, p. 194) was done in various ways as described by Strauss and Corbin (p.119), with whom the MGT proponents (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010) agree to a greater extent than Glaser: 1) line-by-line analysis (close examination of data, phrase by phrase or word by word) which is the most time consuming but also the most generative; 2) analyzing whole sentences or paragraphs, where analysts may ask: “What is the major idea brought out in this sentence or paragraph?”; 3) perusing the entire document and asking: “What is going on here?” and “What makes this document the same as, or different from, the previous ones I coded?”. Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010) emphasize that this phase should be free of pre-categorizations, instructing to “let the data speak!”. They argue that there is
“risk in destroying the freshness of the data if theories and categories are used too early in the process”
and claimed that “it is harder to discover something if predefined categories are obtruded on the data”
so in this initial phase MGT adheres to the basic principles of GT which is an inductive way of working with data (p. 194).
The next step in the MGT approach is conceptual refinement with the authors cautioning researchers regarding the linguistic formulations used in the empirical statements which has to do with the quality assurance of the data. They contend that building categories on vague formulations in data will not render any valid theories and they stress this, saying they have not found such an
emphasis in classic GT. For the authors, conceptual refinement means “actively working with clarifying used concepts” which can evolve during the various phases of MGT. They point out that
“important concepts need to be assessed and continually refined during theorizing” which for them means working with different questions concerning categories. The MGT approach proposes the following questions for conceptual refinement, Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010) identified these six essential questions that need to be posed to have a clear understanding of a conceptualized phenomenon (pp. 194-195):
• What is it?: content determination
• Where does it exist?: determination of ontological position
• What is the context of it?: determination of context and related phenomena
• What is the function of it: determination of functions and purposes
• What is the origin of it?: determination of origin and emergence
• How do we speak about it?: determination of language use
According to the authors this process should be done “in full iteration with other parts of the theory generation process (inductive coding, pattern coding, and theory condensation). Conceptual refinement means creating a comprehensive definition of categories” (p.195). Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010) elucidated that defining concepts “should be seen as a pivotal task in qualitative analysis and theory development” (p.196). They do state that there are attempts to clarify concepts in GT analysis, but the methodological approach is inclined to clarifying categories in relation to the data whereas for them conceptual refinement involves focusing on the emergent concepts per se.
Data-oriented conceptual clarification only serves as a complement to the conceptual refinement the authors present in MGT. In this study, conceptual refinement involved looking at various sources to
define and clarify the emerged categories and concepts aside from the definitions taken from the data itself.
The next step in the process is axial coding or termed as pattern coding in the MGT approach, which occurs when the researcher relates categories to subcategories to form more precise and complete explanations about phenomena. Axial and open coding though, are not sequential acts (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.136). Axial or pattern coding requires having some categories identified, but often the researcher begins to sense how categories relate during open or inductive coding. MGT’s authors concur with Strauss and Corbin (1990 as cited in Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010) that GT is
“an action/ interactional method of theory building” and that “an action-oriented paradigm model should be used” (p.196). MGT identified this phase as pattern coding to imply an interest toward conceptualizing action patterns and these kind of actions according to the authors are usually social actions. They expound further that “the action performed has social grounds and social purposes. It is based on social antecedent conditions, and it is socially oriented, having intended effects for other humans” (p.196). Furthermore, they explain that “pattern coding comprises the structuring of action conditions (external as well as internal), actions, and results, and consequences of actions” (p.196).
Hence, in the present study categories and subcategories are mostly verbs indicating action such as:
championing, building, developing, collaboration, identification, valuing, and differentiating, to name some. The researcher abstracted subcategories linking two or more concepts, explaining the what, why, where, and how of a phenomenon. These were further abstractions and later validated and further elaborated by continually comparing data incidents with each other as well as categories with each other.
As categories were more refined, and related to each other, and a clustering of similar codes in the process of axial or ‘pattern coding’ (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010, p.196) was found, the researcher began the process of integration to form a larger theoretical scheme or framework . This process of integrating and refining the categories identified is termed as selective coding (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998, p.143), which MGT terms as theory condensation (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010, p.196). Integration is described as “an interaction between analyst and the data”. It is the result of
“the evolution of thinking that occurs over time through immersion in the data and the cumulative body of findings that have been recorded in memos and diagrams” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.144).
These various phases of coding serves as an “audit trail” so that the emerged categories of the conceptual framework can all be traced from empirical data where these were originally abstracted.
After the refinement of concepts, MGT advocates for an additional ‘grounding’ process which is theoretical grounding done by matching the emergent theory with extant theories in literature. In theory matching, deductivism takes over. In the initial phases of data analysis and theory generation, an inductive way of working is applied, but now it is time to actively use other theories. These other theories may also help in identifying possible categories or contribute to its refinement. Goldkuhl and Cronholm (2010) assert further that: “References can be made to external theories and abstractions with the purpose of providing theoretical warrants. Theoretical matching may lead to revisions of the evolving theory. Categories from other theories can be proven to be more adequate and they can replace some previously formulated categories” (p.198). Theoretical matching has an effect on the cited external theories. The collected data and the consequent emergent theory might contradict what was claimed earlier by these other identified theories. The comparison possibly might evoke comments or even substantiate criticism toward these other theories (Goldkuhl & Cronholm, 2010,
