Using Grounded Theory to Interpret Interviews

8/12/2019 Using Grounded Theory to Interpret Interviews

1/5

Using Grounded Theory to Interpret InterviewsLinda Jo Calloway([email protected])(212) 346-1207Constance A. napp([email protected])(212) 346-14""

#ace $ni%e&sity'cool o Co*pute& 'cience and +no&*ation 'yste*s,ne #ace #laaew /o&! ew /o&! 1003

http://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm

Introduction

This paper compares two studies that employ grounded theory to investigate

information systems development tools. These tools facilitate information systems

analysis, design, development and maintenance activities in ways that improve

productivity. Tools that may improve productivity are those that use automation to affect

the timing, cost and quality of products and services delivered by the information

systems function (Henderson & Cooprider, 1!".

These studies respond to the e#pressed need for broader research methods in

information systems (see Hirschheim & $lein, 1% $aplan & 'uchon, 1%% ee &

$im, 1)". *rimarily, research on information systems development tools has focusedon the tools themselves and not on the use of the tools in an organi+ational conte#t

(yne-oop & Conger, 1!". This comparison of two studies is of interest to

researchers using qualitative methods to investigate information systems development

tool usage in the conte#t of an organi+ation or a development team. The comparison

illustrates ways in which grounded theory can be used to analy+e and understand

interview data.

tudying the conte#t in which information systems development tools are meant to

function requires an appropriate research methodology. The two studies illustrate the

use of such a methodology. /n these studies grounded theory, an ethnographic approach,

is used to capture information needed to e#plicate the interactions between teams andinformation systems development tools, and organi+ations and information systems

development tools. 0ccording to laser and trauss (123" theories are either deduced

from logical assumptions or generated from observation. rounded theory is a

qualitative approach that generates theory from observation. /t provides the structure

often lac-ing in other qualitative approaches without sacrificing fle#ibility or rigor. The

resulting theory is an e#planation of categories, their properties, and the relationships

among them. The results lead to an evolutionary body of -nowledge that is grounded in

data.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm


2/5

The Studies

This comparison illustrates ways in which grounded theory can be used to analy+e andunderstand interview data. The first study assesses the use of a software engineering

tool, dialog charts, by systems designers (Calloway, 1%%". The second study

investigates organi+ations that use /ntegrated Computer40ided oftware 5ngineering

(/C05" tools ($napp, 16". e discuss the similarities and differences in the methods

of information generation, data collection, data analysis and reduction, and data

synthesis.

Data Generation

The two studies differ in the way information was generated. The first study is based ona field e#periment with teams of designers who used the dialog charts while developing

interactive systems. /n a field e#periment a controlled setting is used to simulate natural

conditions. /n the second study data was generated by /C05 tool users in various

natural settings in organi+ations. /n a field study data emerges naturally in an

uncontrolled setting.

Data Collection

emi4structured interviews were used in both studies. Teams of designers were

interviewed in the first study, and the interviewer disguised the purpose of the study and

the tool of interest from the respondents.

/C05 users from all levels of the organi+ations were interviewed in the second study.

These interviews were used to determine dimensions of the organi+ation as a whole in

relation to /C05 implementation. The researcher7s interest in /C05 tools was clear to

the respondents. The interviewees were chosen to reflect a user profile constructed from

an analysis of responses to a mailed questionnaire.

Data Analysis and eduction

0 critical data reduction decision in qualitative studies is to determine the unit ofanalysis. The first study used -eyword analysis to e#tract sequences of words about the

sub8ect of interest along with their conte#ts. These sequences were called 9mentions9

and were subsequently coded into categories. /n the /C05 study coding was based on

a qualitative evaluation of each sentence of each interview.

/n grounded theory studies, data analysis and the later stages of data reduction operate

iteratively. Coding is a process of simultaneously reducing the data by dividing it into

units of analysis and coding each unit. The first study used a multiple coding protocol,

where mentions could represent more than one concept category. The nature of

responses from teams of up to four people during the interview was more realistically

captured by a multiple coding protocol. /n the second study data were coded as


3/5

belonging to one category only, since the interviews were one4on4one. Therefore, there

was no interleaving of comments.

Synthesis

0fter the categories are integrated and synthesi+ed into a core set of categories, a

narrative is developed that e#plains the properties and dimensions of the categories, and

the circumstances under which they are connected. This e#planation of the phenomena

under investigation is the theory developed based on the data. The studies did not differ

mar-edly in the analysis and synthesis.

esults o! the Study Comparison

0 comparison of the studies resulted in four findings. These findings relate to the

granularity of focus, the coding method, the independence of the method of datageneration, and the cultural dimension of the interaction of users and tools. These

findings appear to be significant since both of these studies were the basis of e#tensive

research pro8ects and each resulted in significant research findings which are published

elsewhere (e.g., Calloway and 0riav, 16 $napp, 16". There is no indication that the

differences in methodology affected the emergence of theory. The emergence of theory

appears to transcend the specifics of methodological difference, since theory can be

detected regardless of methodological differences. The methodology therefore appears

to be transparent.

Granularity o! "ocus

0 comparison of these two studies suggests that grounded theory is useful in

interpreting interview information regardless of the granularity of focus. The first study

investigated design teams using a software engineering tool. The second study

investigated /C05 technology implementation and dimensions of the organi+ation as a

whole.

Codin# $ethods

0ll grounded theory studies use a data coding scheme. :ualitative methods use codes to

categori+e data rather than to quantify it. Therefore, the number of times an individual

comment is categori+ed is less relevant. 'ifferent methods of coding are effective indifferent conte#ts. The first study used a multiple coding protocol to capture the

interactions among the various team members. ince the comments of different team

members relating to different categories were interleaved, single coding these comments

would have sacrificed accuracy. However, because the interviews for the second study

were primarily one4on4one, single coding was sufficient to indicate the underlying

categories.

$ethod o! Data Generation

rounded theory can be used regardless of the way the data is generated. These two

studies generated data differently. The first study generated data using a field

e#periment. The second study was conducted in a natural setting.


4/5

Cultural Dimensions

;rgani+ations are often spo-en of as having cultures, even though the degree to which

organi+ational culture is the same as societal culture is a matter of debate. However this

debate is resolved, it is certainly true that organi+ations can be treated 9as if9 they were

cultures for the purpose of ethnographic analysis (or

e#ample, the first study reveals that designers develop strong attachments to their tools

that they e#press in highly emotional language. These attitudes, attitude patterns and

beliefs that accompany tool usage and systems design are learned. The second study

found that /C05 implementation success relies on the interaction between

management7s understanding of information technology and the information systems

development environment. /nformation systems development comple#ity also

influences success. >or e#ample, the degree to which an organi+ation adhered to a

systems development methodology prior to the introduction of /C05 emerged as thesingle most critical factor influencing the implementation of /C05.

Conclusions and Su##estions !or "uture

esearch

0s more researchers use qualitative methods and grapple with the problems of

interpreting interview data, the more important methods for systematic analysis of

symbolic information become. This comparison shows the applicability of using

grounded theory to analy+e and interpret interview data. rounded theory is useful

regardless of the granularity of analytical focus, the coding method, or the method of

data generation. The grounded theory approach also allows the cultural dimension of the

interaction of users and tools to emerge.

This comparison shows that grounded theory approaches are rich and robust because

differences in application can be accommodated. 0lthough these results are promising,

further investigation is needed to understand the e#tent of both the limits and the

applicability of grounded theory.

e!erencesCalloway, . ?. and 0riav, . (16" 'esigning with 'ialog Charts@ 0 qualitative

content analysis of enduser designers7 with a software engineering design tool. ?ournal

of /nformation ystems, 6 ()", in press.

Calloway, . ?. (1%%" 0n approach for assessing tools for designing dialog structures@ a

study of the dialog charts. 'octoral dissertation, Aew Bor- niversity.

laser, D. ., & trauss, 0. . (123". The 'iscovery of rounded Theory@ trategies

for :ualitative Eesearch. Aew Bor-@ 0ldine *ublishing Company.


5/5

Henderson, ?. C., & Cooprider, ?. . (1!". 'imensions of /F planning and design

aids@ a functional model of C05 technology. /nformation ystems Eesearch, 1(=", ))34

)6G.

Hirschheim, E., & $lein, H. (1%". >our paradigms of information system

development. Communications of the 0C

Using Grounded Theory to Interpret Interviews

Documents

Transcript of Using Grounded Theory to Interpret Interviews