Professional Documents
Culture Documents
outline
Introduction
Who developed it?
Developed
by
Barney
Glaser
and
Anslem
Strauss in 1967 as a general qualitative data analysis approach where it is further developed to become grounded theory method.
Introduction
Definition:
It is an inductive data analysis in qualitative research where
newly collected data is compared with previous data that was collected in earlier studies.
consistently being enhanced, then being confirmed or disregarded all together when new data surfaces from data collection. (Savenye & Robinson, 1996)
Introduction
Definition:
Meaning the strategy involves taking one piece of
similar
or
different
in
order
to
develop
Where is it applied?
A1
Applying constant comparative and discourse analysis to virtual worlds research by (Leong, Joseph, & Boulay, 2010)
A2
The use of information by environmental planners: a qualitative study using grounded methodology by Mutshawa, A. (2009)
A3
Patients action during their cardiac event: qualitative study exploring differences and modifiable factors by Ruston, A., Clayton, J., & Calnan, M. (1998)
Where is it applied?
A4
To explore where and how learning takes place in a networked leadership and development learning programme for SMEs by Peter, S. (2010)
A5
A6
The role of schools perceived human resource policies in teachers professional development activities: a comparative study of innovations toward competence-based education by Seezink, A., & Poell, R. (2011)
A1
A2
A3
A4
To explore where and how learning takes place in a networked leadership and development learning programme for SMEs
A5
A6
sampling
A1
A2
A3
43 patients and 21 other people present at the time of the cardiac event.
sampling
A4
The study uses one cohort of LEAD that consisted of 25 small business owner managers. 18 articles, 7 letters to the editor and 5 faculty handbooks
A5
A6
Data collection
Article 1
I.
Classroom observations or video recording of the use of virtual world in world class sessions.
Data collection
Article 2 Interviews with the 44 officers needed to explain on the environmental issues and planning to: 1)define general terms and how information use to relate factors 2) explore the findings in depth, 3)develop relationship and find example, 4) search for evidence to refute the finding 5) have more open discussion to confirm the findings.
Data collection
Article 3
i.
Semi structured face to face interview with the patients admitted to two district hospitals for a cardiac event. Semi structures face to face interview with the patients associates.
ii.
Data collection
Article 4
i.
Interviews and observations by the researcher to provide information on how LEAD was impacting them both personally and professionally. Information were thematically analysed and identified, hence used in the networked learning.
ii.
Data collection
Article 5
Data collection
Article 5
Semi-structured interviews (open-ended questions) conducted with an interview protocol to explore on: Respondents background ii. Implementation of teachers professional development activities, SOAP principles and IPM.
i.
A1
A2
The analysis has implication in showing on how the information used by the planners empowers their decision and behaviours during the environmental planning process.
A3
The data were then analyzed using the constant comparative method
A4
A5
A6
Data collected were compared between categories The analysis has implication on views of teachers on professional and career development, their motivation to participation in development activities and actual learning in the process.
Conclusion
Strengths
Effectiveness CCA is useful in identifying important and prominent themes or concepts from a broad exploratory approach but
Weaknesses
Rigidity of data due to the use of multiple coders and data sources some will disregard the rigor of data collection and analysis. (Leong et al., 2010)
Conclusion
Strengths
Weaknesses
Time consuming
Conclusion
On Etic versus Emic dilemma
Most studies assumed to put emphasis on emic
researchers to differentiate between these two types of approach when interpreting data causing confusion in coding/conception of data categories, making it unreliable for generalization. (Zubaran, 2009)