Because I have only been able to take two days off during this Spring Break season, as most caring Mothers may agree, when you make a promise to your child, very rarely do you wish to break it (refuse to do so and disappoint them). Therefore, I chose to engage in a very simple response. Not to mention, I, too, began feeling ill (under extreme weather) just before returning to campus. Then scheduled to see various specialists/testing during and immediately after the Break. What an unexpected journey for me. I have often stated to my sis-in-law, “Aging is a Beast,” and my body has not proved otherwise. So, in other words, this Blog Post reflects upon others’ responses to Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee’s The Qualitative Report of Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences Article 2 that I hope you find intriguing. . . Life goes on and I’m grateful to yet be among the living.

When asked, What is the difference between the qualitative analyses of contents and the ground theory? I, like most, in short, understand that the two methods are similar, but I also have a problem showing the differences between them. Thus, let’s see how others respond to what you think in the field and study of research.

I know that these two methods are similar, but I have a problem showing the differences between them, says Poorandokht Afshari, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. The question of what is or is not grounded theory is a difficult one, because you can’t call just anything grounded theory. Still, it is also problematic to draw a tight boundary around a single definition. I would thus suggest that there is a strong “family resemblance” among the major forms of grounded theory, of which the three best-known versions are the ones associated with Strauss & Corbin, Glaser, and Charmaz. (I think that Charmaz’s Book, Constructing Grounded Theory, is the most useful introduction to the method.) One element in all three is that you should not begin with strong prior theoretical assumptions but rather build the theory from your ongoing observations. In contrast, content analysis may or may not involve a prior theory and counting (which you would never find in grounded theory). This reflects differences between the more quantitative approaches to content analysis and what is called “qualitative content analysis.” A good source of information about qualitative approaches to content analysis is Mayring’s recent online textbook.

Grounded theory differs from either qualitative content analysis or thematic analysis because it has its own distinctive set of procedures, including theoretical sampling and open coding. In contrast, the procedures in the other two are not specified at the same level of detail chimes in David L Morgan of Portland State University.

Thomas Felke from Florida Gulf Coast University believes many argue that the differences between content analysis (itself a varied concept) and grounded theory are minimal. The basic difference that most point out is that grounded theory analysis is conducted using an existing theory as a basis for the analysis. For example, a researcher examining stigma among certain vulnerable populations might use Erving Goffman’s work “Stigma” as a starting point for their analysis. This article might help you see the differences between qualitative approaches. As I mentioned, content analysis has varied approaches within itself. This article may alsp help to show some of the types.

Differences? Indeed, not all content analysis builds grounded theory, and one can build a grounded theory using multiple methods that do not include content analysis. The analogy is this:  You can use bricks to build a house, but you can use bricks to build things other than houses, such as schools and office buildings, and you can use materials other than bricks to build a house, such as stone or wood.  Because a researcher uses one to build the other, I do not see the obvious confusion Lynne Webb at Florida International University brings to the table.

Qualitative Analyses can be of many types depending upon the kind of research questions that your research aims to answer – content analysis, discourse analysis, phenomenological analysis. Likewise, grounded theory is one of the kinds of data analysis aimed at building an indigenous theory. Most of the time, GT includes thematic analysis. Still, it does not stop there. It goes on to make one theme a central theme around which other themes revolve and interact to build a theory, states Muhammad Usman Amin Siddiqi of Oregon State University.

Similar to the five specifics of responses selected, I occur, “A researcher should be sensitive to these characteristics as she or he selects a research method” (Cho, Lee, p. 17). Therefore, in conclusion, in conjunction with the various other responses, I am sure the assigned paper assists novice and inexperienced researchers and students like me in selecting research methods appropriate for their studies and provides insights for qualitative researchers. Sincere Thank you to my son, Boss, professors and cohorts who have shown a great deal of care and compassion towards me.

Outside of the sheer size of this reading, the content threw me for the loop. For some reason, it felt like I was reading a foreign language. Sadly, this made reading this feel a lot more draining and, for the first time, an unenjoyable experience. Lately, I’ve been having mixed feelings about where I stand within this master’s program, so this didn’t help. However, with the help of Google and taking my time, I was able to kind of grasp the concept of grounded theory and content analysis.

There’s more than one way to navigate grounded theory and content analysis. Grounded theory is framed as theory development since it’s used to expand on things or bring forth information. This seems to be very data-driven, as that leads to the analysis. Content analysis is used to analyze data. Content analysis is more analytical, as it can concern codes, categorization, themes, etc. I appreciated that throughout the reading, it displayed both of these things at work and allowed for a comparison.

Something the two had in common is data analysis, where connections are found. However, within grounded theory, data guides the decision, whereas, in content analysis, data reduction processes are utilized. Something else that’s similar is they both maintain flexibility, as it concerns data sources, and they’re both based on naturalistic inquiry.

When considering the research outcomes, grounded theory results in substantive theory derived from a deductive approach and advances theories suitable for its supposed use. On the other hand, content analysis results in categories or themes, as opposed to theory development. There are a host of other differences, but, in my opinion, the biggest contrasts are the intentions and results.

Even knowing all of this, I still feel a little scatterbrained about the concepts in a realistic way. Usually, I walk away feeling better about things, but surprisingly, I don’t. Sure, you can read words on a page, but I’d like to understand this more straightforwardly, minus the jargon. It makes me look forward to the next presentation and reading others’ blogs so I can learn from people and better grasp things.

Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences

Reducing confusion? I didn’t know I was confused about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis until around page 4 of this reading. The actual information was not difficult to follow but the way the piece is structured is not appealing to me. The switching back and forth between the two made me feel like I was turning in circles while trying to understand and gather the information. I would have appreciated the grounded theory information in one section and the qualitative content analysis section in the other. Although I did not like the layout of most of the information I did really like the strengths and weaknesses section. I thought that made a lot of sense and gave more clarity on when to use each method. 

From what I gathered, grounded theory (GT) is the procedure(s) that proceeds the forming of categories. It is appropriate to use when no theory exists or if it does but it’s too abstract to be tested. Some characteristics include constant comparative 

Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) is a method of classifying materials and organizing them into a category system. The goal here is to systematically describe the meaning of materials in a certain way, specific to the question being researched. 

While reading I was wondering how there could be a sense of consistency when it comes to coding. Not everyone is going to code the same so there would be various outcomes. It made so much sense to me when the reading explained that there is a specific way to code and there’s even a category system that was created for QCA.

Lastly, I appreciated the study examples throughout the text. Again, I wish it was structured differently because I felt a little all over the place bouncing back and forth between studies and being given information. However, it did make more sense seeing certain aspects they talked about explained in real life terms. I found the study about the nursing homes to be the most interesting. QCA is definitely something I think I would gravitate to more. The idea of GT leading me to another theory scares me.

All in all, this weeks reading was structured weird (according to my brain of course) BUT I do think it is helpful and made GT and QCA seem less intimidating.

Blog Notes

• In the intro the article talks about making sense of qualitative data.
  • This is good stuff! 
  • As we are getting further into the class we are starting to develop a framework for qualitative research.
    • We learned about different methods of qualitative research (autoethnography, case studies) and now we are going to learn about 2 different methods of understanding the data we get from doing the research (grounded theory, qualitative content analysis).
• This quote sticks out to me “Through this paper, we expect to provide knowledge that can assist novice researchers in the selection of appropriate research methods for their inquiries.” (Cho & Lee 2).
  • This is the sort of thing that tells you what kind of person a researcher is beyond any sort of fame or accomplishments.
• Interesting note from the Grounded Theory Institute saying that ground theory can be used with qualitative and quantitative data.
• To me grounded theory is basically the process of doing research which follows strict standards and procedures in order to collect data. Once enough data is collected, you analyze it and come up with a theory of what it means.
  • Maybe in Dr. Zamora’s research about social media actions (buzzing, popping, etc) she found that the most common action was popping by a large majority.
    • She would think about why this could be and come up with an idea of why. 
    • My question is when does the idea turn into a theory?
      • Is it just using another theory that’s already out there to explain the data?
      • Or does an idea become a theory when we use other theories as a base and make our own new theory?
      • This reminds me of SchoolHouse Rock. When does a bill become a law? ^_^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo

• I found another important quote “Although the origin was from sociology, grounded theory has been actively used in many disciplines, such as psychology, anthropology, education, social work, and nursing (Strauss & Corbin, 1994).” (Cho & Lee 3)
  • This shows some of the fields that we can apply grounded theory research to.
  • That means that even as an English major, we are not limited to “traditional English jobs”.
  • Research skills can open doors to career opportunities in many different fields!
• The article mentions that qualitative content analysis in its most basic form can be described as identifying themes and patterns in data to understand what it means. The authors say that this is more subjective and open to interpretation. Seems less strict than grounded theory.
• The authors say that when doing research using grounded theory, the researcher analyzes and collects data at the same time “so that the analyzed data guides subsequent data collection”. (Cho & Lee 4)
  • This is very interesting and some concrete examples would be super helpful as far as how analyzed data guides future data collection.
• I think I answered an earlier question.
  • “Thus, grounded theory is appropriate when no theory exists or when a theory exists that is too abstract to be tested, but it is not appropriate for the test of a theory or generation of knowledge from objective reality (Martin & Turner, 1986; Suddaby, 2006).” (Cho & Lee 5)
  • When researchers use grounded theory, the end result would be a new theory. It may be based on an existing theory, but the new theory will not simply be a rehash of the existing theory.
• I like how the authors included 2 studies that they had previously done to show the difference between grounded theory and quantitative content analysis.
• This is an interesting quote “In research on classifying the findings in qualitative studies, Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) argued that the findings of grounded theory require a greater transformation of the data and that qualitative content analysis is less transformative. (Cho & Lee 12)
  • It makes sense because with grounded theory you make a new theory, but with qualitative content analysis, you look for themes and patterns in the data to answer your research question.

The academic paper “Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences” by Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee sought to clarify the differences and similarities between grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. The authors identified 6 key areas to compare and contrast grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. Later the benefits and drawbacks of each approach are weighed.

To begin the paper defines grounded theory which is a methodology used in qualitative research that focuses on developing theory directly from data. It emphasizes the collection of data and analysis simultaneously which is called constant comparative analysis. In this method any insights from data analysis are also supposed to be used to guide future data collection. The benefit of grounded theory is that it is helpful in creating new theories when existing ones are lacking or are difficult or impossible to test.

In contrast, qualitative content analysis involves identifying themes/ patterns in data and categorizing them. This makes data easier to interpret and can unveil unique discoveries and connections. It seems that this method allows researchers to interpret data using existing theories by breaking said data down in logical ways. Qualitative content analysis also allows for the use of inductive approaches in data analysis. The inductive approach is when an observation is supported by patterns/ data to generate a theory. Conversely the deductive approach begins with a theory and supports it with observations until confirmation is achieved. All in all, qualitative content analysis allows for greater flexibility in data analysis.

Both grounded theory and qualitative content analysis have their strengths and weaknesses. A major benefit of grounded theory is that the researcher is not confined “to an already existing realm of theory”. Grounded theory allows the researcher to form and explore an inquiry where no relevant theory exists. With that said, grounded theory is not without its problems. For one, a researcher may waste time and energy on a generating a theory that is, ultimately, not significant or useful. To put it simply, this method takes a lot of faith and an extensive amount of work and patience on the part of the researcher even if it is easier to conduct in its early stages (at least for those who prefer the freedom grounded theory offers). As for qualitative content analysis, a significant potential benefit is that enormous amounts of data can be processed/ categorized. However, while categorizing data may be simple, interpreting said data is a complex and time-consuming process.

Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee’s “Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences” is a very welcome read in comparison to the last article assigned to us (sorry). Cho and Lee take the initiative in clarifying the differences between Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis by comparing and contrasting both in “six areas: a) background and philosophical basis, b) unique characteristics of each method, c) goals and rationale of each method, d) data analysis process, e) outcomes of the research, and f) evaluation of trustworthiness of research” (2). In doing so, they’re able to achieve their goal of thoroughly distinguishing each one as its own individual method, to the benefit of novice researches such as myself.

An aspect of Grounded Theory that stands out to me the most is the relationship between it’s “two unique characteristics: constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling,” as it seems to me to be one of the most direct (if not painstakingly involved) ways to find the answers a researcher is looking for (4). Maybe I’m biased to think so, but I’m the kind of person who learns best by practicing and becoming familiar with the “rhythm” and “feel” of whatever it is I’m trying to learn, so the idea of a method that basically translates that action into research is very appealing to me. Also, I admire how these characteristics lead into and feed into each other in a circular way, functioning as a sort of engine that drives the research while the driver (researcher) determines the directions to take after receiving the data. Another aspect of Grounded Theory that I find appealing is it’s openness and the freedom of approach it provides researchers, allowing them to tackle their research from unique perspectives instead of through rigid frameworks. I’m a very “think on my feet” kind of person as well, so the idea of being able to freely modify my approach as I see fit (within reason) is very in line with my character and general approach to life. It’s honestly probably the most appealing method to myself as an individual that we’ve covered in class so far.

That being said, I would be very remiss not to mention the “weaknesses” of this method as well. Even though I’m quite fascinated by it, I do have to admit that the amount of time and patience needed to research using this method is something I can’t even imagine having at the moment. For lack of better words, this feels like it’ll be a full time job and a half depending on what the research reveals or how long the research has to go on for. Additionally, this is not a very beginner friendly method, and so, as great as it sounds, I imagine actually putting it into practice would be a more stressful undertaking than I’m currently imagining. There’s even the risk of being unable to find enough data to continue the research after spending so much time on it. Despite all of these drawbacks though, in a perfect world where I could research in any way I want, this would most likely be my go-to method.

While writing this blog post, I listened to Ryo Fukui’s Scenery (1976), a jazz album I’ve loved to listen to while writing since I discovered it in undergrad. I also love the cover for this album, as it’s simple but striking, and was what drew me to listen to the album in the first place; it might not be right to judge a book by its cover, but it just might be okay to judge an album by one.