Hi,

I have embarked on an adventure and need your help.
I am an undergraduate student trying to write a B.A. thesis. I haphazardly found my self in the world of grounded theory and now find it difficult to get out and choose another path. I have learnt so much about it in the last three months, but now I cannot move further.

I'm majoring in cultural studies with English being a second language.

Concerning my thesis, I'm combining netnography with grounded theory.

I discussed this with my supervisor. He said you are not required to do this, but you can do it if you want. He also said he cannot help.

I have settled nearly all aspects of my thesis the issues that pushed me to ask you for help.
Research questions, literature review, and data collection methods are all settled.

Concerning grounded theory, I decided to follow Charmaz's approach. I read her Constructing Grounded Theory (2006) many times.
I've almost grasped it, but the following has confused me.

Does theoretical coding mean using a theoretical framework or an external theory?
Or is it just another, but more conceptual, code?
Is theoretical coding obligatory. In other words, can I use just initial and focused coding? and use memos to develop conceptual categories (of course with theoretical sampling and sorting)?

I hope my post is not too long.

I appreciate your help.

Thank you

The information you are looking for is very specific to your field and I'm not sure that anyone on here is going to be able to assist you.

'Initial codings' could be many, thus you need to *focus* on the important categories. That is, you have to decide the important categories and code them as 'focused coding'.

Having determined the important categories, you may want to identify possible relationship between these categories.
To present the relationship "professionally", you use theoretical codings to show the relationship.

Codings could be interpreted as a tool to guide you, but some people may simply perceive the relationship which could be subjective...
In a sense, it is possible to do without coding. But you have to appear *systematic* and *professional*. :-)

Thanks for your replies.

MeaninginLife, I appreciate your help.

I thought specifying links between categories is done through axial coding.

Since theoretical coding is somewhat cumbersome and requires learning theoretical families for which I cannot afford time, I wonder if can use Strauss and Corbin's selective coding to identify a core category (by the way, I am using Charmaz's grounded theory that does not use selective coding).

Yes. It can be simply axial coding.

The question is are you developing a relationship or theory. If theory, then use theoretical coding which is more sophisticated.
You should use Charmaz's grounded theory if your study involves finding the subjective meaning of illness, for example.

It is also possible to use Strauss and Corbin's selective coding for marketing behavior, for example. But Glaser criticized this approach as overly focused on rules, coding, preconceived framework etc...
You may also use Glaser's approach. However, some feel that this is for those who are more experienced in grounded theory.

Thank you, MeaninginLife. I really appreciate your help.

In Constructing Grounded Theory, Charmaz lists four types of coding: initial, focused, axial and theoretical coding.
I have seen many PhD dissertations using Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory without using axial and theoretical coding at all. They used just initial and focused coding.

Such as the following:
1. Reframing a sense of self: a constructivist grounded theory study of children’s admission to hospital for surgery
2. An Analysis of the Relationship Between Individuals' Perceptions of Privacy and Mobile Phone Location Data: A Grounded Theory Study
3. Integrative Learning as a Development Process: A Grounded Theory of College Students'’ Experiences In Integrative Studies


Does this mean axial and theoretical coding are not important?

Thank you

a

There is disagreement on the correct way of using grounded theory.
Because some focused on the method of constant comparison, it could be known as "grounded theory approach".
Actually, it is possible that PhD students etc.. don't really follow rules rigorously.
It is also possible that one may not write down the process in detail.

According to Glaser, for example, there should be no literature review in doing grounded theory.
Your categories will be influenced by existing theories or 'external theories'...
Axial and theoretical coding are useful as a guide if you want to develop a relationship or theory...

Hello HifaMo. I followed Charmaz's approach in my thesis. I don't know if it helps but this was my interpretation:

1. Initial coding - a wide-ranging set of codes emerge from a detailed analysis.
2. Focused coding - initial codes are synthesised into main conceptual categories. At this point I re-read the material with my list of codes to identify where they could be grouped as well as and cross-cutting ideas.
3. Theoretical coding - refining the focused codes into thematic categories that form a coherent story. At this point I wove in some themes from the literature because I saw some connections, but importantly this shouldn't be done the other way around (i.e. theoretical coding starting from themes from the literature) and might not necessarily happen at all if your theoretical codes don't echo the literature.

I accompanied this with a table detailing the progression of the codes from initial to focused to theoretical.

I wanted to avoid axial coding - too prescriptive for my needs. Charmaz's approach allows more flexibility/creativity. I think it's really important to adopt an approach that feels natural rather than forcing your methods into a framework that doesn't fit the material you're working with or the goals of your study.

I'd be careful about saying you're using grounded theory unless you're accompanying this with a discussion to show you understand the differences between the approaches and a justification for following Charmaz's method. Saying you're taking a "grounded approach" to your netnographic analysis might be more appropriate/forgiving.

I appreciate your help.
Thank you

Thank you, kelpie.
Your reply was very helpful.

Theoretical coding, as presented by Charmaz (2006), was for me the most cumbersome aspects of grounded theory.
The way you presented it makes it seem rather simple. However, I don't think Charmaz presents it as such in her book Constructing Grounded Theory.
She is rather talking about establishing relationships between categories by applying some coding families suggested by Glaser such his Six Cs.

I would be happy to know what sources you drew on to justify that this what theoretical coding is about.

I hope to see your comment.
Thank you

Actually, Glaser suggested 18 'Codes'. :-)

I don’t have Charmaz’s book to hand and didn't explain myself very well. If you’ve read it several times you’ll have a much better understanding than me and her approach was something I drew on rather than followed to the letter. My reading was that theoretical coding is about looking for relationships between the categories, coding families help to identify the relationships, and the overall goal is refinement and analytic sense.

Thank you, kelpie. I got it.


I want to ask you and MeaninginLife about core category.

I found that constructivist grounded theorists don't agree on having a single core category.

Could you please explain why?

Thank you

Just a cursory reading of my Charmaz (2006) grounded theory... Core category is not defined.

However, according to Glaser (1978), “it always happens that a category will emerge from among many and ‘core out’ ” (p. 95) of its own accord. But probably it depends on your data or context.

Anyway, your B.A. thesis will be very impressive! Even PhD candidates do not use theoretical codings...