Affiliation:
1. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
2. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
Abstract
Qualitative coding procedures emanating from grounded theory were limited by technologies of the 1960s: colored pens, scissors, and index cards. Today, electronic documents can be flexibly stored, retrieved, and cross-referenced using qualitative data analysis (QDA) software. We argue the oft-cited grounded theory framework poorly fits many features of contemporary sociological interview studies, including large samples, coding by teams, and mixed-method analysis. The grounded theory approach also hampers transparency and does not facilitate reanalysis or secondary analysis of interview data. We begin by summarizing grounded theory’s assumptions about coding and analysis. We then analyze published articles from American Sociological Association flagship journals, demonstrating that current conventions for semistructured interview studies depart from the grounded theory framework. Based on experience analyzing interview data, we suggest steps in data organization and analysis to better utilize QDA technology. Our goal is to support rigorous, transparent, and flexible analysis of in-depth interview data. We end by discussing strengths and limitations of our twenty-first-century approach.
Funder
National Poverty Center Postdoctoral Fellowship
National Institutes of Health
The MacArthur Foundation
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Reference52 articles.
1. Contexts of reception, post-disaster migration, and socioeconomic mobility
2. Blee Kathleen. 2009. “Defining and Communicating Standards for Qualitative Research Rigor in Sociology.” Pp. 148–52 in Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research, edited by Lamont M., White P. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
3. “Pushed Out on My Own”
Cited by
599 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献