I’m working on more videos on grounded theory 👍

😃

That‘s great to hear 👍 let me know if you have questions. Best wishes, Phil

Hi, you can ask me anything :) Yeah, I don't want you to get in trouble so when you use AI, please always disclose in your methods section how you used it. It is possible to use AI tools and many software tools for qualitative coding already have AI-powered plugins to support with coding. My take is that AI can be a great help on the first level of abstraction. This means assigning codes to a large body of text or other data. In principle, this part of thematic analysis and any other qualitative method is pretty mechanistic and does not require a lot of creativity - so its perfect for AI. Once you get to the higher levels of abstraction - in this case themes, I would move away from the AI and interpret the codes yourselves to create something new. The disadvantage if you use AI in the coding stage is that you do not familiarise yourselves with the data and this will make it harder to interpret it later. If you want to dive deeper into how to use AI I made a tutorial about ChatGPT and qualitative data analysis: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eaemlXiIqaiieZo best of luck! :) Phil

@@masteryourstudies Hello, thank you for your reply, my problem is that I am currently writing a memory (for my last years master in psychologie) with a qualitative analysis. I have 4 semi-structured interview groups of 6 each, which makes 24 interviews to analyze separately. I'm afraid that during my re-reading I won't be able to find the codes and themes easily. I find myself a bit lost and it's stressing me out, hence the AI question, as it seems more precise to me. What do you think? Many thanks

@@masteryourstudies In my semi-directive interview, I have 8 questions and each subject answers in a different way. I'm afraid I'll end up with a lot of codes, so what can I do? Is there a code-sub-code hierarchy system? Thank you for your answer.

Thanks! For TA it is sufficient to refer to codes and themes. Sometimes different authors use different labels although it is the same. The first method I Iearned was qualitative content analysis, where codes are „categories“. But Braun and Clarke don’t use that term so I would stick to the vocabulary that is used by the authors that you cite for a particular method. Best wishes, Phil

Thanks!! 🙏

Hi, thank you for your question. If you use predefined themes, you are using thematic analysis with a deductive (i.e. top-down) logic. Here, you can derive themes from an existing theoretical framework, for example. You can develop some additional themes or subthemes inductively (i.e. bottom-up) but then you are mixing two logics and need to be very deliberate in what you are doing. I would not advise you to take themes from your research questions - this is not exactly what the method intends to do. Have a look at the Braun and Clarke papers, they give great examples and then it will „click“ for you :) best of luck 🤞

Hey, thanks for your question. Your research question(s) and themes are two different things. You could keep the RQ(s) and then develop themes that are barriers and drivers etc. but those should not be coding buckets as I explained in the video. This would lead to having "a digital mindset" and "risk tolerance for innovation" (just random examples) inside one coding bucket - but what you want to do with the method is develop them as independent themes (with concrete data examples and subordinate codes for each). That's why these buckets should be avoided. One way to avoid asking about "disadvantages" and "advantages" etc. in research questions is by changing the question to a "how" question: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnOQc4ZnramIaK8 Best of luck! :-) Phil

Thanks for your support!! 😁👏

Please have a look in the video description, where I cite their 2021 update. The video is based on the original paper as well as the update from 2021. Best wishes :-)

I see that, but nevertheless I would recommend not using the 2006 paper as a reference anymore, but base the analysis on the 2022 textbook Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide (Sage).

Yes you would need a local instance of GPT or another LLM

It's possible to sanitize/anonymize the data before entering it, that way you do not in put PII or confidential data

Hi Anna, thanks for your comment. I'm glad the video could help you a little bit. It depends on your research design. If you combine a (systematic) literature review and your interviews as your method, then I would analyse both separately with TA and report the results separately as well. Then merge what you found in the discussion. If you do a non-systematic literature review that is not part of your research design, then only analyse your interview data with TA and write a strong background section based on the literature you have collected and read. Best of luck! Philip

Thank you so much, I'm going to do the last one you proposed. 🤗 @@masteryourstudies

I am using codes/nodes through NVivo and approaching a topic from a constructionist point of view

Thanks for your comment. This will be a niche tutorial but I will give my best to cover it at some point. Producing these takes time, so in the meantime don't hesitate to ask specific questions here in the comments. Best of luck! Phil

Hi Paul, thank you for commenting. I will do more videos on coding but these videos take time… Strauss and Corbin is a bit more concrete in its coding guidelines, so most students like this better than e.g. Glaser (1978). I suggest you work really closely with the book. There are also some videos on KZbin that show example codings, which might help you. My last tip is getting the book Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research by Cathy Urquhart. It explains in easy language the difference between all these approaches and has great examples. Best of luck! Phil

@@masteryourstudies hey Phil :) Thinks! By any chance… do you do 1:1 advice teaching sessions?

Hi, thanks for your question. In a deductive approach, you would have your themes predefined by existing literature and/or theory. Nothing wrong with theses "buckets" here, but you need a good justification and enough literature that back these up. In inductive TA, buckets are more problematic because the interpretative element gets lost. You want a theme that represents the data and not a label that groups them. Best of luck!

Thanks for taking the time to reply, it makes sense! @@masteryourstudies

Thank you! ☀️

Hi Sabrina, thank you for your question. Generally, I would choose one particular approach to grounded theory and then stick to it. This could be Gioia et al. (2013) or Glaser (1978) or Strauss and Corbin (1998) or Charmaz (2014) and so on. The Gioia method speaks about coding techniques that are equivalent to open coding and axial coding for example. These are just labels for different steps of the method and different authors use different labels. So when you do the Gioia method, you automatically do open coding and axial coding, it is just called differently in the Gioia et al. paper. But generally I would not mix too many authors, their suggestions, and labels. Stick to the one Grounded Theory guideline that resonates with you most and serves your purpose well (your research objective). Best of luck! Philip

Good luck 😊👍

Thank you so much for this video. ❤

why?

Thank you for your question 👍 yes, absolutely. In your case I would develop the interview guide for one of these groups first and then adapt it to the others. Then you end up with 2 (or 4) slightly different versions of your guide (you can also explain why this was necessary in your methods section). However, the guides should only differ in those aspects that are unique for each group (e.g. CEO vs. project manager). The majority of the questions should be similar. However, for grounded theory, it is OK if your questions (and your interview guide) evolve over time (theoretical sampling). I also have a tutorial on developing an interview guide, maybe that will be useful to you. Best of luck!

Hi Nicola, thank you for your comment. I have tutorials ready for open coding and theoretical sampling - will post them soon. Will do tutorials for the other techniques in the future. Thanks for your suggestions and good luck with your GT study :-)

I’m glad you enjoyed it!

Thank you for your kind words 🙂