Using Grounded Theory to Interpret Interviews

Linda Jo Calloway (lcalloway@pace.edu)

(212) 346-1207
Constance A. napp (c!napp@pace.edu)
(212) 346-14""
#ace $ni%e&sity
'c(ool o) Co*pute& 'cience and +n)o&*ation 'yste*s
,ne #ace #la-a
.ew /o&!0 .ew /o&! 10031
http://csis.pace.edu/~knapp/AIS95.htm
Introduction
This paper compares two studies that employ grounded theory to investigate
information systems development tools. These tools facilitate information systems
analysis, design, development and maintenance activities in ways that improve
productivity. Tools that may improve productivity are those that use automation to affect
the timing, cost and quality of products and services delivered by the information
systems function (Henderson & Cooprider, 1!".
These studies respond to the e#pressed need for broader research methods in
information systems (see Hirschheim & $lein, 1%& $aplan & 'uchon, 1%%& (ee &
$im, 1)". *rimarily, research on information systems development tools has focused
on the tools themselves and not on the use of the tools in an organi+ational conte#t
(,yne-oop & Conger, 1!". This comparison of two studies is of interest to
researchers using qualitative methods to investigate information systems development
tool usage in the conte#t of an organi+ation or a development team. The comparison
illustrates ways in which grounded theory can be used to analy+e and understand
interview data.
.tudying the conte#t in which information systems development tools are meant to
function requires an appropriate research methodology. The two studies illustrate the
use of such a methodology. /n these studies grounded theory, an ethnographic approach,
is used to capture information needed to e#plicate the interactions between teams and
information systems development tools, and organi+ations and information systems
development tools. 0ccording to 1laser and .trauss (123" theories are either deduced
from logical assumptions or generated from observation. 1rounded theory is a
qualitative approach that generates theory from observation. /t provides the structure
often lac-ing in other qualitative approaches without sacrificing fle#ibility or rigor. The
resulting theory is an e#planation of categories, their properties, and the relationships
among them. The results lead to an evolutionary body of -nowledge that is grounded in
data.
The Studies
This comparison illustrates ways in which grounded theory can be used to analy+e and
understand interview data. The first study assesses the use of a software engineering
tool, dialog charts, by systems designers (Calloway, 1%%". The second study
investigates organi+ations that use /ntegrated Computer40ided .oftware 5ngineering
(/C0.5" tools ($napp, 16". ,e discuss the similarities and differences in the methods
of information generation, data collection, data analysis and reduction, and data
synthesis.
Data Generation
The two studies differ in the way information was generated. The first study is based on
a field e#periment with teams of designers who used the dialog charts while developing
interactive systems. /n a field e#periment a controlled setting is used to simulate natural
conditions. /n the second study data was generated by /C0.5 tool users in various
natural settings in organi+ations. /n a field study data emerges naturally in an
uncontrolled setting.
Data Collection
.emi4structured interviews were used in both studies. Teams of designers were
interviewed in the first study, and the interviewer disguised the purpose of the study and
the tool of interest from the respondents.
/C0.5 users from all levels of the organi+ations were interviewed in the second study.
These interviews were used to determine dimensions of the organi+ation as a whole in
relation to /C0.5 implementation. The researcher7s interest in /C0.5 tools was clear to
the respondents. The interviewees were chosen to reflect a user profile constructed from
an analysis of responses to a mailed questionnaire.
Data Analysis and eduction
0 critical data reduction decision in qualitative studies is to determine the unit of
analysis. The first study used -eyword analysis to e#tract sequences of words about the
sub8ect of interest along with their conte#ts. These sequences were called 9mentions9
and were subsequently coded into categories. /n the /C0.5 study coding was based on
a qualitative evaluation of each sentence of each interview.
/n grounded theory studies, data analysis and the later stages of data reduction operate
iteratively. Coding is a process of simultaneously reducing the data by dividing it into
units of analysis and coding each unit. The first study used a multiple coding protocol,
where mentions could represent more than one concept category. The nature of
responses from teams of up to four people during the interview was more realistically
captured by a multiple coding protocol. /n the second study data were coded as
belonging to one category only, since the interviews were one4on4one. Therefore, there
was no interleaving of comments.
Synthesis
0fter the categories are integrated and synthesi+ed into a core set of categories, a
narrative is developed that e#plains the properties and dimensions of the categories, and
the circumstances under which they are connected. This e#planation of the phenomena
under investigation is the theory developed based on the data. The studies did not differ
mar-edly in the analysis and synthesis.
esults o! the Study Comparison
0 comparison of the studies resulted in four findings. These findings relate to the
granularity of focus, the coding method, the independence of the method of data
generation, and the cultural dimension of the interaction of users and tools. These
findings appear to be significant since both of these studies were the basis of e#tensive
research pro8ects and each resulted in significant research findings which are published
elsewhere (e.g., Calloway and 0riav, 16& $napp, 16". There is no indication that the
differences in methodology affected the emergence of theory. The emergence of theory
appears to transcend the specifics of methodological difference, since theory can be
detected regardless of methodological differences. The methodology therefore appears
to be transparent.
Granularity o! "ocus
0 comparison of these two studies suggests that grounded theory is useful in
interpreting interview information regardless of the granularity of focus. The first study
investigated design teams using a software engineering tool. The second study
investigated /C0.5 technology implementation and dimensions of the organi+ation as a
whole.
Codin# $ethods
0ll grounded theory studies use a data coding scheme. :ualitative methods use codes to
categori+e data rather than to quantify it. Therefore, the number of times an individual
comment is categori+ed is less relevant. 'ifferent methods of coding are effective in
different conte#ts. The first study used a multiple coding protocol to capture the
interactions among the various team members. .ince the comments of different team
members relating to different categories were interleaved, single coding these comments
would have sacrificed accuracy. However, because the interviews for the second study
were primarily one4on4one, single coding was sufficient to indicate the underlying
categories.
$ethod o! Data Generation
1rounded theory can be used regardless of the way the data is generated. These two
studies generated data differently. The first study generated data using a field
e#periment. The second study was conducted in a natural setting.
Cultural Dimensions
;rgani+ations are often spo-en of as having cultures, even though the degree to which
organi+ational culture is the same as societal culture is a matter of debate. However this
debate is resolved, it is certainly true that organi+ations can be treated 9as if9 they were
cultures for the purpose of ethnographic analysis (<orey, 1%2". 1rounded theory is an
appropriate tool for studying organi+ational cultures (1laser & .trauss, 123& <artin &
Turner, 1%2& ;rli-ows-i, 1=& .trauss & Corbin, 1!& Turner, 1%=". Cultural
dimensions of the interaction of users and tools are revealed by the two studies. >or
e#ample, the first study reveals that designers develop strong attachments to their tools
that they e#press in highly emotional language. These attitudes, attitude patterns and
beliefs that accompany tool usage and systems design are learned. The second study
found that /C0.5 implementation success relies on the interaction between
management7s understanding of information technology and the information systems
development environment. /nformation systems development comple#ity also
influences success. >or e#ample, the degree to which an organi+ation adhered to a
systems development methodology prior to the introduction of /C0.5 emerged as the
single most critical factor influencing the implementation of /C0.5.
Conclusions and Su##estions !or "uture
esearch
0s more researchers use qualitative methods and grapple with the problems of
interpreting interview data, the more important methods for systematic analysis of
symbolic information become. This comparison shows the applicability of using
grounded theory to analy+e and interpret interview data. 1rounded theory is useful
regardless of the granularity of analytical focus, the coding method, or the method of
data generation. The grounded theory approach also allows the cultural dimension of the
interaction of users and tools to emerge.
This comparison shows that grounded theory approaches are rich and robust because
differences in application can be accommodated. 0lthough these results are promising,
further investigation is needed to understand the e#tent of both the limits and the
applicability of grounded theory.
e!erences
Calloway, (. ?. and 0riav, 1. (16" 'esigning with 'ialog Charts@ 0 qualitative
content analysis of enduser designers7 with a software engineering design tool. ?ournal
of /nformation .ystems, 6 ()", in press.
Calloway, (. ?. (1%%" 0n approach for assessing tools for designing dialog structures@ a
study of the dialog charts. 'octoral dissertation, Aew Bor- Cniversity.
1laser, D. 1., & .trauss, 0. (. (123". The 'iscovery of 1rounded Theory@ .trategies
for :ualitative Eesearch. Aew Bor-@ 0ldine *ublishing Company.
Henderson, ?. C., & Cooprider, ?. 1. (1!". 'imensions of /F. planning and design
aids@ a functional model of C0.5 technology. /nformation .ystems Eesearch, 1(=", ))34
)6G.
Hirschheim, E., & $lein, H. (1%". >our paradigms of information system
development. Communications of the 0C<, =), 1141)12.
$aplan, D., & 'uchon, '. (1%%". Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in
information systems research@ a case study. </. :uarterly, 1), 63146%%.
$napp, C. 0. (16" 0n investigation into the organi+ational and technological factors
that contribute to the successful implementation of C0.5 technology. 'octoral
dissertation, City Cniversity of Aew Bor- 1raduate Center.
(ee, ?., & $im, .. (1)". The relationship between procedural formali+ation in </.
development and </. success. /nformation & <anagement, ))()", %411.
<artin, *. B., & Turner, D. 0. (1%2". 1rounded theory and organi+ational research. The
?ournal of 0pplied Dehavioral .cience, ))()", 1G14163.
<orey, A. C. (1%2" The *rocess and *roduct of ;rgani+ational 5thnography@ 0n
0nthropological 0pproach. 'octoral dissertation, The Cniversity of Aebras-a, (incoln.
;rli-ows-i, ,. ?. (1=". C0.5 tools as organi+ational change@ investigating
incremental and radical changes in systems development. </. :uarterly, 13(=", =!4
=G!.
.trauss, 0., & Corbin, ?. (1!". Dasics of :ualitative Eesearch@ 1rounded Theory,
*rocedures and Techniques. Aewbury *ar-, Ca@ .age *ublications.
Turner, D. 0. (1%=". The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of
organi+ational behaviour. ?ournal of <anagement .tudies, )!(=", ===4=G%.
,yne-oop, ?. (., & Conger, .. 0. (1!". 0 review of computer aided software
engineering research methods. /n H45. Aissen, H. $. $lein, & E. Hirschheim (5d.",
/nformation systems research@ Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions, (pp.
1)416G". Copenhagen, 'enmar-@ 5lsevier .cience *ublishers, D.H.