Karen Wilson Scott

Bio: Karen Wilson Scott is an academic researcher from University of Idaho. The author has contributed to research in topics: Grounded theory & Summative assessment. The author has an hindex of 4, co-authored 5 publications receiving 514 citations.

The Five-Question Method For Framing A Qualitative Research Study

Abstract: The Five-Question Method is an approach to framing Qualitative Research, focusing on the methodologies of five of the major traditions in qualitative research: biography, ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, and case study. Asking Five Questions, novice researchers select a methodology appropriate to the desired perspective on the selected topic. The Method facilitates identifying and writing a Problem Statement. Through taking a future perspective, the researcher discovers the importance and direction of the study and composes a Purpose Statement. The process develops an overarching research question integrating the purpose and the research problem. The role of the researcher and management of assumptions and biases is discussed. The Five-Question Method simplifies the framing process promoting quality in qualitative research design. A course outline is

Relating Categories in Grounded Theory Analysis: Using a Conditional Relationship Guide and Reflective Coding Matrix

Abstract: This paper describes the process for employing two principal instruments for relating the categories identifying the central phenomenon in grounded theory analysis. The Conditional Relationship Guide contextualizes the central phenomenon and relates structure with process. The second tool, the Reflective Coding Matrix, captures the higher level of

Clarifying Analysis and Interpretation in Grounded Theory: Using a Conditional Relationship Guide and Reflective Coding Matrix

Abstract: Although qualitative methods, grounded theory included, cannot be reduced to formulaic procedures, research tools can clarify the process. The authors discuss two instruments supporting grounded theory analysis and interpretation using two examples from doctoral students. The conditional relationship guide contextualizes the central phenomenon and relates categories linking structure with process. The reflective coding matrix serves as a bridge to the final phase of grounded theory analysis, selective coding and interpretation, and, ultimately, to substantive theory generation.

Method for Studying a Human Ecology: An Adaptation of the Grounded Theory Tradition.

Abstract: Constructivist grounded theory is focused on discovery through understanding data in a human ecology. The procedures outlined in this paper are designed to guide the beginning theorist through the process of creating a theory grounded in data that is a product of the human ecology under study. These new procedures extend grounded theory, providing bridges in moving from study phenomenon to design and from analysis to interpretation. Procedures for analyzing the data must be clearly understood before beginning grounded theory methodology. Strategies must be outlined, approaches to the ecology discussed, and awareness of the ecology attained. Following these procedures can lead to a rewarding qualitative research experience and produce new knowledge for understanding the human ecology.

The Relevance of Authorial Presence in Creating and Understanding Qualitative Writing

Abstract: Researchers are a part of and not apart from their studies. How much authorial presence or “voice” to disclose is central to that issue. Qualitative research lends itself particularly well to inclusion of the author’s first-person perspective, the personal voice. By employing a narrative style, the researcher can include the reader as well as bring forward the author’s position. The challenge is to represent the research process in the research product. Was the authorial presence balanced? Did it increase the reader’s understanding of the research? How relevant is the author’s perspective to the reader’s understanding of the data? Researcher and reader are enlightened and enriched by the inclusion of the researcher’s voice, the researcher through self-awareness, and the reader through positioning of the author. Balance can be gained through determining how much or how little authorial presence is relevant to the effective portrayal of the informants’ reality.

Research methods in business studies

Abstract: This accessible guide provides clear, practical explanations of key research methods in business studies, presenting a step-by-step approach to data collection, analysis and problem solving. Readers will learn how to formulate a research question, choose an appropriate research method, argue and motivate, collect and analyse data, and present findings in a logical and convincing manner. The authors evaluate various qualitative and quantitative methods and their consequences, guiding readers to the most appropriate research design for particular questions. Furthermore, the authors provide instructions on how to write reports and dissertations in a clearly structured and concise style. Now in its fifth edition, this popular textbook includes new and dedicated chapters on data collection for qualitative research, qualitative data analysis, data collection for quantitative research, multiple regression, and additional methods of quantitative analysis. Cases and examples have been updated throughout, increasing the applicability of these research methods across various situations.

The Constant Comparative Analysis Method Outside of Grounded Theory

Abstract: This commentary addresses the gap in the literature regarding discussion of the legitimate use of Constant Comparative Analysis Method (CCA) outside of Grounded Theory. The purpose is to show the strength of using CCA to maintain the emic perspective and how theoretical frameworks can maintain the etic perspective throughout the analysis. My naturalistic inquiry model shows how conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks can be integrated when using the CCA method. Keywords: Constant Comparison, Constant Comparative Analysis, Theoretical Framework, Conceptual Framework, Critical Discourse Analysis, Naturalistic Inquiry Grounded Theory (GT) use has spread to various fields of study since Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) introduction of the methodology (Tan, 2010, p. 94). A review of the literature on the Constant Comparative Method shows the same movement. CCA, as a technique or method, appears to be considered as synonymous with GT. O’Connor, Netting, and Thomas’ (2008) review of the GT literature shows a steady growth over the last several decades in the use of CCA within GT methodology. A review of dissertation abstracts from 2004 shows that GT is used in various ways. The authors highlight that 35% of the dissertations that state grounded theory in their dissertation abstracts, keywords, and/or titles focus on the use of the CCA method, but lack a definitive approach towards the development of a substantive theory. The problem appears to be a gap in the literature regarding discussion of the legitimate use of the CCA method outside of GT. The purpose of this commentary is to show the strength in using CCA to maintain the emic perspective (participant’s view as insider) and how theoretical frameworks can maintain the etic perspective (outsider/ distant concepts) throughout the analysis. The commentary answers the question: What is the benefit of using CCA method outside of GT? Tan’s (2010) review of the literature presents the question about the use of the terms

How to do a grounded theory study: a worked example of a study of dental practices

Abstract: Background: Qualitative methodologies are increasingly popular in medical research. Grounded theory is the methodology most-often cited by authors of qualitative studies in medicine, but it has been suggested that many ‘grounded theory’ studies are not concordant with the methodology. In this paper we provide a worked example of a grounded theory project. Our aim is to provide a model for practice, to connect medical researchers with a useful methodology, and to increase the quality of ‘grounded theory’ research published in the medical literature. Methods: We documented a worked example of using grounded theory methodology in practice. Results: We describe our sampling, data collection, data analysis and interpretation. We explain how these steps were consistent with grounded theory methodology, and show how they related to one another. Grounded theory methodology assisted us to develop a detailed model of the process of adapting preventive protocols into dental practice, and to analyse variation in this process in different dental practices. Conclusions: By employing grounded theory methodology rigorously, medical researchers can better design and justify their methods, and produce high-quality findings that will be more useful to patients, professionals and the research community.