Chapter 3: Methodology 3.1 Introduction

3.2 Grounded theory

Drawn from the works of Glaser and Strauss (Strauss, 1987; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; Charmaz, 2006b), Charmaz summarised the seven defining components of grounded theory practice, which are ‘simultaneous involvement in data collection and analysis’, ‘constructing analytic codes and categories from data’, ‘using the constant comparative method’, gradually and constantly ‘advancing theory development’, ‘memo-writing’, theoretical sampling, and post-analysis literature reviewing (Charmaz, 2006a, pp.5-6). Not only should a sound qualitative research using grounded theory follow systematic and rigorous procedures, the theories constructed should also fit closely with the data, be useful, conceptually dense, durable over time, modifiable, and contain explanatory power (Charmaz, 2006a, p.6) (see also Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1992; Glaser, 1978).

Rich data forms the foundation of grounded theory. ‘A finished grounded theory explains the studied process in new theoretical terms, explicates the properties of the theoretical categories, and often demonstrates the causes and conditions under which the process emerges and varies, and delineates its consequences’ (Charmaz, 2006a, pp.7-8) . Grounded theory, therefore, serves well the goal of the research (see Chapter 1, 1.1).

Lying behind Glaser, Strauss, and Corbin’s grounded theory is positivism (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Strauss and Corbin, 1994; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978). Later, grounded theory has been utilised by a growing number of scholars to serve their research in different ways (e.g. Charmaz, 1990). Grounded theory guidelines concentrate on ‘the steps of the research process’ rather than the concrete techniques or the theoretical perspectives. Although systematic, grounded theory is quite flexible and can be adopted and adapted to conduct diverse studies (Charmaz, 2006a). What lies behind this research is an interpretivist theoretical perspective informed by realism and social constructivism.

Philosophical issues are of great significance to the justification of research. Thomas Kuhn (1922-96) believed that there was no theory-free and value-free neutrality. What comprises the theory includes what Kuhn called ‘a paradigm’ which ‘legitimates the methodology and methods’. The paradigm a researcher invokes is ‘a unitary package of beliefs’ he or she holds ‘about science and scientific knowledge’, ‘an overarching conceptual construct, a particular way in which he or she makes sense of the world or some segment of the world’ (Crotty, 1998, pp.34-35). That is the ontology, the epistemology and the theoretical perspective that lie behind a researcher’s research design. Later, Smith and Burton expressed the same concern. Smith (2000) used ‘paradigm’ to distinguish science from non-science. According to him, the fundamental difference is that to make scientific discoveries, scientists have a set of philosophical assumptions that govern their choices of methods. Burton (2000) claimed a direct relationship between ‘philosophical assumptions about human nature and how society is conceptualised’ and ‘the nature and status of data that is collected and the validity of the methods by which data is analysed, interpreted and understood’ (p.1). The notion of paradigm indicates that scientific research needs scientific research methods as well as ontological and epistemological assumptions that inform the research design.

As innovative research promises to produce new knowledge, all research begins with what is defined as knowledge and how knowledge is acquired. The first question what is knowledge or ‘what to know’ deals with ‘the nature of existence’ and with ‘the structure of reality’ (Crotty, 1998, p.10), that is ontology, while the second question looks into ‘how we know what we know’, the epistemological position a researcher takes. This research holds a realist ontological stance and a social constructivist epistemological stance. A realist view of realities perceives realities as existing ‘independently of our consciousness’ (Crotty, 1998, p.10). The author sees Internet use of university students in China as reality asserted by a realist ontological notion. The author believes that reality exists outside the mind, but meaning does not, a social constructivist position which claims that meaning is ‘constructed’ and it ‘comes into existence in and out of our engagement with the realities in our world’ (Crotty, 1998, p.9).

The theoretical perspective refers to ‘the philosophical stance lying behind methodology’, or the assumptions buried within methodology (Crotty, 1998, p.66). The research invokes an interpretivist approach to understanding and explaining the studied phenomena. An interpretivist approach stands in contradistinction to a positivist approach which ‘seeks to identify universal features of humanhood, society and history that offer explanation and hence control and predictability’, and it ‘looks for culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world’ (Crotty, 1998, p.66). The research attempts to generate new themes that are contextualised in Chinese society.