Grounded Theory

In this chapter of grounded theory authors, Charmaz and Henwood present the basic principles of the grounded theory method. At the beginning of the chapter, they provide historical background and methods of grounded theory including coding, comparative analysis, case analysis, memo writing,  and how to conduct the overall research process. This chapter provides readers with the tools needed to competently complete a research analysis. Furthermore, this chapter describes the proper procedures and techniques necessary to understand this research concept.


Definition: The article did a great job explaining how methods of grounded theory are essential when conducting analyses. In essence,  the authors describe the method of grounded theory as such:


We gather data, compare them, remain open to all possible theoretical understandings of the data, and develop tentative interpretations about these data through our codes and nascent categories. Then we go back to the field and gather more data to check and refine our categories.


The Role of Research in a Research Process:


One point that I highlighted in this chapter are the two points of views taken when using this method. That is the realist or a social constructionist approach. These two types of knowledge offer a practical guide for the different types of researchers. The realist researcher will use statistical and quantitative data collection to complete a theoretical analysis. On the other hand, the social constructionist uses more qualitative data when conducting research. Another interesting section of this chapter was the data analysis. I thought this section was a bit more challenging to understand because I do not entirely know how the process of coding functions. This is a major tool necessary to collect data in research. The process, however, seems extensive and requires much time. Even so, this process has to be done accurately and precisely in order to do it well. 

Read the article Here: Grounded Theory Methodology. Retrieved:

Rediscovering the Research Theory Method

It’s funny to see a term that I’m “supposed to” be familiar with but unable to describe it if someone were to ask. I had heard of the grounded theory before. The best I could do in terms of offering a definition for it, at least before reading the assigned article, would have been: “a theory that is grounded in… theory?”. Thanks to the article, I have a better idea now. I usually do not find this sort of articles all that “fun” to read, but every once in a while I tend to come across one that is well-written and organized. This particular article was one of them. In fact, I’m somewhat inclined to purchase the book (if there is a trade paperback) that it comes from now. Even though, conducting a legitimate research is not something necessarily for me, it’d handy to have a good resource just in case I may need one in the future.

So, I’m going to attempt at explaining what grounded theory is based on the article here. I’ll have to stea—borrow!… some quotations in order to do it “justice”. The grounded theory is basically an end result of a research method that “merges the processes of data collection and analysis” that “continues until theoretical saturation has been achieved”. “In grounded theory, the researcher interacts with the data” as it develops and more subcategories emerge for further analysis. Also, labeling of these categories, which is an essential aspect, “[is] not derived from existing theoretical formulations but [rather] grounded in the data instead”. As the research process continues, the labeling of categories goes from descriptive to more abstract ones. For example, “the references to diverse activities such as getting drunk, jogging and writing poetry
could be categorized as ‘escape’…” in later stages. The main idea behind this type of labeling progress is so that “the full complexity and diversity of the data can be recognized, and any homogenizing impulse can be counteracted” as needed.

(Is that enough quotations for one paragraph?)

The part of the article that talked about the research question, which apparently needs to be as descriptive as possible, made me reconsider the (W.I.P.) research question that I’m currently running with —I might completely change it later. Actually… Let’s try to change it a little bit now. My research question was: How does proficiency of language affect the development of successful learner autonomy? It does not really work with the grounded theory. As the article indicates, a question such as this contains an explicit assumption “derived from existing theories”. In this case, that would be my assumption that there is a known connection between the proficiency level and learner autonomy. Instead, it’d probably be better to reconstruct it into something like this: Does the proficiency level of language has any impact on the students’ ability to develop learner autonomy?… Does that work? Something tells me that there is still an underlined assumption in there, somewhere. Anyways, the point is making sure that the research question “orientates the researcher towards action and process rather than states and conditions”. I’ll have to work on it a bit more.

The research example by Janice Morse (1992) presented in the article is a great way to examine the potential development of the methodology. “Exploring the role gift-giving played in the development of the relationship between patient and nurse” is not something that I would’ve even considered for a research… but very it is intriguing. As we can see during its development, more types of relationships, and aspects such the amount of time spent or the purpose of interaction, emerged and shifted the focus. The occurrence of this particular shift is due to that form of analysis and researcher-data interaction mentioned earlier. So, everything gets to be grounded (pun?) in the discovered data. I wonder, if I were to conduct this type of research based on my question above, what kind of subcategories could emerge from it? It’s hard to imagine right now.

There were also three major issues related to the grounded theory and its certain limitations presented in the article, but due to time limitations —despite the fact that we had a week off, I’ll have to leave those for the in-class discussion tomorrow. So, allow me to end this blog post on a dramatic cliffhanger… [To Be Continued!]



Source: (*). Grounded Theory Methodology. Retrieved:

*I was unable to find author names or publication date.

Autoethnography: An Overview

I was excited to read this weeks article for our first blog post because in one of my classes this semester I will be conducting an autoethnography project and I am eager to learn more about the topic! In the short article Autoethnography: An Overview authors Carolyn Ellis, Tony E. Adams & Arthur P. Bochner present a definition of Autoethnography. In the very beginning of the text, the authors present a definition of the term autoethnography and what it actually means. The term autoethnography is a study of both personal and cultural experience. (auto- for personal and ethno- for cultural experience). Additionally, throughout the text, the authors describe how to do this type of research and the process it takes to understand autoethnography overall.


Autoethnography is an approach to research and writing that seeks to describe and systematically analyze personal experience in order to understand cultural experience.


Before reading this article I had a clue of what the study of autoethnography entails, however, after reading this article I now have a better idea of how to conduct this type of research and the different approaches to take. What I most enjoyed about the article was the way the author sectioned the topics in order to provide an intelligible way of understanding the topic. Furthermore, in the article, the authors describe how in order to do this type of research one must aim to consciously understand the political and social behaviors of an individual. These two aspects form and shape identity and create a cultural experience. I believe the article does a great analysis describing the relational ethics and personal narrative construction of individual identity. This understanding is crucial for conducting autoethnography research. Having that in mind I can expect to complete adequate autoethnography research.

The Process: 

The authors state that the process of autoethnography research is a method. In order to properly access the result of this type of research authors, scholars and researchers must have the right tools and techniques to conduct this study. they may interview, use photographs, journals, and recordings to help with this resrach. I agree that all these tools are sufficient mechanics to do research. furthermore. the authors describe that the process of documenting autoethnography research is a form of storytelling and it should not be biased. I believe the authors state this because this type of research has to be truthful and reflect the experience of the individual without fiction or lies. The story should be realible credible and most importanly valid. Without the bias opinion of researchers, this study will have an honest result and reflect both the persoal and culrual life of the subject.

Overall I thought the article was a great read and a short introduction for beginners to do this type of study.

Read The Article Here: 

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011, January). Autoethnography: An Overview. Retrieved from

A 2-in-1 Research Method

I really hope that I did not read the incorrect article assigned for this week. The course syllabus will take some time getting used to. I was just about to read Grounded Theory Methodology but then I realized it was actually for next week (right?). Still, the actual article for this week, Autoethnography: An Overview, turned out to be an interesting read (and short). Though, one small criticism that I should bring up is the constant brackets with credits and dates scattered throughout; it really interrupted the flow.

Anyways, the article, as stated in its title, was about autoethnograpy. The term sounded somewhat familiar when I read it. I might have read another article about it at some point, though I could not remember it specifically. It is described as a qualitative research method which combined autobiography and ethnography (auto- for personal and ethno- for cultural experience), and studied them mutually. I guess, it is more of a reflective research; discovering concepts or notions through self-reflection within boundaries of culture. It is also described as a combination of process and product. The process aspect being the connective tissue and the product aspect being the result of it. I do not believe that I personally conducted an autoethnograpy before but implementing my own personal experience into it as a comparison and the possibility of it being therapeutic is indeed intriguing.

Speaking of personal experience, there was a brief mention of perspectives in research at the beginning of the article which I found interesting. The general consensus is that research needs to be objective but how do we determine the objectivity in a research could be a subjective matter (does that make sense?). The purpose of a research could easily be subjective and that subjectivity could be reflected in the research unintentionally. For example, if the purpose of researcher is proving a bias, whether for or against it, at certain points where further research is needed, the researcher might indulge in his or her subjectivity and simply end it right there since the “expected” result is “proven”. The article also mentioned the “default” perspective that many people believe in; something defined by things such as gender, race, and status. Although it may seem “default” for those who fit the bill, for others that is not the case. In my opinion, particular reasons such as these make every qualitative (maybe even quantitative) research subjective in nature. Autoethnograpy apparently acknowledges and embraces that subjective nature to its benefit. I’m not so sure about the success of its result, however.

That brings us to the critique of this method. According to the opponents, by implementing a narrative aspect to it, the research gets decorated by “facets of storytelling” and becomes “too artful and not scientific enough” for legitimacy. It is difficult for me to counter-argue that claim. As stated above, the subjective nature of research makes it difficult to uphold its result as evidence for a claim. It seems to be too dependent on the beliefs and ideals of the reader of that research. Its nature makes it too easy for someone who disagrees with the result to dismiss it out of hand. The article claims that there is a gap between disciplines of art and science in the eyes of experts who tend to criticize this combined method. Although I certainly agree that there is a gap, I personally do not know how to address it properly (I ought to do a research on that). I should also mention that I found titles such as “novel-gazer” or “self-absorbed narcissist” given by those opponents to the autoethnograpy conductors quite funny. I’m even more inclined to conduct one now.

Obviously, the main reason behind criticism is the question of reliability in this method of research. The researcher’s credibility is very important. That adds an additional requirement of effort to identify that reliability. I, myself, do not know the credibility of any of the names credited on this particular article. I assume that they are reliable researchers (why else would they be credited?) but unless I personally check up on those sources, I can’t make a solid claim. Once again, some semblance of subjectivity seems to be in place; an opponent could possible refute that credibility in order to dismiss the result. The article mentioned the “literary license”. The majority of writers tend to embellish their stories or add more dramatic stuff for a wider appeal. One could wonder if the person who conducts an autoethnograpy is also susceptible to those tendencies that could jeopardize the validity of it. Many opponents apparently make the assertion that autoethnograpy should “better [be] viewed as a fiction” rather than a “legit” research, which creates a question for another discussion: what makes a research “legit”? I’m sure we’ll cover that more in-depth eventually.

There were so many other small details to extract from the article but I’m certain that we will go over them in class. So, I’ll just end my post right here. I do not know if I’ll ever have to conduct an autoethnograpy, but I’m glad to know that I’ll be able to identify one if I ever see it.


Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011, January). Autoethnography: An Overview. Retrieved from

A New Class and a New Blog Post

Hi. My name is Serkan Tiker and I would like to admit that I know nothing about academic research…

I guess that’s one way to approach learning. The first step into recovery is admitting that you have a problem. I’m now ready to learn the real deal. Well, the joking aside, I did find the article, Liminal Spaces and Research Identity by James P. Purdy and Joyce R. Walker, quite interesting. Although… since we’re talking about admitting things, I should probably admit at this point that I have not read the whole article. Sadly, this one is not a joke.

Throughout my undergraduate years, I have read so many research articles that were in similar vein with this one, very formal and educational, that I seem to have lost the youthful energy for them. If an article is any longer than 15 pages, I unintentionally lose interest and stop reading it. Although they all offer intriguing theories and important things in education to ponder upon, I do tend to find them a tad bit tedious to get through (and I mean no offense). Still, there were a few interesting things I got out of the first ten pages.

The article mentions the potential problem of using, or rather being tied to, textbooks. It claims that textbooks “aim to regulate how teachers present academic research” because “instructors [are] not trusted to develop their own lesson plans or grading criteria”. I had heard this argument before; many times in fact. Unless the curriculum absolutely demands it, being “slave” to the textbook is never encouraged. A textbook, regardless of its purpose, should only be considered a guide and be resorted to if necessary. A methodical approach to a methodical form of study could only increase its tedium; something that instructors should avoid at all cost. I agree with the article about incorporating additional materials such as “handbooks, library websites, and online research resources” for a more active learning process. Plus, it adds variety into the classroom routine.

In our last class, we looked at some new terms relating to research topic. A few of these terms were pretty new to me. Well, they were all new to me actually since I could not remember the definition of the ones that I thought I knew. This particular article introduces a few more interesting ones, such as “liminal space”. I did a quick google search online to get the full definition and the top choice was the following: “liminal space is the time between the ‘what was’ and the ‘next’”. It sounds like an appealing and a very academic word phrase, which I’m sure I’ll be using from now on. Another term (though not a new one but rather interesting choice of one) was “pollute”, as in “polluting the research”. The internet is offered as an example because it “provide[s] an overwhelming flood of sources, many of them of questionable legitimacy”, which I tend to agree with. There are many websites full of articles with no proof of proper research. I only trust; a website that allows… anybody to edit it at free will (Hmm…).

The final thing I’d like to mention is the treatment of undergraduates that the article touches upon. It claims that undergraduate students are seen as “merely research paper writers” and that is an incorrect generalization. Instead, they should be seen as and be allowed to become real researchers. I’m a bit conflicted with this notion. Although it sounds very encouraging at first, the potential of falling short of expectations is indeed a possibility in that scenario. Especially, if the students are told flat out that they will be treated as such; it’d create unnecessary pressure that could diverge the focus of research. I personally would’ve felt that pressure in that case. Then again, perhaps we could look at it as a case-by-case situation. There are indeed certain students (some I’ve personally met as a teacher) that possess the aptitude of a professional researcher, and perhaps they should be treated as such for motivational reasons. I need to do or be exposed to more studies on this particular topic for a solid agreement/disagreement. Maybe a further study is already in the article and I haven’t read it? We’ll see.

I think… I’ve just realized that this blog post falls a little too on the negative side. I hope James P. Purdy and Joyce R. Walker do not accidentally stumble upon and care to read this post. When I feel less restricted in terms of time, and encouraged to do so, I promise to finish reading the article because it’s actually interesting. My personal background serves as a hindrance, I guess. It’s not you (article)… it’s me.



Purdy, J.P. and Walker, J. R. 2013. Liminal Spaces and Research Identity: The Construction of Introductory Composition Students as Researchers. California State University.

Website source (article does not contain author name or publishing date for citation):