Groundedtheoryforhcic2010 Muller 100226235130 Phpapp02

Grounded Theory Methods
Michael Muller
IBM Research
Cambridge, MA, USA
michael_muller@us.ibm.com
Twitter: michael_muller
Thanks to:
Sandra Kogan, Jennifer Thom-Santelli, David R Millen, Jane Preston, Tracee Wolf
Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 1

Grounded Theory Methods
• A disciplined set of practices to…

– Explore a new domain or topic
– Keep an open mind while conducting a rigorous analysis
– Work in an area without a defining theory
– Applicable to qualitative or quantitative data
• Construct description and theory in tandem
– Theory is strongly tied to data (“grounded”) Formal
Theory
– Data collection is strongly informed by Substantive

Theory
developing theory Data
• Use our human tendency to think, interpret, and

theorize throughout a project

Outline
• An orientation toward Grounded Theory Method

– Diversity, diversity, diversity…
• One view of methods and practices
– Coding, memo-writing, constant comparison, abduction
• How can grounded theory articulate with HCI/CSCW?
• Quality and rigor
• Conclusion
• Appendices
– Major sources
– Several software packages (does not imply IBM endorsement)
• This presentation is available at slideshare.net

The Right Approach for Some Problems
• What grounded theory is good for…

– Exploration
– Disciplined development of new ideas
– Finding theory and structure in domains where there is no
a priori guidance
– Keeping an open mind as you explore a new domain
– Working with qualitative or quantitative data
• And what grounded theory is not good for…
– Hypothesis testing
– Evaluating a formal (e.g., published) theory
– Confirming a hunch (but may be okay for exploring a hunch)

Strengths and Weaknesses
• Strengths
– Outcomes are grounded in the data
– Theory is continually tested through constant comparison
– Data-collection is guided by theoretical sampling
– Highlights the agency and responsibility of the researcher(s)
• Weaknesses
– Too many diverse approaches
• How to choose?
• How to evaluate?
– Tension between “cookbooks” and “emergence”
– Stopping rules are unclear
– Highlights the agency and responsibility of the researcher(s)
Making Relationships of Data & Theory
Formal Theory
Data
Time
Bring Data into Focus and Depth
Formal Theory
Data
Time
Build Substantive Theory into Formal Theory
Formal Theory
Data
Time
A Summary View of Grounded Theory
Formal Theory
Data
Time
Beginning of Grounded Theory Method (GTM)
Star: “a manifesto for freedom from

the sterile methods that permeated
social sciences at the time.”
Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967
Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction

Diversity in Grounded Theory Method (GTM)
“The Second Generation”
Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman,

Situational analysis Constructivist GTM Dimensional analysis
Stern, Corbin,
Glaserian GTM Straussian GTM
Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987

Glaser, Theoretical sensitivity, 1978
Strauss & Corbin, Basics of qualitative
Glaser, Emergence vs. forcing, 1992
research, 1990

Glaserian Grounded Theory Method

Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990

Straussian Grounded Theory Method

Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990

Integrating with Formal Theory
Formal Theory
Core Concept
Dimensions
Concepts /
Categories
Codes
Data
Time
Data Components & Analytic Practices
• Core concept Star: “A code sets up a relationship

– The (emergent) topic with your data, and with your
respondents…. a matter of both
• Selective coding “Emergence”
attachment (constructing)
and separation….
Codes allow us to know about the
– Concepts/Dimensions field we study, and yet carry the
• Axial coding abstraction of the new.”
Parameterizing
– Categories
• Open coding Aggregating
– Basic themes
• Data

Example of Coding using Atlas.ti *
* Does not
imply IBM
From Muller et al., 2009 endorsement

Coding Throughout Data Collection
Closure
• Core concept
– The (emergent) topic
Memos
Memos Constructing, Integrating,
Memos
• Selective coding Connecting/Interrelating
– Concepts/Dimensions
Memos
Memos Clustering,
• Axial coding Memos
Parameterizing
– Categories
Memos
Memos Defining,
• Open coding Memos
Aggregating
– Basic themes
• Data
Coding and theorizing start with the first data
All types of coding continue throughout the analysis
Memos are repeatedly
Muller, IBM Research reread and sorted
HCIC 2010 17
Closure
Formal Theory
Memos
Memos
Memos
Core Concept
Dimensions
Concepts /
Categories
Codes
Data
Time

Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990


Stern, Corbin,

research, 1990

• “All is data”
• Keep an open mind by postponing
any reading of research literature Formal
Memos
• Field notes instead of Theory Theoretical
Memos
Memos
verbatim records
• Don’t talk – write Theoretical Coding
memos! Selective Coding
Closure
Open or Substantive
Coding
Memos
Memos
Memos
Time
Method in Grounded Theory
Straussian GT Glaserian GT
• Balance data and formal theory • Radical focus on data
• Emphasis on practices • Emphasis on experience
• Taxonomy of coding actions – Induction and emergence
– Open, axial, selective – Theoretical sensitivity
– Closure tends to occur later, and – Importance of the mentor
organizes subsequent coding – Reduced requirement for
• Broad causative model - “The verbatim quotations
PARADIGM” • Coding actions are less
– Causal conditions formalized
– Phenomena – Closure tends to occur earlier,
– Context and dominates coding
– Intervening conditions • No broad causative model
– Action/interaction strategies
– Consequences

Memo-Writing: More than Field Notes
• Guiding data collection and coding Memos

Memos
Memos
– “What is this data a study of?” (Glaser)
• Guiding theoretical sampling
– Where else should I be looking? What site would provide a
good test of my competing hypotheses?
• Guiding development of substantive theory
– Begin writing memos with the first data
– Develop theory iteratively as knowledge grows


Memos
Memos
Charmaz: “Memo-writing constitutes a crucial method in grounded theory because it

prompts you to analyze your data and codes early in the research process….
[N]ote where you are on firm ground, and where you are making conjectures.
Then go back to the field to check your conjectures.”


Memos
Memos
• Working with and from memos
– Sort memos to understand the relationships among ideas
– Recombine memos into broader theory

Memo Example using Atlas.ti *
* Does not
imply IBM
From Muller et al., 2009 endorsement

Late-Stage Memo, integrating dimensions
From Muller & Chung, unpublished

Theoretical Sampling through Abduction
• Constant comparison and substantive theorizing

Memos
Memos
– What do I think is going on? Memos
• Abduction: How could I be wrong? (consider multiple, competing

informal hypotheses)
Memos
Memos
– How could I test for disconfirmation of what I think is going on? Memos
– Go back to the data I already have

– Choose the next “site” to test for disconfirmation
• What is a “site”?
– Person with theoretically-relevant attributes
– Team in the appropriate department or geography
or discipline Increasing cost
– Community that differs from previously-studied Decreasing number

communities in a theoretically-important way
– Organization or enterprise with significant
contrasts to those that I have already studied
Iterative Development of Substantive Theory
• A first theory is necessarily localized to a single site

or person or data-source
– Theoretical sampling: Where should I find a second site to test my
initial theory?
• A second theory is usually broader and stronger
– Theoretical sampling: Where should I find Closure
the next site for further abductive testing?
• Successive theories gain in
breadth and depth…
• Through iterations,
theory becomes both
descriptive & abstract Data
Time
When do you stop?
Stopping Rules
• By contrast, in conventional hypothesis testing:

– Decide how much data I need, collect it, test it Done!
• In GTM, when is theoretical sampling complete?
– Academic study
• “Continue to sample until you have saturated your categories”
– Enterprise study
• “Continue to sample until Friday”
• “Saturated categories”
– I know the topic of my project (I’ve chosen or constructed my core
concept[s])
– I’ve understood the relationship of those concepts to each of the
other concepts and categories
– The data are not telling me anything new about my chosen topic

Stopping Rules
• By contrast, in conventional
Stern: “Ihypothesis testing
realized that I had reached the
– Decide how much data I point
need, of saturation
collect it,when theit[informant]
test Done!
was telling me how when he was a small
• In GTM, when is theoretical child hesampling
stood witness complete?
as his mother shot
his father dead, and I was bored. I made
– Academic study
all the right noises… but I knew that my
• “Continue to sample until you have
data saturated
collection for your categories”
that study had come to
– Enterprise study an end.” (italics in the original)
• “Continue to sample until Friday”
• “Saturated categories”
– I know the topic of my project (I’ve chosen or constructed my core
concept[s])
– I’ve understood the relationship of those concepts to each of the
other concepts and categories
– The data are not telling me anything new about my chosen topic

Integrating GTM into HCI/CSCW projects
• Conventional analysis helps to find sites for GTM

– Use (large-scale) quantitative analysis to identify initial users (“sites”)
– Conduct detailed ethnographic interviews at selected sites
– (Example: Thom-Santelli et al., CHI 2008; Muller et al., ECSCW 2009)
• Research strategy between web phenomena “as given” and
A/B experimental designs
– Use the attributes of groups of users on the web
to generate initial questions
– Use selected attributes to define sampling algorithms
• Conduct weblog analyses within each sample
• Iterative, transformative design

– Work with one group to create an initial design
– Use GTM constant comparison and abduction to choose next group
– Continue design cycles until design doesn’t change

Quality of Grounded Theory Reports
• Difficult to evaluate in conventional writing – in

sociology and especially in HCI and CSCW
– “Heuristics from grounded theory” (Thom-Santelli, Muller,
& Millen, 2008)
– Often the only citation is to Discovery of Grounded Theory,
1967
• Increasingly, “grounded theory” is mentioned without any citation
– Reports on the detailed coding methodologies and
theoretical iterations are terse or non-existent
– Coding is described with isolated allusions to “axial
coding” and little else

Proposed Clues for Evaluation (1)
• References and citations

– Are there specific citation(s) of method(s)? Statements
about methodological choices? Can you understand how
the authors constructed their substantive theory?
• Methods
– If Straussian (e.g., “axial coding”), can you discern
multiple categories, concepts, or dimensions?
– If Glaserian (e.g., “emergence”), how is the emergence
described?
• Glaser argued against verbatim quotations. Does that strategy
serve HCI and CSCW goals?
– Are reference sets of categories invoked? from what
source? (unlikely in HCI and CSCW)
Proposed Clues for Evaluation (2)
• Findings (Straussian criteria)

– For findings that support major claims, do they occur at all sites, or
are those crucial findings associated with all major attributes?
• If not, how do the authors account for selective occurrence?
– Are there multiple categories, and are they well integrated with the
core concept (topic) of the paper?
• Bonus: Is each concept or dimension presented with its parameters?
• Findings (Glaserian criteria)
– Surface validity
– Internal consistency and “harmony” (constructs interrelated, linked to
core concept
Formal
– Good balance of description and/vs. abstraction Theory
• Quality of integration: Substantive

Theory
from substantive theory of the data Data
to HCI/CSCW findings and theories of relevance

Conclusion
• Uses of grounded theory

– Explore new domains
– Leverage human tendency to interpret and theorize
• Practices of grounded theory
– Begin coding and theorizing with the first data
– Constant comparison with data and theory
– Abductive (disconfirmatory) testing
– Iterations of coding and theorizing
• Strengths of grounded theory
– Bring data into focus and depth
– Build theory that is descriptive, abstract, and powerful
– … With discipline, rigor, and quality
Major Sources
• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., The discovery of grounded theory.

Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1967.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e.
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008.
• Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.( eds.), The Sage handbook of
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.
• Morse, J.M., Stern, P.N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K.,
& Clarke, A.E., Developing grounded theory: The second
generation. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press, 2009.
– Includes Glaserian grounded theory; Straussian grounded theory;
constructivist grounded theory methodology; situational analysis;
dimensional analysis

Methods and Processes
• Charmaz, K., Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide

through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage,
2006.
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e.
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008. (also on previous slide)
– “the cookbook”
• Locke, K., Grounded theory in management research.
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2001.
• Chapters 4-13 in Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K., The Sage
handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage,
2007.

Additional Sources
• Common history
– Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., Awareness of dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1965.
– Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1967.
– Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L., A time for dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine, 1968.
– Strauss, A.L., & Glaser, B.G., Anguish. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1970.
• Glaserian grounded theory
– Glaser, B.G., Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1978.
– Glaser, B.G., Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1992.
– Glaser, B.G., Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press, 1998.
• Straussian grounded theory
– Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L., Basics of qualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2008.
– Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A.L., Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 1973.
– Strauss, A.L., Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge, 1987.
– Strauss, A.L., Continual permutations of action. New York, NY, USA: Aldine, 1993.
• Constructivist grounded theory
– Charmaz, K., Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2006.
– Charmaz, K., ‘Grounded theory,’ in Ritzer, G. (ed.), Encyclopedia of sociology. Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell, 2006.
• Situational analysis
– Clarke, A.E., Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2005.
• Dimensional analysis
– Schatzman, L., ‘Dimensional analysis: Notes on an alternative approach to the grounding of theory in qualitative research,’ in
Maines, D.R. (ed), Social organization and social process. New York, NY, USA: Aldine, 1991.

Quality and Rigor
• Chiovitti, R.F., & Piran, N., ‘Rigour and grounded theory

research,’ J. Adv. Nurs. 44 (4), 2003.
• Haig, B.D., ‘Grounded theory as scientific method,’ Phil. Educ.
2005.
• Stern, P.N., ‘Properties for growing grounded theory,’ in
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of
grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.
• Suddaby, R., ‘From the editors: What grounded theory is not,’
Acad. Mgmt. J. 49 (4), 2006.

Essays and Discussions
• Diversity in grounded theory method

– Kelle, U., ‘”Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data? A crucial
problem of “grounded theory” reconsidered. Forum: Qual. Soc. Res.
6(2), May 2005.
– van Niekerk, J.C., & Roods, JD., ‘Glaserian and Straussian grounded
theory: Similar of completely different? Proc. SAICSIT 2009.
• Coding
– Star, S.L., ‘Living grounded theory,’ in Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K.(eds.),
The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA:
Sage, 2007.
• “An open mind is not in an empty head”
– Bowen, G.A., ‘Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts,’ Int. J. Qual.
Methods 5(3), Sep. 2006.
– Stern, P.N., ‘Properties for growing grounded theory,’ in Bryant, A., &
Charmaz, K.(eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 2007.
30 Examples
• Bertram, D., Voida, A., Greenberg, S., & Walker, R., ‘Communication, collaboration, and bugs: The social nature of issue tracking in small, collocated teams. Proc CSCW 2010.
• Boden, A., Nett, B., & Wulf, V., ‘Articulation work in small-scale offshore software development projects.’ Proc CHASE 2008.
• Cannay, S., ‘A grounded theory investigation of patient empowerment in e-healthcare,’ Proc. AMCIS 2007.
• de Souza, C.,R.B., Redmiles, D., Cheng, L.-T., Millen, D., & Patterson, J., ‘Sometimes you need to see through walls – A field study of application programmer interfaces.’ Proc
CSCW 2004.
• Goede, R., & de Villiers, C., ‘The applicability of grounded theory as research methodology in studies on the use of methodologies in IS practices,’ Proc. SAITSIC 2003.
• Graham, C., Cheverst, K., & Rouncefield, M., ‘Technology for the humdrum: Trajectories, interactional needs and a care setting.’ Proc OZCHI 2005.
• Hevner, A.R., Collins, R.W., & Garfield, M.J., ‘Product and project challenges in electronic commerce software development.’ SIGMIS Database 33(4), 2002.
• Hunter, K., Hart, S., Egbu, C., & Kelly, J., ‘Grounded theory: Its diversification and application through two examples from research studies on knowledge and value
management,’ Elec. J. Bus. Res. Meth. 3(1), 2005.
• Kriplean, T., Beschastnikh, I., McDonald, D.W., & Golder, S.A., ‘Community, consensus, coercion, control: CS*W or how policy mediates mass participation.’ Proc GROUP 2007.
• Luther, K., & Bruckman, A., ‘Leadership in online creative collaboration.’ Proc CSCW 2008i.
• Mann, P., ‘Design for design: Support for creative practice in computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW) in design.’ Proc C&C 2005.
• Mark, G., & Semaan, B., ‘Resilience in collaboration: Technology as a resource for new patterns of action.’ Proc CSCW 2008.
• Matavire, R., & Brown, I., ‘Investigating the use of “grounded theory” in information systems research,’ Proc. SAICSIT 2008.
• McConnell, D., ‘Complexity, harmony and diversity of learning in collaborative e-learning continuing professional development groups.’ Proc CSCL 2002.
• McDonald, D.W., McCarthy, J.F., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D.H., & Rashid, A.M., ‘Proactive displays: Supporting awareness in fluid social environments.’ TOCHI 14(4), 2008.
• Mentis, H.M., Reddy, M., & Rosson, M.B., ‘Invisible emotion: Information and interaction in an emergency room.’ Proc CSCW 2010.
• Muller, M.J., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J., ‘Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service’ Proc. ECSCW 2009.
• Poole, E.S., Chetty, M., Morgan, T., Grinter, R.E., & Edwards, W.K., ‘Computer help at home: Methods and motivations for informal technical support.’ Proc CHI 2009.
• Redhead, F., & Brereton, M., ‘A qualitative analysis of local community communications.’ Proc OZCHI 2006.
• Rode, J.A., ‘The roles that make the domestic work.’ Proc CSCW 2010.
• Sarker, S., Lau, F., & Sahey, S., ‘Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development,’ Data Base for Adv. Info. Sys. 32(1),
2001.
• Scholl, H.J., ‘Current practices in e-government0induced business process change (BPC).’ Proc dg.04, 2004.
• Selvaraj, N., & Fields, B., ‘A grounded theory approach towards conceptualizing CIS for heterogeneous work communities,’ Proc. HCI 2009.
• Sousa, C.A.A., & Hendriks, P.H.J., ‘The diving bell and the butterfly: The need for grounded theory in developing a knowledge based view of organizations,’ Org. Res. Meth. 9(3),
2006.
• Setlock, L.D., & Fussell, S.R., ‘What’s it worth to you? The costs and affordances of CMC tools to Asian and American Users.’ Proc CSCW 2010.
• Swallow, D., Blythe, M., & Wright, P., ‘Grounding experience: Relating theory and method to evaluate the user experience of smartphones.’ Proc EACE 2005.
• Thom-Santelli, J., Cosley, D., & Gay, G., ‘What’s mine is mine: Territoriality in collaborative authoring,’ Proc. CHI 2009.
• Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R., ‘Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders,’ Proc. CHI 2008.
• Weisinger, J.Y., & Salipante, P.F., ‘A grounded theory for building ethnically bridging social capital in voluntary organizations,’ Nonprofit & Vol. Sec. Quarterly 34(1), 2005.
• Wilson, E.J., & Vlosky, R.P., ‘Partnering relationship activities: Building theory from case study research,’ J. Bus. Res. 39(1), 1997.

Software Tools *
• Overviews
– http://library.gmu.edu/srs/qualsoft.html (some links are stale)
– http://www.content-analysis.de/software/qualitative-analysis
– http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/qda/Programs.htm
• Atlas.ti
– http://www.atlasti.com/
• Nvivo
– http://www.qsrinternational.com//default.aspx
• CAQDAS
– http://caqdas.soc.surrey.ac.uk/
• MAXQUA
– http://www.maxqda.com/
• Qualrus
– http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/qda/Programs.htm * Does not
imply IBM
endorsement
Muller , IBM Research HCIC 2010 43

Groundedtheoryforhcic2010 Muller 100226235130 Phpapp02

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Groundedtheoryforhcic2010 Muller 100226235130 Phpapp02

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Grounded Theory Methods

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 1

• A disciplined set of practices to…

– Data collection is strongly informed by Substantive

• Use our human tendency to think, interpret, and

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 2

• An orientation toward Grounded Theory Method

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 3

• What grounded theory is good for…

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 4

Star: “a manifesto for freedom from

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 10

Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman,

Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 11

Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman,

Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 12

Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman,

Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 13

• Core concept Star: “A code sets up a relationship

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 15

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 16

Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman,

Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 19

Clarke, Charmaz, Schatzman,

Strauss, Qualitative analysis, 1987

Glaser & Strauss, The discovery of grounded theory, 1967

Dewey Mead Induction Pierce Abduction

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 20

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 22

• Guiding data collection and coding Memos

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 23

• Guiding data collection and coding Memos

Charmaz: “Memo-writing constitutes a crucial method in grounded theory because it

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 24

• Guiding data collection and coding Memos

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 25

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 26

From Muller & Chung, unpublished

• Constant comparison and substantive theorizing

• Abduction: How could I be wrong? (consider multiple, competing

– Go back to the data I already have

– Community that differs from previously-studied Decreasing number

• A first theory is necessarily localized to a single site

• By contrast, in conventional hypothesis testing:

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 30

Muller, IBM Research HCIC 2010 31

• Conventional analysis helps to find sites for GTM

• Iterative, transformative design