Curiosity, creativity, and surprise as analytic tools: Grounded theory method

Ways of Knowing in HCI

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 24-48

  Muller, Michael ^a  

^a IBM RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC TOOLS; GROUNDED THEORY METHODS; LAYERED CODING;

EID: 84955744464     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_2     Document Type: Chapter

References (87)

1. Adolph, S., Hall, W., & Kruchten, P. (2008). A methodological leg to stand on: Lessons learned using grounded theory to study software development. Proceedings of Conference on the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research 2008.
2. Toronto, Ontario, Canada Ambos, T. C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2010). How do new ventures evolve? An inductive study of archetype changes in science-based ventures. Organization Science, 21(6), 1125-1140.
3. Awbrey, J., & Awbrey, S. (1995). Interpretation as action: The risk of inquiry. Inquiry Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 15, 40-52.
4. Babchuk, W. A. (2010). Grounded theory as a “Family ofMethods”: A genealogical analysis to guide research. US-China Education Review, 8(9). http://www.adulterc.org/Proceedings/2010/proceedings/babchuk.pdf
5. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan-Kaufmann.
6. Blythe, M., & Cairns, P. (2009). Critical methods and user generated content: The iPhone on YouTube. Proceedings of the CHI 2009, pp. 1467-1476
7. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
8. Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook ofgrounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
9. Cennamo, K., Douglass, S.A., Vernon, M., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Promoting creativity in the computer science design studio. Proceedings of the SIGCSE 2011, pp. 649-654
10. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: Apractical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage.
11. Charmaz, K. (2008). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social j ustice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 203-241). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
12. Chetty, M., Hashim, D., Baird, A., Ofoha, U., Sumner, B., & Grinter, R.E. (2011). Why is my internet slow ? Making network speeds visible. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 1889-1898
13. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after thepostmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
14. Cooney, A. (2011). Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 18(4), 17-22.
15. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics ofqualitative research 3e. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
16. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London, UK: Routledge.
17. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelinesfor qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic.
18. Dick, B. (2005). Grounded theory (paper 59). Previously Grounded theory: A thumbnail sketch. http://www.aral.com.au/DLitt/DLitt_P59ground.pdf
19. Elliott, N., & Lazenbatt, A. (2005). How to recognise a “quality” grounded theory research study. Australian Journal of Nursing, 22(3), 48-52.
20. Eyrich-Garg, K. M. (2011). Sheltered in cyberspace ? Computer use among the unsheltered “street” homeless. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 296-303.
21. Faily, S., & Flechals, I. (2011). Persona cases: A technique for grounding personas. Proceedings of the CHI 2011. pp. 2267-2270
22. Faste, H., & Lin, H. (2012). The untapped potential of digital mind maps. Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1017-1026
23. Funder, M. (2005). Bias, intimacy, and power in qualitative fieldwork strategies. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studes, 4(1), 1-9.
24. Furniss, D., Blandford, A., & Curson, P. (2011). Confessions from a grounded theory phd: Experiences and lessons learnt. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 113-122
25. Gasson, S. (2003). Rigor in grounded theory research: An interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In M. Whitman & A. Woszczynski (Eds.), Handbook for information systems research (pp. 79-102). Hershey, PA, US: Idea Group.
26. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.
27. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics ofgrounded theory analysis: Emergence vsforcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
28. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.
29. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine.
30. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine [[[e.g., ‘The published word is not the final one, but only a pause in the never-ending process of generating theory’]]].
31. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968). A time for dying. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine.
32. Gold, J., Walton, J., Cureton, P., & Anderson, L. (2011). Theorising and practitioners in HRD. European Journal of Training and Development, 35(3), 230-246.
33. Haig, B. D. (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. In Philosophy of education yearbook 1995.
34. Haig, B.D. (2005). Grounded theory as scientific method. Philosophy of Education Yearbook 2005. Philosophy of Education Society.
35. Hall, W., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257-272.
36. Hoda, R. (2011). Self-organizing agile teams: A grounded theory. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University of Wellington.
37. Holton, J. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage [[[coding practices + Charmaz + Corbin]]].
38. Kelle, U. (2005). “Emergence” vs. “Forcing” of Empirical Data ? A crucial problem of “Grounded Theory” reconsidered [52 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Art. 27, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502275
39. Kelle, U. (2007). The development of categories: Different approaches in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 191-213). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
40. Kim, H., & Lee, W. (2012). Framing creative users for describing cases of appropriation (poster).Proceedings of the CSCW 2012, pp. 135-138
41. Kim, T., Hong, H., & Magerko, B. (2010). Design requirements for ambient display that supports sustainable lifestyle. Proceeding of the DIS 2010, pp. 103-112
42. Kjeldskov, J., & Paay, J. (2005). Just-for-us: A context-aware mobile information system facilitating sociality. Proceedings of the MobileCHI 2005, pp. 23-30
43. Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
44. Lewis, S., & Lewis, D.A. (2012). Examining technology that supports community policing.Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1371-1380
45. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1995). Naturalistic inquiry. London, UK: Sage.
46. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163-188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
47. Locke, K. (2001).Grounded theory in management research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
48. Lopes, E. (2010). A grounded theory of decision-making under uncertainty and complexity. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag.
49. Macri, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for resistance to change in a small organization. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 15(3), 292-310.
50. Matavire, R. & Brown, I. 2008. Investigating the use of “Grounded Theory” in information systems research. Proceedings of the SAICSIT 2008, pp. 139-147
51. Mathiasen, N.R., & B0dker, S. (2011). Experiencing security in interaction design. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2325-2334
52. Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T., & Yuen, S. (2011). Collaboration personas: A new approach to designing workplace collaboration. Proceedings of the CHI 2011, pp. 2247-2256
53. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
54. Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA, USA: Left Coast Press.
55. Muller, M., & Kogan, S. (2012). Ground theory method in HCI. In J. Jacko (Ed.), Human computer interaction handbook. Florence, KY, USA: CRC Press.
56. Muller, M., Millen, D.R., & Feinberg, J. (2009). Information curators in an enterprise file-sharing service. Proceedings of the ECSCW 2009. Vienna, Austria: Springer
57. Nardi, B. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
58. Nielsen, J. (1992). The usability engineering lifecycle. IEEE Computer, 25(3), 12-22.
59. Odom, W., Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). Designing for dynamic family structures: Divorced families and interactive systems. Proceedings of the DIS 2010, pp. 151-160
60. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
61. Paay, J., Kjeldskov, J., Howard, S., & Dave, B. (2009). Out on the town: A socio-physical approach to the design of a context-aware urban guide. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16(2), 1-34. article 7.
62. Pauleen, D. J., & Yoong, P. (2004). Studying human-centered IT innovation using a grounded action learning approach. The Qualitative Report, 9(1), 137-160.
63. Paavola, S. (2012). On the origin ofideas: An abductivist approach to discovery. University of Helsinki, Saabrucken, DE: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing. Excerpts available at http://helsinki.academia.edu/SamiPaavola/Books/1585338/On_the_Origin_of_Ideas._An_Abductivist_Approach_to_Discovery._Revised_and_enlarged_edition. Original PhD thesis (2006) available at http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/filos/vk/paavola/
64. Peirce, C.S. (1903). Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Collected Papers 5.1, pp. 71-172
65. Popper, K. (1968). The logic ofscientific discovery (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper Torchbook [[[falsifiability]]].
66. Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery in grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 214-228). London: Sage.
67. Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 11(1), 16. Art 13.
68. Riitta, H., Urquhart, C., & Iivari, N. (2009). “Who ’s in charge, and whose rules are followed… ?” Power in an inter-organisational IS project. Proceedings of the ECIS 2009, pp. 943-956
69. Riitta, H., & Newman, M. (2011). The complex nature of emotions in an inter-organisational information system project. Proceedings of the ECIS 2011, pp. 943-956
70. Rode, J. (2009). Digital parenting: Designing for children’s safety. Proceedings of the BCS HCI 2009, pp. 244-251
71. Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2009). About the relevance of accessibility barriers in the everyday interactions of older people with th web. Proc. W4A2009-Technical, 104-113
72. Seidel, S., & Recker, J. (2009). Using grounded theory for studying business process management phenomena. Proc. ECIS 2009, 490-501
73. Shannak, R. O., & Aldhmour, F. M. (2009). Grounded theory as methodology for theory generation in information systems research. European Journal of Economics, Finance, and Administrative Services, 15.
74. Star, S. L. (2007). Living grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
75. Star, S.L. (2002). Got infrastructure ? How standards, categories, and other aspects of infrastructure influence communication. 2nd Social Study of IT Workshop at the LSE ICT and Globalization. http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/events/ssit2/LeighStar.pdf.
76. Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377-392.
77. Star, S. L. (1985). Scientific work and uncertainty. Social Studies ofScience, 15(3), 391-427.
78. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
79. Stern, P. N. (2007). Properties for growing grounded theory. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.
80. Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continualpermutations ofaction. New York, NY, USA: Aldine.
81. Strauss, A. L., & Glaser, B. G. (1970). Anguish. Mill Valley, CA, USA: Sociology Press.
82. Thom-Santelli, J., Muller, M.J., & Millen, D.R. (2008) Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders. Proceedings of the CHI 2008
83. Urquhart, C., & Fernandez, W.D. (2006). Grounded theory method: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. Proceedings of the ICIS 2006, pp. 457-464
84. Vines, J., Blythe, M., Lindsay, S., Dunphy, P., Monk, A., & Olivier, P. (2012). Questionable concepts: Critique as a resource for designing with eighty-somethings. Proceedings of the CHI 2012, pp. 1169-1178
85. Wyche, S.P., & Grinter, R.E. (2009). Extraordinary computing: Religion as a lens for reconsidering the home. Proceedings of the CHI 2009, pp. 749-758
86. Wyche, S.P., Smyth, T.N., Chetty, M., Aoki, P.M., & Grinter, R.E. (2010). Deliberate interactions: Characterizing technology use in Nairobi, Kenya. Proceedings of the CHI 2010, pp. 2593-2602
87. Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class: Exploiting socioeconomic differences in family technology use. Proceedings of the CHI 20120, pp. 3041-3050