A study note on Glaser's idea of theoretical sensitivity in Grounded Theory: for MBA students

A study note on Glaser's idea of theoretical sensitivity in Grounded Theory: for MBA students (information from perplexity.ai)

My question 1: "What is Glaser's idea of theoretical sensitivity all about in Grounded Theory?"

The reply: "Glaser's idea of theoretical sensitivity in Grounded Theory refers to the researcher's ability to recognize and extract meaningful elements from data that are relevant to developing an emerging theory. It involves the researcher's capacity to be aware of their own assumptions, knowledge, and experiences, while remaining open and sensitive to what the data reveal without being unduly influenced by preconceived hypotheses or extensive prior literature. This sensitivity enables the researcher to identify significant patterns, concepts, and categories that form the basis of a grounded theory.

Key aspects of Glaser's theoretical sensitivity include:

• Awareness of underlying assumptions and knowledge: Researchers acknowledge their intellectual history and theoretical knowledge but strive to avoid forcing data into pre-existing frameworks, allowing theory to emerge inductively from the data itself123.

• Balance between openness and insight: While it is important to enter the research with as few predetermined ideas as possible to remain open to the data, Glaser also argued that being steeped in relevant literature can enhance sensitivity by providing conceptual scaffolding to elaborate and extend emerging concepts23.

• Ongoing development through engagement with data: Theoretical sensitivity increases as researchers immerse themselves in data collection and analysis, often facilitated by memoing—recording thoughts, ideas, and analytical insights—which helps deepen understanding and abstraction of phenomena14.

• Ability to generate and relate concepts: Theoretical sensitivity is the ability to generate concepts from data and relate them systematically to develop a coherent theory, often through processes like open coding and category building3.

• Use of extant theory as scaffolding: Existing theories can be used selectively to elaborate or extend concepts without imposing them on the data, helping to avoid isolated "small islands of knowledge" and contributing to theoretical consolidation5.

In summary, Glaser's theoretical sensitivity is about cultivating a researcher’s intellectual and perceptual capacity to discern what is significant in the data for theory development, maintaining a balance between openness to new insights and informed conceptual understanding, thereby enabling the creation of a grounded, integrated, and abstract theory15234."

My question 2: "Please clarify the topic of theoretical sensitivity a bit more with reference to example of the research task of "to study by semi-structured interview of employees how the diverse corporate leadership styles affects middle-level employees' innovation behaviors in two SMEs in Hong Kong"."

The reply: "To clarify Glaser's concept of theoretical sensitivity in the context of your research task—studying via semi-structured interviews how diverse corporate leadership styles affect middle-level employees' innovation behaviors in two SMEs in Hong Kong—consider the following points:

1. Awareness of Researcher’s Preconceptions and Knowledge

Before and during data collection, you as the researcher bring prior knowledge about leadership styles, innovation, and organizational behavior, as well as assumptions about how leadership might influence innovation. Theoretical sensitivity requires you to consciously examine and set aside these assumptions to remain open to what the employees actually reveal in their interviews, rather than forcing data to fit preconceived ideas1.

2. Recognizing Meaningful Data Elements

As you analyze interview transcripts, theoretical sensitivity helps you identify which statements, behaviors, or experiences are significant for understanding how leadership styles impact innovation. For example, you might notice recurring themes such as “supportive leadership encourages risk-taking” or “authoritarian leadership stifles creativity.” These insights emerge from careful coding and memoing, guided by your sensitivity to nuances in the data16.

3. Developing Concepts and Categories from Data

Theoretical sensitivity enables you to generate concepts like “empowerment,” “psychological safety,” or “managerial control” based on participants’ narratives, and to relate these concepts systematically. This process involves open coding and constant comparison of data segments to build categories that explain innovation behaviors in relation to leadership styles6.

4. Iterative Data Collection and Analysis

Your theoretical sensitivity grows as you move back and forth between data collection and analysis. For instance, after initial interviews, you might identify emerging concepts that lead you to refine interview questions or select new participants to explore those concepts further (theoretical sampling). This “dancing with data” deepens your understanding and sharpens your sensitivity to subtle patterns2.

5. Balancing Openness with Informed Insight

While you avoid imposing existing theories rigidly, your familiarity with leadership and innovation literature can inform your sensitivity by helping you recognize relevant dimensions and properties in the data without forcing categories. This balance prevents “forcing” the data while enriching your conceptual toolkit17.

In summary:

In your study of leadership styles and innovation behaviors in Hong Kong SMEs, theoretical sensitivity means cultivating the ability to discern what is truly meaningful in employee interviews, to generate grounded concepts and categories inductively, and to iteratively refine your understanding through ongoing engagement with the data. This process ensures that the resulting theory authentically reflects the lived experiences of middle-level employees in their organizational context126."

My question 3: "In your discussion, you mention "open coding" and "constant comparison". Could you describe these two concepts in 8 main points each?"

The reply: "Here are clear descriptions of open coding and constant comparison in grounded theory, each outlined in 8 main points:

Open Coding

1. Initial Data Breakdown
   Open coding is the first step in qualitative analysis where raw data (e.g., interview transcripts) are broken down into discrete parts, examined closely, and labeled with codes representing concepts or phenomena134.

2. Line-by-Line or Segment-by-Segment Analysis
   Researchers read the data line-by-line or segment-by-segment to identify meaningful units, actions, events, or ideas without imposing preconceived categories46.

3. Generating Many Preliminary Codes
   This phase produces a large and diverse set of initial codes that capture different aspects of the data, often using descriptive or in vivo codes (participant’s exact words)347.

4. Openness to Emergent Concepts
   Researchers remain open to new ideas and concepts emerging from the data rather than fitting data into existing theories or frameworks13.

5. Iterative and Flexible Process
   Open coding is iterative; as more data are coded, new codes may be added, and existing codes refined or merged135.

6. Foundation for Theory Development
   The codes generated here form the building blocks for developing categories and eventually a grounded theory35.

7. Focus on Conceptualizing Data
   Codes are more than labels; they represent conceptual abstractions that summarize and categorize data segments7.

8. Facilitates Subsequent Coding Phases
   Open coding sets the stage for axial coding, where relationships among codes are explored and categories formed25.

---

Constant Comparison

1. Core Analytical Method in Grounded Theory
   Constant comparison involves continuously comparing data segments with each other and with emerging codes and categories throughout the analysis5.

2. Comparing Incidents to Incidents
   Each piece of data is compared with previous data to identify similarities and differences, helping to refine codes and concepts5.

3. Comparing Codes to Codes
   As codes emerge, they are compared with one another to group similar codes and distinguish different ones, aiding category formation5.

4. Comparing Categories to Categories
   Later in analysis, categories are compared to each other to understand relationships and to identify a core category or central theme5.

5. Iterative Process Throughout Data Collection and Analysis
   Constant comparison is ongoing and cyclical, occurring simultaneously with data collection, coding, and memoing5.

6. Ensures Groundedness of Theory
   By continuously comparing data and codes, the emerging theory stays grounded in the data rather than being imposed by pre-existing ideas5.

7. Facilitates Theoretical Saturation
   Constant comparison helps identify when new data no longer add new insights, indicating saturation and completeness of categories5.

8. Supports Theory Refinement and Integration
   Through comparison, the researcher refines categories, integrates them into a coherent framework, and develops explanatory relationships5.

---

In sum, open coding is about breaking down and labeling data to discover initial concepts, while constant comparison is the ongoing process of comparing data and codes to refine and relate these concepts, ensuring the emerging theory is deeply rooted in the data."

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.