Educational-Vocational Self-Assignations: Developing Research Design Based on Grounded Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29038/2306-3971-2024-01-22-22Keywords:
grounded theory, research design, qualitative sociology methodology, prospective students, sociology of education, vocational self-assignmentAbstract
This paper presents the process and rationale behind decision-making during the development of a research design based on grounded theory methodology. It formulates the object, substantive area, and method of investigating the process and content of educational-vocational self-assignations by prospective students in Ukraine, defining the practical and scientific context of such research.
Grounded theory is presented as a methodological framework constituting principles such as iterativeness, inductiveness, creation of new theoretical knowledge, theoretical sampling, and more. Implementation of these principles in research needs some methodological tools to be chosen, according to the research goals, object and substantive area. Divergent approaches to grounded theory are interpreted as ways of better understanding and practical application of the aforementioned principles. So the first decision to be made by the researcher is to choose one of the approaches, the factors of which are discussed.
Proceeding to the choice of other research tools, possible factors to consider when selecting data collection and analysis methods, as well as participant selection methods, are described. In the discussion section, some potential limitations of the described study are explored, alongside ways in which classic grounded theory proposes to overcome these limitations.
References
Aza, L., Vishnyak, A., Holovakha, Ye. et al. (1987). In V. L. Ossovskyi (Eds.), Professional Self-Determination and Career Path of Youth. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka.
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing: Pragmatism in Research Practice. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199922604.001.0001
Burega, V. V., & Skok, N. S. (2017). Professional self-determination in the measurement of socially-adequate management. Bulletin of the National Technical University «KhPI». Series: Actual Problems of Ukrainian Society Development, 29(1251), 31–35.
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (2024, 30 April). On approval of the list of priority thematic areas of scientific research and scientific and technical developments for the period until December 31 of the year following the termination or cancellation of martial law in Ukraine (No 476).
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cullen, M. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2021). Grounded Theory: Description, Divergences and Application. Accounting, Finance & Governance Review, 27. https://doi.org/10.52399/001c.22173
Darko, E. M., Kleib, M., & Olson, J. (2022). Social Media Use for Research Participant Recruitment: Integrative Literature Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24, e38015. https://doi.org/10.2196/38015
Dembitsky, S. S. (2010). "Grounded theory": a strategy for collecting and analyzing qualitative data in theoretical validation. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing, 2, 64–83.
Fedorchenko, N. V. (2016). Aesthetic Experiences: Models of Narrative Interpretation. National Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Institute of Social and Political Psychology.
Fischer, T., Schneider, F., Petersen-Frey, F., Haque, A. S., Eiser, I., Koch, G., & Biemann, C. (2024). Extending the Discourse Analysis Tool Suite with Whiteboards for Visual Qualitative Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024) (pp. 7017–7022). Torino, Italia.
Glaser, B. G. (1999). The Future of Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research. 9(6), 836–845. DOI: 10.1177/104973299129122199
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100203
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Grounded Theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), 4, 47–68. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-5.2.607
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Sociology Press.
Holton, J. (2007). The coding process and its challenges. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory (pp. 265–289). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/978184 8607941
Holton, J. A. (2008). Grounded Theory as a General Research Methodology. The Grounded Theory Review, 7(2), 67–93.
Internews (2023). Ukrainian media, attitudes and trust in 2023. USAID-Internews Media Consumption Survey.
Kadenko, O. A., & Vasylenko, O. M. (2011). Factors and motives that determine the professional self-determination of high school graduates. Collection of Scientific Works of the Khmelnytskyi Institute of Social Technologies, University of «Ukraine», 3, 38–41.
Maxwell, J. A., & Miller, B. A. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategies in qualitative data analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of Emergent Methods (pp. 461–477). The Guilford Press.
Parsonage, J., Lund, K. N., Dawes, H., Almoajil, M., & Eklund, M. (2022). An exploration of occupational choices in adolescence: A constructivist grounded theory study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 29(6), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2020.1839965
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2014). Career Development and Systems Theory: Connecting Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Sense Publishers.
Rieger, K. L. (2018). Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nursing Inquiry, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12261
Savchenko, M. M. (2022). Professional self-determination in Ukrainian, Soviet and North American sociology: An analysis of research experience. Habitus, 41, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.32782/2663-5208
Schudlo, S. A. (2014). Massification of higher education: An institutional trap or a public good? Scientific Works. Sociology, 234(222), 65–69.
Soppe, K. F. B., Wubbels, T., Leplaa, H. J., Klugkist, I., & Wijngaards-de Meij, L. D. N. V. (2019). Do they match? Prospective students' experiences with choosing university programmes. European Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2019.1650088
Stough, L. M., & Lee, S. (2021). Grounded theory approaches used in educational research journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 160940692110522. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211052203
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Symonchuk, O. (2021). Systemic Risks of Mismatch between Education and Employment. In L. G. Skokova (Eds.), Risks in Modern Unstable Society: Social and Cultural Dimensions, (pp. 125–145). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.
Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402196
Weed, M. (2016). Capturing the essence of grounded theory: the importance of understanding commonalities and variants. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(1), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2016.1251701
Yatsyna, O., Holonič, J., Bokoch, T., & Dragun, V. (2021). Family practices: postmodern content: Monograph. Academic publishing Fairmont Locust AVE 1489.
Young, D. S., & Casey, E. A. (2018). An examination of the sufficiency of small qualitative samples. Social Work Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svy026
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
