Theoretical Framework
This page elaborates the theoretical and methodological frameworks that inform this study, with particular attention to the grounded theory tradition and how this project positions itself within it. The overview of the study’s broader approach — situated cognition, information commons, communities of practice — is described in the research protocol.
Grounded Theory and Its Variants
The study follows an abductive qualitative data analysis (QDA) methodology to construct theories founded upon empirical evidence, which relates to, but is distinct from, grounded theory. Grounded theory consists of a series of systematic yet flexible guidelines for deriving theory from data through continuous and reiterative engagement with evidence (Charmaz 2014, 1). The approach taken for this study draws from what Charmaz (2014, 14–15) calls the “constellation of methods” associated with grounded theory that are helpful for making sense of qualitative data. However, it differs from grounded theory as it is traditionally conceived in that I came to the project with well-defined theoretical goals and did not make a concerted effort to allow the theory to emerge through the analytical process.
Proponents of a more open-ended or improvised approach, as grounded theory was originally applied, argue that researchers should be free to generate theories in accordance with their own creative insights and their intimate engagements with the evidence. We can evaluate the quality of such work in terms of the dialogical commitments between researchers and their subjects, and between researchers and those who read their work (Glaser and Strauss 1967, 230–33). Others view grounded theory more as a means of clarifying and articulating phenomena that lie below the surface of observable social experiences (Strauss and Corbin 1990; Kelle 2005). Proponents of this approach are very concerned with ensuring that concepts, themes and theories are truly represented in and limited by the data, and therefore prioritize adherence to systematic validation criteria to ensure the soundness of their claims.
Two related views, known as constructivist grounded theory and situational analysis, most resemble the approach taken for this study (Charmaz 2014; Clarke, Friese, and Washburn 2018). Both of these methodological frameworks recognize that it is impossible to initiate a project without already holding ideas regarding the phenomena of interest, and that the ways that one ascribes meanings to the data represent already established mindsets or conceptual frameworks. Moreover, they emphasize that knowledge outcomes are co-constituted through partnerships between researchers and study participants, and therefore encourage reflection on the researcher’s standpoint as they pursue an abductive approach rooted in their own preconceptions (Mills, Bonner, and Francis 2006).
Realist and Constructivist Viewpoints
In constructing the arguments of this study and in carrying out the interviews that ground it, I rely upon both realist and constructivist viewpoints. In one sense, the study relies on documenting how people actually act, including the longer-term and collaborative implications that their actions may have on other work occurring throughout the continuum of practice. To accomplish this, I identify research activities from the perspective of an outside observer, and ascribe meanings to things — such as physical or conceptual tools, or objects that captivate subjects’ interests — in ways that conform to my own perspective as an investigator of scientific research practices.
On the other hand, a constructionist perspective enables me to consider how individual agents make components of information systems suit their needs to facilitate communication or interoperability among actors who hold different situated perspectives. By listening to participants’ views about the systems with which they engage, including explanations as to why they act in the ways that they do, I am able to trace the assumptions and taken-for-granted behaviours that frame their perspectives. Moreover, these insights are useful for developing a better understanding of how participants identify with particular disciplinary communities and their perception of their roles within broader collective efforts.