IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v49y2020i1p3-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Laura K. Nelson

Abstract

This article proposes a three-step methodological framework called computational grounded theory, which combines expert human knowledge and hermeneutic skills with the processing power and pattern recognition of computers, producing a more methodologically rigorous but interpretive approach to content analysis. The first, pattern detection step, involves inductive computational exploration of text, using techniques such as unsupervised machine learning and word scores to help researchers to see novel patterns in their data. The second, pattern refinement step, returns to an interpretive engagement with the data through qualitative deep reading or further exploration of the data. The third, pattern confirmation step, assesses the inductively identified patterns using further computational and natural language processing techniques. The result is an efficient, rigorous, and fully reproducible computational grounded theory. This framework can be applied to any qualitative text as data, including transcribed speeches, interviews, open-ended survey data, or ethnographic field notes, and can address many potential research questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura K. Nelson, 2020. "Computational Grounded Theory: A Methodological Framework," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(1), pages 3-42, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:1:p:3-42
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124117729703
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124117729703
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124117729703?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmer, Justin, 2010. "A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. King, Gary & Pan, Jennifer & Roberts, Margaret E., 2013. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 326-343, May.
    3. Melina Alexa & Cornelia Zuell, 2000. "Text Analysis Software: Commonalities, Differences and Limitations: The Results of a Review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 299-321, August.
    4. Justin Grimmer, 2013. "Appropriators not Position Takers: The Distorting Effects of Electoral Incentives on Congressional Representation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 624-642, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Loon, Austin, 2022. "Three Families of Automated Text Analysis," SocArXiv htnej, Center for Open Science.
    2. Mangiò, Federico & Mismetti, Marco & Lissana, Elena & Andreini, Daniela, 2023. "That's the Press, Baby! How journalists co-create family business brands meanings: A mixed method analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Nathaniel Poor, 2020. "Open-Source’s Inspirations for Computational Social Science: Lessons from a Failed Analysis," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 231-238.
    4. Wang, Xincheng & Li, Yuan & Tian, Longwei & Hou, Ye, 2023. "Government digital initiatives and firm digital innovation: Evidence from China," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Alex Luscombe & Kevin Dick & Kevin Walby, 2022. "Algorithmic thinking in the public interest: navigating technical, legal, and ethical hurdles to web scraping in the social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1023-1044, June.
    6. Usman Sattar, 2022. "A Conceptual Framework of Climate Action Needs of the Least Developed Party Countries of the Paris Agreement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Stijn Daenekindt & Julian Schaap, 2022. "Using word embedding models to capture changing media discourses: a study on the role of legitimacy, gender and genre in 24,000 music reviews, 1999–2021," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1615-1636, November.
    8. Özgür Özvatan & Bastian Neuhauser & Gökçe Yurdakul, 2023. "The ‘Arab Clans’ Discourse: Narrating Racialization, Kinship, and Crime in the German Media," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    9. AJ Alvero & Jasmine Pal & Katelyn M. Moussavian, 2022. "Linguistic, cultural, and narrative capital: computational and human readings of transfer admissions essays," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 1709-1734, November.
    10. Fontan, Clément & Goutsmedt, Aurélien, 2023. "The ECB and the inflation monsters: strategic framing and the responsibility imperative (1998-2023)," SocArXiv 92r54, Center for Open Science.
    11. Jana Lasser & Segun T. Aroyehun & Fabio Carrella & Almog Simchon & David Garcia & Stephan Lewandowsky, 2023. "From alternative conceptions of honesty to alternative facts in communications by US politicians," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 2140-2151, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sandra Wankmüller, 2023. "A comparison of approaches for imbalanced classification problems in the context of retrieving relevant documents for an analysis," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 91-163, April.
    2. Margaret E. Roberts & Brandon M. Stewart & Richard A. Nielsen, 2020. "Adjusting for Confounding with Text Matching," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 887-903, October.
    3. van den Oever, Koen, 2017. "Uncharted waters : A behavioral approach to when, why and which organizational changes are adopted," Other publications TiSEM 0136c8c2-ecdd-4f82-8ca7-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Greene, Zac & Ceron, Andrea & Schumacher, Gijs & Fazekas, Zoltan, 2016. "The Nuts and Bolts of Automated Text Analysis. Comparing Different Document Pre-Processing Techniques in Four Countries," OSF Preprints ghxj8, Center for Open Science.
    5. Laura K. Nelson & Derek Burk & Marcel Knudsen & Leslie McCall, 2021. "The Future of Coding: A Comparison of Hand-Coding and Three Types of Computer-Assisted Text Analysis Methods," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(1), pages 202-237, February.
    6. Constantine Boussalis & Travis G. Coan & Mirya R. Holman, 2018. "Climate change communication from cities in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 173-187, July.
    7. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    8. McCannon, Bryan & Zhou, Yang & Hall, Joshua, 2021. "Measuring a Contract’s Breadth: A Text Analysis," Working Papers 11013, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    9. Guriev, Sergei & Treisman, Daniel, 2020. "A theory of informational autocracy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    10. Zhiming Cheng & Russell Smyth, 2016. "Why Give it Away When You Need it Yourself? Understanding Public Support for Foreign Aid in China," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(1), pages 53-71, January.
    11. David Bholat & Stephen Hans & Pedro Santos & Cheryl Schonhardt-Bailey, 2015. "Text mining for central banks," Handbooks, Centre for Central Banking Studies, Bank of England, number 33, April.
    12. Sergei Guriev & Nikita Melnikov & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2021. "3G Internet and Confidence in Government," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2533-2613.
    13. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2020. "The Popularity of Authoritarian Leaders: A cross-national investigation," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03878626, HAL.
    14. Erin Baggott Carter & Brett L. Carter, 2021. "Propaganda and Protest in Autocracies," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(5), pages 919-949, May.
    15. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    16. Zhang, Weidong & Zuo, Na & He, Wu & Li, Songtao & Yu, Lu, 2021. "Factors influencing the use of artificial intelligence in government: Evidence from China," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    18. Emilie Frenkiel & Anna Shpakovskaya, 2019. "The Evolution of Representative Claim-Making by the Chinese Communist Party: From Mao to Xi (1949–2019)," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 208-219.
    19. Fowler, Anthony & Hall, Andrew B., 2015. "Congressional seniority and pork: A pig fat myth?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PA), pages 42-56.
    20. Caroline Schlaufer & Marina Pilkina & Tatiana Chalaya & Tatiana Khaynatskaya & Tatiana Voronova & Aleksandra Pozhivotko, 2022. "How do civil society organizations communicate in an authoritarian setting? A narrative analysis of the Russian waste management debate," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 730-751, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:49:y:2020:i:1:p:3-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.