Skip to main content
Log in

Using a grounded theory approach to study online collaboration behaviors

European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

This paper discusses how an interpretive theory of action was explored and developed through iterative cycles of grounded theory generation. We establish our motivation for employing the grounded theory method in an area that is overflowing with theories of learning, then move on to the practicalities of generating an interpretive grounded theory by following the ‘vapor trails’ left by online learners. We describe how we incorporated the use of mixed methods into an interpretive grounded theory process, with a theoretical sampling strategy that used ‘complementary comparison’ to feed back into a new cycle of constant comparison. We discuss how constant comparison may be enhanced by researcher debate around emerging themes and categories, co-coding of data samples, coding of researcher theoretical memos, and reflection-in-action during explicit explanations of coding schemes to research assistants and the review of research process memos. Finally, we discuss how and why the substantive theory of action that was generated by this process provides an original contribution to theories of collaborative online learning by accounting for both visible and invisible learning strategies that explain the role of thought-leaders in a community of inquiry and account for vicarious learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ally M (2008) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In Theory and Practice of Online Learning (ANDERSON T and ELLOUMI F, Eds), 2nd edn, pp 15–44, Athabasca University, Edmonton, Canada [WWW document] http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146 (accessed January 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson T (2008) Towards a theory of online learning. In Theory and Practice of Online Learning (ANDERSON T and ELLOUMI F, Eds), 2nd edn, pp 45–74, Athabasca University, Edmonton, Canada [WWW document] http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146 (accessed January 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie E (2009) The Practice of Social Research. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barki H and Hartwick J (1989) Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Quarterly 13 (1), 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger PL and Luckman T (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday & Company Inc., Garden City, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford JD, Brown AL and Cocking RR (Eds) (2000) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant A and Charmaz K (2007) Grounded theory in historical perspective: an epistemological account. In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (BRYANT A and CHARMAZ K, Eds), pp 32–57, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz K (2000) Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (DENZIN NK and LINCOLN YS, Eds), pp 509–535, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb P (1994) Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher 23 (7), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox R, McKendree J, Tobin R, Lee J and Mayes JT (1999) Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse: a controlled comparison. Instructional Science 27, 431–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1916) Democracy and Education. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1933) How We Think. D.C. Heath & Co., Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey I (1999) Grounding Grounded Theory. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dohn NB (2008) Web 2.0: inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning 4 (3), 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabelnick F, MacGregor J, Matthews RS and Smith BL (1990) Learning Communities: Creating Connections among Students, Faculty, and Disciplines. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison R, Anderson T and Archer W (2001) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education 15 (1), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasson S (2003) Rigor in grounded theory research: an interpretive perspective on generating theory from qualitative field studies. In Handbook for Information Systems Research (WHITMAN M and WOSZCZYNSKI A, Eds), pp 79–102, IGI Publishing, Hershey, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasson S (2009) Employing a grounded theory approach for MIS research. In Handbook of Research on Contemporary Theoretical Models in Information Systems (DWIVEDI YK, LAL B, WILLIAMS MD, SCHNEBERGER SL and WADE M, Eds), pp 34–56, IGI Publishing, Hershey, PA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1978) Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory: Theoretical Sensitivity. The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing. The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (1998) Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. The Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG (2002) Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research 3 (3), [WWW document] http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-02/3-02glaser-e.htm.

  • Glaser BG (2007) Doing formal theory. In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (BRYANT A and CHARMAZ K, Eds), pp 97–113, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1965) Awareness of Dying. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen BH and Kautz K (2005) Grounded theory applied – studying information systems development methodologies in practice. 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2005) [WWW document] http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2005/2268/08/22680264b.pdf.

  • Hood JC (2007) Orthodoxy vs. power: the defining traits of grounded theory. In The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory (BRYANT A and CHARMAZ K, Eds), pp 151–164, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kollock P and Smith M (1996) Managing the virtual commons: cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-cultural Perspectives (HERRING S, Ed.), pp 109–128, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, North Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1987) Science in Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J (1988) Cognition in Practice: Mind Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levina N and Vaast E (2008) Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly 32 (2), 307–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln YS and Guba EG (2000) Paradigmatic controversies contradictions and emerging confluences. In The Handbook of Qualitative Research (DENZIN NK and LINCOLN YS, Eds), pp 163–188, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind M and Goldkuhl G (2006) How to develop a multi-grounded theory: the evolution of a business process theory. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 13 (2), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman M (1991) Thinking in Education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe A (1995) The basic social processes of entrepreneurial innovation. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 1 (2), 54–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe A (1996) An explanation of grounded theory. Working Paper, Dept. of Marketing, University of Strathclyde.

  • Mödritscher F (2006) e-Learning theories in practice: a comparison of three methods. Journal of Universal Science and Technology of Learning 0 (0), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonnecke B and Preece J (2000) Persistence and lurkers in discussion lists: a pilot study. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 3, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.

  • Preece J (2000) Online Communities, pp 5–33, John Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick P (2002) Beyond bowling together: sociotechnical capital. In HCI in the New Millenium (CARROLL JM, Ed.), pp 247–272, Addison-Wesley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia M and Bereiter C (1994) Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 3 (3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl G (2006) Group Coginition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge. MIT, Cambridge, MA p 3.

  • Stoyanova N and Kommers P (2002) Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 23, 111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL and Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan MTK and Hall W (2007) Beyond theoretical and methodological pluralism in interpretive is research: the example of symbolic interactionist ethnography. Communications of AIS 19, 589–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart C (2002) Regrounding grounded theory? – or reinforcing old prejudices? A brief reply to Bryant. The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4 (3), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters J (2008) Social network behavior, thought-leaders and knowledge building in an online learning community. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-41), Knowledge Management Track, IEEE Digital Library, Hawaii, USA.

  • Waters J (2009) Engagement, role-behaviors and thought-leaders: an analysis of student behavior in asynchronous online learning environments. Ph.D. Thesis, College of Information Science & Technology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

  • Waters J and Gasson S (2005) Strategies employed by participants in virtual learning communities. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38), Collaboration Systems and Technology Track, p 3b, IEEE Software Society, Manua, Hawaii, January 2005.

  • Waters J and Gasson S (2006) Social engagement in an online community of inquiry. 27th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Milwaukee, WI, AIS, Atlanta.

  • Waters J and Gasson S (2007) Distributed knowledge construction in an online community of inquiry. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-40), Knowledge Management Track, IEEE Software Society, Manua, Hawaii, January 2007.

  • Wegerif R (1998) The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 2 (1), 34–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman BJ (1989) Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Journal of Educational Psychology 81 (3), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jim Waters.

Additional information

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 235317.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gasson, S., Waters, J. Using a grounded theory approach to study online collaboration behaviors. Eur J Inf Syst 22, 95–118 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.24

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.24

Keywords

Navigation