Using grounded theory to explore learners' perspectives of

Special Issue: Work-integrated learning research methodologies and methods

Using grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of

workplace learning

JULIE BYTHEWAY

University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia

Grounded theory is an inductive enquiry that explains social processes in complex real-world contexts. Research

methods are cumulative cyclic processes, not sequential processes. Researchers remain theoretically sensitive and

approach data with no preconceived hypotheses or theoretical frameworks. Literature is reviewed as lines of

enquiry and substantive theories emerge. Interviewers ask broad open questions, check understanding and

prompt further description. Participants choose how they share their perspectives and experiences. Everything is

considered data. Data is analyzed in cyclic processes. Initially coding uses participants’ words, and then identifies

patterns, social processes and emerging substantive theories. Memos and diagrams facilitate understanding of

data and literature. Grounded theory is a suitable research methodology for work-integrated learning because

grounded theory explains social processes, such as learning, in complex real-world contexts, such as workplaces,

where multiple influencing factors occur simultaneously. A case study illustrates how grounded theory was used

to explain learning in the workplace.

Keywords: Research methodology, research methods, grounded theory, inductive enquiry, work-integrated

learning, teacher education

GROUNDED THEORY METHODOLOGY

Using an Inductive Approach

Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) from pragmatism (Mead, 1967) and

symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) as “a reaction against … ‘grand’ theories produced through the

logico-deductive method of science” (Denscombe, 2007, p. 100). Grounded theory does not test hypotheses

nor merely describe phenomenon (Birks & Mills, 2012; Dunne, 2011). Urquhart (2013) describes

grounded theory as having integrity because it “does not seek to impose preconceived ideas on the

world (p. 7).” Through empirical fieldwork in social settings, grounded theory explores participants’

perspectives and actions through an inductive approach to generate theory grounded in the

complexities of the real world (Urquhart, 2013). Data is not forced nor shaped to fit any preconceived

ideas (Urquhart, 2013). Researchers are required to be theoretically sensitive, that is, simultaneously

maintain an open mind and identify significant theoretical concepts by challenging their biases and

acknowledging their own experiences. No theoretical framework is initially identified or applied (Birks

& Mills, 2012). A grounded theory study allows whatever is theoretically relevant from the

perspectives of those involved to emerge inductively (Andersen, Inoue, & Walsh, 2013).

Comparing First and Second Generation Theorists

Researchers need to be aware that grounded theory is an evolving method, and Urquhart (2013) advises

researchers to select the variant (Glaserian or Straussian or first or second generation theorists) that is

appropriate to their research question and context. Classic grounded theory (also known as Glaserian

grounded theory) provides clear guidelines for the reflexive and cyclic research processes, which assists

early-career researchers, and allows codes to be created from the data, which suits a study of a

Corresponding author: Julie Bytheway Julie.Bytheway@research.usc.edu.au

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 250

previously unexplored area. Whereas, second generation or Straussian grounded theory applies

preconceived codes to data.

Using Cyclic Processes

Although grounded theory has an emergent structure, clear guidelines are provided for the complete

systematic research process (Glaser, 1998) and lines of enquiry are followed in consistent yet flexible

ways (Denscombe, 2010). Grounded theory is not a linear process, but instead is a self-correcting

approach that integrates research processes—such as collecting data, defining subsequent samples,

coding data, analysing data, writing memos and diagrams, generating theory, and reviewing

literature—in cyclic and cumulative ways so that emerging concepts can be explored further (Birks &

Mills, 2012; Denscombe, 2010; Urquhart, 2013).

Reviewing Literature

In contrast with many other research methodologies, the literature review in the substantive areas

commences after initial coding, that is after the theory emerges, and is used as further data during

constant comparative analysis (Giles, King, & de Lacey, 2013; Glaser, 1998). In grounded theory, it is

acknowledged that the substantive area of enquiry is not known before data collection, coding and

emergence of theory (Christiansen, 2011; Glaser, 1998). A detailed and in-depth literature review is

commenced as soon as codes, categories, and an emerging theory identify the specific areas of concern.

Birks and Mills (2012, p. 22) warn that “the use of literature in grounded theory is one of the most

contentious and misunderstood aspects of this approach”. One of the main aims is that the researcher

remains as theoretically sensitive as possible and approaches the data with an open mind to avoid

assumptions and preconceptions (Hallberg, 2010). Grounded theory studies do not use literature in

ways that easily conform to traditional academic conventions (Dunne, 2011; Elliott & Higgins, 2012;

Giles et al., 2013; Hallberg, 2010; McGhee, Marland, & Atkinson, 2007; Xie, 2009). Many research

methodologies use initial literature reviews to form research questions, design research methods and

identify theoretical frameworks (L. Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007; Creswell, 2012; Dunne, 2011;

Hallberg, 2010). In contrast, grounded theory uses participants’ perspectives and cyclic processes of

data collection and analysis to generate focused research questions, subsequent data collection

methods, codes, substantive areas of literature for review, and theories (Birks & Mills, 2012; Charmaz,

2006; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Hallberg, 2010). In grounded theory, an initial literature review in the

specific area of theory development is avoided to ensure that theoretical sensitivity is maintained and

data is not forced nor shaped to fit preconceived ideas or theories (Birks & Mills, 2012; Glaser, 1998;

Hallberg, 2010). Glaser argues that “once a fundamental process is generated then … the literature is

discovered just as the theory is … [and] is compared as simply more data” (p. 69). Literature is searched

after, not before, emergence of the theory (Urquhart, 2013). To clarify the use of the literature review,

Glaser (1998) explains that,

to avoid reading the literature beforehand is a strategic grounded theory pacing; it is not neglect

and anti-scholarship … Since grounded theory generates hypotheses from data and in no way

tests theories found in literature, it is appropriate to deliberately avoid a literature review in the

substantive area under study at the beginning of the research. Grounded theory must be free

from the claims of related literature, its findings and its assumptions in order to render the data

conceptually with the best fit (pp. 68-69).

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 251

However, many authors acknowledge the realities of academic regulations and advise researchers

using grounded theory to complete an early literature review to provide a rationale for the study,

ascertain a gap in research literature, place the proposed research within the body of current academic

knowledge, and meet academic regulations (Birks & Mills, 2012; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Dunne, 2011;

Elliott & Higgins, 2012; McGhee et al., 2007; Xie, 2009).

In accordance with the principles of grounded theory, throughout the research process the researcher

continues to read widely outside the substantive area to maintain theoretical sensitivity, and then once

a theory begins to emerge, completes a full and detailed literature review within the emerging area of

the substantive enquiry and incorporates literature into constant comparative analysis processes as

further data. As Glaser (1998) declares, in grounded theory “literature is discovered just as the theory

is. Once discovered the literature is compared as simply more data.” (p. 69).

Collecting Data

Data collection is not an isolated event (Birks & Mills, 2012) and continues throughout the research

process, therefore subsequent phases of data collection must be planned (Urquhart, 2013). However,

practical and ethical issues may limit data collection (Birks & Mills, 2012). Data collection aims to

capture a range of contexts, perspectives and timeframes and can include transcripts, interviews, field

notes, memos, elicited texts, questionnaires, documents, and scholarly literature (Charmaz, 2006). The

constant cyclic and combined processes of data collection, analysis, coding, and memo writing, and

direct theoretical sampling are used to identify further research participants, contexts and data

collection methods. The research timeline needs to be purposefully flexible because data collection

methods react reflexively to emerging concepts and theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). An audit trail

needs to be maintained through detailed field notes, data records, memo writing and diagramming to

show how the substantive theory emerges from the data and record flexible, systematic research

processes (Birks & Mills, 2012; Denscombe, 2010).

Empowering Participants

During a grounded theory interview, the participants and the interviewer are treated as equals (Scott,

2011). Participants select the time and location of the interview (Birks & Mills, 2012), and also lead the

conversation. Interviews can be both individual or group (Birks & Mills, 2012). Scott (2011) advises

researchers to ask broad open questions, without preconceived issues, listen to the participants, let the

conversation unfold, and empower participants to share experiences and perspectives. Researchers

record field notes describing the context and any nonverbal clues (Birks & Mills, 2012). Despite the

power bestowed on the participants, the researcher is not passive, but instead coordinates the

conversation to generate theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The interview is initially practiced with a

critical friend (Birks & Mills, 2012). Finally previous participants are contacted for further follow up

(Charmaz, 2006) by email or interview. Data can include other documents and data. Participants are

contacted to check whether emerging codes, memo-ideas and theory development resonate and are

recognised by them as a part of a member checking process.

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 252

Coding Data

Although, different theorist use different terms for coding processes, Glaser (2005) uses the terms open,

selective and theoretical coding. First, open coding is used line by line throughout the interview

transcripts. Gerunds are used during open coding to remain close the participants’ behaviour and

language (Charmaz, 2006; Denscombe, 2010). Gerunds record the participants’ actions through use of

nouns in the form of the present participle of verbs, that is the –ing form. Initial coding needs to

accurately preserve participants’ words, actions and processes. Second, selective coding is used to

identify core categories. Patterns and relationships emerge through an on-going cyclic process of

comparing data with data, and informal clustering, and mind mapping. Finally, theoretical coding is

used to find constructs, connections, and explain relationships to generate theory (Urquhart, 2013).

Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (2005) insist that no prescribed or pre-planned codes are used.

Codes are created from the participants’ words and collected data. Core categories emerge to show

basic social processes that explain rather than merely describe the phenomenon being studied.

Writing Memos

Memo writing is an essential part of grounded theory. Birks and Mills (2012) recommend that memo

writing should interrupt other research activities, and include feelings and assumptions, philosophical

position, ideas from literature, concerns regarding the study design, reflections on research process,

procedural and analytical decision making, coding categories and generating theory. Glaser (1978)

states that memos should remain open and be categorised so that they can be referred to as theory

emerges and also provide part of the audit trail. Birks and Mills (2012) stress that memos need to be

written from the start of the study and can be used as part of the thesis. Diagrams are used concurrently

to “map and connect codes” to increase transparency (Birks & Mills, 2012, p. 105).

Achieving Saturation

In grounded theory, research processes continue until a point of saturation is reached, that is “no new

concepts emerging from data” (Urquhart, 2013). Researchers need to “look for groups that stretch

diversity, confident that category is saturated, based on widest possible range of data” (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967, p. 61). As Birks and Mills (2012) instruct, in continuous cyclic processes, the researcher

needs to collect and analyse data using constant comparative analysis until new data requires no new

codes or categories, and instead fits within existing codes and a point of saturation appears to be

reached.

Acknowledging Limitations

Continuing a grounded theory study to a point of saturation can overwhelm the researcher with huge

amounts of data. Furthermore, initial coding that remains close to the participants’ words can create

hundreds of overlapping initial-codes. To avoid becoming overwhelmed and drowning in data and

codes, researchers need to create and maintain excellent systems and processes to record data

collection, coding, analysis and a robust audit trail. Each code and significant quote needs to be able to

be clearly traced back to the original data. Researchers need to record where codes and quotes

specifically occur in the data, including, for example, the participant, interview date, and precise time

during the interview recording. Also, coding could be biased by personal preconceptions; however,

inter-rater checking and member checking can be used to minimize any bias. Collecting data from a

limited number of participants limits generalizability; however grounded theory studies focus on a

specific context with defined boundaries. Finally, learning is a complex behaviour and participants

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 253

may not be able to accurately describe more automatic and less conscious social processes that they use

to learn within complex contexts. Researchers need to use a variety of data collection methods within

a grounded theory study to ensure that triangulation is achieved.

GROUNDED THEORY FOR WORK-INTEGRATED LEARNING

Grounded theory is an appropriate research methodology for work-integrated learning because

grounded theory does not attempt to adapt, simplify nor obscure the real-world as a research context.

Instead grounded theory can root data collection firmly in the complexity of real-world workplaces

where multiple influencing factors occur simultaneously. Real-word workplaces can be studied with

integrity and honesty, including all their complex social behaviours. Grounded theory is suitable for

the research of work-integrated learning because previous theories and research about learning—from

formal educational contexts, such as institutes of higher education and classrooms—is not used to

provide preconceived hypotheses or theoretical frameworks. Instead the inductive and cumulative

cyclic data collection and analysis processes allow what is relevant and significant to the participants

to emerge and shape the ongoing research processes and theory development. Areas of study from a

variety of different disciplines may be identified as relevant during the data collection and analysis

processes and then included and explored further as part of the study. The literature review includes

whatever is identified during the study as a substantive area of enquiry. In addition, grounded theory

is valuable because it does more than just describe processes: the substantive theories that emerge

inductively explain social processes in complex real-world contexts. Grounded theory is an effective

way to explore “uncharted territories”(Dörnyei, 2007, p. 155) where it is not known in advance what

will be revealed or what will be needed to further the enquiry (L. Cohen et al., 2007, p. 168). Although,

grounded theory uses research processes which are reflexive and not sequential, grounded theory

provides clear guidelines for research processes that can assist early career researchers. When selecting

and justifying a research methodology, Denscombe (2010) asserts that researchers need to identify their

philosophical perspectives to clarify the foundation of their research, as this affects the design and scope

of research questions, methodology, methods, data, limitations and conclusions. Birks and Mills (2012)

also caution that methodological congruence is essential to establish research as credible, that is,

consistency between 1) the researcher’s personal philosophical position, 2) the methodological

approach, and 3) the research aim (Birks & Mills, 2012).

CASE STUDY

Using Grounded Theory in Work-Integrated Learning

Grounded theory was used to examine how adults without teaching qualifications learn to teach

English to speakers of other languages in the work-place. The huge number of adults teaching English

without formal teaching qualifications presented an opportunity to look beyond the usual parameters

of teacher education within institutes of higher education to examine how adults learn to teach in

workplaces.

Researching in Teacher Education

English is a global language and English language teaching is an international multibillion dollar

industry (Crystal, 2003; Graddol, 1997). The demand for English language teachers now far exceeds

supply, so English language teaching providers have lowered the usual standards required to teach

(Howson, 2013; Santiago, 2002). Adults who use English proficiently now teach English without first

learning about teaching, learning, applied linguistics or the English language. These teachers learn to

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 254

teach while teaching in workplaces without the support of teacher education. This hiring of unqualified

teachers creates a valuable opportunity to look beyond teacher education within educational institutes

and instead examine how adults learn to teach in the complex contexts of the real-world workplaces.

We need to explore all possible perspectives because to date research appears to be inconclusive about

the effectiveness of teacher education (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Vasquez Heilig, 2005;

Ingersoll, 2012; Ludlow, 2013).

Learning Teaching Skills

Researchers of second language learning have previously investigated how people autonomously learn

second languages outside classrooms to improve teaching of second languages inside classrooms

(Benson, 2001; A. Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2008; Rubin, 1975). However, researchers appear to

have not yet explored how people learn second language teaching skills outside teacher education

institutes to potentially improve second language teacher education. The Teaching English to Speaker

of Other Languages (TESOL) industry appears to have conflicting ideologies and realities in relation to

how they value how people learn languages, compared to how they value how people learn TESOL

teaching skills. Four decades ago, Rubin (1975) was partly responsible for a change in TESOL ideology,

from ‘teachers know best’ to valuing, identifying and using learners’ second language learning skills

outside classrooms to improve teachers’ teaching inside classrooms (A. Cohen & Macaro, 2007;

Griffiths, 2008; Nunan & Richards, 2015; Rubin, 1975). In contrast, the TESOL industry frequently

seems to expect that adults learn to teach without teacher education and yet simultaneously appear to

support the ideology that teacher educators know best in teacher education institutes (Brown, 2007;

Harmer, 2007; Johnson, 2008; Scrivener, 2009). In line with how researchers have examined how

language learners learn second language outside classrooms (Benson, 2001, 2006, 2010; Cotteral, 2008;

Griffiths, 2008; Richards, 2015; Rubin, 1975), this study explored how unqualified teachers learned

TESOL teaching skills in the workplace to potentially explain ways adults learn to teach. A substantive

theory that explains how unqualified teachers learn TESOL skills could provide recommendations to

improve second language teacher education (SLTE).

Gaining Ethics Approval

Ethics approval was gained from the University of the Sunshine Coast Human Research Ethics

Committee: Ethics approval number: S171073. Before data collection began, participants were formally

invited to participate, received written information about the study and signed a consent form.

Participation was voluntary and participants could withdraw from the study at any time. All

information gathered from participants was stored securely. Participants were asked if and how they

want to be identified in this study. All participants had access to the initial results and any publications

that result from this study.

Selecting Participants

Initially criterion sampling was used to identify participants who did not have formal teacher education

qualifications and who teach English as a second language. Participants who had completed brief (less

than three months of full time study) fast-track and alternative programs of teacher education were

included in this study. Initially approximately 10 second language teachers of English without teaching

qualifications teaching English to speakers of other languages were recruited to participate in

interviews. A specific number of research participants was not identified at the beginning of this study

because theoretical sampling was used to identify future research participants, that is, as lines of inquiry

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 255

emerged, participants who appeared able to further theory development were contacted to participate

in future interviews, or other forms of data collection, such as answering questionnaires.

Conducting Interviews

Initial interviews were held at times and in locations of the participants’ choosing. Due to the huge

geographical distance between the researcher (in New Zealand) and the research participants in Europe

and Asia, synchronous audio-visual video interviews were conducted using Voice over Internet

Protocol (VoIP)/ video conference call/video chat software, such as Skype, Google Hangouts, and Face

Time. As Scott (2011) asserts, online video chat software can be used effectively for grounded theory

interviews as long as the “researcher has considered the basics of interview design from a grounded

theory perspective” and uses “technology with which both the researcher and participant are

comfortable and which their combined connection speed can support” (p. 87); therefore, participants

selected video chat software that was familiar to them and interview times that were convenient for

them. In line with recommendations by Chenitz and Swanson (1986), the interviews were similar to

everyday conversations. As Birks and Mills (2012) state “the internet is now an established part of life

in most societies” (p. 86), and online video chat is a normal part of everyday life. In addition, Kvale

and Brinkmann (2009, p. 149) state that computer assisted interviewing may enable participants to

speak more easily about personal aspects of their lives because of digital discourse norms. Interviews

were recorded.

Interviews were individual or focus group depending on participants’ preferences. In line with

grounded theory processes, the participants led the conversation and decided when and in what form

interviews would be. Furthermore in grounded theory everything is considered data and individual

and group interviews were both considered valuable data within the complexity of the real-world social

workplace context. If possible, focus group interviews were preferred because, as Davidson and Tolich

(2003) state, focus groups enable participants to freely discuss topics and allow researchers to gather a

variety of views and to gain insight into the beliefs of a specific population group within less time than

required for successive individual interviews. Participants were treated as experts, encouraged to lead

open discussions that are initiated through broad open questions. The researcher coordinated the

conversation to encourage participants to share perceptions and experiences that potentially explain

how they learn TESOL teaching skills. Charmaz (2006) recommendations for appropriate interview

questions during grounded theory studies were followed. During semi-focused interviews participants

were asked to describe and explain their experiences, actions, ideas, and feelings by proving examples

of specific situations, incidents, language and behaviours. Participants were asked to share their

expertise and experiences, tell stories, break silences, reflect on events and chose what to share and how

to explain it, and also state how the information should be interpreted. Participants’ statements were

repeated to check clarity and interpretation. Observation and social skills were used to further the

discussion. Previous responses were used to formulate further discussion topics.

Initial interview questions and introductions were used to collect basic information such as name,

gender, age, nationalities, educational background, employment and voluntary service histories, first

languages and second languages, current teaching responsibilities, and if acceptable an email address

or telephone number in case further contact was required.

Below are examples of possible interview questions.

 How is your learning of TESOL teaching skills directed by yourself or others?

 If you discuss your learning of TESOL teaching skills, what do you discuss?

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 256

 How do you use resources to learn and improve TESOL teaching skills?

 What do you do when you are unsure how to teach an individual, group or topic?

 Can you describe a time that illustrates how you learned a TESOL teaching skill?

Prompts were also used to further the discussion.

 Can you explain that further / in more detail?

 Tell me more about …

 What happens when… ?

 Is there anything else you would like to say?

Statements were restated to check understanding and encourage further explanations:

 Have I understood correctly?

 Did you say that … ?

 How should I interpret that?

Each interview lasted a maximum of one hour. Participants were contacted for a follow up interview

or elicited email texts to further explain their ideas. Interview techniques were initially trialled with

another postgraduate researcher. Interviews were recorded. The researcher transcribed the interviews

to remain close to the data and facilitate line-by-line coding. An audit trail was maintained, with

references to location, participants, date and time of interview. Field notes describing the participants’

non-verbal behaviour, learning contexts and workplaces, and the location of each interview was

completed as soon as possible after each interview.

As suggested by theoretical sampling processes, participants were asked if think-aloud-protocols, and

extant personal texts and professional texts could also be used as data for this study. All research

participants were contacted to partake in member checking processes to check whether emerging codes,

memo-ideas and theory development resonate and are recognised by them.

Reviewing Literature

In line with a grounded theory study, literature was reviewed throughout the research processes.

Before an emerging theory was identified, the researcher continued to read widely across disciplines to

maintain theoretical sensitively. As paths of enquiry were revealed and a substantive area of enquiry

and theory began to emerge, literature from specific areas of study and disciplines were identified,

sourced, reviewed and included as further data. The literature became part of the data and the

literature review became interwoven into the discussion of data and the emerging theory.

Analysing Data

Coding was completed simultaneously as data was collected and transcribed. Initially, gerunds were

used to remain close to the participants’ words as open codes line by line throughout the interview

transcripts. Then selective codes were assigned to identify core categories as similarities and patterns

emerge from initial codes. Finally, theoretical coding was used to identify patterns and explain

relationships to generate theory as relationships between and among categories emerge. In accordance

with grounded theory research principles, as described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Glaser (2005),

no pre-planned codes were used. Memo writing and diagramming continued throughout the research

process to facilitate coding and theory development. In continuous cyclic processes, the researcher

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 257

collected and analysed data using constant comparative analysis until new data fitted within existing

codes and a point of saturation appeared to have been reached.

Acknowledging Limitations

The study used a limited number of participants which limited generalizability. The researcher’s bias

was minimised by using inter-rater checking and member checking. Participants were encouraged to

share their perceptions and experiences of learning; however they may have chosen not to nor have

had the time to include all relevant information and also may not have been able to describe nor be

aware of all of their complex learning processes. The researcher needed to judge when a point of

saturation was reached and cease data collection processes; however more data could have added

valuable information to further the understanding and explanation of learning in the workplace.

CONCLUSION

Although grounded theory was initially developed in 1967 by Glaser and Strauss (1967), within some

disciplines and research contexts it is not yet established as an acceptable research methodology. Some

universities appear to compromise grounded theory studies by requiring that initial literature reviews

are used to identify hypotheses and apply critical theoretical frameworks. However, grounded theory

is an inductive research methodology that avoids preconceived ideas and follows paths of enquiry as

they are revealed. Grounded theory is a research methodology firmly grounded in the perspectives,

experiences and realities of participants. Research processes, data collection processes, analysis

processes, literature review processes and substantive theories emerge from complex real-world

contexts that are not shaped to fit research ideals. Grounded theory maintains integrity by reflecting

back and explaining the real-world as it is, and by not applying preconceived ideas (Urquhart, 2013).

Work-Integrated Learning could benefit from the use of grounded theory to examine the perspectives

of those stakeholders teaching and learning from complex social interactions in complex contexts with

multiple conflicting factors. Work-integrated learning can respect participants in grounded theory

studies as experts, who lead discussions, generate data, and partake in member-checking processes.

Researchers using grounded theory can combine formal research processes with inquiry, experiential

and autonomous learning, while challenging their own biases to reach further understanding. A

grounded theory study allows whatever is theoretically relevant from the perspectives of those

involved to emerge inductively (Andersen et al., 2013). Grounded theory gives researchers

opportunities to explore work-integrated learning from the perspectives of many stakeholders in real-

world work-place contexts while remaining open to emerging ideas, explanations and theories.

REFERENCES

Andersen, P., Inoue, K., & Walsh, K. (2013). An animated model for facilitating understanding of Grounded Theory and the

processes used to generate substantive theory. Journal of Research in Nursing, 18(8), 734-743.

doi:10.1177/1744987111434188

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40.

Benson, P. (2010). Teacher education and teacher autonomy: Creating spaces for experimentation in secondary school English

language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 259-275.

Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2012). Grounded theory: A practical guide. London, UK: Sage.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Prepectives and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage.

Chenitz, W. C., & Swanson, J. M. (1986). From practice to grounded theory: qualitative research in nursing. Menlo Park, CA:

Addison-Wesley.

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 258

Christiansen, Ó. (2011). The literature review in classic grounded theory studies: A methodological note. Grounded Theory

Review, 10(3), 21-25.

Cohen, A., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedurs for developing grounded theory. Los Angles,

CA: Sage.

Cotteral, S. (2008). Autonomy and the good language learner. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 110-

120). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed. ed.).

Boston, MA: Pearson.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S. J., & Vasquez Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about

teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1-50.

Davidson, C., & Tolich, M. (Eds.). (2003). Social science research in New Zealand: Many paths to understanding. Auckland, NZ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (3rd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University

Press.

Denscombe, M. (2010). Ground rules for social research: Guidelines for good practice (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University

Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 14(2), 111-124. doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930

Elliott, N., & Higgins, A. (2012). Surviving Grounded Theory research method in an academic world: Proposal writing and

theoretical frameworks. Grounded Theory Review, 11(2), 21-32.

Giles, T., King, L., & de Lacey, S. (2013). The timing of the literature review in grounded theory research. Advanced Nursing

Science, 36(2), 29-40.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theorectical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Vallley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. (2005). The grounded theory prepective III: Theorectical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory. London, UK: Aldine.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English?: A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st Century. London,

UK: British Council.

Griffiths, C. (Ed.) (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hallberg, L. R. M. (2010). Some thoughts about the literature review in grounded theory studies. International Journal of

Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 5(3), 10.3402/qhw.v3405i3403.5387. doi:10.3402/qhw.v5i3.5387

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.

Howson, P. (2013). The English effect. Retrieved from: http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/english-effect-

report-v2.pdf

Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction what the data tell us. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 47-51.

doi:10.1177/003172171209300811

Johnson, K. (2008). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching (2nd ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Ludlow, C. (2013). Alternative certification pathways: Filling a gap? Education and Urban Society, 45(4), 440-458.

doi:10.1177/0013124511413916

McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. (2007). Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of

Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334-342. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x

Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, Self & Society from the Stand-point of a Social Behaviorist (C. W. Morris Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Nunan, D., & Richards, J. (2015). Language learning beyond the classroom. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Richards, J. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal, 46(1), 5-22.

doi:10.1177/0033688214561621

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.

Santiago, P. (2002). Teacher demand and supply: Improving teaching quality and addressing teacher shortages. OECD

Education Working Papers(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1787/23250630103

Scott, H. (2011). Conducting Grounded Theory interviews online. In V. Martin & A. Gynnild (Eds.), Grounded Theory: The

philosophy, method and work of Barney Glaser. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press.

Scrivener, J. (2009). Learning teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.

Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded Theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. London, UK: Sage.

BYTHEWAY: Grounded theory to explore learners’ perspectives of workplace learning

International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, Special Issue, 2018, 19(3), 249-259 259

Xie, S. L. (2009). Striking a balance between program requirements and GT principles: Writing a compromised GT proposal.

Grounded Theory Review, 8(2), 35-47.