Lessons Learned from an Extended Participant Observation Grounded Theory Study

Context: Conducting a Grounded Theory study is rigorous, demanding, and challenging. Misperceptions exist within the software engineering community. Objective: The purpose of this paper is to describe one extended participant observation Grounded Theory study for aiding new empirical researchers wanting to run similar research studies. Method: Following Constructivist Grounded Theory, we conducted a two-year five-month participant-observation of eight software development projects at Pivotal, a software development organization, interviewed 33 software engineers, interaction designers, and product managers, and analyzed one year of retrospection topics. We iterated between analysis and theoretical sampling until achieving theoretical saturation, publishing papers on team code ownership, sustainable software development through overlapping code ownership, and software development waste. Results: This paper describes the missteps, challenges, and unique insights that occurred while conducting a Grounded Theory study. Limitations: While the results are highly relevant to the researcher, the outcomes might not apply to other researchers. Conclusion: Conducting my own Grounded Theory research study, attending Glaser's Seminar, and reading and rereading Charmaz's and Glaser's books helped the researcher overcome misperceptions about Grounded Theory research.

[1]  Gary Llewellyn Evans,et al.  A Novice Researcher’s First Walk Through the Maze of Grounded Theory: Rationalization for Classical Grounded Theory , 2013 .

[2]  Antony Bryant,et al.  A constructive/ist response to Glaser's "Constructivist Grounded Theory?" , 2007 .

[4]  B. Glaser.  Constructivist Grounded Theory , 2002 .

[5]  Brené Brown,et al.  Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead , 2012 .

[6]  B. Glaser.  Doing grounded theory : issues and discussions , 1998 .

[7]  Mary Poppendieck,et al.  Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash (The Addison-Wesley Signature Series) , 2006 .

[8]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  Research methods knowledge base , 2001 .

[9]  A. Strauss,et al.  Basics of Qualitative Research , 1992 .

[10]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Practice and perception of team code ownership , 2016, EASE.

[11]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .

[12]  B. Glaser.  Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Vs. Forcing , 1992 .

[13]  Paul Ralph,et al.  The dimensions of software engineering success , 2014, ICSE.

[14]  Kent Beck,et al.  Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change (2nd Edition) , 2004 .

[15]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Software Development Waste , 2017, 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[16]  B. Glaser.  Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory , 1978 .

[17]  B. Glaser.  Constructivist grounded theory? Forum Qualitative Social Research, . , 2002 .

[18]  J. L. Pierce,et al.  Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations , 2001 .

[19]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Sustainable Software Development through Overlapping Pair Rotation , 2016, ESEM.

[20]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Grounded Theory in Software Engineering Research: A Critical Review and Guidelines , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).