Theoretical Data Collection and Data Analysis with Gerunds in a Constructivist Grounded Theory Study

1. IntroductionA constructivist grounded (Charmaz, 2014) study into experiences of coached executives was conducted to develop about coaching process from perspectives of executives themselves. The analysis reported in this paper was undertaken in parallel with analysis to resolve main concern of study; that of theorising coaching process. The purpose of this complementary analysis was to obtain methodological insights into area of research rich in debate; that of grounded theory. Coaching was described as a relatively young field as recently as 2014 (Cox, Bachkirova, & Clutterbuck, 2014), and is also considered one of fastest growing human resource development techniques, both within organisations and in field of consulting (Ciporen, 2015), which lends itself to grounded study.2. Literature reviewThis section critiques normative recommendations in literature regarding specific data collection strategies of theoretical sampling and analysis techniques using coding within broader context of qualitative research and general principles of grounded theory.2.1What is theory?A useful place to start is to examine some definitions of theory, and articulate connection between data and theory, since those are essentially building blocks of research. There are many definitions of theory, but some of more relevant ones are as follows:* Theory explains or predicts . . . (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, 1998, 2017).* For purposes we use a simple, general definition: is a statement of concepts and their interrelationships that shows how and/or why a phenomenon occurs (Corley & Gioia, 2011 p.12).* A is a coherent and systematic ordering of ideas, concepts and models, with a purpose of constructing meaning to explain, to interpret, to shape practice (Garrison, 2000 p.3).* A is a particular kind of representation of some phenomena . . . it comprises constructs, relationships among constructs, and a boundary within which relationships among constructs hold (Weber, 2003 p.vii).A common theme amongst definitions is that of concepts and / or constructs, and relationships between concepts or constructs in order to provide explanation of a phenomenon. It should be noted that it is an explanation, not the explanation. This is important because, much as quantitative researchers like to believe in unequivocal reality (Creswell, 2013b), seldom is there 100% proof of this, and results are typically presented in terms of probabilities rather than absolutes; well illustrated by paraphrasing Mitchell (2009)'s explanation that, cannot predict events; you can only predict probabilities of events (p.130). However, concept of multiple realities sits more comfortably with qualitative researchers (Tracy, 2010), and theories proposed in qualitative research are presented as propositions, awaiting quantitative verification.The fourth definition above includes concept of a boundary within which relationships can be explained. This boundary can be equated to context and limits of variation within each concept or construct.Kearney (2007), reinforced by Apramian, Cristancho, Watling, and Lingard (2017) however, cautions us that, our postmodern awareness that complexity of life can never fully be captured in any (p.578). This statement subtly reinforces that knowledge is contextual, which is very much in line with principles of grounded theory, and reminds us to account for context when investigating variation within constructs.As far as relationship between data and is concerned, it worth recalling words of Kant, cited in Gregor and Timmermann (2012), that, theory without data is empty, and data without is sterile. The connection between two is clear and unambiguous, and integral part of grounded process. …