Loading…
It's Like Doing a Job Analysis: You Know More About Qualitative Methods Than You May Think
Through learning about and doing job analysis, industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists likely already possess skills and knowledge relevant to doing and understanding qualitative research. We'll illustrate this by showing similarities between common job analysis practices and one particul...
Saved in:
Published in: | Industrial and organizational psychology 2016-12, Vol.9 (4), p.753-760 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-2497e1fa869294dfcb21adfd86f4f4a54879ca6cede96c89480589cbdd33b6d3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-2497e1fa869294dfcb21adfd86f4f4a54879ca6cede96c89480589cbdd33b6d3 |
container_end_page | 760 |
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 753 |
container_title | Industrial and organizational psychology |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Brawley, Alice M. Pury, Cynthia L. S. |
description | Through learning about and doing job analysis, industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists likely already possess skills and knowledge relevant to doing and understanding qualitative research. We'll illustrate this by showing similarities between common job analysis practices and one particular qualitative research approach likely to be relevant to organizational research: grounded theory. Grounded theory was “discovered” in 1967 by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Though Glaser and Strauss later split in their methodologies (an occurrence not unlike the varied approaches to job analysis), the core idea of grounded theory is to develop a new theory of some process or phenomenon from the “ground” up. In the grounded theory approach, researchers typically collect mostly qualitative data—often including interviews (Creswell, 2007)—and simultaneously develop increasingly abstract codes, concepts, and categories from the data. In the final step of analysis, researchers develop a theory that subsumes all categories from the data. If researchers follow the Straussian tradition, categories can be fit into a theoretical framework that details a central phenomenon underlying the process of interest and the conditions that precede it, result from it, and shape the resulting categories (Creswell, 2007). We illustrate this framework in Figure 1. Grounded theory is particularly useful for developing an accurate understanding of many organizational processes and phenomena that I-O psychologists study. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/iop.2016.86 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1853687713</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_iop_2016_86</cupid><sourcerecordid>4288631931</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-2497e1fa869294dfcb21adfd86f4f4a54879ca6cede96c89480589cbdd33b6d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpt0MtKAzEUBuAgCtbqyhcIuHAhU5NJJpO4K_VWbRGhG92EzCRp08ukJjNK396pLeLC1TkHPn4OPwDnGPUwwvm18-teijDrcXYAOjjPaCIooYe_e8qOwUmMc4QYSRHtgPdhfRnhyC0MvPWumkIFn3wB-5VabqKLN_DNN_C58l9w7IOB_cI3NXxt1NLVqnafBo5NPfM6wslMVT94rDbt4arFKTiyahnN2X52weT-bjJ4TEYvD8NBf5SUhLA6SanIDbaKM5EKqm1ZpFhpqzmz1FKVUZ6LUrHSaCNYyQXlKOOiLLQmpGCadMHFLnYd_EdjYi3nvgnt_1FinhHG8xyTVl3tVBl8jMFYuQ5upcJGYiS33cm2O7ntTnLW6mSv1aoITk_Nn9B__DfBxW_g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1853687713</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>It's Like Doing a Job Analysis: You Know More About Qualitative Methods Than You May Think</title><source>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</source><source>Cambridge University Press</source><creator>Brawley, Alice M. ; Pury, Cynthia L. S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brawley, Alice M. ; Pury, Cynthia L. S.</creatorcontrib><description>Through learning about and doing job analysis, industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists likely already possess skills and knowledge relevant to doing and understanding qualitative research. We'll illustrate this by showing similarities between common job analysis practices and one particular qualitative research approach likely to be relevant to organizational research: grounded theory. Grounded theory was “discovered” in 1967 by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Though Glaser and Strauss later split in their methodologies (an occurrence not unlike the varied approaches to job analysis), the core idea of grounded theory is to develop a new theory of some process or phenomenon from the “ground” up. In the grounded theory approach, researchers typically collect mostly qualitative data—often including interviews (Creswell, 2007)—and simultaneously develop increasingly abstract codes, concepts, and categories from the data. In the final step of analysis, researchers develop a theory that subsumes all categories from the data. If researchers follow the Straussian tradition, categories can be fit into a theoretical framework that details a central phenomenon underlying the process of interest and the conditions that precede it, result from it, and shape the resulting categories (Creswell, 2007). We illustrate this framework in Figure 1. Grounded theory is particularly useful for developing an accurate understanding of many organizational processes and phenomena that I-O psychologists study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1754-9426</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1754-9434</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/iop.2016.86</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Commentaries ; Data analysis ; Data collection ; Grounded theory ; Interviews ; Performance management ; Psychologists ; Psychology ; Qualitative research ; Research methodology ; Researchers ; Skills ; Theory ; Traditions</subject><ispartof>Industrial and organizational psychology, 2016-12, Vol.9 (4), p.753-760</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-2497e1fa869294dfcb21adfd86f4f4a54879ca6cede96c89480589cbdd33b6d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-2497e1fa869294dfcb21adfd86f4f4a54879ca6cede96c89480589cbdd33b6d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1853687713/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1853687713?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,27924,27925,36060,44363,72960,74895</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brawley, Alice M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pury, Cynthia L. S.</creatorcontrib><title>It's Like Doing a Job Analysis: You Know More About Qualitative Methods Than You May Think</title><title>Industrial and organizational psychology</title><addtitle>Ind. Organ. Psychol</addtitle><description>Through learning about and doing job analysis, industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists likely already possess skills and knowledge relevant to doing and understanding qualitative research. We'll illustrate this by showing similarities between common job analysis practices and one particular qualitative research approach likely to be relevant to organizational research: grounded theory. Grounded theory was “discovered” in 1967 by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Though Glaser and Strauss later split in their methodologies (an occurrence not unlike the varied approaches to job analysis), the core idea of grounded theory is to develop a new theory of some process or phenomenon from the “ground” up. In the grounded theory approach, researchers typically collect mostly qualitative data—often including interviews (Creswell, 2007)—and simultaneously develop increasingly abstract codes, concepts, and categories from the data. In the final step of analysis, researchers develop a theory that subsumes all categories from the data. If researchers follow the Straussian tradition, categories can be fit into a theoretical framework that details a central phenomenon underlying the process of interest and the conditions that precede it, result from it, and shape the resulting categories (Creswell, 2007). We illustrate this framework in Figure 1. Grounded theory is particularly useful for developing an accurate understanding of many organizational processes and phenomena that I-O psychologists study.</description><subject>Commentaries</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Grounded theory</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Performance management</subject><subject>Psychologists</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Research methodology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>Traditions</subject><issn>1754-9426</issn><issn>1754-9434</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNpt0MtKAzEUBuAgCtbqyhcIuHAhU5NJJpO4K_VWbRGhG92EzCRp08ukJjNK396pLeLC1TkHPn4OPwDnGPUwwvm18-teijDrcXYAOjjPaCIooYe_e8qOwUmMc4QYSRHtgPdhfRnhyC0MvPWumkIFn3wB-5VabqKLN_DNN_C58l9w7IOB_cI3NXxt1NLVqnafBo5NPfM6wslMVT94rDbt4arFKTiyahnN2X52weT-bjJ4TEYvD8NBf5SUhLA6SanIDbaKM5EKqm1ZpFhpqzmz1FKVUZ6LUrHSaCNYyQXlKOOiLLQmpGCadMHFLnYd_EdjYi3nvgnt_1FinhHG8xyTVl3tVBl8jMFYuQ5upcJGYiS33cm2O7ntTnLW6mSv1aoITk_Nn9B__DfBxW_g</recordid><startdate>201612</startdate><enddate>201612</enddate><creator>Brawley, Alice M.</creator><creator>Pury, Cynthia L. S.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201612</creationdate><title>It's Like Doing a Job Analysis: You Know More About Qualitative Methods Than You May Think</title><author>Brawley, Alice M. ; Pury, Cynthia L. S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-2497e1fa869294dfcb21adfd86f4f4a54879ca6cede96c89480589cbdd33b6d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Commentaries</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Grounded theory</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Performance management</topic><topic>Psychologists</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Research methodology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>Traditions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brawley, Alice M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pury, Cynthia L. S.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Industrial and organizational psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brawley, Alice M.</au><au>Pury, Cynthia L. S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>It's Like Doing a Job Analysis: You Know More About Qualitative Methods Than You May Think</atitle><jtitle>Industrial and organizational psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Ind. Organ. Psychol</addtitle><date>2016-12</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>753</spage><epage>760</epage><pages>753-760</pages><issn>1754-9426</issn><eissn>1754-9434</eissn><abstract>Through learning about and doing job analysis, industrial–organizational (I-O) psychologists likely already possess skills and knowledge relevant to doing and understanding qualitative research. We'll illustrate this by showing similarities between common job analysis practices and one particular qualitative research approach likely to be relevant to organizational research: grounded theory. Grounded theory was “discovered” in 1967 by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Though Glaser and Strauss later split in their methodologies (an occurrence not unlike the varied approaches to job analysis), the core idea of grounded theory is to develop a new theory of some process or phenomenon from the “ground” up. In the grounded theory approach, researchers typically collect mostly qualitative data—often including interviews (Creswell, 2007)—and simultaneously develop increasingly abstract codes, concepts, and categories from the data. In the final step of analysis, researchers develop a theory that subsumes all categories from the data. If researchers follow the Straussian tradition, categories can be fit into a theoretical framework that details a central phenomenon underlying the process of interest and the conditions that precede it, result from it, and shape the resulting categories (Creswell, 2007). We illustrate this framework in Figure 1. Grounded theory is particularly useful for developing an accurate understanding of many organizational processes and phenomena that I-O psychologists study.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/iop.2016.86</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1754-9426 |
ispartof | Industrial and organizational psychology, 2016-12, Vol.9 (4), p.753-760 |
issn | 1754-9426 1754-9434 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1853687713 |
source | ABI/INFORM Global (ProQuest); Cambridge University Press |
subjects | Commentaries Data analysis Data collection Grounded theory Interviews Performance management Psychologists Psychology Qualitative research Research methodology Researchers Skills Theory Traditions |
title | It's Like Doing a Job Analysis: You Know More About Qualitative Methods Than You May Think |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T20%3A10%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=It's%20Like%20Doing%20a%20Job%20Analysis:%20You%20Know%20More%20About%20Qualitative%20Methods%20Than%20You%20May%20Think&rft.jtitle=Industrial%20and%20organizational%20psychology&rft.au=Brawley,%20Alice%20M.&rft.date=2016-12&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=753&rft.epage=760&rft.pages=753-760&rft.issn=1754-9426&rft.eissn=1754-9434&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/iop.2016.86&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4288631931%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-2497e1fa869294dfcb21adfd86f4f4a54879ca6cede96c89480589cbdd33b6d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1853687713&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_iop_2016_86&rfr_iscdi=true |