1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Commerce
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 修正式紮根理論在商業的質性分析方法的應用
Application of Modified Grounded Theory in Business Qualitative Analysis
作者 沈廷翼
Shen, Ting-Yi
貢獻者 別蓮蒂
沈廷翼
Shen,Ting-Yi
關鍵詞 內容分析法
紮根理論
卡片分類法
研究方法
商業質性分析
消費者行為研究
Content analysis
Grounded theory
Card sorting
Research method
Business Qualitative Analysis
Consumer behavior research
日期 2019
上傳時間 5-Sep-2019 17:37:44 (UTC+8)
摘要 在商業環境變化快速的現代，商業的質性分析方法亦需要更具有效率的分析方法，以貼近消費者的需求。本研究的目的有三：其一為探討紮根理論應用特性；其二為透過卡片分類法增加紮根理論在事例分類的效率；其三透過演繹法及聯想法相關類別，以達到詳盡的分析結果。\n本研究探討內容分析法、個案研究法、紮根理論等研究方法中，適用於修改的紮根理論方法的步驟，結合卡片排序方法，形成修正的紮根理論，建構一個可以從質性資料中，以標準化的分析過程，快速提取分析結果的方法。\n本研究使用自2017年10月至2018年2月蒐集的35位受訪者訪談的次級資料，並以抽樣標準選擇其中8個個案進行分析，用以比對傳統紮根理論與修正式紮根理論兩者的分析差異。\n修正式紮根理論納入卡片分類法，使編碼的內容得以運用摘句的字卡分類，達到傳統紮根理論的主軸編碼的效果，並由字卡上註記分析備忘錄的便利貼，可在分類的同時，重新檢視字卡分類的合理性，讓研究在找尋主軸的過程更為效率化，並在有限的經費與分析的時間內，完成最終的分析結論，並使分析歷程簡單化，讓研究者能輕易上手。\n整體而言，修正式紮根理論可使研究者，在少部分的減損分析結果的類別，卻大幅減少分析者認知負荷的前提下，使商業的質性分析方法能快速得到結論，以因應商業需要快速迭代的需求分析。
In a modern and fast-changing business environment, business analytics also requires more efficient analytical methods for commercial use to understand the needs of consumers.\nThe three purposes for this study including exploring the application characteristics of grounded theory, increasing the efficiency of grounded theory classification in cases through card sorting method, and diversifying categories and meeting exhaustive categories results by the deductive method and inductive method.\nThe study explored the content analysis method, the case study method, and the grounded theory. The steps applied to the modified grounded theory method incorporates the card sorting method to form a modified grounded theory. This method focuses on constructing a modified method of quickly qualitative data analysis method which can extract the analysis results by a standardized analysis process.\nThe study collected secondary data from 35 interviewees from October 2017 - February 2018. Then, it selected 8 out of 35 cases for analysis based on sampling criteria to contrast the result of the traditional grounded theory to the modified grounded theory.\nThe card sorting method is incorporated into the modified grounded theory classifying the content of the code by the word card of the sentence achieving the effect of the axial coding of the traditional grounded theory.\nMarking the analysis memo on the sticky notes, which re-examine the cards classified into the right classification improves the efficiency of the main axis` searching process. Moreover, it completes the final analysis conclusion in the limited funding and analysis time. It is also easier for researchers to launch with the simplification of the process.\nUpon the whole, the modified grounded theory feats the use of fast-paced commercial changes. After all, it allows researchers to reach conclusions based on few categories impairment on analysis results, while significantly reducing the cognitive load of the researchers.
參考文獻 1.Berthelsen, C. B. Lindhardt, T., & Frederiksen, K. (2017). A discussion of differences in preparation, performance and postreflections in participant observations within two grounded theory approaches. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 31(2), 413-420.\n2.Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering’chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine, 30(11), 1161-1172.\n3.Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory In Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L,(eds) Rethinking Methods in Psychology. In: London: Sage.\n4.Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. Handbook of Constructionist Research, 1, 397-412.\n5.Charmaz, K. & Belgrave, L. L. (2007). Grounded theory. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 27-49.\n6.Corbin, J. M. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.\n7.Corbin, J. Strauss, A. & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research. In: USA: Sage.\n8.Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., Sartore, M. L., Amsden, M. L., & Schellhase, A. (2004). Gender representation in the NCAA News: Is the glass half full or half empty? Sex Roles, 50(11-12), 861-870.\n9.Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.\n10.Fincher, S. & Tenenberg, J. (2005). Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22(3), 89-93.\n11.Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.\n12.Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.\n13.Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38.\n14.Glaser, B. G. (2016). Open coding descriptions. Grounded Theory Review, 15(2), 108-110.\n15.Glaser, B. G. & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Grounded theory. Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.\n16.Goulding, C. (1999). Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities. European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 859-873.\n17.Heath, H. & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: A comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies.\n18.Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8-18.\n19.Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3), 239-245.\n20.Martin, P. Y. & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157.\n21.Soranzo, A. & Cooksey, D. (2015). Testing taxonomies: beyond card sorting. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 41(5), 34-39.\n22.Spencer, D. (2009). Card Sorting: Designing Usable Categories: In USA :Rosenfeld Media.\n23.Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8.\n24.Turner, B. A. (1981). Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: one way of organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, 15(3), 225-247.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程)
106363102
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1063631023
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 別蓮蒂zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 沈廷翼zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Shen,Ting-Yien_US
dc.creator (作者) 沈廷翼zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Shen, Ting-Yien_US
dc.date (日期) 2019en_US
dc.date.accessioned 5-Sep-2019 17:37:44 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 5-Sep-2019 17:37:44 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Sep-2019 17:37:44 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1063631023en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=144430-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 企業管理研究所(MBA學位學程)zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 106363102zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在商業環境變化快速的現代，商業的質性分析方法亦需要更具有效率的分析方法，以貼近消費者的需求。本研究的目的有三：其一為探討紮根理論應用特性；其二為透過卡片分類法增加紮根理論在事例分類的效率；其三透過演繹法及聯想法相關類別，以達到詳盡的分析結果。\n本研究探討內容分析法、個案研究法、紮根理論等研究方法中，適用於修改的紮根理論方法的步驟，結合卡片排序方法，形成修正的紮根理論，建構一個可以從質性資料中，以標準化的分析過程，快速提取分析結果的方法。\n本研究使用自2017年10月至2018年2月蒐集的35位受訪者訪談的次級資料，並以抽樣標準選擇其中8個個案進行分析，用以比對傳統紮根理論與修正式紮根理論兩者的分析差異。\n修正式紮根理論納入卡片分類法，使編碼的內容得以運用摘句的字卡分類，達到傳統紮根理論的主軸編碼的效果，並由字卡上註記分析備忘錄的便利貼，可在分類的同時，重新檢視字卡分類的合理性，讓研究在找尋主軸的過程更為效率化，並在有限的經費與分析的時間內，完成最終的分析結論，並使分析歷程簡單化，讓研究者能輕易上手。\n整體而言，修正式紮根理論可使研究者，在少部分的減損分析結果的類別，卻大幅減少分析者認知負荷的前提下，使商業的質性分析方法能快速得到結論，以因應商業需要快速迭代的需求分析。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In a modern and fast-changing business environment, business analytics also requires more efficient analytical methods for commercial use to understand the needs of consumers.\nThe three purposes for this study including exploring the application characteristics of grounded theory, increasing the efficiency of grounded theory classification in cases through card sorting method, and diversifying categories and meeting exhaustive categories results by the deductive method and inductive method.\nThe study explored the content analysis method, the case study method, and the grounded theory. The steps applied to the modified grounded theory method incorporates the card sorting method to form a modified grounded theory. This method focuses on constructing a modified method of quickly qualitative data analysis method which can extract the analysis results by a standardized analysis process.\nThe study collected secondary data from 35 interviewees from October 2017 - February 2018. Then, it selected 8 out of 35 cases for analysis based on sampling criteria to contrast the result of the traditional grounded theory to the modified grounded theory.\nThe card sorting method is incorporated into the modified grounded theory classifying the content of the code by the word card of the sentence achieving the effect of the axial coding of the traditional grounded theory.\nMarking the analysis memo on the sticky notes, which re-examine the cards classified into the right classification improves the efficiency of the main axis` searching process. Moreover, it completes the final analysis conclusion in the limited funding and analysis time. It is also easier for researchers to launch with the simplification of the process.\nUpon the whole, the modified grounded theory feats the use of fast-paced commercial changes. After all, it allows researchers to reach conclusions based on few categories impairment on analysis results, while significantly reducing the cognitive load of the researchers.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 致謝辭 II\n摘要 III\n第一章 緒論 1\n第一節 研究背景與動機 1\n第二節 研究目的 3\n第二章 文獻回顧 4\n第一節 符號互動論 4\n第一節 內容分析法 6\n第二節 個案研究法 7\n第三節 紮根理論的發展 11\n第四節 卡片分類法 17\n第五節 理論缺口 19\n第三章 研究方法 20\n第一節 研究架構 20\n第二節 紮根理論 22\n第一項 開放式編碼 22\n第二項 主軸編碼 22\n第三項 選擇編碼 23\n第三節 修正式研究方法 24\n第一項 卡片解讀 24\n第二項 卡片分類法 24\n第三項 選擇編碼 24\n第四節 樣本來源 25\n第五節 樣本輪廓 26\n第六節 分析樣本 27\n第一項 同質性抽樣 28\n第二項 最大差異抽樣 28\n第三項 強度抽樣 28\n第七節 評分者間信度 30\n第四章 研究結果 34\n第二節 紮根理論操作方法 34\n第一項 開放式編碼 34\n第二項 主軸編碼 34\n第三項 選擇性編碼 34\n第四項 理論性抽樣 34\n第二節 修正式紮根理論操作方法 36\n第一項 定義範疇 36\n第二項 卡片解讀 36\n第三項 卡片分類法 37\n第四項 對比個案分析 41\n第三節 紮根理論實際操作 42\n第一項 開放式編碼 42\n第二項 主軸編碼 46\n第三項 選擇編碼 49\n第四節 修正式紮根理論實際操作 51\n第一項 定義範疇 51\n第二項 卡片解讀 51\n第三項 卡片分類法 54\n第四項 同質性抽樣 57\n第五項 最大差異個案比較 58\n第六項 強度抽樣個案比較 61\n第七項 選擇編碼 62\n第五節 紮根理論與修正式紮根理論的比較 64\n第一項 方法異同 64\n第二項 各環節異同 66\n第三項 結論異同 68\n第五章 結論與建議 69\n第一節 結論與貢獻 69\n第一項 結論 69\n第二項 應用意涵 71\n第二節 研究限制與後續研究建議 73\n第一項 研究限制 73\n第二項 後續研究建議 73\n第六章 參考文獻 75zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2117332 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1063631023en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 內容分析法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 紮根理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 卡片分類法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 研究方法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 商業質性分析zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 消費者行為研究zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Content analysisen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Grounded theoryen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Card sortingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Research methoden_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Business Qualitative Analysisen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Consumer behavior researchen_US
dc.title (題名) 修正式紮根理論在商業的質性分析方法的應用zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Application of Modified Grounded Theory in Business Qualitative Analysisen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 1.Berthelsen, C. B. Lindhardt, T., & Frederiksen, K. (2017). A discussion of differences in preparation, performance and postreflections in participant observations within two grounded theory approaches. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 31(2), 413-420.\n2.Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering’chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science & Medicine, 30(11), 1161-1172.\n3.Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory In Smith JA, Harre R, Van Langenhove L,(eds) Rethinking Methods in Psychology. In: London: Sage.\n4.Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method. Handbook of Constructionist Research, 1, 397-412.\n5.Charmaz, K. & Belgrave, L. L. (2007). Grounded theory. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 27-49.\n6.Corbin, J. M. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.\n7.Corbin, J. Strauss, A. & Strauss, A. L. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research. In: USA: Sage.\n8.Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., Sartore, M. L., Amsden, M. L., & Schellhase, A. (2004). Gender representation in the NCAA News: Is the glass half full or half empty? Sex Roles, 50(11-12), 861-870.\n9.Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.\n10.Fincher, S. & Tenenberg, J. (2005). Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22(3), 89-93.\n11.Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354.\n12.Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436-445.\n13.Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23-38.\n14.Glaser, B. G. (2016). Open coding descriptions. Grounded Theory Review, 15(2), 108-110.\n15.Glaser, B. G. & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Grounded theory. Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.\n16.Goulding, C. (1999). Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities. European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 859-873.\n17.Heath, H. & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory approach: A comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies.\n18.Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1), 8-18.\n19.Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years? Journal of Management Inquiry, 5(3), 239-245.\n20.Martin, P. Y. & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157.\n21.Soranzo, A. & Cooksey, D. (2015). Testing taxonomies: beyond card sorting. Bulletin of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 41(5), 34-39.\n22.Spencer, D. (2009). Card Sorting: Designing Usable Categories: In USA :Rosenfeld Media.\n23.Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8.\n24.Turner, B. A. (1981). Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: one way of organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, 15(3), 225-247.zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201900851en_US