1
Running head: GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS
Commodifying Self: A Grounded Theory Study Analysis
EDCI 6300
Dr. Zhidong Zhang
Rodolfo Ramirez
2
Running head: GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS
Commodifying Self: A Grounded Theory Study Analysis
Introduction
Grounded Theory maintains four very important set of criteria. The criteria are as
follows: fit, understanding, generality and control. The following analysis utilizes the criteria of
the characteristics of grounded theory to establish whether or not Roderick’s study follows the
proper methodology or not. The analysis will also determine whether Roderick makes a valid,
well-supported argument considering his data. The analysis of the data and type of data used is
quintessential to the validity of this study.
Fit
According to Johnson and Christensen, when determining whether or not a theory is
valid, first the theory must fit the actual data for it to be useful (2008). Theories must correspond
closely to real-world data. A flawed or invalid theory more closely relates to the author’s
personal bias. Roderick’s data was compiled from interviews and the analysis of literature of past
studies, but it was also derived from interviews, theoretical sampling of additional groups, field
notes and memos written from data collected which Roderick completed on his own (Roderick,
2010). Roderick also look at quantitative data coming from surveys conducted by the Canadian
Undergraduate Survey Consortium and the National Survey of Student Engagement, but he
strayed from making any assumptions or conclusions solely on this data as he feels the validity
of surveys highlighting general trends and answers nonreflecting of the concerns the study deals
with are not useful or fit for use.
Understanding
According to Johnson and Christensen, a valid theory offers a clearly stated and readily
understandable thesis. This theory should be clear to people working in the substantive area, but
3
Running head: GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS
it should also be understandable to those who are not (2008). Roderick’s theory is clearly labeled
in his article and postulates students in their senior year of undergraduate study encounter
considerable pressure to commodify themselves. He also adds individuals respond to this
pressure in three ways: by complying with commodification, resisting commodification, or
humanizing commodification (Roderick, 2010). Although Roderick puts forth that he conducted
his research without a specific theory in mind, it is quite apparent he is driven by this theoretical
notion.
Generality
According to Johnson and Christensen, the scope of a theory should not be so specific
that the theory only applies to one set of people. Also, a theory should be not only specific to a
small group or a single set of groups but must be addressed at a higher conceptual level for it to
be well grounded (2008).
Roderick claims to have attempted to understand the core concern of graduating students
and how they attempted to process or resolve this concern by directing his research towards
developing and validating emerging hypotheses ceasing data collection when the theory’s
variables and interrelations were saturated (2010). Already, initially Roderick opens the scope of
his research and study by not restricting herself to any one single hypothesis making this study
much more grounded in a wider scheme of data.
Roderick also moved to the theoretical level by writing memos at a conceptual level and
constantly comparing findings to zero in on the best hypotheses. Even then, Roderick
continuously added new data and changed his hypothetical standing throughout his research to
arrive at the best conclusion and avoiding going from the conceptual level to a lower descriptive
level (Roderick, 2010). So, Roderick made a well-documented effort to try and maintain the
4
Running head: GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS
theory and research at the wider conceptual level before turning to the specifics of the
experiences he was documenting. This maintains an adequate level of generality for this theory.
Although Roderick does mention the sampling in this study was limited to those who are
part of the millennial generation this does not really invalidate her research or theory as it still is
very useful and contributive. The research and theory is very useful to students, faculty and
student affairs and services professionals, and institutional and policy stakeholders (Roderick,
2010). This already displays how the theory may, in its generality, be very useful to a large group
of people which is integral to its validity as a grounded theory.
Control
A theory must have controllable variables. This is necessary as to allow the theorist to
have some control over the phenomenon that is explained by the theory (Johnson & Christensen,
2008). In this instance, the variables are readily available across the United States at every
university with graduating seniors. The social pressures Roderick mentions also constantly exist.
Of course, the increase or decrease of these pressures such as the growing or suffering economy
is outside of the control of the theorist, but for the most part all graduating seniors face the same
variations of pressures. Amounting pressures graduating seniors face can be simulated in a test to
gather research if necessary, so the theorist can maintain control of the theory.
Conclusion
Considering the criteria set forth for the characteristics of grounded theory, the analysis
concludes this study clearly displays fitness, understandability, generality, and controllability
according to what Roderick explains in this short article. Roderick utilizes a lot of qualitative
data instead of quantitative data but does so with a purpose, and she really makes an effort to
maintain the proper grounded-theory methodology throughout the study.
5
Running head: GROUNDED THEORY ANALYSIS
References
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. B. (2008). Educational research, quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Sage Publications, Inc.
Roderick, C. (2010). Commodifying self: A grounded theory study. The Grounded Theory
Review, 9(1), 41-64.