2.0. Introduction to CHAPTER TWO

Links to: Ideas; My Dissertation; Abstract; Table of contents; Lists; References; Bibliography; Appendices; Interviews; Coding; Memos; Notes; Categories; Chapter One; Chapter Two; Chapter Three; Chapter Four; Chapter Five; Chapter Six

This chapter introduces the literature around Open Access practices through self-archiving into IRs, by presenting a summary and a critical review of the relevant scholarly discourse. Furthermore, this chapter facilitates a brief examination of the extant literature related to theoretical frameworks influencing such practices, in particular the organisational, technical and motivational perspectives.

Para on structure (or not)

Three considerations guide the review of pertinent literature:

After careful consideration to some controversial Grounded Theory  approaches regarding literature reviews, as outlined below, the principle was adopted that any literature consulted to shed light on the research problem was selected "to enhance rather than constrain analysis" (Corbin and Strauss 2015 p. 49).

Originally warning against possession of any preconception on the subject and advising to "ignore the literature of theory and fact on the area under study" (Glaser and Strauss 1967 p. 3), subsequently, their rigid perceptions on this approach impelled the forefathers of GT to split over their own ideology, as observed by Dunne (2011), who likewise rejects the "call for abstinence from existing literature" (Dunne 2011 p. 114).

Another stance instructs that the original good intentions of steering researchers determined to work with exclusive empirical raw data in order to maintain originality in expanding existing knowledge were meant to "sharpen rather than blunt theoretical sensitivity" and "did not advise complete abstinence in this respect" (Dey 2007 p. 176).

Depicting on Gilovich’s arguments to use one's “ability to use context, generic knowledge and pre-existing information” (Gilovich 1993 p. 52), Dey (2007) also prudently urges the practitioner to ensure that any preconceptions and valid “understanding of philosophy and interpretative frameworks that inform a qualitative study” (Creswell 2018 p. 18) is thoroughly grounded in evidence, rather than avoided altogether.

Consequently a more flexible approach was preferred for this study, whereby all the researcher's previous knowledge on the subject being investigated, as well as knowledge from literature reviews performed for the research proposal was let to "lie fallow" (Charmaz 2006 p. 166), and accessed in parallel with the categories and their inherent relationships continually emerging from data collected in the field. This approach gladly embraces the fact that "the grounded theory research process is non-linear" (Dunne 2011 p. 120).

From Proposal:

The nature of grounded theory is to work mostly with data collected from the field, rather than have an a priori input of literature, to avoid potential bias and conceptual liability. Charmaz (2014) advises to still be informed by the literature, but rather enter the interaction with the field only armed with broad concepts for establishing direction in questioning and a tool for coding. One way to achieve this is by splitting the literature review into two categories: one for the purpose of the proposal, and one focusing more on the flow of analytical categories used in the coding (Gibbs 2015 06:08). For this purpose, the literature in point 3.1. is aimed at identifying gaps that justify the study and the literature in point 3.2. below is intended to outline a selection of perspectives and current vocabulary relevant for the interviewing and the coding practice.

3.1.3. Joining the “Extended Conversation”
(Locke, Spirduso and Silverman 2000 p. 63)

Previous research invites for a fresh look at the situation in the OA landscape. Applied to the process of researching, a novel perspective is the approach in Reed (2017) - a how-to-type of self-help, offering both practical and spiritual advice on keeping in control of challenging work through high motivation. This aspect is so valid, yet mostly overlooked.

Since constructivist grounded theory allows and even invites for the data to be “co-constructed” by blending the interviewer’s worldview into the interpretation of participants’ responses (Gibbs 2015 04:45), the writer’s previous experience in studies and applications of organisational behaviour overall will prove valuable in assimilating tendencies described in the literature, in understanding and empathising with participants while collecting/interpreting the data, and in contributing her efforts to scholarship.

This study is warranted for being a novel perspective of OA practices at RGU specifically, and it is desired that its findings will help in the preparation for the REF 2021.

Respecting the nature of grounded theory, remaining open to all the information is a required strategy in collecting the data. However, some broad relevant theoretical concepts will be selected for the starting point of the inquiry and for a general direction  in interviewing.