Cooperating in Academia with underspecified protocols: A case study of students and researchers practitioners of Grounded theory methodology (GTM).

Abstract

As scientific projects become increasingly cooperative, we can identify two approaches: the first one tends to distribute datawork among participants performing the same task while the other brings together different experts to work on the same data. Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) is frequently used for academic cooperative projects but does not clearly specify how cooperation should be organized. This paper aims to identify the different cooperative work practices of actors who use this method. We conducted a qualitative study combining semi-structured interviews with participant and non-participant observations involving social sciences researchers and students. We find that cooperation in GTM projects relies on continuous adjustments, informal task distribution, and digital artifacts not explicitly designed to support this methodology. Qualitative analysis tools incorporating coordination protocols are often perceived as too constraining, requiring actors to engage in additional articulation work. Based on these findings, we propose recommendations to improve the design of existing tools and design artifacts better suited to cooperative work in GTM. These artifacts would accommodate more adaptable and customizable protocols, facilitating task coordination and enhancing collaboration within research teams.