{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015137180700094607, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001892147587511826, 'mean_word_length': 4.8264462809917354, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Review: An animated model for facilitating understanding of Grounded Theory and the processes used to generate substantive theory

Developments in information technology (IT) have given us program applications capable of generating categories from open and axial coded data. This has been applauded by a great many grounded theory (GT) students because it saves time in the inputting of data via a keyboard to the receiving of labelled categories for distinctive phenomena. The next logical step is the development of an animated GT model. The authors are to be congratulated as it is clear from the depiction of how the animated model works that much effort and thought has gone into it. The raison d’être of scientific thought processes is the advancement of knowledge and understanding. For GT students struggling to come to grips with an understanding of the mechanics of GT, or who have a mass of data collection to sift, the model will be a welcome tool. However, there is a practical dilemma for scientists in the exposition of new and advanced thinking, because the longer-term consequences may not in all cases be predictable, but which in the passage of history become apparent. Kuhn (1970) explained how scientific paradigms come into being, and the advent of IT and its current ascendency in virtually every field is another aspect of this. The dilemma for grounded theorists is, will the use of a computer model for the purpose of generating a GT reduce our reliance on our own cognitive processes? The authors emphasise that their animated model is a useful guide to understanding how to navigate the processes involved in conducting a GT and that the model is not meant to be a process in itself ‘for shortening the rigorous processes involved in GT’. This statement is welcomed because without this assurance there is a risk of the understanding of the GT methodology and associated methods being subsumed and eventually lost. In GT the researcher is both the instrument of data collection and the analytical interpreter. The extent of researcher immersion in the data is vital if ‘data fit’ to the