Constant comparison

Constant comparison or constant comparative analysis arises as a result of concurrent data collection and analysis, which is a unique feature of grounded theory (Birks & Mills 2011:94). The researcher applied constant comparison by continuously comparing initial codes, concepts and categories with one another in an effort to identify both similarities and differences. This method ensured the researcher’s continuous engagement with the data and contributed to the generation and development of conceptual categories that aided in the abstraction of the substantive model.

2.6.4.10 Theoretical sampling

Charmaz (2014:192-212) defines theoretical sampling as “seeking pertinent data to develop your emerging theory”. Theoretical sampling is a distinctive feature of constructivist grounded theory. The need for theoretical sampling is informed by constant comparative analysis by making the researcher aware of issues that require expansion, clarification or confirmation (Birks & Mills 2011:69-70). In this study, theoretical sampling was applied by analysing the field notes and transcripts of each focus-group interview and using the resultant findings to direct the course of each subsequent focus-group interview.

2.6.5 Data integration

The objective of Phase 2 of this study was to integrate the findings of Sample A and Sample B obtained during Phase 1. The detailed findings of Phase 1 are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. The data integration process entailed comparing the themes, categories and subcategories obtained from of each sample, eliminating duplications

and incorporating differences. Sample A initially yielded four themes and nine categories and Sample B four themes and 12 categories. Further theoretical integration followed until there were four themes and 17 categories. In Chapter 5, the integrated findings are discussed in the context of the existing literature.

During data integration, in accordance with the principles of symbolic interactionism, the researcher focused on participants’ descriptions of those symbols in their surroundings that they found meaningful, on how they interpreted these in terms of symbolic meaning, on the processes of meaning-modifying interactions between participants – including their self-interaction – and the context within which these processes took place.

2.6.6 Model development

Phase 3 of the study involved the development of a substantive model. A detailed discussion on this process follows in Chapter 6. In order to ensure rigour and trustworthiness, the researcher provided the tentative model to a panel of expert reviewers for evaluation. The expert reviewers were selected, on recommendation by the study supervisor, based on their expertise and experience in nursing education, research, model development, grounded theory methodology and military strategy. The researcher developed an expert reviewer package containing an overview of the study, the tentative model, a description of the tentative model and an evaluation tool. Each expert reviewer was requested via email to evaluate the model. The expert reviewer package is available in Annexure J.

2.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Research involving human participants requires careful consideration of ethical issues that may emanate from the study. The researcher considered the three primary ethical principles on which research must be based, namely beneficence, respect for human dignity and justice as articulated in the Belmont Report (Polit & Beck 2016:139). This was done to ensure that the research was based on mutual trust, acceptance, cooperation, promises, well-accepted conventions and expectations (De Vos et al 2011:113).

2.7.1 Beneficence

The principle of beneficence requires that participants be protected from harm and discomfort. The researcher thus has the obligation to avoid, prevent or minimise risk, harm or discomfort whether it be physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual, social, economic or legal. The potential for emotional and psychological discomfort existed due to the strong ranking system of the military. The researcher attempted to curb this by insisting that all participants should wear civilian clothes during the focus-group interviews and that participants should avoid making use of ranks when addressing each other or the facilitator. The researcher did not foresee that any participant would be harmed but attempted to eliminate physical discomfort by finding a conducive venue for the focus-group interviews. Participants were encouraged to communicate any of the aforementioned forms of discomfort to the researcher so that these could be addressed immediately. Beneficence further entails the obligation to ensure maximum benefit to the participants. It is hoped that the participants will benefit from their contribution to this study when the findings are shared and the model implemented (De Vos et al 2011:1156, Polit & Beck 2016:139).

Participants also have the right to be protected from exploitation. The researcher thus has the obligation to protect vulnerable groups or people with diminished autonomy such as children and the mentally challenged from being exploited (De Vos et al 2011:115, Polit & Beck 2016:139). The students and even some of the nurse educators who participated in this study might have felt vulnerable because of the position of authority that the researcher held at the Nursing College. So as to forestall fears of potential exploitation by the researcher, participants were, through informed consent, ensured that they were in no way obliged to participate and would not be victimised as a result of not participating. The researcher guarded against using any form of exploitation. Protecting participants from exploitation also involved the avoidance of the use of power relations to benefit the study. The hierarchical nature of the SAMHS Nursing College put the researcher in a position of power. A person who had no ties with the military co-facilitated the focus-group interviews to neutralise the potential influence of existing power relations.