CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY

2.3.1 OVERVIEW AND KEY PRINCIPLES

Constructivism is a research paradigm that denies the existence of an objective reality

“asserting instead that realities are social constructions of the mind…although clearly many constructions will be shared” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p.43). This is in contrast with the relative position where concepts such as rationality, truth and reality must be understood as relative conceptual frameworks (Bernstein, 1983). Thus, relativists assume that the world consists of multiple individual realities influenced by context (Mills et al., 2006).

Constructivism highlights the subjective interrelationship between researcher and participant and the co-construction of meaning (Hayes and Oppenheim, 1997; Pidgeon & Henwood, 1997); researchers are part of the research endeavour rather than objective observers, and their values, beliefs and worldviews must be acknowledged by themselves and by readers in order that readers can evaluate how the authors have interpreted the data and be able to

63

consider alternative meanings in light of their, the readers, values and worldview (e.g.

Appleton, 1997; Stratton, 1997). Thus, constructivist grounded theory actively repositions the researcher as the author of a reconstruction of experience and meaning (Mills et al., 2006).

Charmaz (2006) defines constructivist grounded theory as:

“a [qualitative] method...that focusses on creating conceptual frameworks or theories through inductive analysis from data. Hence, analytic categories are directly ‘grounded’ in data… it involves the researcher in data analysis while collecting data – we use data analysis to inform and shape further data collection. Thus, distinction between data collection &

analysis [in]traditional research is intentionally blurred in grounded theory studies” (p.188).

Charmaz (2006) suggests this differs from objectivist grounded theory, a form of ‘positivist’

qualitative research where researchers assume the position of a neutral observer who remain separate from participants’ and analyse participant worlds from the position of an outside expert. Constructivist grounded theory, alternatively, “assumes the relativism of multiple social realities, recognises the mutual creation of knowledge by the viewer and the viewed, and aims towards an interpretive understanding of subject’s meanings” (Charmaz, 2006 p.

250). By doing this, instead of discovering patterns within the data, the analysis is conducted through an interactive process where researcher and participant co-construct a shared reality, and rather than looking for a main concern, seek to construct a picture that draws from, resembles and renders subjects’ lives. Researchers attempt to enter the phenomenon, gain multiple views of it, and locate it in its web of connections and constraints, whilst

acknowledging that their interpretation of the studied phenomenon is itself a construction (Charmaz, 2006).

2.3.2 RATIONALE FOR USE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY

Strauss and Corbin (1998) assert that a grounded theory methodology is often used to develop theories about phenomena about which little is known or understood. Given that little is known about the constructs of resilience and coping in the asylum seeking population, it was decided that this was an appropriate qualitative methodology to use for the research. Use of a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2000; 2006) was considered appropriate as this would enable any developing theory about the ways in which asylum seekers cope to be grounded in the participants narratives to the greatest extent possible, whilst

acknowledging that the author is co-constructing these narratives. The researcher was also curious about the ways in which processes at different stages of the asylum journey interact

64

for participants’, and constructivist grounded theory allows for exploration of such processes (Charmaz, 2006). The theory that emerges from the data will offer the author’s interpretation of the world of coping as experienced by asylum seekers, in contrast to a complete theory. It is acknowledged that other qualitative approaches (such as Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, IPA) could have also been used; this particular approach would have provided an understanding of individual participant lived-experience. However, the researcher was curious about the ways in which multiple perspectives from participants’ could be drawn together in an overall theoretical conceptualisation, and constructivist grounded theory allows for this (Charmaz, 2006). By drawing on multiple participant experiences, it is possible to obtain a richer understanding of the complexities of the asylum seeker experience across different aspects of their journeys; these multiple perspectives and experiences can be

‘knitted together’ into a theory using this methodology.

A further rationale for the use of Constructivist Grounded Theory is the match between the underpinning epistemological position of this methodology and the authors own

epistemological position (including worldview and values). Willig (2008) suggests that a fit between the position of the researcher and the methodology which they use is important in enabling the researcher in the process of enquiry for the research. The researcher has provided a statement pertaining to beliefs and worldview (see Section 2.4.1.1), which attempts to illustrate that these beliefs are compatible with the epistemological position of Constructivist Grounded Theory; this provides a further rationale for the use of this methodology.

2.3.3 THE CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY PROCESS

Grounded theory can utilise almost any form of qualitative data (e.g. Pidgeon, 1996), but in this study, data was transcripts of audio recordings from semi-structured interviews. The process of constructivist grounded theory involves a number of practices including initial coding (e.g. line-by-line coding), focussed coding, memo-writing, categorisation, constant comparative analysis, negative case analysis and ‘triangulation’ (where emergent themes are checked with other relevant persons for the purposes of providing alternative perspectives on data). These processes are described in Section 2.9, though it is important to recognise that stages are not discrete but repeating processes occurring simultaneously, allowing the researcher to ground the theory in the data (Willig, 2008).

65