Constructivist grounded theory

The research is based upon constructivist grounded theory, using methods of coding and categorising of the core elements of narrative practices. Through interpretation and integration of theological and practical aspects it aims to develop a fresh model of education. Since its introduction to the field of qualitative research by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, grounded theory has gathered a few critics.41 _{Critique did not diminish its use but rather}

refined its basic principles. These new developments provided a framework for this research that aligns with Kathy Charmaz and Antony Bryant’s definition.

Grounded theory is a method of qualitative inquiry in which researchers develop inductive theoretical analyses from their collected data and subsequently gather further data to check these analyses. The purpose of grounded theory is theory construction, rather than description or application of existing theories.42

37 _{Graham, Is Practical Theology, 159.} 38 _{Graham, Is Practical Theology, 160.}

39 _{Graham, Is Practical Theology, 172. Italics by Graham.} 40 _{Graham, Is Practical Theology, 177-178.}

41 _{Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research,}

(Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1967).

42 _{Kathy Charmaz and Antony Bryant, “Grounded Theory and Credibility,” in Qualitative Research: Issues of}

Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd _{ed., ed. David Silverman (London: SAGE Publications, 2011), 291-309. Quote}

Charmaz and Bryant emphasise that grounded theory method (GTM) “is far and away the most widely claimed qualitative method in recent and current sociological and social research literature.”43 _{Criticism is often related to methodological claims and knowledge production.}

In defence, authors review Glaser and Strauss’ initial formulations of GTM and then point to innovative features from the 1990’s until today as “sufficiently robust responses” to this critique. One response that both authors initiate and represent, develops a constructivist form of GTM that they describe as “much more a case of reinterpretation or restating of the principles of the method than a new formulation.”44 _{Elsewhere Charmaz indicates that}

researchers locate themselves in researched realities and that a “constructivist approach emphasizes the studied phenomenon rather than the methods of studying it.”45

Charmaz and Bryant evaluate the credibility of constructivist GTM by addressing three issues: credible data; analytic credibility; and theoretical credibility. Some critics focused on a perceived epistemological weakness so it is important to establish credible data first because the “credibility of grounded theory starts from ground up. The quality and sufficiency of the data for accomplishing the research goals matter.”46 _{A constructivist revision of grounded}

theory prioritises “gathering detailed data and treats both data and data collection as located in temporal, spatial, social and situational conditions.”47 _{Constructivists therefore remain alert}

to both researcher and participant starting points and their own standpoints, and look for shifts and development. For constructivists “data do not simply reside in an external world but instead reflect the particular conditions of its production” and this in turn encourages “locating the data and analysis in these conditions.”48 _{Charmaz and Bryant describe non-verbal}

interaction that influences co-construction of the interview process and challenges the relative power positions of the researcher and the participant around control of the interview.

43 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 294. Italics by authors.} 44 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 297.}

45 _{Kathy Charmaz, “Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social Justice Studies,“ in}

Denzin and Lincoln, “Handbook,” 507-535. Quote from page 509.

46 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 298.} 47 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 298.} 48 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 298-299.}

At some points this becomes a “silent dialogue” where conversations become “more than words alone” and where both sides “may tacitly construct and negotiate meanings that influence what can and will be said.”49 _{In this research for example, there was a predictable}

emergence of topics focusing on the integration of Christian theology, values and spirituality. Many interviewees were cautious about languaging their experience, for good reason. They met me for the first time on the interview day, and they were unaware of my positions on Christian theology, values and spirituality. They were well aware this is a ‘theological’ study conducted by a perceived ‘expert’ theologian, and that it was all recorded. Consequently more refined, sensitive probing is necessary and “constructivist grounded theory emphasizes going into emergent phenomena and defining their properties.”50 _{To break down phenomena a}

researcher commences with “What” and “How” questions that bring an “analytic edge to the data collection” and “shape a subsequent theoretical analysis” that “leads toward explicating processes.”51 _{“When” questions encourage specific data about “conditions under which the}

studied phenomenon or process occurs or changes” and help researchers to uncover “specific meanings and actions” through given sequences of the story.52

Referring to analytic credibility Charmaz and Bryant note that “grounded theory coding differs from other types of coding because it codes for actions, invokes comparative methods, and discerns meanings through studying actions and events.”53 _{They emphasize the importance of}

the initial coding sequence, advocating for pivotal use of gerunds in the line-by-line coding process. Constructivists describe coding as emergent and interactive where “collecting and identifying themes is the primary way qualitative researchers process and analyse data”54 _and

call for “the robustness and usefulness of codes through comparative analysis” where credibility is established “by the strength of both the analytic concepts and claims, and the evidence to support them.”55

49 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 299.} 50 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 301.} 51 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 301-302.}

52 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 302. See also Bruce L. Berg, Qualitative Research Methods for the} Social Sciences.3rd. ed., (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998), especially Chapter Three: “A Dramaturgical Look at

Interviewing.”

53 _{Charmaz and Bryant, Grounded Theory, 303.}

54 _{Tim Sensing, Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses,}

(Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2011), 202.

Analytic credibility leads to theoretical credibility and this is where grounded theory’s greatest strength resides. Theoretical sampling “allows you to choose the population to study based on the theoretical constructs of your project”56 _{and then to “fill out the properties of tentative}

categories, not to increase representativeness of their initial sample.”57 _{By going back and}

forth to the same people or research setting the researcher may also use theoretical sampling “to increase the depth and precision of their categories and their knowledge of the studied people and their situations.”58 _{The researcher’s use of an iterative process reveals grounded}

theory’s analytic strength.

Mills, Bonner and Francis59 _{describe constructivist grounded theory as “ontologically relativist}

and epistemologically subjectivist.” This highlights the functional role of the researcher as an author whose reality window is not provided exclusively by word-based data because “the ‘discovered’ reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural, and structural context.” This researcher is therefore a co-producer with participants, producing data and meanings “as the author of a co-construction of experience and meaning … an important next step in grounded theory research.”