Chapter 4. Methods of Discovery: Data, coding and theory generation
4.6 Developing a Theoretical Perspective
Developing a theoretical perspective from the data in grounded theory involves developing theoretical sensitivity, sorting and theoretically coding to identify relationships between categories and codes, achieving theoretical saturation of the main theoretical categories and finally integrating the grounded theoretical perspective with the wider extant literature. The methods adopted in this research are now described.
4.6.1 Theoretical Sensitivity
Although the title of Glaser’s second book (Glaser 1978) is ‘Theoretical Sensitivity’ not all texts cover this aspect of grounded theory research explicitly and yet for some (Birks and Mills, 2015; Holton and Walsh, 2017), it is central in the development of good grounded theories. Glaser and Strauss (1967, p46) refer to theoretical sensitivity as something which is necessary to ensure conceptualisation and the formulation of theory
109 from the data; something which is in continuous development. For Birks and Mills (2015) theoretical sensitivity refers to the researcher’s ability to extract elements from the data which are recognised as relevant to the developing theory; something that requires the researcher to view the data from multiple stand points.
While engaging with newly encountered theoretical perspectives brings added challenges for the researcher, viewing a familiar practice through previously untried theoretical lenses has also been a source of great joy and enlightenment in this research.
Examples of the way in which theoretical sensitivity can guide the research have already been outlined section 4.4 where the influence of literature regarding professional identity and status and the influence of gender, expertise, knowledge and skills were shown to have guided theoretical sampling. Theoretical sensitivity continues to play an important role as the researcher seeks to elevate categories conceptually. Furthermore, as the research proceeds, there is a reciprocity in process since theoretical questions arise from the data prompting the researcher to explore previously unconsidered perspectives and unfamiliar concepts in the wider theoretical literature. Memos capture such prompts; notions of master and apprentice and anthropological notions of knowledge making (Marchand 2010), sociological perspectives on the presentation of self (Goffman 1959) and philosophical and social theorist perspectives of governmentality, surveillance and power (Foucault 1972; Faubion 1994).
For Charmaz (2006; 2014) and for Corbin and Strauss (2008) the researcher can also increase theoretical sensitivity by drawing on personal experience (see earlier discussion about sensitising concepts in section 2.2). Birks and Mills (2015) point out that this use of personal experience is an explicit recognition of the researcher’s own history and is in contrast with other qualitative approaches where the researcher might be encouraged to bracket out such personal insights. It is however consistent with the constructivist stance adopted by the researcher in this inquiry and consistent with a constructivist grounded theorist approach in which a theory is generated through co-construction between participants and researcher.
110 The important distinction to recognise and to maintain is that in grounded theory, theoretical sensitivity is not akin to adopting a theoretical frame which shapes analysis.
The grounded theory researcher must remain alert to ensure that the purpose of engagement in sources of theoretical sensitivity is one of possibility and that ultimately, data are not forced to fit inadvertently with a given theoretical perspective, as Glaser (1992) cautions. The memo excerpts in Appendix I provide indicators of the researcher’s developing theoretical sensitivity.
4.6.2 Sorting and Theoretical Coding
With categories and sub-categories increasingly saturated, (see section 4.6.3 below) the researcher moves to a stage of coding in which the relationships between codes are established and a cohesive theoretical perspective constructed. Coding for the relationships between categories is referred to by Glaser (1978) as theoretical coding.
He wrote about the use of particular coding families to support the stage of coding but more recent grounded theory texts suggest other approaches can also be adopted.
Urquhart (2013) for example, refers to Spradley’s (1979) seven semantic relationships which the researcher in this inquiry found useful in identifying the relationships between codes: is a kind of; is a part of/a place in; is a way to; is used for; is a reason for, is a stage of; is a result/cause of, is a place for; is a characteristic of.
Charmaz (2014) also refers to theoretical codes as those which serve to integrate categories and which are drawn from prior theories. As previously indicated, the grounded theory process is not linear and in this later stage of analysis and theory construction, the researcher is drawing on early sensitising concepts and further theoretical sensitivity arising from the data and captured in memos, while continuing to ask questions of the categories.
A range of analytical activities proved useful as this point in the research process and memos were often supplemented or replaced by series of diagrams as the relationships between the codes and categories and between the core and sub categories were settled upon. Working with these approaches described, sorting and theoretical coding
111 of the forty-three selective codes set out in Appendix J led to the development of ten conceptual categories listed below:
• Socio-professional Factors
• Having a Platform for Practice
• Practice Demands
• Practice Anticipations
• Practitioner Uncertainty
• Practitioner Permeability
• Finding Sanctuary
• Engaging in Meta-practices
• Creating Conducive Conditions
• Recalibrating: Optimising practice/tolerating uncertainties
These ten conceptual categories can be regarded as the building blocks of the grounded theoretical perspective of supervision for AHPs presented in this thesis. The specific ways in which the categories have been related through the coding process is set out in chapters six and seven. It is in the theoretical coding phase that the relationships between these categories were gradually identified and elaborated to support the construction of a grounded theoretical perspective. To give a sense of the theoretical coding process, an example of a mind map exploring the category of ‘Socio-professional Factors’ using Spradley’s (1979) questions as a starting point to identify the relationships between categories is provided in Appendix K.
4.6.3 Theoretical Saturation
The concept of theoretical saturation was introduced and explored in chapter three.
Theoretical saturation signals the point at which a judgement is made that sufficient data have been gathered to support the construction of a theoretical perspective. In this research, as data gathered in October and November 2016 were added into the bank of data already gathered, the researcher noticed that further indicators arising from continued constant comparison did not add further theoretically (Holton and Walsh, 2017). The researcher judged that the main categories were sufficiently saturated to construct a substantive theory of supervision for AHPs; the indicator, attributed to Morse (1995, p148) and cited by Birks and Mills (2015, p96), that saturation is achieved. As confidence about the saturation of categories develops, there is a shift
112 to theoretical coding as discussed in section 4.6.2 and theoretical relationships between the categories can be established. Returning to figure 4, the reader will see that in April 2017, one further interview was gathered to further confirm the sufficiency of theoretical saturation.
4.6.4 Theoretical integration
Theoretical integration refers to relating the grounded theory to existing theory and literature from the substantive field. The ways in which different grounded theory researchers approach the integration of extant literature and theory has already been highlighted elsewhere in the thesis. This research sought to remain faithful to the notion of literature as a way to enhance theoretical sensitivity so as to avoid Glaser’s (1992) concern about the potential for literature and extant theory to contaminate, stifle and bias grounded theoretical discovery. Excerpts from memos generated during the research process illustrate how theoretical possibilities develop throughout the data generation and analysis phases of the research, (see Appendix I). This form of engagement with literature throughout the research process which aims to heighten the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity and the exploration of theoretical possibilities, has already been described in section 2.5.3a, as consistent with major versions of grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Charmaz 2014).
The integration of existing theory with the grounded theoretical perspective can provoke anxiety for the researcher as the many theoretical possibilities identified during the research process are too numerous to be captured in the final thesis with sufficient rigour and appraisal. In this research, it was not until the writing-up process when the core and related categories were more cemented, that it was possible to identify a theoretical focus for integration and to explore published literature and theory in relation to a delimited (Holton and Walsh, 2017), data-grounded theoretical perspective. It is at this point that the researcher can more clearly discern and appreciate the different ways in which the grounded theoretical perspective which has been constructed may be supported, elaborated and ultimately enriched by the extant literature.
113 While exploration of literature at the beginning of the research sought to provide a context for the substantive area of supervision for AHPs and literature considered during the process of constant comparison honed the researcher’s theoretical sensitivity, searching the literature to support theoretical integration was guided by the concepts which had been discovered in the data and by the grounded theoretical perspective which was constructed.
Earlier in section 2.5.2b reference was made to Kenny and Fourie’s (2015) observation that in Glaser’s view a constant comparison with published literature should be withheld until the end of the study and then conducted only if desired. In this research, although as described earlier in this section there had been engagement with literature to support theoretical sensitivity throughout, a more extensive exploration of literature was also undertaken once the grounded theoretical perspective had been constructed. Figure 4 illustrates how this theoretical integration took place towards the end of the research.
4.6.5 Presenting the theoretical perspective
In the second part of the thesis, from chapters five to ten, the findings from the research, discussion of the significance and contribution of these findings to the understanding of AHP supervision practice are presented. Chapter five provides an overview of the grounded theoretical perspective. Chapters six and seven demonstrate how concepts were developed from the participant accounts and related to therapist’s perspectives of supervision. Integration with extant literature is presented in chapter eight. The contribution of an integrated, constructivist grounded theoretical perspective to the understanding of AHP supervision is set out in chapter nine. Concluding thoughts are summarised in chapter ten.
114