As described in Table 5, grounded theory as a qualitative research methodology, pledges to keep the exploration ‘grounded’ in the participants actions, processes and perceptions’ (Saldaña, 2013: 61). As a method it provides detailed guidance for conducting qualitative enquiry using a transparent, structured and systematic method
81 for data collection, processing and analysis (Charmaz, 2014: 14). An inductive
process of data collection, in that the researcher has no preconceived ideas to prove or disprove (Morse, 2001), rather, issues of importance emerge from the stories that participants relate (Ghezeljeh and Emami, 2009: 15).
Having critically compared the ability of each mode of enquiry, it is evident that grounded theory chimes with the research project’s aims and my desire to produce an emerging theory grounded in the respondents’ perspectives. However, on deeper exploration, I found tensions between the classic approach adopted within formal grounded theory in relation to my ontological and epistemological stance. I felt that ontologically, it was an historic approach, designed in response to a time and place in the research history of the early 1960’s when tensions between qualitative and quantitative research in social scientific enquiry were uppermost (Charmaz, 2014: 5), where positivist thought and practice was dominant and qualitative research was perceived as lacking in rigour, unsystematic in technique, lacking transparency, replicability and not generalizable (Creswell, 2013: 23). This means that classic grounded theory feels almost apologist, a technique bent on using qualitative method but with positivist aims, for example, in the technique of attempting impartiality and fostering objectivism by postponing the literature review.
As early as 1962, Kuhn in his book ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, showed doubt regarding objectivist research and the search for a single truth found only through observable data. As argued in section 3.3, the construction of reality lies with an individual; truth is, therefore, down to that individual and the implication that the
‘researcher can remain impartial in the research process is relegated to a naive point in history’ (Eisner, 1992: 9). It is now widely recognised that a researcher does affect
82 the research process and impact upon the participants (Toulmin, 1982, Eisner, 1992, Guba and Lincoln, 1994, Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, Cohen, Manion et al., 2007, Bryman, 2008, Creswell, 2013, Hammersley, 2013). In fact, constructivism takes this impact a step further by promoting and valuing the impact and fully putting it to work by the researcher co-constructing data alongside the participant.
I then needed to look at other options within the grounded theory framework. This led me to compare the classic grounded theory approach as first advocated by Glaser (1978) and subsequently Strauss and Corbin (1990); with the postmodern situational analysis undertaken by Clark (2005), and the constructivist grounded theory
approach developed by Charmaz (2006). To further illustrate the thought processes underpinning my research, in Table 7, I compare and contrasted their ontological, epistemological and theoretical positions, prior to synthesising my findings onto a decision-making framework. Thereby, maintaining transparency with regard to the reasoning behind the selection of a constructivist grounded theory approach.
Table 7: Grounded theory strategies: characteristics for selection and application to this study.
Grounded Theory Strategy Point of
comparison Objectivist or Classic Grounded Theory
Situational Analysis
Constructivist Grounded Theory
Theorist/s
Glaser Strauss and
Corbin Clark Charmaz
Ontology Realist Relativist Social Constructionist
83 although reality exists and can be uncovered by inquiry, it is never perfectly apprehensible (Guba and Lincoln, 1994)
Constructivism proposes that our view of reality is merely something constructed
in our heads and invented by us. We can never know reality; we can only ever have views of reality, and therefore our ideas
Methods Adopts similar strategies
as classic or objectivist
Simultaneous data collection and analysis.
Data coding begins as soon as there is data
Constant comparative methods.
Memo writing – construction of conceptual analyses and developing ideas.
Sampling to refine emerging theoretical ideas and integration of the theoretical framework.
84
Coding Initial Coding then describe open
Data Analysis Views data analysis as an objective process
Sees emergent categories as forming the analysis
Sees reflexivity as one possible form of data source
Gives priority to the researcher’s analytic categories and voice
Sees data and analysis as created from shared and how these affect the research through highly voices as integral to the analysis
Theory objectives
To create theory that fits, works, has relevance and is
modifiable/generalizable into a
‘substantive theory’ (Strauss, 1995)
To create theory that has credibility, originality, resonance and usefulness / practical application The researcher’s interpretative understanding of how participants create their understanding and meaning of reality is the intended result of the analysis
85
Accept/ ‘Reject
The positivist underpinnings to this approach are consistent throughout the research process and as such reject the notion of the benefits an ‘insider researcher’ can bring to understanding meaning of the participants. There is no methodological fit with the research aims, although the process of research is attractive because of its systematic structure which supports a detailed research timetable co-construction of data as a benefit, acknowledging the insider research stance using the intersubjectivity of the researcher as a plus.
This will support a clear research timetable enabling completion of the project within an expected timely manner as well as offering clear guidelines
Adapted from (Glaser, 1992, Clarke, 2003, Bryant and Charmaz, 2007, Corbin and Strauss, 2008, Ghezeljeh and Emami, 2009, Creswell, 2013, Charmaz, 2014)
It is evident from this appraisal that constructivist grounded theory would provide the best fit and was chosen.
Illustrated in Figure 6 is a model describing the broad phases my constructivist grounded theory processes will encompass.
86 Figure 6: A visual model of my constructivist grounded theory method and process.
Adapted from (Dick, 2007, Charmaz, 2014: 18)
As described in Figure 6, a pilot study for this research developed my researcher profile and helped me to take part in the reflexive process with a lens focussed on my techniques. For this pilot study/interview trial (see Gantt chart in Appendix 1 for schedule), I set up the process to ensure that all ethical considerations were in place, in case, as has been experienced by other constructivist grounded theory
researchers (Thomas, 2012, Hughes, 2013), the data was useful and subsequently incorporated in to the overall sample.