Methodological contributions

The research design pertinent to this research and its application was expanded on in Chapter 2. The constructivist grounded theory approach, procedures and methodological strategies, were employed, providing a clear explanation of the process. The iterative process I followed in data collection and analysis were detailed throughout the study. The development of categories, themes and interpretation of data proved that it is possible that another researcher may conduct the same study, develop and label themes differently and interpret data differently.

The application of constructivist grounded theory as a methodological approach to exploring the reality of bullying in the workplace provided insightful understanding of the phenomenon and HR practitioners’ perspectives. At first I struggled to execute grounded theory, thinking it was complicated, but my supervisor advised me to create a roadmap for myself, referred me to qualitative research sources from the outset, and discussed constructivist grounded theory as an alternative application of classical grounded theory methodology. I then followed Charmaz (2006), Crotty (2005) and Glaser and Strauss (1967) on how to execute grounded theory (as explained in Chapter 2) and my inspiration grew, with constructivist grounded theory methodologies and approaches. Thus, I recognise that qualitative grounded theory is not necessarily a suitable approach for some as it requires a researcher to exhaustively engage, explore and reveal unknown meaningful information about the subject under study and be able to set out personal thoughts and emotions (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1994).

Reflecting on the potential methodological contribution, grounded theory coding analysis was used to ascertain themes and patterns of interrelationships identified because they captured insightful and meaningful aspects of the data and linked with the research

objectives. I applied the coding framework in the following way, which may be slightly different from those used by other qualitative researchers:

(i) in open coding - categories identified represented the primary outcome of the open coding phase,

(ii) in axial coding - open coding categories were combined in this axial coding phase as sub-categories under different categories, and

(iii) in selective coding - categories identified in axial coding phase were organised as sub-themes.

(iv) theoretical sampling was used as a strategy to explore other data sources that would provide appropriate and relevant data which could be used to explain the phenomenon and build new substantive theory.

There are several avenues present when analysing and interpreting from a constructivist grounded theory methodology perspective (Charmaz, 2006, 2011) and is meaningfully supported by qualitative researchers (Bryant, 2002; Dey, 1999; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Whilst I chose to follow the methodological guidance of Charmaz (2011) and Glaser and Strauss (1967) to analyse data, I agreed with Dey (1999, p. 23) that there is “no single correct interpretation but a plurality of interpretations”. This study also highlighted the importance of the iterative cycle of deduction-induction in the collection of data and in the constant comparison between results and relevant literature (Remenyi, 2014), in order to guide me further between coding, synthesis and data collection (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

I strove to explain the HR practitioners’ experiences as they are narrated, how they thought and what influenced their thoughts or views in relation to bullying in their places of work and what actually transpired throughout the study. This approach is meaningfully supported by qualitative researchers (Barnard, 2008; Bogdan & Biklen, 2006, Strauss & Corbin, 1990) in accordance with a grounded theory study, and also aimed to accomplish a better understanding of the area of inquiry. The findings of this study are informed by exploration of workplace bullying based on constructivist-interpretive research orientation to provide a meaningful basis for scholars and practitioners to understand and accomplish a better management of workplace bullying in terms of HR practitioners’ perspectives in the organisations. I agree with qualitative researchers that reality indeed is transparent and consists of unsolidified and independent or non-sequential and flexible sets of social constructions, created by perceptions and meaning of people’s experience

176

or beliefs and subject to wide critical examination to achieve the best understanding of phenomena (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Duncan, 2004; Ritchie & Lewis, 2004; Terre Blanche & Kelly, 2004).

I am confident that this thesis is aligned to the following attributes considered key to grounded theory research, namely: “the research focusses on theory development; there is a dataist attitude towards the field work and its understanding; the literature review is conducted with care to minimise any preconceptions; and the principle of theoretical sampling is applied” (Remenyi, 2014, pp. 161-162). An aspect related to being ‘dataist’ in this grounded theory study is that data was collected throughout the study and I recorded personal reflections on the data and the research process in the form of memos which became important elements in the final theory development. Continuous collection of data often blurs the differences between data collection and data analysis due to a more intense emphasis on a new insight that might transpire at any point throughout the study (Remenyi, 2014).

Other novice researchers may benefit from recognising the many challenges they could face when embarking on a project in a terrain of different and opposing ontological viewpoints and epistemological orientations in the same methodological field of grounded theory. I trust that a qualitative research roadmap presented in chapter 2 (as depicted figure 2.4) may prove useful to guide other masters and doctoral students on how to execute a constructivist grounded theory study. The methodological contribution of this qualitative study produced a framework and inspiration for other novice researchers wishing to explore and explain workplace bullying further. This study could help them understand how to execute a qualitative research method such as grounded theory as a research methodology. Despite grounded theory being criticised, studied and commended, this study legitimises the value of using it in its own right, because it places emphasis on understanding logical subjectivity rather than verifying a theory. In turn, insight expanded from this study guides theoretic knowledge development.