Methodology

The theoretical perspectives, social construction, the social construction of nature, and symbolic interactionism, situate knowledge in a matrix that is social, temporal and spatial, therefore the methodology must take the researcher into that same matrix or context (Babbie, 2001). Methodology is a “plan of action” (Crotty, 1998, p. 7) or “strategy” for carrying out the actual research (Silverman, 2005, p. 109). A case study approach based on grounded theory and discourse analysis has been used. Grounded theory and discourse analysis are simultaneously methodologies and methods.

2.4.1

Case study

Approaching the research topic as a case study provides contextual understanding (Yin, 2003). A case study is a “bounded system” (Stake, 2003, p. 135, 2005), involving “a holistic investigation of some space- and time-rooted phenomenon” (Lofland & Lofland, 1995, p. 21). They are a suitable methodology for researching “complex social phenomena” (Yin, 2003, p. 2).

A case study is organised around issue-based research questions (Stake, 2003, 2005). While case studies can include quantitative and/or qualitative methods, this research is qualitative in focus.

The criticism of case studies, is that of qualitative research in general, the issue of proving validity and reliability compared with the positivist method of replication (Tolich & Davidson, 1999). The employment of multiple data sources is an accepted way of triangulating qualitative research findings (Tolich & Davidson, 1999). Triangulation is not replication; it is a comparison of data from different sources (Stake, 2005). By making the research process iterative, for example by ‘member checking’ (Creswell, 2003; Stake, 2003) with individuals or comparison with stakeholder written material, interpretation is tested and either adjusted or supported. Yin (2003, p. 105) considers the researcher is like a detective, they must set out the “chain of evidence” which is both an audit trail and a window to the actual research process. When reporting the findings it is crucial data that ‘disagrees’ is reported as part of the audit trail.

This research is primarily what Stake (2005, p. 450) calls an “intrinsic” case study which aims “to develop what is perceived to be the case’s own issues, contexts, and interpretations, its “thick description”” and show “what is important about the case in its own world”. This is effectively an inductive approach to research. This case study could also be considered “instrumental” (Stake, 2005, p. 445); that the in-depth understanding gained will provide insight into the issues around framing, passing and implementing the CPLA and the associated government policy, and thus have some level of practical application.

2.4.2

Grounded theory

Grounded theory, also known as “the constant comparative method of analysis” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 62), is an inductive strategy of research which combines iterative data collection and analysis. Ideally the choice of each subsequent interview is purposive or theoretical, to follow the trail being explored (Charmaz, 1999), whether to gain more information about a particular topic or to compare, explore and find consistencies and the differences (Dick, 2005; Yin, 2003).

Grounded theory research has a positivistic underpinning and was seen as a way of producing objective or verifiable knowledge about social situations (Babbie, 2001; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). However, social construction has at its heart that knowledge is relative through being contingent within a spatial/social/temporal matrix, so to assume that grounded theory delivers objective findings is epistemologically inconsistent in respect of this research. However, Charmaz (1995, 2003) considers that purely inductive research is not possible, in that both the research and the researcher are contextualised, and that unpolluted emergence of theory is a naïve expectation. Charmaz (2003) combined constructionism and grounded theory to develop a constructionist grounded theory recognising that knowledge is socially produced and context specific and that the actual process of research constructs knowledge. The approach

adopted in this research matches that of Charmaz and not the objectivist forms of Glaser and Strauss, and Strauss and Corbin.

The value of grounded theory for this research is as a “tool for understanding empirical worlds … that stresses its emergent constructivist elements … [with] methods as flexible, heuristic strategies rather than as formulaic procedures” (Charmaz, 2003, pp. 250-251). What grounded theory has contributed is the facilitation of an open mindset that has guided the research process (Creswell, 2003); to start wide and reasonably unfocussed, to iteratively reflect on findings and follow up on them, comparing findings, exploring divergence and contradictions to find both the consistencies and the differences, and even to reflect on whether the research questions are the right questions to ask. “The relevance of a grounded theory derives from its offering analytic explanations of actual problems and basic processes in the research setting” (Charmaz, 2003, p. 252).

The ‘grounded theory’ emerges from examination of the data and the process of discourse analysis, described in the next section. Some of the literature is effectively part of the data collection (Dick, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990) which Fairclough (2003) calls ‘intertextuality’. It has been productive during this research to follow up most interviews by reading the literature around the issues that have emerged, initially to become better informed about topics, but also to identify what has been omitted, simplified or customised in interview responses. The data collection ideally continues until theoretical saturation is reached (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Punch, 2005; Stake, 2003, 2005) and can continue right up until the writing up phase of research where the discipline of writing may uncover the gaps in the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

2.4.3

Discourse analysis

Discourse is defined as “all forms of spoken interaction, formal and informal, and written texts of all kinds” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 7). The basic process of discourse analysis is initially through a method of coding repeating phenomena, reflecting to create more abstract categories from connected groups of these codes, and describing and recording the category (or theme) properties and the inter-relationship of these categories through systematic writing known as memo writing (Dick, 2005; Punch, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The actual analysis is accomplished by a two-way process. The first through immersion in and familiarity with the data which in turn produces the inductive emergence of patterns and concepts. The second deductive; the codes and categories derive from prior knowledge and expectation. Congruent with Charmaz's ideas in the previous section, discourse analysis draws attention to the idea that the “researcher filters the data through a personal lens” shaped by their social context which signals the need for reflexivity on the part of the researcher (Creswell, 2003, p. 182).

Potter and Wetherell (1987, p. 49) did not “expect that an individual's discourse will be consistent and coherent” because responses are contextual and vary accordingly. They considered it was the function of each discourse or text that was paramount.