Using a constructivist grounded theory approach as the strategy of inquiry

An overview of constructivist grounded theory

Having decided to adopt a constructivist approach, I needed to consider the implications of this in more detail. Constructivist inquiry is a research methodology that integrates manifold standpoints in an effort to achieve a more complete understanding of the issue being explored from the perspectives of all the participants, including the researcher. As such, perspectives are drawn together in a non-hierarchical manner.

All positions are valued as equally relevant and important for examination and analysis (Rodwell 1998). In other words, constructivist inquiry demands the contemplation of all possibilities and all perspectives. This research methodology values and honours the multiple views that are brought to the study – an approach which fits the purposes of my study.

In adopting a constructivist approach (Charmaz 2006) the researcher enters the field with as few pre-conceptions as possible but does have a list of ‘sensitising concepts’ and ‘foreshadowed questions’ (Blumer 1969, O’Conner 2008) that have been identified from the literature and any prior insights that the researcher has. These form the basis of the interview guide that provides shape and direction for the interactions that occur between the researcher and the participants. However, the ‘guide’ is a very loose structure and it is anticipated that it will evolve as data collection and analysis proceed.

How the foreshadowed questions were developed in this study has already been described in the literature review chapter and the nature of the interview will be

64 considered further in the following sections.

Whilst there are clear differences in some of the various philosophical approaches to grounded theory, for Charmaz (2006) constructivist grounded theory uses the same basic methodological principles as objectivist approaches and she sees the constant comparative method and theoretical sampling as essential research tools (see below). However, in the constructivist approach, there is far greater recognition of the interactive relationship between the researcher and the participants, in both data collection and analysis.

Charmaz (2006) also advocates the writing of the resultant theory in a language and using ideas/concepts that are easily understood by the participants themselves. I adopted this approach at the initial stage of the literature review: to read broadly, including local newspapers, and materials that were written in Chinese and/or English. In essence, Charmaz (2005, 2006) provided me with a way of ‘doing’ grounded theory that reflected the theoretical and methodological developments of recent decades. Therefore, constructivist grounded theory provides a set of principles and practices, which equate to a toolkit rather than a set of prescriptions (Charmaz 2006). Consequently, flexible guidelines, rather than methodological rules and requirements, are emphasized.

As Charmaz (2006, pp.9-10) suggests, it is possible (and I view it preferable in this study) to use the basic grounded theory guidelines such as coding, memo- writing and sorting, and theoretical sampling that were originally developed more than 40 years ago and combine these with the methodological assumptions and approaches of the 21st _{century. The new assumption considers that “neither}

65

the data we collect.” (Charmaz 2006, p.10); and she continues to advocate the new approach for grounded theorists in the 21st _{century in developing a}

grounded theory is not by ‘discovery’, but should “construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and research practices” (Charmaz 2006, p.10).

According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), a grounded theory study aims to build rather than test theory. Grounded theory tries to find out a possible explanation for an event or phenomenon. Something occurs; how do we account for it? This study sought to understand the beliefs and values that shaped the perceptions of and responses to elder abuse in the local community context.

I was convinced that adopting a constructivist approach in my study was both possible and desirable because as Charmaz puts it, “Data do not provide a window on reality. Rather, the ‘discovered’ reality arises from the interactive

process and its temporal, cultural, and structural contexts” (Charmaz 2000,

p.524).

How I applied these principles is considered shortly, but before this, I describe some central tenets of grounded theory methodology.

Some shared principles and their application in this study

Despite the evolution of differing approaches to grounded theory, as noted above, some common elements remain. The two most important are theoretical sampling and constant comparison. These are considered briefly below.

Theoretical sampling is the primary process that guides the researcher’s

66

sampling involves a conscious decision on the part of the researcher to find new data sources – including types of participants, interview questions and observations, that can help to clarify the researcher’s understanding about the concepts that are emerging and how they are related (Glaser 1998). With the development of codes and categories and by using theoretical sampling the researcher “seeks and collects pertinent data to elaborate and refine categories in the emerging theory.” (Charmaz 2006, p. 96).

The rationale behind theoretical sampling is to direct data gathering efforts towards collecting information that will best support the development of the emerging theoretical framework (Locke 2001). With this approach, researchers may choose those participants most likely: to develop and support the emergent theory; to refine, consolidate or extend the emergent theory; or even to highlight dissenting views to help differentiate the boundaries of the emergent theory (Shah and Corley 2006).

The second core element of grounded theory approaches is constant comparison. Constant comparison and theoretical sampling work hand in hand

and reinforce the dynamic nature of data collection and analysis in grounded theory.

According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the constant comparative method consists of four steps: comparing incidents applicable to each category, integrating categories and their properties, delimiting the theory, and writing the theory. These will be considered in more detail shortly.

Below I provide a couple of examples of how theoretical sampling was used in my study.

67

In order to explore the perspectives of, and responses to, elder abuse amongst the participants, I started with purposeful sampling and asked eligible participants a provisional question to explore in broad terms what would constitute ’elder abuse’ (see later for a fuller description). I followed this up with another broad question in order to find out what ‘elder abuse’ meant to them. I then used my analysis of their responses to either guide the recruitment of further participants or to shape the nature of the issues to be explored.

For example, the idea of adult children being unfilial (不孝) to a parent as a form of elder abuse appeared early in the data. I therefore explored further what was meant by the idea of ‘filial’ behaviour and how and in what circumstances behavior seen as being ‘unfilial’ could constitute potential abuse.

Another example of employing theoretical sampling in the study can be seen in the way that vignettes were used and refined alongside data collection and analysis. In this study, interviews were augmented by the use of ‘vignettes’. A vignette is a narrative description of an event or situation which can be seen as typical or representative of a particular phenomenon. The use of vignettes, as suggested by Jenkins et al. (2010), is an unthreatening way to explore sensitive issues. As elder abuse is one such topic I believed that the use of vignettes would facilitate the exchange of ideas and feelings in a sensitive and non- threatening way.

In the study, the vignettes that were used during in the interview (see later) were revised as data analysis expanded their boundaries (see Appendix 1 and 2 for the various versions of vignettes used). Adjusting the scenarios in the vignettes as a result of data analysis, and using them for further data collection not only

68

enabled me to be more focused and sensitive to participants’ language, but enhanced the co-construction employed in the study.

Constant comparison techniques were also applied throughout the study with the essential steps incorporated during the various coding procedures that were employed (see later for a much fuller discussion). Using the technique of constant comparison, I kept returning to the data and comparing data with data to identify similarities and differences. This was done both within the same interview as well as across interviews. This helped both to build categories and also to deconstruct them so that the full complexity and diversity of the data was duly recognised. The final goal of constant comparative method is to attain ‘theoretical elaboration, saturation and densification of concepts’ (Holton 2007, p.278). The final theory will provide an indication of whether this has been achieved.

Having considered the broad principles of grounded theory, attention is now turned to the methods that were employed.