Using constructivist grounded theory to analyse data

This section discusses the choice for using a social constructivist grounded theory approach in relation to data analysis. The decision has been based on two primary issues: firstly, the aims of the research question and secondly the

108

researcher’s philosophical position. Essential to consideration of the most suitable paradigm was the aim of the research and the knowledge needed to achieve them. The philosophy underpinning constructivist grounded theory can complement other approaches in relation to qualitative data analysis rather than stand in opposition to them (Charmaz, 2006). The subjective approach to the study of social phenomena concentrates on qualitative analysis, in order to construct concepts and theories. Corbin and Strauss (2008, P: 10) state that:

“Concepts and theories are constructed by researchers, out of the stories that are constructed by research participants, who are trying to explain and make sense out of their experiences and/or lives, both to the researcher and themselves”

Corbin and Strauss (2008) argue that it is these various constructs, which permit researchers to construct knowledge. As themes emerge from the research, constructivist design can develop over time to integrate features in a new design. This flexibility and the themes that derived from various construct, let researchers construct knowledge (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). There are several different views of “reality” in terms of what represents “knowledge” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). In order to access people with diabetes’ and Health Care Professionals’ perception of risk an exploratory approach located within the constructivist paradigm was judged to be appropriate:

“Constructivism assumes the relativism of multiple social realities, recognises the mutual creation of knowledge by the viewer and the viewed and the aims towards interpretive understanding of subjects meanings” (Charmaz, 2000, P:510).

The researcher’s perception of what establishes “knowledge” (epistemology) impacts on the theoretical perspective, methodology and methods applied to a study (Schwandt, 2001). The researcher’s view of the world and the nature of being (Ontology) and the ways in which this may be understood through means of enquiry (epistemology) have influenced the study along with the researcher’s decision to use constructivist grounded theory in relation to data analysis

109

(Charmaz, 2006). Ontologically, the researcher perceives meaning in the social world to be socially constructed, that is to say, there are several realities as opposed to a sole “truth” (Charmaz, 2006). It is the researcher’s argument that the data collected in this current study will not establish “reality” because true knowledge does not exist independently to be discovered but rather is socially constructed.

As part of this approach it is proposed that the researcher’s views and experiences be taken into account (Schwandt, 2001). Therefore, Charmaz’s (2006) version of ground theory is explicitly located within the constructivist paradigm in contrast to other approaches within grounded theory such as Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) approach whose philosophical stance has been subject to much interpretation (Jeon, 2004). The constructivist version of grounded theory therefore takes into account that the researcher is not “neutral” in his approach to the study (Charmaz, 2006). That is to say, the researcher has selected the topic of risk communication, and brought his interest in people with type 2 diabetes. Social process such as risk communications and people interactions are likely to involve a range of subjective experiences including personal emotions and interactions with others. As Health Care Professionals, interact with patients and other Health Care Professionals, the researcher believes that access to personal subjective accounts is vital when exploring the diverse issues surrounding an illness or complications which may in certain cases last for years or even for ever. The researcher’s experiences of people with diabetes in both personal and professional life are as results of observing others. The constructivist grounded theory approach is perfectly positioned to develop areas of enquiry where further exploratory research is necessary. It provides a research framework that goes beyond the means of data collection to include guidelines for how researchers treat the data and the analytical outcomes that stem from the data analysis process. Charmaz (2006, P: 2) conceptualises constructivist grounded theory as providing:

“Systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analysing qualitative data to construct theories ‘grounded’ in the data themselves.” (Charmaz, 2006).

110

Thus, researchers study early data and start to divide, sort, and combine these data through qualitative coding. Coding refines data, arranges them, and give us a handle for making comparisons with other parts of data (Charmaz, 2006). Initial codes indicate certain areas to explore further during subsequent data collection (Charmaz, 2006; Newby, 2010). Therefore, the researcher would compare the events and views that participant talks about, and the codes with the next person we talk with, and the next person, and the next. By making and coding numerous comparisons, our analytic understanding of the data starts to take shape. During this stage, the researcher will write initial analytic notes called memos about the codes and comparisons and any other ideas about the data that occur to the researcher. Through studying data, comparing them, and writing memos, which is a particular type of written note that enclose the product of researcher’s analysis (Strauss, 2008), the researcher describes ideas that best fit and interpret the data as ‘tentative’ analytic categories (Charmaz, 2006). Once predictable questions arise and gaps in the categories come into sight, the researcher seeks data that answer these questions and may fill the gaps. Researchers may go back to participants to find out more and to strengthen these analytic categories. As the process progresses, these categories not only combine as the researcher interprets the collected data but also the categories develop into more theoretical categories because the researcher engages in successive levels of analysis. Based on the aims of the study, it was essential that theories regarding risk perception and its effect on risk communication and people’s behaviours emerged from the data, which would add to the existing knowledge.