Variations from Corbin and Strauss (2008)

The methodology used for this GT analysis did not completely adhere to the

procedures outlined for carrying out a GT as described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) or Corbin and Strauss (2008). The areas of variation were firstly the in the use of semi-structured questionnaires for obtaining the qualitative data on which the GT was based and secondly the use of purposive sampling.

Semi-structured interviews were consistently presented each time (before and after intervention); a script was followed. This allowed for constant comparison between the interviews during analysis and between the carers. This methodology enabled changes in carer’s perspectives about foster-children to be revealed and therefore begin illuminate possible mechanisms in action with regards to VIG (Appendix 12.8).

24 _{Latent coding – analysis of what the text talks about deals with the relationship aspect and involves}

The constraints posed by following a script also meant that no other agenda or bias, other than that provided by the questions, was introduced. The questions asked elicited broad open responses relating to the relationship between the carer, the child and other areas; spontaneously generated by the carers. The breadth and depth therefore was created by the carers rather than further probing of specific areas. For the purposes of this study it contained the focus of the study to issues related to the relationship and those factors raised by the carer that seemed pertinent to them.

The initial part of the interview was determined by the question format provided by TIMB and how procedurally it was required to be carried out. Subsequent aspects of the semi-structured interview allowed for greater flexibility and following of specific ideas, concepts and formulations.

Corbin and Strauss (2008) advocated that questioning would vary and follow possible areas of interest. Unstructured interviews enabled researchers to:

“to gather information about topics or phenomena that happen to be of interest to researchers and at the same time are significant events or experiences in persons’ lives.”

(Corbin and Morse, 2003, p.339) General questions like, “Tell me what you think about?” or “What happened when?” (Corbin and Strauss, 2008, p.153) they argued, allowed respondents more room to explain what was important to them. These questions do not seem too dissimilar to those on the TIMB; which are also reasonably open; e.g. “Can you describe what her personality is like?” Bryant and Charmaz (2012) commented on a study by Cagnetta and Cicognani (1999) whereby GT was used with six main issues and the interviews were completed before analysis was carried out. They judged this to still be in line with GT methodology as the questions were open-ended and “far nearer to the generic questions specified earlier in this section, than to specific research questions” (p.47). The use therefore of semi-structured interviews had the potential to limit the scope

and freedom to explore new concepts but allowed for a degree of comparison between interviews of each carer. Given the wealth and depth of information shared in the interviews, see Chapter 5, I do not think that this aspect of the methodology compromised the GT that was developed.

Suyemoto et al (2015) used a similar adapted grounded theory methodology to explore the effects of a social justice– oriented youth programme on racial and ethnic identities and social justice action for Asian- American youth. Its use would appear to be relatively novel; that is using GT to identify mechanisms and a GT through

repeated semi-structured interviews before and after an intervention. Thompson et al (2016) used Grounded Theory Constructivist Methodology with nine foster-carers to understand from the foster-carer’s perspective the impact of foster-children on their biological children. There were a number of question prompts that were used to guide initial interviews with a particular focus on the relationship with birth children. The questions asked were similar to the open-ended ones used in TIMB and similarly after the initial questions were asked further questions were used. It is therefore

acknowledged that semi-structured interviews would appear to be contrary to that recommended within GT methodology but those within this study are open-ended and congruent to those found in other studies.

The second area of variation from the GT methodology was in the form of sampling. The initial purposive sample was taken from a particular population; foster-carers of primary-aged children who were in long-term foster-care. Each of the participants provided rich data and so although theoretical sampling was not used, differences emerged fortuitously and data was re-organised in an ongoing way according to theoretically relevant concepts (Corbin and Strauss, 2008, p154). These variations described by Corbin and Strauss (2008) to sampling recognise the practical way in which research might occur. Additionally, once the coding was beginning to reach saturation new cases were added to extend the variation of the sample. One of these

cases involved two siblings who had been in placement over a year and were due for adoption with another family and a second case was selected as the child was new in placement and the plan was for him to remain with the carer long-term. Bryant and Charmaz (2012) recognised the constraints within which psychologists found

themselves because of research being tailored to investigate particular groups or skills and therefore concluded that purposive sampling did not invalidate the use of GT as long as hypotheses or research questions were not already articulated. This was also tempered with cited examples of research where the demands of an ethics board to have research protocols and targeted ethical practices with specified participants or a specific type of experience was considered.