Verification of Concepts and Categories

In accordance with the principles of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the analytic process did not aim towards hypothesis testing, but letting a theory emerge. In keeping with Strauss & Corbin’s (1998) methodology, analysis began with coding. The first step is open coding which allowed the identification of categories, as well as their properties and dimensions. Axial coding follows and the connections among the categories are perused, allowing patterns and subcategories to emerge. “Axial coding is the act of relating categories to subcategories along the lines of their properties and dimensions.”(Strauss & Corbin, p.124). Categories and codes where investigated until saturated. Relatively late in the analysis, a central phenomenon emerged. Field note and observations; memos and a self-reflexive interview added to the data.

4.2.1. Verification

Strauss and Corbin (1990; as cited in Creswell, 1998) recommended seven criteria to verify credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability of a grounded theory study. These criteria are:

Criterion 1: How was the original sample selected? What grounds? Criterion 2: What major categories emerged?

Criterion 3: What were some of the events, incidents, action, and so on that pointed to some of these major categories?

Criterion 4: Based on what categories did theoretical sampling proceed? What guided data collection? Was it representative of the categories?

Criterion 5: What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations among categories, and on what grounds were they formulated and tested?

Criterion 6: Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen? How did they affect the hypotheses?

These quality issues are addressed below.

4.4.1.1 Quality verification

• Criterion 1: How was the original sample selected? What grounds?

The participants were selected in accordance with theoretical sampling. They were representative of the social-groups focused in this study: Women, ages 35-50; Afro- European and living in Germany; Black immigrants living in Germany for over 20 years. Research showed that nothing has been written about high achieving non-White minorities in Europe and the psychological factors involved in whether or not they overcome the burdens of racial discrimination and racists social structures achieve academic and profession goals. Moreover most studies on the achievement gap between White-Europeans and non-White minorities are conducted with adolescents who are actually still in the process of constructing an identity, going through psychological changes, and struggling to find their place in the world. The women chosen have a life they can reflect upon and provide insights on how it was, and the processes they went through to become the persons they are today. These insights can help find a model for empowerment that can lay the foundation for asset oriented multicultural counselling.

• Criterion 2: What major categories emerged?

The major categories that emerged are: Coping Strategies, Personal Characteristics, Social Identities, Threats, and Opportunities.

• Criterion 3: What were some of the events, incidents, actions, and so on that pointed to some of these major categories

distinct constants to how these women protected their self-esteem in context in which they felt threatened or were receiving ambiguous signals. With variance along the dimensions of racial salience and group identification

Personal characteristics crystallized in the manner these women defined themselves. Among these is their self-ascribed racial and cultural (ethnic) identity choices, self- evaluations, and the amount of control they feel they have over outcomes in their lives.

Social identities are not only their social characteristics, in terms of the social-groups to which others ascribe them. Also, how they interpret these ascriptions and how these interpretations affect their well-being, and aspirations.

Threats are the external factors that threaten their self-definitions and their

aspirations. They are the issues embedded in the social context in which they live that effect their personal characteristic and social identities in a negative manner. This category arouse from investigating the social-cultural-historical field that influence how they are perceived in their social environment.

Opportunities are the self-perceived resources available to these participants. They represent, that which the interviews feel influenced them in a positive way and lent to their empowerment.

Criterion 4: Based on what categories die theoretical sampling proceed? Guide data collection? Was it representative of the categories?

The initial categories were derived from the first 90 min. interview. They were examined as to their external and internal dimensions. In keeping the with the principles of grounded theory, subsequent interviews were analysed and it was found that the initial

subcategories and dimensions.

• Criterion 5: What were some of the hypotheses pertaining to conceptual relations among categories, and on what grounds were they formulated and tested?

Hypotheses to the conceptual relations among the categories were: 1. Personal characteristics determine the strategies chosen.

2. Content and salience of social identity determine the strategies chosen as well.

3. Personal characteristics and social identities are recursive, whereby race salience plays a moderating role.

4. Threats play a role in not only the social identities of minorities but how their personal characteristics develop, influences under which they develop their strategies.

5. Opportunities or resources effect significantly how development tasks are achieved, the effects of threats are diminished, personal characteristics develop and social-identity choices are made.

6. A major moderating factor is the group identification or race salience.

These hypotheses were formulated on the grounds of field observations and analysis of the interviews. They were tested, by looking for contradictions, biases and exceptions in the interviews.

Criterion 6: Were there instances when hypotheses did not hold up against what was actually seen? How did they affect the hypotheses?

Fortunately, the hypotheses held up to what was actually observed and the contents of the interviews. Additionally, although the group differed in their political and social outlooks, which was affected not only by their social-economic status but even more so by their racial salience; there were consistencies in there choice of strategies in relation to their racial salience and the intensity of group identification. Finally, previous research also supported these findings.

Criterion 7: How was the core category chosen (sudden, gradual, difficult, easy)? On what grounds?

The core category- Racial socialization and parental-racial beliefs with the resulting racial salience affected their strategies and interactions- emerged relatively late in the analysis. While examining the data it became clear, racial socialization and racial salience was significant for all strategies choices as well as the content and salience of their social identity. Furthermore, these influenced how threats and opportunities are perceived. Additionally, the data showed that racial salience determined how these women articulated their identities life choices and reached their aspirations as well as in which areas they chose to do so.

Choosing racial salience as core category also accords to the criteria put forth by Glaser (1978). These criteria are:

1. The category must be central 2. The category reoccurs frequently 3. It takes more time to saturate

4. The connections with other categories comes quick and richly 5. It has a clear and grabbing implication for formal theory 6. Has considerable carry through, does not lead to dead ends 7. Is completely variable

8. It is also a dimension of the problem

9. It tends to prevent two other sources (social interest and logical deductive) of establishing a core which are not grounded

10. Can be any kind of theoretical code: a process, a condition, dimensions, a consequence.

These criteria provide a guideline for research evaluation and testing; allowing the researcher to answer questions pertinent to their study and retrace their steps in a

(1998). This led to an initial model which tested the fit of concepts, dimensions, categories and the properties of these categories. Finally, a theoretical model with abstracted conditions, actions and interactions; consequences is proposed. In Chapter 5. the analysis and results are presented as well as narrations depicting the conceptual development of the proposed model.

The analysis followed the grounded-theory method. Each transcript was analyzed and meaning units were extracted (i.e. phrased, sentences, and text passages) that represented concepts related to the theory being perused. The concepts where then categorized according to which sources of influence they represented (see Table 4). These where axially coded according to how these related to each other and classified under higher level-categories (e.g. coping strategies) as shown in Figure 9. Finally, a core story emerged, consisting of the participants’ racial socialization, racial saliencies and consequently their racial or group identification choices. These consequently determined the strategies they chose to reach their goals within their socio-cultural context and in accordance with their personal backgrounds. A theory evolved to include the constructs that emerged because of their actions.