`

4.1 Constructivist Grounded Theory

“My version of grounded theory looks back into its past, explores its present, and turns forward to the future."
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 183)

The most recent variation of grounded theory to emerge, Constructivist Grounded Theory is a version of grounded theory first outlined by one of the original students of Strauss and Glaser, Kathy Charmaz (Kenny & Fourie, 2014; Charmaz, 2000). In Strauss and Glaser's first publication, The Discovery of Grounded Theory they encouraged researchers to employ grounded theory flexibly, in ways that would suit the researcher's own needs and context (Strauss & Glaser, 1967). Charmaz writes that she did just that with Constructivist Grounded Theory as she translated the ideas of grounded theory into contemporary research paradigms appropriate for the late twentieth and early twenty-first century (Charmaz, 2006, p. 9).

4.2 History

In the 1990s, qualitative research in general came under scrutiny by postmodern thinkers who questioned the way qualitative research was interpreted and results were understood (Cooper & White, 2012). Grounded theory, with its mission of discovering and revealing underlying patterns in culture, became seen as highly realist and highly positivistic (Van Manen, 1988; Charmaz, 2005), with trained researchers more dictating than discovering participant reality (Charmaz, 2008). Once about emergent coding and creative interpretation, evolved versions of grounded theory (particularly with the highly prescribed coding schemes of Strauss and Corbin) became more about "orthodoxy" than emergence (Charmaz, 2005). Because of this, grounded theory was deemed by many researchers to be no longer relevant as a research method because it overlooked a connection to research participants full lives, reverting instead to abstract generalizations and theoretical statements imposed from the outside researcher as the researcher revealed, through theory, the underlying social pattern that was always present (Clarke, 2005).

4.3 Philosophical Position

Constructivist grounded theory comes from the interpretive tradition (Charmaz, 2005). Constructivism (or constructionism as Charmaz (2006) uses the terms interchangeably) comes from social constructivism, an epistemological viewpoint where meaning is shared between realities, co-created amongst participants, and developed through language (Crotty, 1998).

“My journey with GT began with Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, whose lasting influence has not only permeated my work, but also my consciousness."
(Charmaz, 2006, p. xiii)

Charmaz, a student of both Strauss and Glaser proposes that with Strauss and Glaser's emphasis on inductive theory logic and attention to how people view and construct their world, a version of social constructivism actually did underpin Strauss and Glaser's original conception of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2008) however it was in a more limited form than Charmaz has since proposed because they did not, "...attend to how they affected the research process, produced the data, represented research participants, and positioned their analysis" (Charmaz, 2008, p. 399).

Social Constructivism Principles
4.1 Social Constructivism Principles

In the 1990s when postmodernism began to challenge grounded theory, Charmaz and others who "adhered to a relativist epistemology never concurred with grounding grounded theory in Glaser’s mid-20th-century positivism" (Charmaz, 2008, p. 401) began formally promoting the ways that grounded theory can be distinguished from positivism. "Grounded theory strategies are just that—strategies for creating and interrogating our data, not routes to knowing an objective external reality" (Charmaz, 2008, p. 401).

When viewed through an objectivist lens, data is seen as singular and self-evident. In objectivism, generalizations and abstractions come together to form a theory, decontextualized from the particularities of the situation from which data was gathered.

“Neither the data nor the theories are discovered...we construct our grounded theories through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives and research practices.”
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 10)

When viewed through a constructivist approach, data is seen as dynamic and mult-faceted--a co-construction amongst researcher and a product of the research rather than something observed (Charmaz, 2008).

In constructivist grounded theory (which follows the latter approach) researchers are not silent observers or tabula rosa, rather "Researchers are part of the research situation, and their positions, privileges, perspectives, and interactions affect it" (Charmaz, 2008, p. 402). Researchers prior knowledge and prior theories become not something to set aside in an effort to achieve theoretical purity, rather researchers must identify their own theoretical positions and consciously assess the impact that it may have on data collection.

For Charmaz (2008), Constructivist Grounded Theory makes the following philosophical assumptions:

  • Reality is multiple, processual, and constructed—but constructed under particular conditions.

  • The research process emerges from interaction.

  • The research process takes into account the researcher’s positionality, as well as that of the research participants.

  • the researcher and researched coconstruct the data—data are a product of the research process, not simply observed objects of it.

4.4 Coding Process

"Grounded theory coding generates the bones of your analysis. Theoretical integration will assemble these bones into a working skeleton."
(Charmaz, 2008, p. 45)

Coding in constructivist grounded theory is highly adaptable and encourages "imaginative engagement with data" (Charmaz, 2008, p. 168). This is in direct contrast to Strauss and Corbin's prescriptive structure. For Charmaz, coding must be a flexible activity and the researcher must learn to tolerate ambiguity, doing their best to remain open to whatever emergent categories might emerge. In coding, the researcher begins to define what is happening within the data and begins to wrestle with what it might mean. Most important is understanding participants' view and voice as well as how their actions have emerged within their unique setting. Close attention and repeated analysis of data attempts to reveal tacit meanings behind participant actions and meanings (Charmaz, 2008).

Coding happens in two main stages: initial/open coding and focused coding. In initial coding the researcher remains open to all possible outcomes or directions for the theory while in focused coding larger swathes of data are developed to identify specific categories and aspects of the theory. In initial coding, data is coded as action so that categories can be seen as dynamic and emergent rather than static. Focused coding is sifting through initial codes, assessing frequency and which codes "make the most analytic sense to categorize your data incisively and completely" (Charmaz, 2005, p. 58). Though it is tempting to think that initial and focused coding have a linear relationship, they often are more circular as initial codes spark focused codes which in turn look to be reinforced by more initial codes (Charmaz, 2005).

Initial and focused coding often happen in tandem
4.2 Initial and Focused Coding Iterative Cycle

Charmaz (2006) points out that it is essentail to note the importance of language in coding, as we understand the world through how we name concepts and use language in a descriptive manner. Codes are constructed because the researcher actively names the data and gives it applied meaning. Constructivist Grounded Theorists adhere to the following principles (Charmaz, 2006, p. 403):

  • Treat the research process itself as a social construction.

  • Scrutinize research decisions and directions.

  • Improvise methodological and analytic strategies throughout the research process.

  • Collect sufficient data to discern and document how research participants construct their lives and worlds.

4.5 Use of Literature

Like Straussian Grounded Theory, Constructivist Grounded Theory supports interaction with the literature while engaged in data collection and analysis. By serving as an opportunity to "set the stage" (Charmaz, 2006, p. 166) the literature review adds to the researcher's credibility.

In addition to a literature review chapter, Charmaz also advocates for literature scattered throughout the final written piece so that the researcher's own work can be seen as adding to the overall conversation and the researcher can become "part of a sophisticated conversation in a substantive area signifies that your readers can view you as a serious scholar" (Charmaz, 2006, p. 167).

"The trick is to use it [existing topic literature] without letting it stifle your creativity or strangle your theory" (Charmaz, 2006, p. 166).

Though literature can be consulted and engaged at all points in the study, in Constructivist Grounded Theory writing the literature review ideally happens after categories are developed and analysis has begun. The literature review should reference both convergent and divergent ideas so that the literature becomes more a dialogue of ideas than a summary of major works (Charmaz, 2006).

4.6 What makes a good theory?

Unlike Classic and Straussian grounded theory, which endeavor to produce a generalized theory that has been abstracted from data, Constructivist Grounded Theory "...aims for an interpretive understanding of the studied phenomenon that accounts for context" (Charmaz, 2008, p. 402). Rather than lift theory out of the confines of context, Constructivist Grounded Theory sees context as a strengthening factor, and sees most potential in theories that are fully situated in their social, historical, local and interactional contexts. Acknowledging context also means that the researcher is less likely to let personal biases or preconceptions to shape or form data categories (Charmaz, 2006).

In Constructivist Grounded Theory, theories themselves are "products of emergent processes that occur through interaction" (Charmaz, 2006, p. 178). "Grounded theory involves taking comparisons from data and reaching up to construct abstractions and simultaneously reaching down to tie these abstractions to data" (Charmaz, 2006, p. 181). Theories should be a conceptual map of underlying social patterns which include mapping the complex web of relationships in which the patterns occur.

Charmaz (2006, p. 182-183) outlines the criteria for a good grounded theory on its: credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness. Each idea is expanded below:

Credibility

  • Has your research achieved intimate familiarity with the setting or topic?

  • Are the data sufficient to merit your claims? Consider the range, number, and depth of observations contained in the data?

  • Have you made systematic comparisons between observations and between categories?

  • Do the categories cover a wide range of empirical observations?

  • Are there strong logical links between the gathered data and your argument and analysis?

  • Has your research provided enough evidence for your claims to allow the reader to form an independent assessment-and agree with your claims?

Originality

  • Are your categories fresh? Do they offer new insights?

  • Does your analysis provide a new conceptual rendering of the data?

  • What is the social and theoretical significance of this work?

  • How does your grounded theory challenge, extend, or refine current ideas, concepts, and practices?

Resonance

  • Are your categories fresh? Do they offer new insights?

  • Does your analysis provide a new conceptual rendering of the data?

  • What is the social and theoretical significance of this work?

  • How does your grounded theory challenge, extend, or refine current ideas, concepts, and practices?

Usefulness

  • Does your analysis offer interpretations that people can use in their everyday worlds?

  • Do your analytic categories suggest any generic processes?

  • If so, have you examined these generic processes for tacit implications?

  • Can the analysis spark further research in other substantive areas?

  • How does your work contribute to knowledge? How does it contribute to making a better world?

4.7 Constructivst Grounded Theory Summary

  • Theory is construted.
  • Key Originator: Kathy Charmaz
  • Key Idea: Grounded theory, "assumes the relativism of multiple social realities, recognises the mutual creation of knowledge by the viewer and viewed, and aims toward an interpretive understanding of subjects’ meanings (Charmaz, 2003, p. 250).
  • Coding process: Open/Initial Coding + Focused Coding
  • Existing Literature: Should be consulted throughout the research process