Following an extensive literature review, Murphy et al. (1998) concluded that there is a lack of consensus about how best to ensure the rigour of a study when using qualitative approaches, including grounded theory and constructivist work. Indeed there are several schools of thought that have somewhat different approaches to the issue of rigour in grounded theory/constructivist studies and the three major ones summarised in Table 4.4.
For instance, Glaser (1978) advocated the criteria of fit, work, relevance and modifiability in determining the quality of a grounded theory. From a constructivist viewpoint Guba and Lincoln (1989) proposed criteria designed to equate to the positivist standards of reliability and validity by emphasizing four assessment criteria, namely credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, something expanded upon by Rodwell (1998).
Combining grounded theory with constructivism, Charmaz (2006) argues that the criteria for evaluating research depends on “who forms them and what purposes he or she invokes” (2006, p.182). Charmaz (2006) proposes four key
108
criteria for evaluating a more interpretive and constructivist grounded theory design, namely: credibility, originality, resonance and usefulness. These are defined as outlined in the table above. It is these criteria that will be applied in this study and the extent to which they can be considered to have been met will be considered in the discussion.
Table 4.4 A summary of different criteria for quality evaluation in grounded theory studies
Chief advocate Assessment Criteria
Key Concerns
Glaser (1978) Glaser and Strauss (1967)
Fit Concerning the matter of correspondence to facts in the social reality. This requires that categories should emerge from data and should not be influenced by a pre-established theoretical perspective.
Work Theories should have a function by providing predictions, explanations and interpretations of what was going on in the area under study.
Relevance Theories should be relevant to what was going on in the area it claimed to explain by focusing on the emerging core problems and processes.
Modifiability A grounded theory should be capable of going through changes when new data emerge, generating
qualifications to the theory. Guba and Lincoln
(1989)
[Similar to that of Rodwell (1998)]
Credibility Resembles internal validity – accuracy of the process and product.
Transferability Refers to the external validity of the findings – the degree to which other researchers can apply the findings of a study to their own.
Dependability Refers to reliability of the findings – reflecting the process of the theory development was logically induced from the data collected.
Confirmability Refers to the internal coherence of the data in relation to the findings, interpretations, and recommendations (Denzin and Lincoln 1994).
Charmaz, K (2006)
Credibility There are strong logical links between the gathered data which are sufficient to merit the study claims. Originality The categories are fresh and capable of offering new
insights. The grounded theory constructed challenges, extends, or refines current ideas, concepts and practices
Resonance The categories generated portray the fullness of the studied experience and the theory constructed makes sense to the participants who share their
circumstances.
Usefulness The analysis offers interpretations that people can use in their everyday worlds. The analysis can spark further research in other substantive areas.
109
Authenticity criteria for constructivist research
In addition to the above criteria there was also a need to consider the extent to which the study met the criteria for authenticity suggested for constructivist studies. Guba and Lincoln (1989), originally proposed five criteria by which to judge the authenticity of constructivist work, these were: fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity and tactical authenticity.
In seeking to make these rather abstract terms more accessible to a wider audience Nolan et al. (2003) relabeled them as follows: equal access, enhanced awareness of the position of self, enhanced awareness of the position of others, encouraging action by providing a rationale and impetus for change and encouraging action by providing the means to achieve change. They argued that the extent to which these criteria were applied and met at various stages of the research process should be made clear.
Table 4.5 Application of Nolan et al. (2003) criteria in the present study
Criteria Description Planning Process Product
Equal access Ensure the voices of all the major stakeholders heard
√ √ √
Enhanced
awareness of self
Provide participants with new insights to their own situation
√ √
Enhanced awareness of Others
Help participants to better understand the situation of other stakeholders
√ √
Encouraging Action
Identify and promote changes
√ √
Enabling action Facilitate and/or empower change
√ √
110
Table 4.5 outlines this briefly with respect to the present study. These steps were adopted and followed in this study and the extent to which they were met will also be considered more fully later in the ‘discussion’ chapter as part of a reflexive account of my research journey.
Reflexivity and constructivist grounded theory
As will be argued below reflexivity is increasingly considered to be an essential element of grounded theory work. The description of my motivation in undertaking this study and the account of the role that my own understandings took in shaping the direction of the study has already been considered. Below I expand upon recent discussions about the role of reflexivity within grounded theory.
Whilst reflexivity has been a key part of qualitative research for many years, discussion as to its role in grounded theory is a far more recent phenomenon (Gentles et al. 2014, Leonard and McAdam 2001, Ramalho et al. 2015). In an early reflection on the issue Leonard and McAdam (2001) contended that up until that time researchers using grounded theory had paid scant attention to the value of adding a reflexive account to their work, and such an element was often seen as unnecessary.
Over a decade later Gentles et al. (2014) undertook a review of the use of reflexivity in grounded theory and concluded that whilst it was by then the subject of greater debate, nevertheless many still paid it lip service, a conclusion with which other authors concurred (Ramalho et al. 2015). In order to address what was seen as a deficit of many qualitative studies, Gentles et al. (2014)
111
argued that the use of reflexivity should be an explicit inclusion in constructivist studies so as to make the influence of the researcher as transparent as possible. In order to do this, they proposed a series of questions that any author needs to address and it is their work, augmented by that of Ramalho et al. (2015), that I used to inform my own approach to reflexivity.
In making clear what they mean by reflexivity Gentles et al. (2014) provide the following broad definition, based on their review of the literature and suggest that reflexivity ‘most often refers to the generalised picture in which researchers strive to make their influence on the research explicit’ (Gentles et al. 2014, p.1). They argue that there is a need for a more specific framework within which to consider reflexivity in constructivist grounded theory and provide a series of questions/issues that the researcher needs to address. I outline these below, with one addition provided by the writings of Ramalho et al. (2015). In my section on reflexivity to date and that to be included in the discussion, I therefore intend to consider the following issues.
Any influence that I may have had on the research design and decisions about which questions to ask. This will include any pre-existing knowledge / concepts that I might have brought into the study, including the role played by the literature (Ramalho et al. 2015). These issues have already been largely addressed in the introductory section and the literature review chapter.
The nature of my interactions with the participants to include issues such as: any ‘power’ that the participants might have perceived I had; how I made contact with the participants and the way in which I presented myself to them; the extent to which I was able to involve the participants
112
as ‘partners’ in the study. These issues have been briefly addressed above and are discussed further in the following chapters.
Any influence I might have exerted on the ways in which data were collected and analysed. For Gentles et al. (2014) and Ramalho et al. (2015) the processes that underpin grounded theory analysis, such as constant comparison and memo writing, ensure an element of reflection on the part of the researcher, but I have sought in this chapter to make this as explicit as possible.
Any influence I may have had on the writing and reporting of the study; the effects that undertaking the study had on me. Both of these issues will be addressed later.
In addition to the above, Ramalho et al. (2015) make the telling point that any study undertaken by a doctoral student also needs to reflect on the part played by their supervisors. For these authors, the supervisory relationship provides the primary ‘terrain of reflexivity’.
A number of the above points have already been considered and others will be attended to at the relevant points in the thesis.
4.9 Conclusion
In this study, Charmaz’s (2005, 2006) constructivist version of the grounded theory approach has been adopted. The methods applied in the study in terms of theoretical sampling, data collection and constant comparative analysis have been described. With the application of the methods explained in this chapter, the main categories that emerged from the data and the developing ‘theory’ will be elaborated in chapters 5-7.
113
CHAPTER 5
OLDER PARTICIPANTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF, AND RESPONSES TO