Código de la Niñez y Adolescencia

This research study is based on grounded theory as explained by Glaser ( 1978, 1992, 1996, 1998), Glaser and Strauss (1967), and Strauss (1987). Grounded theory is a general research method that has been shaped by pragmatism and informed by symbolic interactionism. Glaser ( 1996, 1998) stated that Everett Hughes and Herbert Blumer trained Strauss in symbolic interactionism and qualitative analysis at the University of Chicago. Strauss ( 1987) noted that the grounded theory approach to qualitative analysis evolved from the general philosophical ideas of American Pragmatism and the specific writings of Dewey, Mead, and Peirce. By contrast Glaser ( 1996, 1998) was trained at Columbia University. There, he was influenced by Paul Lazarfeld's techniques of quantitative analysis, and Robert Merton's courses in theory development, as well as his structural­ functional analysis of sociological problems and social conditions that effect conformity and deviance in society. In the grounded theory method qualitative and quantitative research traditions are integrated within symbolic interactionism (Glaser, 1996; Glaser & Strauss, 1965).

Grounded Theory as a Research Method

Grounded theory is an inductive research method that generates theory from data which is gathered, organised, and examined systematically in an ongoing interplay between analysis and data collection (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987). The aim is to explain and to predict behaviour, and to discover the underlying social processes shaping interaction and human behaviour. As an approach it is guided by the notion that to know about a person is not enough. Even though the person learns to understand the self through social interactions with others, the purpose of grounded theory is to "type behaviour not people" (Glaser, 1992, p. 69). Therefore, the emphasis is on patterns of action and interaction. Behavioural patterns of the wider group are the focus, not personal patterns.

Grounded theory is a useful approach to direct theory development (Glaser, 1978). It is also an effective style for the qualitative analysis of data and conceptualisation (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Grounded theory research is based on the assumption that the social world is discoverable via naturalistic inquiry into the social conditions shaping interaction and behaviour. Glaser and Strauss (1967) drew the method from the quantitative tradition developing an interpretive method that embraces the systematic collection and analysis of data in the everyday world in a way that ensures reliable and rigorous results. They extended conventional quantitative techniques, introducing field observation, semi­ structured interviews, and the examination of varied documents as a valid means of understanding how people define and interpret situations and meld their behaviour and expectations with others.

Constant comparative analysis, theoretical coding, and theoretical sampling, all processes contributing to the systematic generation of theory, are features of grounded theory (Glaser, 1978, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ; Strauss, 1987). Constant comparative analysis is an ongoing process whereby the researcher jointly codes and analyses data into concepts and categories. Tentative hypotheses about the main concem are checked against incoming data and emerging theoretical ideas (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Systematic generation of theory progresses as the researcher identifies categories and searches the data to identify wide dimensions. The goal is not to cover the field in its entirety. Rather, theory that accounts for a broad range of interaction and behaviour is developed. The disciplined process permits "some of the vagueness and flexibility that aid the creative generation of theory" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967 , p. 103).

Constant comparative analysis facilitates theory reduction by delimiting and saturating the categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The researcher compares similarities and differences between incidents common to a category. Incidents are contrasted with incidents in the same category and across categories. Next, the analyst integrates categories with properties that are all-inclusive of causal conditions, the context, interactions among

the people, strategies and tactics, and consequences (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987). Although incidents and categories are both concepts they differ in the level of conceptual abstraction. Thick description is reduced by conceptualisation, by selecting and focusing on conceptual and theoretical categories that control development of the emerging theory. The content behind the categories, is explained in memos that diary the developing meaning in the theory.

Theoretical coding is used to fracture the data (Glaser, 1978). Coding helps the analyst sort out, summarise and synthesise incoming information so that it is developed effectively. Glaser identifies two types of codes: substantive and theoretical. Substantive codes identify ideas emerging from the data while "theoretical codes conceptualise how the substantive codes may relate to each other as hypotheses to be integrated into the theory" (p. 55). Substantive coding is open while theoretical coding is selective in that it is focused on checking out tentative hypotheses and relationships between concepts. At this point coding is directed towards the development and explication of the basic core variable or a core category that draws the theory together (Strauss, 1987). The two types of coding occur concurrently and are integrated with theoretical sampling.

Theoretical sampling is another hallmark of grounded theory. As the researcher collects, codes, and analyses data she decides where to move next to clarify the dimensions of emerging categories (Glaser, 1978). Glaser ( 1992) believed that the participants are chosen, as they are needed, to further the theoretical purpose and relevance of the evolving theory. Different participants help the researcher to clarify the patterns of action and interaction between and among people, and develop a theoretical conceptualisation within the area of study. Data are collected in various ways. For example, focused interviews, observations, and documents may broaden the slices of data, providing different perspectives and issues of concern within the emergent theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Theoretical sampling assists the analyst to identify the similarities and differences within and between the discovered categories. Categories are

clarified as their meaning is developed in relation to various dimensions, social conditions, and consequences until they are theoretically saturated and no new ideas appear (Glaser & Strauss, 1966). As a process, theoretical sampling is ongoing, logical, highly organised, and rigorous. This process is enhanced by the researcher's theoretical sensitivity, ability to conceptualise and to abstract a total theory systematically, and capacity for theoretical insight into the domain of study (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Theoretical development in grounded theory is generally consistent with middle range theories that are either formal or substantive (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967). Substantive theory focuses specifically on areas where the researcher seeks to understand the actions and interactions of people in a particular place. Formal theory though, develops disciplinary knowledge in relation to existing abstracted concepts such as human science and human care (Watson, 1988). Usually, it follows substantive theory development by building knowledge about preexisting concepts to a more abstract level.

The Credibility of Grounded Theory

Conveying credibility is a two-way process between the researcher and the participants. Glaser and Strauss (1967) argued that it commences once the researcher feels ready to convince others of theoretical plausibility while acknowledging that theory development is evolutionary. Closure seems reasonable when the researcher is confident that the field is represented accurately. Although the interpretation is but one, the researcher uses theoretical explanation to illustrate the social world so vividly that others can easily connect the theoretical framework with reality.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) stated that the notions of fit, workability, relevance, and modifiability, confrrm theoretical credibility. A study has fit when theoretical categories match the data. Fit is consistent with the research validity (Glaser, 1998). Categories are not preconceived or forced to fit the preexisting assumptions. Explanations are congruent with the emerging patterns and account for the participants' construction of reality.

A well-developed grounded theory captivates readers who are convinced by tpe lifelike presentation of a familiar reality (Glaser, 1978).

, Similarly, a grounded theory is workable when it explains what is happening in the place of study (Glaser, 1 978). The theory is verified in the field as hypotheses are checked and confrrmed by participants. Integrated hypotheses explain many of the pattems of behaviour seen in a substantive area (Glaser, 1998). A well-developed grounded theory is much more than description, as it informs expert practitioners of the implicit dimensions of practice that are understood but seldom shared explicitly with others. Strong theoretical explanations provide participants with "a new way of seeing what we all know that's very useful - even an eye-opener" (Strauss,

1987, p. 20).

A workable theory is also relevant to the substantive area of study. The main concern and the core process for handling concerns are explicit within the theoretical framework. People in the field recognise the variations in action, once the interactions and behaviours are presented. A credible grounded theory is modifiable because theoretical development is always ongoing. That is consistent with the symbolic interactionist approach which assumes that as social conditions change, so does theory,

if it is to remain relevant. Ongoing modification makes findings transferable across various settings. Overall, a credible grounded theory is conceptually dense, parsimonious and has broad scope in that the conceptual fmdings are tentatively applicable to many people in similar situations.

The Grounded Theory Style Used in this Study

Initially, the particular style of grounded theory used in this study was that of Glaser and Strauss ( 1 967), Strauss ( 1 987), and especially Glaser's

(1978, 1992, 1 996, 1998) method that supported the emergence of problems of the group being studied. Glaser ( 1 992) stated clearly that grounded theorists ask two formal - not preconceived - questions. These are "What is the chief concern or problem of the people in the substantive area, and what accounts for most of the variation in processing the

problem? And secondly, what category or property of what category does this incident indicate?" (p. 4) . The grounded theory analyst is looking for the principal theme that integrates behavioural pattems explaining the main concem or problem for the people in the setting. Through systematic, detailed examination of data, the analyst aims "to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data" (p. 10).

This method was chosen because it was, and still is, congruent with the researcher's philosophical perspective. Glaser's (1 978) guidelines provided an approach that supported researcher flexibility, creativity, and systematic structured analysis. However, analysis using Glaser's (1978) coding family of "causes, contexts, contingencies, consequences, covariances, and conditions" (p. 74) was eventually constraining in the latter stages of theoretical development. Although the Glaser model was followed carefully for two and a half years, in the fmal period of analysis, the overlaps between causes and conditions became especially frustrating because specific breakdown of that set of data perpetuated a data fragmentation that interfered with the participants' impressions. When the researcher took interpretations back to the participants, conflnnation of findings according to discrete causes and . conditions was not forthcoming. Discussion with many participants revealed that causes and conditions overlapped in their everyday world. Although difficulties may be accounted for by a researcher-in-training, it may also be possible that the pace of change is such that some slight modification to the general theoretical guidelines may now be required.

Early in the project, Strauss and Corbin's (1 990) version of grounded theory was originally perceived to be confming. Mter further study of the paradigm model the researcher decided to use a particular section in which causes and conditions were merged together. The data was successfully reorganised so that it was consistent with the participants' explanations. As a result a tighter, more coherent, substantive theory was generated.