CONDICIONES DE SEGURIDAD EN ACROSPORT

The research questions focus on exploring the processes by which the interactive dynamics behind the implementation of rural community development (RCD) projects affect individuals and the collective fabric of the community. In this manner, the current study seeks to contribute to the development of theory to increase understanding of the dynamics of RCD. Principles of naturalistic enquiry, qualitative research and grounded theory informed the approach for the current study, as these have been demonstrated to be effective in studying and generating theory regarding people’s experiences and perceptions. The approach taken was drawn from the descriptions and discussions of grounded theory found in the writings of Cresswell (1998), Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005), Patton (Patton, 1990), Dick (2002), Borgatti (2005), Charmaz (2000), Glaser (2002) Suddaby (2006) Bowen (2008) and Patton (1990), and was guided by a range of community research projects.

The current study falls within the interpretive paradigm of naturalistic enquiry in that it is concerned with how a social phenomenon (RCD processes’ effect upon the rural community fabric) is

constituted, experienced and interpreted. The sources which inform the research interest are found in people’s experiences and perceptions, individually and collectively, of processes as they occur. Previous researchers have explored the deficiencies of a positivist and empiricist approach in handling the entangled and often paradoxical interaction of social experience (Cresswell, 1998; Ife, 2002). A naturalistic enquiry approach to research involves studying human phenomena in their

natural setting rather than manipulating situations to test hypotheses (Bowen, 2008; Cresswell, 1998). The focus is on exploring, understanding and documenting process and variations of experience and outcomes (Patton, 1990). Although quantitative methods can be employed within this research ontology, due to the nature of social enquiry there is a predominance of qualitative methods. Research approaches characteristic of naturalistic enquiry include inductive analysis, grounded theory, case study reporting, discourse analysis and narrative inquiry (Bowen, 2008; Cresswell, 1998; Patton, 1990). In contrast with the once dominant scientific paradigm emphasising objectivity in measuring verifiable phenomena (Ife, 1995; Willig, 2001), such qualitative approaches are subject to the interpretation of both the research participants and the researcher (Mason, 2002).

The research questions also set the focus on illuminating what is happening with the phenomena without predetermining what exists. Accordingly, the method embraced is emergent, responding to findings in the data throughout the process, and further, denotes a grounded theory approach, generating theory as it emerges from the data. Grounded theory has been described as

“a general methodology for developing theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analysed. Theory evolves during actual research and it does this through continuous interplay between analysis and data collection” (Strauss and Corbin 1994: 273 cited in Bowen, 2008)

Rather than research to test theory, the primary purpose of grounded theory research is the generation of theory regarding human social processes directly from the data, through systematic analysis.

While it has been argued that grounded theory can, and indeed should be implemented and understood from an objectivist viewpoint (Glaser, 2002), it has also been reformulated (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and further interpreted across the spectrum from objectivist to constructivist and realist to relativist (Charmaz, 2000). Each of these variations, provide a systematic approach to the

analysis of qualitative data, and these approaches have been reviewed and synthesized under the assumption that grounded theory can continue to be refined and evolved (Eaves, 2001).

Although there appears to be conflicting guidelines regarding specific procedures within grounded theory, common across these writings is that grounded theory involves

“an organic process of theory emergence based on how well data fit conceptual categories identified by an observer, by how well the categories explain or predict ongoing

interpretations and by how relevant the categories are to the core issues being observed.” (Suddaby, 2006, p.634).

This is a process of constant comparative analysis, theoretical sampling, and developing theory as it emerges from the concepts within the strengthening categories. Sensitising concepts are accepted by some as valid in providing a point of reference to orient the development of theory. It could also be reasoned that an observer would already be sensitive to issues which they have encountered in both professional and personal life experience and thus bring this lens to the analysis process. Data analysis involves systematic coding and comparison of new data with previous data and coding, and the emerging theory. These continue until no new concepts are being added from the new data, and similarly, no new coding categories emerge; frequently understood as data and theoretical saturation. Given the richness of qualitative data, saturation too has a human factor in reaching limits to identify new concepts. As the process is emergent, the sampling, data collection, and analysis and the development of theory occur concurrently.

Charmaz (2000, p. 510) argues that the systematic analysis does not require following a set of prescriptive instructions, but instead grounded theory methods “move each step of the analytic process toward the development, refinement, and interrelation of concepts”. From this premise the current research is guided by the agreed preceding features drawn from a range of experience in using grounded theory.

Qualitative approaches and grounded theory have been accepted and used in community research. For example, Nelson and Prilleltensky (2005) in their community psychology text include grounded theory as one of the approaches under the heading of ‘Foundations of Community Research’. A number of community studies have used qualitative methodologies and grounded theory to study community processes, rural community understandings and community development.

For example, Falk and Fitzpatrick (2000) utilised qualitative approaches in their research to understand “the nature of the interactive productivity between the local networks in a rural community” (p. 93). They described the methodology as using principles of grounded theory, and ethnographic techniques within a whole-community case study. As with much qualitative research, the sampling was purposive, identifying thirty-four community leaders across a range of socio- demographic variables to participate in an interview, then recording their spontaneous

conversations in the community over a day, and maintaining a diary of their interactions. While the research is described as being founded on grounded theory principles in that it is both theory and indicator generating, the starting point is the assumptions to be tested by the research. In this way the research appears not to follow a key aspect of generating theory from the ground without imposing preconceived directions. Similarly, it is not obvious whether the grounded theory components of sampling to saturation and constant comparative analysis were included. Thus the methodology as explained in the article, while qualitative and contributing to theory regarding community processes in rural communities, does not follow some aspects of a grounded theory approach. However, the research shows the successful application of qualitative methods in developing theory regarding the relationship between individual interactions and social capital. With regard to the current study, it demonstrates the relevance of these approaches (including purposive sampling, and transcripts of interviews and conversations as a data source) for understanding the complex dynamics of rural community.

The recent work of Cheers et al (Cheers, et al., 2003), utilised a grounded theory, iterative and multidisciplinary approach for research developing theory regarding community processes. Like the current research, the goal was to inform RCD, but the targeted interest was in developing a

comprehensive framework for a sociological understanding of the ‘community factor’ based in both how rural communities construct community, and current community literature. Data was first collected from the literature and analysed using the concept of a community factor as a sensitising concept. This resulted in sixty-eight concepts or frameworks which informed understanding of the community factor. From these, a rudimentary framework for the community factor was developed. The research processes were overlayed, such that the literature review informed continued

appraisal as well as the coinciding interpretive research in the field.

The field work initially aimed to choose one community for in-depth study, however two communities were chosen, based on findings from the first round of observations in five

communities and interviews in one. In-depth interviews with residents, local documents, a focus group and observations from joining the social life of the communities were the sources of data. Interviews and the focus group discussions were guided by a small number of questions aimed at participants telling their stories. All were taped, transcribed and analysed using a qualitative analysis software application. Analysis of the field research provided the refinement of the framework, founded on the concept of community strength as it was understood by rural community residents. Using the community strength framework as the foundation, a tool to facilitate community

development was also developed.

Cheers et al’s (2003) research demonstrates the relevance of an iterative grounded theory approach informed by researchers from across a range of disciplines, for understanding community processes. It is an example of drawing concepts from varying data sources until key concepts evolve as an emergent theory, and changing data collection plans during the research to better capture the emerging concepts. Likewise, it shows how interviews, focus groups and document reviews are used

to access relevant sources for understanding people’s experience of community. Some of the methods of data collection within this comprehensive research project are also utilised in the current study. These particularly relate to the multidisciplinary input and emergent design, engaging people’s perceptions through loosely structured interviews, local documents, and observation, and utilising grounded theory to inform data analysis and collection.

Bowen’s (2008) research note describing the detail of a grounded theory study of community-based antipoverty projects, more explicitly demonstrates operationalising sensitising concepts, constant comparative analysis and the process of saturation involved in grounded theory as applied in community work. Bowen consciously drew sensitising concepts (citizen participation, social capital and empowerment) from a review of the literature and created a conceptual framework regarding these to guide theory formulation. However care was taken in the data collection and analysis to not impose these concepts but to let new concepts arise.

Thirty-four in-depth interviews were sampled across eight projects, with further non-participant observation, and document reviews. Eight of these interviews were added later in the process, to aid constant comparison with the data from an initial sample of twenty-six interviews. In this manner theoretical sampling was applied, continually informing the emerging theory through sampling until saturation. The data was collected and analysed concurrently using constant comparative analysis in reviewing line, sentence and paragraphs of the transcripts and field notes. Through open coding, and assigning and revising codes utilising a qualitative analysis software application to manage the data, fifty-six categories were generated. This continued into axial coding drawing the codes into categories that were interpretive rather than descriptive, followed by

selective coding by connecting and consolidating axial codes and finally identifying core categories across the themes. What emerged was a theory that stakeholder collaboration in development increases productivity of resources and generates the conditions to enable community-driven development.

Bowen’s description of constantly moving back and forth between data and categories, checking and rechecking the codes and concepts to identify concepts that appeared to be clustered, details the process of discovering theoretical properties in the data. Again, interviews arise as an important source of data, supported by observation and document analysis. He also emphasises the related processes of theoretical sampling and comparative analysis, continuing until saturation is achieved. With regard to the current research interest, this study again demonstrates the relevance of a grounded theory approach to enhance understanding community development processes and highlights the specific analytic processes and data collection methods successfully used to build theory grounded in the data. These provide a guide for the current study.

Naturalistic inquiry and qualitative approaches utilising grounded theory have been chosen for the current study, having been demonstrated to be effective in studying people’s experience and perceptions and generating related theory. As such the following section, which describes the design and methods used, follows the example of the cited research.