Consumo de psicotropos en población de edad avanzada

In spite of the increased interest in the meaningfulness of work and its potential positive implications for both individuals and organizations (Hirschi, 2012), there

remains a lack of adequate research on this issue that takes the intersection of gender and social class into account (Hartung & Subich, 2011). Therefore, the main purpose of my study was to use grounded theory research to develop a substantive theory to help explain differences in perceptions that women from diverse social classes have of the

meaningfulness of work, how important it is to their choice of careers, and how their perception of it influences their workplace experiences and behavior.

This chapter will provide a comprehensive overview of how this research was carried out. An introduction to the research design and explanation of the rationale for using grounded theory as the qualitative design method will be followed by a description of my role as the researcher. Next, I describe the methodology, including the logic used for participant selection, the context of the study, instrumentation, and procedures for recruitment, participation, data collection, and data analysis. Finally, I discuss issues related to the study’s trustworthiness (such a credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) and ethical procedures.

Research Design and Rationale

The design for this qualitative study of perceptions of the meaningfulness of work was guided by the following research questions:

RQ 1: What perceptions do women from diverse social classes have of the meaningfulness of work?

RQ 2: What influenced their perceptions of the meaningfulness of work? RQ 3: What impact do they believe their perceptions of the meaningfulness of

work have or have had on their career choices?

RQ 4: How do they believe that their perceptions of the meaningfulness of work influence their workplace experiences and behaviors?

RQ 5: What substantive theory can help explain differences in the perceptions that women have of the meaningfulness of work, their impact on career

choices, and the influence of these perceptions on their workplace experiences and behaviors?

Central Concepts of the Study

The central concept for this study is the meaningfulness of work. There have been many conflicting ways that this term is defined, but for the purposes of this study I define it as “individual subjective experience of the existential significance or purpose of work” (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012, p. 657) in which people “transform themselves…and the world around them…while making progress toward important end states” (Fairlie, 2011, p. 509). Feminist critical theory, one of the lenses I used for this study, places importance on expressing and accounting for the unique voice of each female participant, so I also made sure to include the perceptions that the participants had of the meaningfulness of work and how they defined it. As discussed at length in Chapter 2, the growing body of scholarship on the meaningfulness of work and related concepts within multiple areas of study indicate that it is a relevant, important area to explore.

Another central issue for this study was the importance of including not only the potential influence of social class on perceptions of the meaningfulness of work but also

the way that social class and gender interact. Social class has at times been equated with socioeconomic status (SES), which is typically based on an objective measurement of “educational/occupational attainment, income, and/or occupational prestige” (Diemer & Ali, 2009, p. 250). Others have focused on a more subjective view of social class, such as the Social Class Worldview Model (SCWM), which takes into account a person’s

perception and experience of social class within the context of his or her economic culture (Liu, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004). Rather than limiting this study to one or the other of these measurements of social class, I took both into consideration as recommended by Diemer et al. (2013).

Grounded Theory Study

In order to best fulfill the purposes of the study, I used a qualitative, grounded theory research method to address the research questions. I selected a qualitative

approach because it allows for a deeper, more in-depth exploration of a problem or issue, particularly when there are complex, dynamic, and contextual factors involved (Cunliffe, 2011; Lee et al., 2011). Consistent with a feminist critical theory lens, qualitative

research allows the unique perspectives, experiences, meaning-making, and voices of individual participants to be explored in order to account for multiple subjective

perspectives on the meaning ascribed to issues or problems through reflexive, personal, inductive analysis of data (Creswell, 2007). I used grounded theory research in this study because it is the most appropriate choice for developing a theory based on the expressed experiences of individuals regarding a particular phenomenon or process (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). As noted by Creswell (2007), the main purpose for grounded theory research is the generation or discovery of a theory based on the lived experience of

individuals, addressing questions about relevant processes, actions, or interactions (Birks, Mills, Francis, & Chapman, 2009). In this study, I addressed the process by which

various factors influenced or were influenced by the perceptions individuals have of the meaningfulness of work.

For grounded theory research, data are usually collected from multiple

participants who can help to further the understanding of processes related to a particular phenomenon or action. The report that is developed is a theory, often illustrated as a model or figure, based on an analysis of transcribed interviews through open, axial, and selective coding processes (Gurd, 2008). In keeping with methods consistent with grounded theory research, I used purposive theoretical sampling (Draucker, Martsolf, Ross, & Rusk, 2007) and data collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews, demographic questionnaires, and reflexive researcher memos (Bringer, Johnston, & Brackenridge, 2004). Through an iterative process of data collection and analysis (Gurd, 2008) using constant comparison for analysis in open, axial, and selective phases (Walker & Myrick, 2006), my interpretation resulted in the generation of a substantive

explanatory theory.

Role of the Researcher Role Description

I personally carried out the study design, established contact with and obtained cooperation from the organizations that distributed participant recruitment flyers, and selected the participants. I created and set up a web-based survey using a secure server to collect demographic information and I also created a semistructured interview guide (see Appendix B) that I used to conduct individual interviews with selected participants,

which I then transcribed into QSR NVivo. Data for analysis and interpretation included researcher memos I created by engaging in reflexive journaling throughout the study. After the data was analyzed, I directly interacted with participants to report the results and to provide guidance based on the research conclusions. Although the research was conducted in Pittsburgh where I reside, the city is large enough that it was possible to avoid including participants in the study with whom any previous relationships existed. Conflicts of Interest and Biases

Because there were no financial interests involved in this study, there was no potential conflict of interest. However, all human beings have conscious or unconscious biases that must be taken into consideration in order to understand their impact on the research design, data collection, and data analysis, as well as on the interpretation of the results (Amis & Silk, 2008). While objectivity and a lack of any bias are considered necessary for quantitative studies, qualitative researchers seek to understand and reflect on their own motives, thoughts, feelings, and perspectives in the process of conducting the research (Bishop & Shepherd, 2011). Because this was a grounded theory study, I worked to uncover personal biases and examined them in depth using researcher memos for reflexivity (Bringer, Johnston, & Brackenridge, 2004).

Although a greater understanding of personal perspectives and potential biases was developed throughout the research process, there were a few areas of bias that I recognized going into it. For example, I tend toward a perspective, informed by transformational leadership theory, in which vision, proactive engagement with life, personal growth and transformation, and reflexivity are highly valued (Schippers et al., 2008). As a Christian, I also have a bias towards a belief that every individual is uniquely

created, gifted, and called to make a positive difference in the world and in the lives of others (Blanchard & Ken Blanchard Companies, 2007). My cultural background, including being a married, heterosexual, female Caucasian, currently living in poverty within the United States also had an impact on the way that I viewed and interpreted the data received in this study. My experience with growing up in an economically poor family, but with values more typically associated with the upper middle class, also may have contributed to my perspective on the potential impact of social class on participants’ perceptions of the meaningfulness of work and career perspectives (Bowman, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2009). As noted by McIlveen, Beccaria, du Preez, and Patton (2010),

reflecting on and writing about one’s personal perspective “provides the psychologist with a method to understand himself or herself in the performance of his or her research into a particular phenomenon of interest, which, like himself or herself, is embedded in a sociocultural context” (p. 12).

Methodology

Because qualitative research is not generalizable to attain external validity in the same way that quantitative research is, its quality instead depends on the transferability that can be achieved through a detailed and rich methodological description. I conducted the study according to the plan laid out in this section which details (a) participant selection, (b) instrumentation, (c) context for the study, and (d) procedures used for recruitment, participation, and data collection. I also describe how I analyzed and interpreted the data, and include a table clarifying my data collection and analysis plans (see Table 1).

Participant Selection Logic

Research population. The initial target research population was women (ages 18-64) from distinct social classes who are currently employed or have had previous work experience. Based on the emerging importance of generational impact within the developing theory, I used theoretical sampling to add participants that were outside of the age group, so the target population changed to include all women 18 or older. I selected participants through purposive theoretical sampling from among respondents to

invitations posted in organizations in Pittsburgh, PA. I asked respondents to fill out an online form to provide demographic and career data and then I interviewed them over the phone to collect qualitative data about their perceptions, experiences, and beliefs about the meaningfulness of work.

Sampling strategy. According to Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007), choosing the sampling scheme, the plan for selection of study participants, is important because it impacts the power that the qualitative study has for analytic generalizability. I used a purposive theoretical sampling scheme, as is typical of grounded theory research, which means researchers intentionally seek out participants that will add to the theoretical framework being developed, as well as comparison groups from which they collect new data based on the categories that are emerging from the current data. This meant posting invitations for participation at two organizations dedicated to empowering women and working with people from varying social classes, because these locations were likely to lead to participants who could help deepen understanding of my topic. I also collected data from “disconfirming cases which may contradict parts of the present theory

proximity to the participants also made it a convenience sample, theoretical basis exists for locating this study in a city highly influenced by social class stratification (Florida, 2004) and gender inequality (Deitrick & Briem, 2009), which is important to

understanding the potential impact of social class and gender on perceptions of the meaningfulness of work (Fouad & Fitzpatrick, 2009).

Sample size. The target number of participants was 20-30, with five or six representing each social class or job level. This number, which is typical for grounded theory studies (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007), allowed for sufficient diversity of race, ethnicity, age, job type, and level of work, but was still small enough for all responses to in-depth interview questions to be effectively collected and transcribed. My study met this target number, as there were 25 participants total and six or seven representing each social class.

The overall number of participants depended on the amount necessary to reach saturation level of the data, the point at which potential categories have been fully extracted from the data (Dougherty, Kramer, Klatzke, & Rogers, 2009). In grounded theory research, theoretical sampling requires sample size and characteristics to be evaluated on an ongoing basis during the data collection and analysis process (Fendt & Sachs, 2008). After I collected and analyzed data from 22 participants, theoretical

sampling led me to interview three additional participants from different social classes in order to further the theory-building process and to ensure the data were sufficiently saturated to warrant moving on from the data collection phase.

Sample characteristics. I selected participants for this study using a theoretical sampling scheme from among adult women (ages 18 and over) who responded to an

invitation for participation posted in organizations in Pittsburgh, PA. The sample included individuals representing diverse social, occupational, and cultural groups, including “participants in a variety of occupations and jobs who held positions of relatively higher or lower rank in an effort to facilitate maximum variation” (Berg, Wrzesniewski et al., 2010, p. 161). According to Young (2009), “some variables relevant to career decisions include age, ethnicity, gender, education, skill levels, seniority, and industry” (p. 295). Dik and Duffy (2009) suggested that religion and spirituality could also play a role in career choices. Therefore, demographic factors that I considered when selecting participants included age, race or ethnicity, gender, religion, job type and level, educational background, and number of years in current position. I also examined social class, as McIlveen, Beccaria, du Preez, and Patton (2010) recommended that social class and classism be taken into consideration in career counseling training, defining social class as “a multifaceted psychological phenomenon, rather than a simplistic demographic and objectified descriptor based on income, occupation, or geo-graphic location” (p. 5).

While I based most of the sampling qualifications on experience or demographic characteristics, I also based the criteria for participation on the ability to communicate effectively in the interviews. As noted by Morse (2010), participants must also be able to expend the time needed to sufficiently provide their information or share their story, have the capability to be reflective, and be both “willing and able to speak articulately about the experience” (p. 231).

Justification for inclusion or exclusion. To be included in this study,

participants needed to be female adults (ages 18 or over) who were both willing and able to participate in telephone interview sessions, to understand the questions asked, and to

respond to those questions. Participants also had to be either currently employed or have been employed in the past. I used the demographic information survey to identify individuals who met the inclusion criteria and those that needed to be excluded from the study because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. I also excluded potential

participants who did not appear to add positively toward the theoretical development (such as those that were too similar to current participants to add sufficient variety). Context of the Study

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This study took place within the Pittsburgh

Metropolitan Statistical Area (also called Greater Pittsburgh), “as defined by the United States Census Bureau, which includes seven counties in Western Pennsylvania”

(Hegewisch & Williams, 2010). The problem that this region has had historically with social class polarization (Prins, 2009) and continuing issues with gender inequality (Deitrick & Briem, 2009) made Pittsburgh an ideal location to explore possible

influences of gender and class distinctions (Florida, 2004). While there has been some degree of urban renewal and a push for improving Pittsburgh’s competitiveness through greater inclusion of diversity and by attracting high quality employees to the area

(Benner, Fox, Fox, & Axel-Lute, 2008), there are still major problems with inequity that were addressed in this study.

Interview location. It is important that the interviews take place in a location where participants will feel comfortable, where there is privacy and the ability to limit distractions and intrusions. The interviews were conducted over the phone, so I made the calls from a locked room in my house in order to limit distractions and intrusions. I also

cautioned the participants to seek a private place to take the phone call so that their interviews would not be overheard or interrupted.

Instrumentation

I used two types of instruments to collect data for this study: interviews to get responses to questions about perceptions participants have of the meaningfulness of work, how important it is to their career choices, and how it influences their workplace experiences and behavior, and a demographic survey to gather demographic information (e.g., age, ethnicity, social class, religion, educational background, and occupational history). I also used memos for theory development and then included the content of the memos as data.

Interview guide. For the interviews, I developed a general interview guide (see Appendix B) with questions that provided direction for the interview without limiting the freedom to follow leads or to ask additional questions in response to what the participant discussed. The questions in the guide were based on the research questions, but with prompts for questions based on what the literature review revealed as potential factors related to the meaningfulness of work. For example, for the research question requesting each participant to share their thoughts about what may have influenced their perceptions of the meaningfulness of work, I asked questions about family of origin, community, or societal expectations, as the literature suggested that these factors might have an impact (Schnell, 2011). However, it is a fine line because in grounded theory studies it is

important to allow the theory to emerge and not use previous research to push the data to conform to a preconceived notion.

Although I used the demographic survey to obtain information about participants’ occupation, income, and education to get an objective idea of their socioeconomic status (SES), I assessed each participant’s subjective understanding of her social class and its impact by asking questions based on the Social Class Worldview Model (SCWM) in the interview (Diemer et al., 2013). These questions asked the participants about how they view social class and about their experiences with it within the following domains: (a) consciousness or awareness of social class, (b) referent groups (including family, peers, and aspiration), (c) property relationship (materialism), (d) lifestyle (organization of time and resources), and (e) behaviors (Fouad & Fitzpatrick, 2009).

Demographic survey. Most of the items on the survey that I created collected standard demographic data, basic contact information, age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, and marital status. Some items were helpful for evaluating participants’ work- related experience and their socioeconomic status, such as job title, number of years in their current job, educational background (both for the participant and her parents), annual income, and career information. Because the specific location within the Pittsburgh area has important implications due to its unique social class and gender discrepancies, I also asked participants about the number of years that they have lived in the Pittsburgh area.

Researcher memos. I used the literature about memoing in grounded theory