DISEÑO Y DISTRIBUCIÓN DE PLANTA

Validity and reliability

As mentioned previously, grounded theory analysis is considered to be both an art and a science. Therefore, validation here means to check out interpretations with participants against data during the research process while altering or discarding any interpretations from data that are considered contradictory to the incoming data. Ongoing discussion of these findings occurred throughout Term One and Term Two. Conversing with my supervisors helped me to further analyze my interpretations. Fortunately, the online grounded theory group that I had joined consisted of academics, scholars, doctoral and graduate students from around North America and provided ongoing conversations through email for which the feedback was critical to decisions made throughout the research process. Also, meeting with NVivo specialists who were trained in grounded theory methods also opened up discussion about grounded theory and how this study could best be applied to its methodology. Additionally, discussion with other professionals who work with and conduct research on ASD and the supervisors in AMI, helped in the maintenance of researcher reflexivity.

Researcher reflexivity

Researcher reflexivity is a practice in grounded theory where researchers strive to make their influence on the research, and thus the research influence upon them, explicit to both themselves and to their audience (Gentles, Jack, Nicholas, & McKibbon, 2014).

The objective of reflexivity is to increase the trustworthiness of the research. It is expected that researchers make explicit reference to reflexivity in their studies in order to legitimize their qualitative research. While the guidance on how to best approach reflexivity is still in the early stages, researchers must consider that reflexivity will be used in divergent ways depending upon their study (Gentles et al., 2014). Therefore, the researcher must strive to do her best to address and report reflexivity-related observations through memoing and journaling. Self-reflection is key to keeping reflexive in the research. Corbin and Strauss (2015) state that “we don’t separate who we are as persons from the research and analysis we do. Therefore, we must be self-reflective about how we influence the research process and, in turn, how it influences us”. In order to remain analytical in analyzing the data, ongoing dialogues between my supervisors and I were important for maintaining and encouraging me to further develop themes and go back to the data to check the fit of these themes.

Triangulation

Grounded theory also allows for methodological triangulation, which is the use of multiple methods to study a single process (Patton, 2001). Methodological triangulation strengthens the study because it utilizes multiple sources to ensure the integrity of the findings. Using only a single source of information is argued to carry more researcher bias in the interpretations made about the data. Multiple methods allow the researcher to cross- reference the data sources, reducing research bias. Triangulation was used in this study given the nature of the participants with ASD and the difficulties that may have come with answering open-ended questions in an interview alone. It should be used to support what the participants are saying, and has proven to be important to this study where many of the interviews needed further elaboration that could not be obtained in the interview process. Therefore, this study began with triangulating different types of participants (mentees and mentors) followed by triangulating different types of data and methods of data collection. The supporting evidence came from documents such as the mentor’s progress notes and the Program Evaluation Surveys (see Appendices J and K) and observations from being involved in the program, such as in the supervision meetings and from administering questionnaires to the mentees on an ongoing basis. These processes allowed me to meet with the mentees repeatedly throughout the year and engage in short conversations about how university life and AMI was going for them. The supervision

meetings gave me the opportunity to meet with the mentors on a monthly basis as well, which also informed me of how they were experiencing AMI.

Member-checking

A final summary of the major themes and their subthemes were emailed to the mentors to check for accuracy of the meanings of these themes (see Appendices L and M). Questions were asked to clarify their responses one last time and how they relate to themes that emerged from the data to ensure that the findings had not been “forced” by the researcher’s influences and biases, but allowed to “emerge” from the data taken from the interviews. The mentors were asked if the descriptions were complete, if the themes were accurate and if the interpretations were fair and representative (Creswell, 2012). Confirmation of these themes were made through an email response and if any changes needed to be made, the themes were reanalyzed and the necessary changes were made for the final analysis. Member checking was conducted with the mentees within the interviews, to verify their answers. For example, the mentees were verbally asked to confirm if my paraphrases accurately explained the meaning of each typed description for each written response. They were asked to verify by providing a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, often followed by the question “How so?” This method seemed to set up a good structure for reviewing their typed-written answers to ensure I had interpreted their experiences correctly.

3.2.15. Transferability

Grounded theory, as a qualitative approach, allows for the greatest degree of generalizability, more specifically known as transferability (Charmaz,1990). Tracy (2010) states, “Transferability is achieved when readers feel as though the story of the research overlaps with their own situation and they intuitively transfer the research to their own action” (p. 845). Transferability to other contexts is not necessary, but up to the study’s readers to determine if another context would fit for the transfer of findings. Therefore, for this study, I made certain to describe the mentoring program itself and the context in which the research took place. Babchuk (1996) addresses the issue that there are differences between approaches to grounded theory, with differences found within these approaches as well. Therefore, it is important for the researcher to specify which approach she has

taken in order to inform readers in their decision for transferability to other studies and populations. This study mostly employed the grounded theory approach by Corbin and Strauss (2015; 2008; 1998; 1990), with a focus on their most recent work.

3.2.16. Summary

A mentorship is a relationship, therefore, this study called for both mentee and mentor perspectives in order to determine the components involved in AMI. Thus, having both mentee and mentor perspectives was believed to provide a richer description of the experiences of the participants in AMI. The process of engaging in grounded theory has a two-fold effect here in this study. The very basis of grounded theory is to build a theory from the ground up, from the data, and from the perspectives of the participants, while recognizing one’s own influences into the analyses. Undergoing such immersion for emergence has brought to light the importance of taking the perspectives of others. In this case, the goal of this research is to portray the perspectives of both mentors and mentees to gain an in-depth understanding of how AMI was experienced by the participants. The two fold is this: grounded theory provides the opportunity to explore the social processes of others using their perspectives and, in doing so, has shown that the importance of taking the perspectives of those with ASD. It was my intention to analyze this study to the best of my ability by employing all the necessary components of the grounded theory approach, in order to provide the perspectives of the students with ASD. Grounded theory strives to provide the most efficient way to see the world from the participants’ viewpoints and to assess these viewpoints within the context of the phenomenon being studied, which is what I aimed to do for the participants in AMI.

Chapter 4.

Findings

The purpose of the current study was to develop a theory that explains how mentorship was experienced by the participants throughout their involvement in AMI. Grounded theory methodology was used to analyze the data from interviews and documents in order to allow for themes to emerge. By relating these major themes together in the analysis, a theory was developed that is explained by the connections between these themes. In the words of Corbin and Strauss (2015) “The core abstract concept summarizes in a word or two what the theory is all about and provides a means for integrating the other concepts around it”. Thus, the core theme stands above other major themes while integrating these themes together, creating a theory. This analysis resulted in one core overarching theme labeled ‘A Mentee-centered Approach’. Under this central theme, five other major themes emerged that contributed to this approach: “The Natural Progression of the Relationship”, “The Versatile Mentor”, “The Meeting Process”, “Identifying and Implementing Goals” and “Learning Together”, with mention of the challenges that impeded the mentorship process, titled “Barriers to a Beneficial Mentorship”. These themes were comprised of more specific sub-themes, which are described in the analyses below (See Table 4.1.).

Table 4.1. The Main Themes and Subthemes of A Mentee-centered Approach Main Themes Sub-themes

The Natural Progression of the Relationship Releasing the Structure The Self-advocating Mentee Setting and Maintaining Boundaries Being on the Right Level Enjoying Time Together The Versatile Mentor A Familiar Supportive Connection

The Meeting Process Same Time, Same Place Check-ins, Follow-ups, and Sign-offs Being on the Same Page An Implicit Interaction in Itself Identifying and Implementing Goals Goal Domains Hierarchy of Goals Macro and Micro Goals Learning Together University Adjustment Creating Cohesion and Collaboration

4.1. Core Theme

A Mentee-centered Approach: “An Individualized Mentoring

Program”

A Mentee-centered Approach was a holistic person-centered, semi-structured approach that focused on the mentee’s individual needs. For the mentor, this involved a combination of getting to know the mentee and getting to know the mentee’s goals. For the mentee, it involved identifying and communicating his or her goals. A Mentee-centered Approach emerged out of the process of developing a relationship between mentee and mentor, towards a more open and communicative relationship. This theory posits that through a natural progression of the relationship, mentor-mentee meetings became less

formal and structured, and more informal and unstructured. This progression allowed for more disclosure by the mentee, but without being too informal or overstepping the professional boundaries of the mentoring process.

The integration of these themes around a core theme, and how they relate, create the emergent theory for AMI. Theoretical integration involves linking themes around a core theme to form a theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). Other salient themes emerged that were of importance to the experiences of AMI for mentees and mentors. These major themes were connected and related to the core theme of A Mentee-centered Approach, providing an explanatory theory for this interrelated process (See Figure 4.1.).

Figure 4.1. A Mentorship Framework