Edificaciones Históricas de Iquitos

A framework for gathering data and examining the experiences of students with dyslexia needed to be flexible enough to capture individual stories and ideas. It also needed to be rigorous enough to compare individual experiences looking for commonalities and differences. While I have some knowledge, understanding of and views on, the research area I didn‟t want to go into this research with theory about the participants‟ experiences already formed but rather wanted to “see” what came out of the data. I wanted a methodology which allowed the students‟ experiences and voice, or own words, to be heard. A brief introduction to grounded theory methodology and methods using Glaser and Strauss‟s (1967) approach in a previous study (Rowan, 2010), led me to explore this methodology further looking for developments in the approach.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory methodology attempts to identify and describe phenomena and their attributes and interactions in an inductive manner, drawing together ideas into explanation of what is happening or has happened within a particular context (Charmaz, 2006, 2009; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1997). The data gathered is compared and concepts emerge to form mid-range theory linked to that data (Mutch, 2005). Concepts may be generalized to other instances but are firmly linked to the situational nature of the study. Grounded theory produces substantive theory based on relationships determined by coding (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Substantive theory is the emergent idea developed out of the categories into which the coded data is grouped and provides a theoretical explanation of a particular phenomenon (Crotty, 1998).

Early ideas of grounded theory suggest that theory is embedded in the data and a close examination would see the theory emerge; that the researcher could remain objective; the researcher could avoid becoming involved with the topic and participants to maintain this neutrality; and that reality could be captured in the data gathered in the research (Glaser, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1997). Subsequent users of grounded theory have tended to rigidly follow the original methods of Glaser and Strauss or the statistical approaches of Strauss and Corbin, which constrained the

usefulness of the tool, or to forgo the disciplined approach to be more flexible in using parts of the methods of data analysis to suit the research question (Morse et al., 2009). Regardless, “every time grounded theory is used, it requires adaptation in particular ways as demanded by the research question, situation, and participants for whom the research is being conducted” (Morse, et al., 2009, p. 14).

It was this adaptation of grounded theory methods, that cut across research disciplines and researcher differences, that led Morse and her colleagues to recognise that Glaser and Strauss‟s techniques and procedures should be considered as tools not directives and that creativity is a necessary part of making sense of experiences (Corbin, 2009; Stern, 2009). This has resulted in the more general view that “grounded theory is a way of thinking about data – processes of conceptualization – of theorizing from data so that the end result is a theory that the scientist produces from data collected by interviewing and observing everyday life” (Morse, et al., 2009, p. 18).

This shift in philosophical approach addressed a concern I had about the call for researcher objectivity in grounded theory. The research question in this study is subjective - derived from my life and teaching experiences. Corbin (2009) views the researcher‟s interest as an important part of studying a research topic. Charmaz (2006, 2009) incorporates this subjectivity into her constructivist approach. I hoped to find the right balance to draw out substantive theory in this study by balancing flexibility in the data collection and reporting process, to suit the characteristics of the participants, and to recognise my subjectivity in examining the data.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

Charmaz‟s constructivist grounded theory incorporates the view that the researcher‟s subjectivity must be recognised in research. In contrast with the objectivist approach her approach acknowledges and addresses the situated nature of the researcher, the situation, processes and outcomes in developing the theory. The assumptions and aims of the two approaches are presented in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 Comparisons and Contrasts of Grounded Theory (after Charmaz, 2006, p. 141)

In objectivist grounded theory the researcher is seen as neutral. Data collection and analysis provide the basis for making generalised theory, and the researcher‟s knowledge and analysis shapes the understanding of the topic. Constructivist grounded theory assumes the researcher is integral in designing, conducting and interpreting the study and therefore not neutral. Collected data reflects the understanding of the individual at a particular time and place, and therefore should not be extrapolated beyond the context (Charmaz, 2006). Theory emerges (rather than being generated)

from the study and reflects the particular words, interactions, and understandings of the participants and interviewer. This needs to be considered in the use of findings. Thus Charmaz‟s approach acknowledges the flexibility of grounded theory as a tool to suit a purpose, the subjectivity of the researcher, and the situated nature of the emergent theory.

My goal in using Charmaz‟s approach was to locate the participants‟ views of the phenomenon and their interactions in terms of larger social structures and discourses which they may be aware of. Participants‟ assumptions about dyslexia and higher education, and their decision making actions may reproduce current social ideologies or power relationships rather than being based on their own understandings (Charmaz, 2006, 2009). Using constructivist grounded theory I wanted to present the person‟s experience as closely as possible to their reality.

In this section I outlined and discussed the theoretical perspective and methodology that was used in this study – Charmaz‟s constructivist grounded theory. The next section presents the research focus, process and methods of data collection. Integrated throughout this is the narrative of the threads of my research thinking, decisions and actions that form a part of the research process. Starting with the research focus this section then describes the participants, data gathering tools and processes, ethical considerations and the methods of data analysis used in this study.