Grounded theory (GT), originally proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as a way of developing theory from social research data, is a qualitative research method that seeks to investigate the reality of a situation and analyses data with no
preconceived ideas or hypothesis. GT is distinguishing in its systematic methods of data collection and analysis enabling development of substantive theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The research contained within this thesis contains two essential features that Creswell (2009) describes as characteristic of grounded theory research. Firstly the research uses and compares the data at each stage with a focus on the identification of emerging themes and categories from the data. Secondly, the
research seeks different stakeholder group (mental health professionals, consumer consultants, carer consultants and service managers) opinions to maximise the similarities and differences in the data generated. In combining these key elements GT is seen as the research frame for defining the research process with PAR guiding the transformation.
The key components of Grounded Theory are:
1. A spiral of cycles of data collection, coding, analysis, writing, design, theoretical categorization, and data collection.
2. The constant comparative analysis of cases with each other and to theoretical categories throughout each cycle.
3. A theoretical sampling process based upon categories developed from ongoing data analysis.
4. The size of sample is determined by the ‘ theoretical saturation’ of categories rather than by the need for demographic ‘representativeness,’ or simply lack of ‘additional information’ from new cases.
5. The resulting theory is developed inductively from data rather than tested by data, although the developing theory is continuously refined and checked by data.
6. Codes emerge’ from data and are not imposed a priori upon it.
7. The substantive and/or formal theory outlined in the final report takes into account all the variations in the data and conditions associated with these variations. The report is an analytical product rather than a purely descriptive account. Theory development is the goal (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, p.154).
Increasingly researchers are referring to GT as a means of describing methods of inquiry for collecting and analysing data (Charmaz, 2004, p.441). GT was deemed appropriate to the research for analysis of data. An important distinction is that GT foundations begin “…with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 23). The research questions, noted earlier in this chapter, represent the area of inquiry for this research. The three research
questions are deliberately expansive allowing freedom to explore the researched topic in depth with a range of themes and categories emerging organically from each phase of the research. The research considers the data collected informing findings from emerging themes, ideas and concepts across a range of data sources. The literature in chapters three, four, five and six of this thesis informed the initial Stakeholder Advisory Panel discussions around themes and categories for the focus groups. Discussion with the Stakeholder Advisory Panel informed the themes and categories of the focus groups and formation of individual interviews to provide a most effective environment for consumer consultant responses. Focus group and individual
interview themes and categories then informed further Stakeholder Advisory Panel discussion along with independent stakeholder feedback to inform the online survey. The themes and categories from the online survey data informed Stakeholder
Advisory Panel discussion and independent stakeholder feedback. Each phase of the research is informed by the respondent data from the previous phase and embodies the notion of the GT approach allowing what is relevant to emerge.
A key reason for using the qualitative research method of GT for this research was the belief that using multiple sources of data (focus groups, stakeholder advisory panel, independent stakeholder feedback, individual interviews and online survey) from various sources (consumer consultants, carer consultants, mental health
professionals, mental health service managers and academics) best represents stakeholder opinion on effective interventions for individuals with a diagnosis of BPD. Kennedy and Lingard (2006) emphasise that many GT studies employ multiple data sources or involve multiple study populations to gain an insight from different perspectives to increase the richness of the understanding for the phenomenon under investigation.
Another motivator in using GT to inform this research was the central principle of continuous comparison throughout data analysis. Kennedy and Lingard (2006, p.104) explain “Through the constant comparison process, emerging
theoretical constructs are continually being refined through comparisons with ‘fresh’ examples from ongoing data collection, which produces the richness that is typical of grounded theory analysis.” The continuous comparison of themes and categories in the data provided an on going procedure for the research to refine, compare and identify respondent opinion on effective interventions for individuals diagnosed with BPD.
Ultimately, GT delivers a significant frame for researching effective interventions for individuals diagnosed with BPD because it: (a) provides clear, sequential guidelines for conducting research; (b) offers a range of strategies for analysis of the research; (c) streamlines and integrates collection and analysis of the research data; and also (d) legitimises the qualitative research process as scientific inquiry (Charmaz, 2004).