Instituciones nacionales judías de Israel

An exploratory, qualitative method was favoured in order to gain a depth of

understanding of participants’ subjective feelings, thoughts and experiences and the way in which they construct and communicate these (Barker, Pistrang & Elliott, 2002). Qualitative methods are particularly appropriate when undertaking exploratory research in relatively neglected areas (Barker et al., 2002), such as this one. This was achieved using interviews and constructivist grounded theory analysis

(Charmaz, 2006).

2.1.1 Epistemological position

The research method was chosen based on its suitability for answering the research question. However, it was also important to select a method that was consistent with my epistemological beliefs. In line with my critical realist position, a constructivist

61

approach to grounded theory was taken (Charmaz, 2014), as it allows the researcher to explore and value different coexisting interpretations of a phenomenon.

I acknowledge my role in shaping the research design and the effect of my

interpretations on the theory developed (Mruck & Mey, 2007). I accept that my prior perspectives and reading of the literature could have guided the research, in that I may have explored areas which interested me rather than those of the participants (Charmaz, 2014). I held a reflexive position throughout in order to consider my impact on the research.

2.1.2 Constructivist Grounded Theory

Grounded theory was chosen, as opposed to other qualitative methods such as Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, which explores the meaning making of subjective experiences, and Narrative Analysis, which explores personal accounts of events. It was considered that in order to answer the research question, this study required an approach which enabled the process of undergoing benefit changes to be explored, rather than narratives or meaning making. Grounded theory was developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967, p1) who criticised the "overemphasis in current sociology on the verification of theory, and a resultant de-emphasis on the prior step of discovering what concepts and hypotheses are relevant for the area that one wishes to research“.Grounded theory analyses social processes, actions and sequences, and searches for relationships between processes in order to develop understanding of an area. Grounded theory is useful for under-researched areas and has been favoured for exploring social relationships where there has been little

62

exploration of the contextual factors that affect individual’s lives (Crooks, 2001). As explored in the introduction, experiencing changes to one’s benefits is likely to have complex effects, embedded within multiple layers of context. As such, it was felt that grounded theory would bring a valuable perspective to experiences of these

changes. It was hoped that the theory generated would be valuable in progressing this area of research, as well as providing a structure in which to understand the phenomenon to disseminate more widely than amongst academics.

Constructivist grounded theory was chosen because it can capture context and political voices, stresses the importance of social contexts and interactions, and views knowing as embedded in social life. Constructivist grounded theory differs from earlier versions of grounded theory, developed by Glaser and Strauss and Corbin, which held positivist assumptions (Charmaz, 2014). It posits that reality is socially constructed, and acknowledges the role of the researcher’s position, perspectives and interactions in the research (Charmaz, 2014). Therefore the research is viewed as co-constructed rather than discovered.

2.1.3 Using interviews

Individual interviews were used as the data collection method. Interviewing lends itself well to interpretive inquiry as it enables in-depth exploration of a topic

(Charmaz, 2006), including “experiences, opinions, attitudes, values, and processes” (Rowley, 2012, in Iacono, Symonds & Brown, 2016, p3). It allows the researcher to build rapport with participants, which facilitates access to their interpretations of their experiences (Charmaz, 2014). Hiller and DiLuzio (2004) assert that interviews give a

63

voice to marginalised groups and unheard voices, which was considered important in this study. Britzman (1989) discusses a multi-conceptual understanding of ‘voice’, including literal, metaphorical and political. Interviews offer the flexibility and

sensitivity that is required for vulnerable participants, including those with disabilities (Aldridge, 2014).

However, interviews have a number of limitations, for example the interviewer is not merely a knowledge collector but also has their own knowledge and views, and an interview is an interaction so participants respond using the language of the

questioner (Potter & Hepburn, 2005). Therefore, interviews introduce the

researcher’s agenda into data collection (Harper, 2013), which may affect what the interviewee reports and means their responses cannot be neutral. Additionally, interview extracts are often presented omitting the researcher’s preceding question (Potter & Hepburn, 2005), making the context difficult for readers to assess.

In order to counter these limitations, the researcher took a number of actions. As the interviewer was likely to be influenced by her reading, she read broader than the research topic in order to avoid the analysis being narrow and superficial. She used a number of search engines in her literature search, and also read grey literature. Reading widely around a topic can enable a researcher to identify one’s own assumptions (Harper, 2013), as well as stimulate the interviewer’s curiosity leading to broader questions. In order to facilitate the reader in understanding the context of the study, the researcher provided a synopsis of the political environment alongside an acknowledgement of her epistemology and views. In her discussion, she made

64

links to various relevant psychological theories in order to avoid reproducing the currently dominant narratives conceptualising a phenomenon (Harper, 2013).

On balance, interviews were chosen given the inability to study participant’s feelings and experiences without asking. Individual interviews were deemed the most

appropriate method due to the sensitivity of the topic.