Los momentos previos a la decisión

Grounded theory was first developed by two sociologists, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in their publication The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967.They argued that there was need for a method that would allow a researcher to move from data to theory, so that new theories could emerge. Such theories would be specific to the context in which they had been developed and thus ‘grounded’ in the data (Dunne 2011:111). They thus defined grounded theory as “the discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research” (Glaser & Strauss 1967:2).

According to Glaser, grounded theory is “a general methodology of analysis linked with data collection that uses a systematically applied set of methods to generate an inductive theory about a substantive area” (Glaser 1992:16). This points to the connectedness of data analysis and data collection which occur concurrently and the analysis guiding further data collection therefore allowing the emerging theory to be ‘grounded’ in the data. Thus the there is no clear distinction between the data collection and analysis phase, a feature that differentiates grounded theory from other traditional research phases.

From the constructivist’s view point, however, grounded theory is defined as “the discovery of theory from data through a systematic, inductive and comparative approach of inquiry” (Charmaz & Henwood 2007 as cited in Bryant & Charmaz 2010:1).

2.4.1 Motivation for choosing grounded theory

Grounded theory is appropriate when the study of social interactions or experiences aims to explain a process, not to test or verify an existing theory (Lingard, Albert & Levinson 2008:459). The generative nature of grounded theory constantly opens up the mind of the analyst to a myriad of new possibilities (Glaser 1978:6). In this study, the emerging theory on sexuality education was not from preconceived concepts but was discovered from the data naturally (Glaser & Strauss 1967:65).

Creswell (2013:88) contends that grounded theory is a suitable methodology for studying a research problem that requires a theory to explain how people are experiencing a phenomenon of interest where there has been little exploration of the contextual factors or weakly connected. Grounded theory was the appropriate approach for this study due to the scanty documented evidence on school-based sexuality education in primary schools in Uganda.

In grounded theory, the specific approach to theory development through continuous interplay between data collection and data analysis enables conceptualisation of data by utilising the logic of constant comparison and frequent memo writing which increases the level of abstraction of the data (Glaser 1978:3). Blumer (1969:171) posits that conceptualization separates the relevant from the irrelevant by moving away from description of data. The researcher increasingly developed abstract concepts about the

participants’ meanings, actions and words providing a solid foundation in the data (Charmaz 2006:xii).

While phenomenology describes the common experience for a number of individuals, grounded theory generates a unified general theoretical explanation of a process or an interaction shaped by the views of a number of participants (Creswell 2013:83). Therefore, in Grounded theory, the focus is on social experience and not individual experience. In addition, Grounded theory enables collection of rich data that affords view of human experience that other discourse may inhibit (Charmaz 2008:88). Grounded theory is concerned with the construction of meaning through human action and interaction within contextual structures and processes.

The research goal of this study is to generate a theoretical description of the experiences of adolescents and teachers and the perceptions of parents about school- based sexuality education that is derived from and grounded in the narratives of the participants.

2.4.2 The different schools of grounded theory

Grounded theory originators, Glaser and Strauss (1967) parted company following disagreement about the nature of the method and how it ought to be practised (Willig 2013:70). This created the Glaserian and Straussian versions of grounded theory methodology. There then emerged second generation grounded theorists who have adopted and adapted - the methodology to suit their own disciplinary knowledge generation by making interpretations of Glaser and Strauss Grounded theory methods. As a result, there are variations of grounded theory all of which exist on a methodological spiral and reflect the epistemological underpinnings of the researchers (Oktay 2012:21).

Fernandez (2012:27) identified three major different grounded theory models: Classical or the Glaserian Grounded Theory (Glaser 1978), the Strauss and Corbin (1990) Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) sometimes referred to as the Straussian grounded theory, the constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2000).

2.4.2.1 Glaserian ground theory

The Glaserian version of grounded theory has its ontological roots in critical realism. Critical realism assumes that an objective world exists independently of our knowledge and belief and as such the researcher is considered to be independent of the research (Annells 1996 as cited in Birks & Mills 2011:5). This stance is in contrast to the Straussian version of grounded theory which has its ontological roots in relativism where it is argued that reality is interpreted. As such, Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) encourage the researcher to be involved in the method (Pearse & Kanyangale 2009:71).

2.4.2.2 Straussian ground theory

Strauss’ version of grounded theory focuses on the use of their new technical procedures rather than placing the emphasis on the comparative methods of the earlier grounded theory approaches (Charmaz 2006:16). One of Glaser’s criticisms of the Straussian version is that Strauss and Corbin’s procedures force data and analysis into preconceived categories to the extent that it may lose any emergent conceptualisations (Urquhart, Lehmann & Myers 2010:361).

2.4.2.3 Constructivist ground theory

Advocated by Kathy Charmaz in her book ‘Constructing Grounded Theory’ (Charmaz 2006), the Constructivist version of grounded theory, like the Straussian version, has its ontological roots in relativism (Mills, Bonner & Francis 2006:9). This strand of grounded theory methodology emphasises the research participants’ experience and how they construct their view of reality. Knowledge, and hence the grounded theory, are constructed by both researcher and research participant and aim at interpreting the empirical evidence within the research context. Varied views of school-based sexuality education were sought and presented under the different themes in the findings. However, the Constructivist grounded theorist takes a reflexive stance on the modes of knowing and representing studied life, in that they give close attention to the empirical realities and people’s collective interpretations of reality and locate themselves within these realities (Bryant & Charmaz 2010:33) (see Chapter 1).

Constructivist theory is premised on the belief that concepts are constructed, not discovered (Crotty 1998 as cited in Breckenridge, Jones, Elliott & Nicol 2012:65). Constructivist grounded theory actively repositions the researcher as the author of a reconstruction of experience and meaning of the participants based on the interactions between the researcher and the data (Oktay 2012:21). The researcher’s perspective is recognised as critical in shaping data and analysis (Charmaz 2006 as cited in Breckenridge et al 2012:66). In this study, the experiences of teachers, students and perceptions of parents of school-based sexuality education were reconstructed by the researcher from the data collected.