Theorising is a strategic process of constructing and interpreting evidence by which an account of theory as abstract understanding is arrived at (Charmaz, 2014). Charmaz (2014) writes “Theorising is a practice” arguing that “a persuasive theory is compelling … theories flash illuminating insights and make sense of murky musings and knotty problems. The ideas fit” (p. 223). The role of the theory is to “… offer accounts for what happens, how it ensures, and may aim to account for why it
happened” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 228). The emphasis on may is my own to distinguish constructivism from positivism which has a focus on causality (Charmaz, 2014). Theory is defined by Thornberg and Charmaz (2012) as: “… relationships between abstract concepts” (p. 41) which may aim to explain or understand. Theory is an elastic concept; Clarke mischievously suggests that theory definitions seek to define “what‘we’ do as well as what ‘they’do” (Clarke, 2005, p. 31). Nonetheless, Clarke goes on to caution against polarising definitions of theory. In sum, theorising involves abstract and relational thinking which strategically drives theory formulation.
This study produces theory by theorising from grounded empirical material (Charmaz, 2014). The theory should aim to be applicable withoutforce to the area of study Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 3).; it must be original, credible and useful and it will explain the central phenomena of the study
(Charmaz, 2014). Theory can be generated at levels of empirical enquiry of specific issues as well as at more abstract investigation of generic issues (Charmaz, 2014). In grounded theory, these two positions are substantive grounded theory and formal theory respectively. I discuss each of these below.
3.8.1.1Substantive Grounded Theory
The substantive theory is that which is developed for a substantive, or empirical, area of sociological inquiry. Substantive theory is a “theoretical interpretation or explanation of a delimited problem in a particular area …” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 344). Substantive grounded theory is “… only a slice” of what is going on and will go on”; it is “… abstract of time place and people”; (Glaser, 2012, para. 8). The substantive grounded theory of this study is set out in Figure 5.1 comprising the core categories, categories and properties that emerged from analysis.
The key characteristics of substantive grounded theory involve approaching evidence with
consciousness of the need to be as free as possible of preconceived notions of the field of inquiry; collecting and comparing a great deal of evidence to create categories; not “forcing the data”
through “logic-deductive or grand theory”; and with a “… focus, a general question, or a problem in
mind” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 33). Using theorising as process, grounded theorists begin analysis at the commencement of interviews. Theorising as process then involves generation of multiple theories faithful to the empirical material, determination as to whether grand theory applies, and ultimate application, or rejection, of the emerging theories as they relate to the central phenomenon of the study.
The substantive grounded theory (Figure 5.1) was the springboard for potential formal theory. It involved engaging new literature and a return to comparison and clustering using original empirical material from all levels of inquiry together with comparisons with formulated theory.
3.8.1.2Formal Grounded Theory
This study moves towards a formal theory of “alternative equity” (Figure 6.4), comprising diagrammatic models of “neo-equity” (Figure 6.4a) and “embeddedequity” (Figure 6.4b) which emerged from the substantive grounded theory.
Charmaz (2013) defines formal theory as “… theoretical rendering of a generic issue or process that cuts across several substantive areas of study” (p. 343). The concepts of formal theory are “abstract
and general” and the theory “specifies the links between these concepts” (Charmaz, 2013, p. 343). Strauss and Corbin (2014) explain that additional characteristics of formal theories are that they are
“… less specific to a group or place, are broader, denser, and can be used to understand a wider range of social concerns and problems” (p. 63) which has relevance to social justice issues. In this study, the potential formal grounded theory is less specific to the studied area of skills development and may be used to understand the potentially dichotomous and conflicting nature of public values in different paradigms of public policy formulation.
The abstraction from the substantive grounded theory towards the formal theory took place with reference to Glaser and Strauss (1967), Charmaz (2014) and Strauss and Corbin (2014) through:
• a process of returning to analysis of concepts, especially through clustering, within the substantive grounded theory;
• comparison with literature across several disciplines of multiple theories, categories and properties of categories, within the substantive grounded theory;
• comparison with literature of emerging categories of formal theory; • cultivation of insights within the framework of the developing theory;
• application of the Strauss and Corbin (2014) test that the theory has broad application for social problems.
The tentative formal theory seemed to emerge because it was based on a broad intellectual puzzle and I would add this reflection to the points made above. As Charmaz had predicted (2014), the puzzle had allowed for constant addition of evidence right through to the end of the study. Without the strategy of the development intellectual puzzle, it is possible that the analysis of the empirical evidence would move towards a formal theory.
Subjectivity and reflexivity were essential as research strategies for driving the theory and it was important for me to develop an understanding of how the two interacted.