Buenos Malos
Canal 1 fue sancionado por el contenido emitido en su programa “En carne propia” por constituir incitación directa a la violencia ¿Es suficiente esta
Grounded Theory could be used if the aim is to develop a theory grounded in the data, and should therefore move beyond description of what is being researched, to
78
explanation of a process, action or interaction (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Grounded Theory has been founded by Glaser and Strauss (1967), followed by their individual publications with other authors resulting in different views on Grounded Theory (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007). Glaser and Strauss came from different backgrounds, and it is believed that these influenced their later individual works. In more recent years other scientists such as Charmaz (2014), have developed their own ideas regarding this design, resulting in the following statement by Bryant and Charmaz (2007):
‘At the simplest level, we have the Glaserian school of GTM, the Strauss and Corbin school, and the Constructivist.’ (p.10)
However, others such as Denzin (2007) have established even more distinctive groups within Grounded Theory, which shows the diversity in which Grounded Theory is perceived and used. Nonetheless, all authors suggest a Grounded Theory methodology based on a few main concepts: theory generation, comparative analysis, theoretical sampling, theoretical sensitivity, and theoretical saturation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2014). Within a Grounded Theory study the sampling, recruitment, data collection, and analysis take place simultaneously, creating an iterative process in which they steer one another as a conceptual framework is developed (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Charmaz 2014). The framework or theory that is aimed for should be a conceptual and abstract understanding of the complexity of the topic under study:
‘The world of social phenomena is bafflingly complex. … Abstraction (theory) inevitably simplifies, yet to comprehend deeply, to order, some degree of abstraction is necessary.’
(Strauss, 1993, p.12)
Grounded Theory is discussed in-depth in the upcoming sections, including similarities and differences between the three main schools.
Grounded Theory is a design that could be used for this thesis. As explained in the literature review in Chapter 2 the context of the care of older people, as well as assessing older people, are complex. A Grounded Theory study could result in a conceptual framework grounded in the data, allowing for explanation and ordering of the complex topic under study.
79
3.2.2 Methodology for this thesis
In conclusion, four designs seem suitable for the research questions of this thesis. These are interpretative phenomenology, ethnography, case study design and Grounded Theory. All designs can be set in the constructivist paradigm and aim to interpret and understand the subject under study using interviews, observations and other forms of data, such as documents. Due to this number of methodologies that can be used for this thesis, the eventual methodology of choice is not meant to be seen as the only suitable choice, but rather as the most suitable choice.
Grounded Theory was chosen as the methodology to study the aim of exploring the assessment process on a ward for older people. The development of a theory or conceptual framework to explain and understand perceptions on the complex process of assessment within the care of older people, seemed appropriate. Although all four methodologies could be used to generate such a framework, the Grounded Theory design has been developed for this aim specifically. As it is unclear what is to be found in the data with an aim that focuses on exploration, Grounded Theory leaves room for the researcher to follow the findings and the evolving constructed understanding of the topic under study during data collection (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This is especially visible in how recruitment, data collection and analysis happen simultaneously, one building on the other throughout the process (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2014). This freedom seems very useful to keep an open mind and ‘listen to the data’.
By choosing Grounded Theory, the other three methodologies will not be used in this study. Within ethnography the generation of a theory or framework is discussed, however when doing this the authors (Atkinson and Hammersley, 2007) refer to the founders of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and repeat their suggestions regarding methodology and methods. Interpretive phenomenology does not have a methodology or methods that are specifically focussed on generating a framework, although they do not specifically rule it out either. Their aim, however, is either comprehensive description or understanding of phenomena and not necessarily the construction of a more abstract conceptual framework or theory to explain the topic under study.
The case study design is also a possibility for this thesis. This design is very useful in evaluating programs, which makes it possible to focus on the process of assessment on a ward for older people. The difference between case studies and Grounded Theory seems
80
to be most evident in its process. The case study design aims to have a clear plan before data collection including a theoretical framework, questions for interviews, and purposeful sampling (Yin, 2003). The sample in Grounded Theory is built during data collection and analysis which is called theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In a case study design the sample is chosen beforehand called purposeful sampling, even though a snowball technique might be used later on during data collection and analysis (Yin, 2003). Nonetheless, a case study design follows a protocol that has been developed beforehand (Yin, 2003), whereas Grounded Theory evolves while it is in progress (Charmaz, 2014).
In conclusion, the Grounded Theory methodology is a suitable fit to focus on the research aim to explore the current assessment process on a ward for older people. In the following section the development of Grounded Theory will be discussed, including the original design by Glaser and Strauss (1967), the positivist Grounded Theory by Glaser (1992; 2004), the pragmatic Grounded Theory by Strauss and Corbin (1998), and the constructivist Grounded Theory by Charmaz (2014).