My Grounded Theory Data Collection and Analysis

 

After reading the preliminary materials in Stage 1 of the course, and having made a choice about my topic for the final project, I was eager to begin doing the research. First, however, I had to read Chapter 9 in Charmaz’(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory, which was the assigned reading for this stage of the course. This chapter was challenging as it was particularly theoretical, but as Charmaz (2014) explains, a deeper understanding of theory and an awareness of the epistemological and ontological positions researchers hold helps to strengthen our own work and to guide our assessment and understanding of other research as well.

According to Charmaz, a theory “states relationships between abstract concepts and may aim for either explanation or understanding” (p.227). She explains that this general definition leads to many disagreements since it doesn’t take into account the various underlying epistemological and ontological orientations to theory. Charmaz has made it clear that grounded theorists, like all researchers, start with a certain set of preconceptions about what an experience consists of and its meaning. These stem from personal experiences and where the researcher stands in terms of class, race, gender, embodiment, culture, and historical era (Charmaz, 2014, p. 155). Not all biases are easy to identify. Simple awareness and reflection about our own perspectives and those of research participants can reveal some of these biases, but many are so imbedded they can be hard to recognize. Since understanding these biases is vitally important when we make decisions about what attend to and ignore and how we interpret the data, reflecting on these differences more deeply can help us to better understand how theory is constructed and to assess the value of research results.

Charmaz goes on to compare and explain various epistemological and ontological stances, including positivism, interpretivism, objectivism, and constructivism. Charmaz (2014) explains that positivism is based on observation, explanation and prediction, and attempts to give short, precise, explanations of causes that are generalizable to a variety of situations and settings. Objectivism is the natural partner of positivist approaches to research as it focuses on the use of observation and objectivity to explore the world. In contrast to positivism, interpretivism gives priority to abstract understanding and looks for patterns and connections rather than focusing on causality. It acknowledges the subjective nature of research and values personal experience. This ties in with constructivism, which goes beyond mere observation to recognize the importance of personal experience and to consider the reasons why things are as they are. Constructivists see that we give meaning to our experiences, and that factors into their understanding of the world. Grounded theory contains elements of both positivist and interpretive theoretical foundations. As Charmaz (2014) explains, constructivist grounded theory starts with observed specifics, situates them in the context they occur, and moves towards general, theoretical statements.

As I read the chapter, I reflected on my own philosophical stance. I recognize the value of objectivism and see the importance of generalizable explanations that are based on observation. As a result of past training in positivist, objective research practices, I feel very comfortable with this type of research. Regardless of this training, I would have to admit that over time I have increasingly come to view the world from a more interpretive and constructive stance, as my own life demonstrates the subjective nature of experiences. During my research, I think I need to be aware of my natural inclination towards the methods and ways of thinking I have been taught and be open to the more interpretivist and constructivist perspectives that fit more with my current beliefs.

While understanding our own philosophical positions can contribute to the quality of our conclusions, it is also helpful for grounded theorists to ignore existing literature about the topic until their own analysis is complete. This may be challenging for me because it goes against my normal way of doing research, and also because of my past roles in course development and teaching, I am aware of the conclusions of a significant body of research about FASD. This will be eased because the specific topic I am looking at has not been explored in depth in the current literature. As I collected the data, I found I was already unconsciously looking for themes and ideas, even though I wasn’t formally coding yet. This showed me how natural the process of coding could be, but I was also cognizant of how easy it would be to allow these preconceived themes to limit what I saw in the data to what I was expecting.

The first step to doing this research was to find appropriate data, which turned out to be challenging. While many people wrote about their feelings about their birthmothers, it was often just mentioned without going into detail about the underlying reasons why they had those feelings. Also, very few testimonials talked about the process of coming to terms with the negative feelings they may have harboured in the past. Still, there were some that did talk about these experiences which were enough to get started on the coding process. I used data from the following places: blog posts, a book of testimonials, written testimonials on public social media boards like Reddit and Quora, and videos on YouTube. I limited the data to testimonials by individuals with FASD and avoided third-person accounts of what people reported that others might be thinking or feeling.

Charmaz’ explains that the initial coding consists of labeling segments of the text in a manner so that the data can be categorized and summarized. These codes should “stick closely to the data, show actions, and indicate the progression of events.” (p. 112). She encourages the researcher to begin coding early in the research and stay open to possibilities by coding all data. She explains that as the researcher codes the material, they can also write analytic ideas that occur to them as memos. These steps can help the researcher to identify codes that can be explored further. With these instructions in mind, I began the initial coding process.  

Certain themes quickly emerged and through a second coding process, I discovered some distinct themes. I noted that regarding their feelings about their mothers, people with FASD tend to feel one of three ways:

·         they deny having any feelings, positive or negative regarding their mother’s drinking during pregnancy (eg. “I don’t care” or “It’s not an issue for me.”)

·         they struggle with negative feelings such as disappointment, anger, blame and shame

·         they admit feeling these negative feelings in the past, but overcame them.

I then focused on the ones in the third group. The data seems to show that there are a number of factors that influence overcoming negative feelings towards the birthmother. These included:

·         their relationship with her (whether they knew her, whether they interacted/had a relationship, etc.)

·         their internalization of stigma (a belief she was to blame) vs. a more complex understanding of the reasons why she may have consumed alcohol during pregnancy

·         when they learned about having FASD (it seems more accepted if they learned younger)

·         their own self-concept about themselves, their capabilities and their disability

·         whether they are involved in activism, have a sense of belonging as part of a community of people with disabilities/FASD 

As I begin writing the research project I plan to continue to interact with the data and use comments I wrote in memos and direct quotes from the testimonies to support and further explore the topic. While the coding process felt natural to me, as I think it stems from natural ways to explore, it is much more structured. I found it challenging to consider how my own biases influence the work. Although I tried to be as neutral as possible, I was surprised by some ideas that arose, such as evidence that people who were younger when they found out about having FASD were more likely to accept their mothers. I realized that my surprise was a result of preconceived ideas about what I would discover. I am now feeling eager to move on to explore the writing process while continuing to interact with the data and see what else arises.

                                                                  References

Charmaz, k. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles: Sage.