When Novice Researchers Adopt Constructivist Grounded Theory: Navigating Less Travelled Paradigmatic and Methodological Paths in PhD Dissertation Work

Abstract

Graduate students considering constructivist grounded theory as a qualitative methodological approach may benefit from recognizing the many challenges they could face when embarking in thesis work. These challenges include great diversity in approaches to grounded theory, lack of congruity in how grounded theory methodology is described and understood within the literature, and a dearth of expertise and/or support within academic committees and institutions for both grounded theory and constructivist approaches to qualitative research. In this article, we describe why we selected constructivist grounded theory for our PhD work and the common challenges we encountered. Drawing on the analogy of preparing for a journey, we offer strategies for future graduate students including locating one's ontological and epistemological worldview, finding grounded theory mentors, and facilitating a methodological fit with academic stakeholders. Our recommendations focus on how to navigate the challenging terrain of conducting a qualitative research project within a predominantly post-positivist landscape.

The Breast Reconstruction Process of Women With Breast Cancer: A Theoretical Model

“…Thus, due to different strands of GT, this study uses the concepts of Strauss and Corbin. [11][12][13][14][15] By returning to the origins of GT, we find Symbolic Interactionism, a reference idealized in the 1930s by George Hebert Mead, whose focus is on the process of human interaction, considering that people can respond positively or negatively to new possibilities and understanding that the rationale of society lies in harmony, sharing ideas and feelings, understanding the world, as well as common expectations, stating that interrelationship is at the heart of human behavior and action. 10,[16][17][18] The expression Symbolic Interactionism was proposed by Herbert Blumer in 1937.…”

Epistemological Oppression and the Road to Awakening

“…This session reinforced the importance of a study having a well thought out "vertical hierarchy" (Staller, 2012), meaning that all aspects of a research design vertically fit together, starting from the most abstract (ontology and epistemology) to the more concrete (methodology and methods). Nagel et al (2015) brought the discussion of paradigms to a concrete level by providing practical strategies to navigate common epistemological tensions that occur when conducting constructivist grounded theory studies in postpositivist institutional contexts. Nagel (doctoral candidate in nursing) cofacilitated the discussion via Skype.…”

“…Much has been written about the historical context, consequences, and various forms of "epistemological oppression" in academic settings (Cheek, 2011(Cheek, , 2018Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, 2018Eakin, 2015;Nagel et al, 2015;Staller, 2012). Recently, scholars including but not limited to health have highlighted how the systemic marginalization of nonpositivist ways of knowing continues to manifest in novel, subtle, and "unconscious" ways (Steinmetz, 2005) through the increased corporatization of academia (Berg & Seeber, 2016;Brownlee, 2013;Burns, MacDonald, & Carnevale, 2016;Cheek, 2018;Côté & Allahar, 2011;Denzin & Giardina, 2008, 2017Lincoln, 2012;Janjua, Gastaldo, & Bender, 2016).…”

“…In facing what can feel like almost daily encounters with the epistemological unconscious in academic settings, qualitative researchers have not remained silent. Some have shared strategies on how to best work within the confines of postpositivist dominance, offering practical tips such as how to downplay the subjective, and critical aspects of research traditions to appear more objective and thus credible to postpositivist reviewers (Graham et al, 2011); how to maneuver "ethics creep" (Haggerty, 2004) by adapting the language in research ethics proposals to be more in line with postpositivist assumptions (e.g., indicating the sample size a priori; Janjua et al, 2016;Nagel et al, 2015;Staller, 2012); and providing tips on how to get published in high-ranking peer-reviewed health journals (Clark & Thompson, 2016). Some have gone so far as to declare a "call to arms" (Denzin, 2010), while others have rallied together, writing manifestos directing collective concern at funding bodies and scientific journals (e.g., Graham et al, 2011;Greenhalgh et al, 2016).…”

The Challenges Associated with Women Career Development at the State Universities in Saudi Arabia: A Ground Theory Approach

“…The purpose of this theory is to construct an honest theory of the phenomena that revolve around it, and researchers in the field of abstract theory aspire that their theories will ultimately be related to other theories in their own disciplines in a cumulative manner and that the theoretical implications have practical benefits. According to Nagel et al (2015), there are many forms of scientific research methods through the grounded theory, but in general the methodology of the grounded theory is composed in the following stages:…”