3.2 Options

Given the exploratory nature of this study, the need for an inductive approach and my contention that students may well have a different understanding of what constitutes learning than other people in the field of education, it will come as no surprise that a qualitative methodology was chosen as most appropriate to allow some of that detail to emerge.

Though an ethnographic approach might have been useful if the subjects of the research had been teachers, a population with which I am well acquainted, since students' world-view is likely to be different from that of adults, I discarded this option. Seeking how a particular group of people articulates the way they understand things suggests a phenomenological approach. Furthermore since the act of learning is a process, this opens itself to grounded theory methods as Charmaz (2005: 507) observes:

'A major strength of grounded theory methods is that they provide tools for analysing processes ... encouraging researchers to remain close to their studied worlds and to develop an integrated set of theoretical concepts from their empirical materials that not only synthesize and interpret them, but also show processual relationships.'

Whilst a longitudinal study through different stages of a child's educational experience might have been particularly illuminating, that would have clearly been beyond the scope of this dissertation. Instead a cross-sectional study was chosen, though purposive sampling might assist in providing different age-related perspectives.

Grounded theory methodology (GTM) emerged as a research approach during the collaboration between Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss during the 1960s in the United States, culminating in the publication of 'The Discovery of Grounded Theory,' 1967. Adopting a phenomenological perspective, they proposed GTM as a means for generating theory by systematic abstraction and conceptualization of empirical data. Developments in GTM have subsequently been rather troubled with the two originators taking different paths, pursuing different versions of GTM: Glaser's offering came through his book Theoretical Sensitivity, 1978 which reveals a leaning towards a positivist standpoint in which the researcher is a neutral observer, discovering data in an objective and neutral way to reveal a true reality (Charmaz, 2000, Hallberg, 2006). Strauss went on to work with Juliet Corbin to develop a rigorous set of procedures and systematic coding structure intended to assist the researcher in making conceptual links between concepts/categories and their properties to develop the theory (The Basics of Qualitative Research, 1990). Glaser took exception to this, feeling that their coding paradigm 'forced' concepts onto the data, and rearticulated what he felt was the original and classic grounded theory in Basics of Grounded theory analysis in 1992.

Whilst the two founders went their separate ways, other players, some of whom had worked with Glaser and Strauss in San Francisco, extended the pluralist approach that GTM had become. Mills et al (2006) describe the evolution of GTM as a spiral, starting from the original and morphing into various adaptations which reflect the ontological and epistemological standpoints of the researchers undertaking their studies.

Whichever form of GTM a researcher subscribes to, there are certain fundamental characteristics of the methodology which set it apart from other qualitative approaches and are common across the different flavours:

• simultaneous data collection and analysis
• the constant comparative method used at every stage of analysis
• ongoing theory development
• constructing codes and categories from data rather than from preconceived hypotheses
• memoing to refine and elaborate categories and their relationships
• theoretical sampling for theory development and not for representativeness
• delaying the use of the literature until analysis is well under way

(synthesised from Charmaz, 2006, Hallberg, 2006, McCann & Clarke, 2003)

Hood (2007) however manages to distil three core characteristics found in all variants of GTM she terms the "Troublesome Trinity," because they can be difficult to implement. Without (a) theoretical sampling, (b) constant comparison of data and theoretical categories and (c) a focus on theory via theoretical saturation of categories, 'one should not claim to be using grounded theory.'

In addition, the researcher must also bring a dimension of theoretical sensitivity to the study, meaning they bring their professional experience and knowledge to bear to draw insights from the data. In classical (or Glaserian) grounded theory, researchers should enter the field with as few pre-determined thoughts as possible, so as to avoid introducing bias. Theoretical sensitivity is developed through immersion in the data. Nor indeed should researchers review literature in the substantive area of study 'for fear of contaminating, constraining, inhibiting, stifling, or impeding the researcher’s analysis of codes emergent from the data' Glaser (1992); at least not until after gathering and coding the first set of data to enable a preliminary theory to be developed. Unfortunately, this ideal is not always possible and whilst some researchers may have the luxury of working in a substantive field with which they have no preliminary experience, I am researching an area in which I have been intimately involved for 30 years. My previous studies also mean that I have prior experience of some of the literature pertinent to this field. Mavetera and Kroeze (2009: 10) don't foresee this as a problem provided this is acknowledged as an issue and that the only data upon which theory is drawn are those arising in the field - 'literature study can be encouraged as long as its effects do not encroach on or manifest themselves in the interviewees' responses.'

For this particular study, I elected to follow the principles of constructivist grounded theory proposed by Charmaz (1995 & 2000) in which researcher and participant(s) act as co-producers of data and co-constructors of meanings which arise from them. Charmaz eschewed the notion that the researcher is able to objectively reveal the meaning hidden within the data and that the reality as perceived by them is constructed as a result of their values, history, cultural context and that of their research participants. As Charmaz (2000: 524) puts it "'discovered’ reality arises from the interactive process and its temporal, cultural, and structural contexts.” The contrasts between the constructive approach of Charmaz and others, and those with a more objective perspective is addressed in Appendix B. The process Charmaz (2006) advocates does have the following similarities with other GTM approaches:- Figure 3 in which data is collected and subsequently coded (attaching a short name to each segment of data which both summarises it and separates it from other data segments). As data is collected and coded, memos are written which articulate insights and ideas about the data and codes, how they are interrelated and how they might be elevated to concepts, and how further data gathering might proceed to develop emerging themes. In short, reflection through memo-writing underpins the analytical process which leads to generation of theory. As specific categories begin to emerge from this analysis and review, coding becomes more focused, seeking to make more sense of the wealth of initial codes and test emerging concepts by comparing data with data and focused codes with both fresh and previously captured data. The iterative process of theoretical sampling seeks new data which support, refine and test the categories being proposed. As the categories develop and relationships between them crystallise, they will express and group the concepts represented by the data and have criteria which demarcate them from each other (Minichiello, 2004). At the final and highest level of abstraction, a single or core category is proposed which integrates all other categories and explicates all data.In the constructive approach offered by Charmaz, researcher and participant co-construct meaning. It may be apparent from Fig 3 how participants can produce data and researcher can develop meaning, but in order to enable participants to construct meaning from their data, it is important that whilst they may not be able to be physically involved in the analysis, their presence is maintained through their words. Although this can be through drawing quotations from the original data through into the final report, this can be merely descriptive. However it is also possible to keep participants’ words alive through into the analytical phase by using in vivo codes - codes which convey meaning, but are lifted directly from the participant's response.