First, relying on an existing categorical framework is not usually consistent with a constructivist approach, where the typical goal is to discover participants' views in an inductive fashion rather than to apply a pre-existing system.

Second, using focus groups is not related to your choice of either constructivism or critical realism. Focus groups are a specific method for collecting data, while constructivism and critical realism are related to epistemological issues about the nature of knowledge.

With regard to abduction, I have discussed its applications in the following article on Grounded Theory:

Article Pragmatism as a Basis for Grounded Theory

I agree with David above. If you scrutinize your data through a theoretical framework, social constructivism may not be the best paradigm for your research. Critical realism could be a coherent option. Indeed abductive reasoning is commonly used in grounded theory. I have also published on that topic (Elaborating in grounded theory in tourism research)... abductive reasoning seems to work best when your analysis does not rely on a theoretical framework. Why don't you set aside the theories around your topic and sought to explore your data inductively as in a grounded theory approach?

However not perfect, you can make use of below article on Research Strategies.

You have read Blaikia's Designing Social Research, right?

Hi,

Constructivism builds reality through human meaning-discourse and advocates an accessible reality that supports human knowledge. However, this reality is deficit according to critical realism - whatever method and analysis are used.

On the other hand, abduction is a process of “an inference or thought operation, implying that a particular phenomenon or event is interpreted from a set of general ideas or concepts” (Danermark et al., 2002, p. 205). This operation leads you to a critical realist ontology and epistemology, rather than a social constructivist epistemology. Therefore, using them together causes an inconsistency in your study.

Reference

Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: critical realism in the social sciences. Routledge.

The concept of abduction was developed by the pragmatist philosopher, Charles Peirce. Pragmatism as a whole rejects the traditional philosophy of knowledge based on ontology and epistemology, and insists that knowledge is based on its use. So, there is no philosophical argument that links either constructionism or critical realism to abduction.

Of course, either constructivists or critical realists are free to use abduction (indeed, Charmaz argues that almost all constructivist who claim to use induction are really relying on abduction). But the point here is that such a choice is not a part off any philosophy based on ontology and epistemology.

Dear Jurgis,

i totally agree with Davids' comments. I think it is necessary to think about, why did you choose focus groups as your data collection method. If you are interested in how certain social realities are constructed within groups, you could have a look at the 'documentary method' by Ralf Bohnsack. See links below.

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/31733

https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/29452

https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=R-6GAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA217&dq=ralf+bohnsack+documentary&ots=L62dX1v9Mj&sig=hb5pK6OmcsnPjR6JxNJPnopGbeo