Thematic analysis may work in this regard.

Hello Eve

My initial research (Living with faecal incontinence) I used constructivist grounded theory. I introduced it in the methods chapter. This included a discussion around the relevant literature. In this chapter, I first mentioned the types of approaches that I did not use and then discussed my approach - constructivist grounded theory - arguing why it was appropriate for my study. Then, in the discussion chapter, I discussed it under the sections headed: 'consideration of the methods', 'establishment of rigor' and 'a reflexive account of the process of sampling, conducting interviews with informants and carrying out the project'.

I realise that this answer might not be very clear and I have written it with the thesis in front of me, so if I can help any further, I'd be happy to help.

Very best wishes with your research,

Mary

Dear Eve,

I used constructivist grounded theory methodology before and in the methodology chapter I started by clearly stating my research questions and justifying with literature why I need a qualitative research design to best answer the research questions. Then I selected constructivist grounded theory as the most pertinent qualitative methodology to be used because it offers a systematic and rigorous approach to data collection and analysis that allows for the construction of a theory that is grounded in participants' views and experiences. I then wrote a section on grounded theory as a methodology and discussed the diverse approaches of GT with their different philosophical foundations including positivist, post-positivist, critical realist, relativist, subjectivist and constructivist. When I arrived to the constructivist type I focused on it and related it to my research objectives. Then I added another section that mapped out my projects philosophical foundations; clearly explaining the ontological and epistemological understandings related to constructivism again while arguing its pertinence to my research design. I attached some articles that helped me in writing the above mentioned section of my methodology chapter. I hope you find these articles helpful. I also recommend investing in Kathy Charmaz's book:

CHARMAZ, Kathy (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (Introducing Qualitative Methods Series).Thousand Oaks, Sage, California.

It was my methodology and methods go to guide. Best of luck and please let me know if I can be of more assistance.

Hi,

Nancy and other Friends' comments are really telling and this book can help you too.

Adel

Hi Eve

Not sure if this will help but I also used grounded theory for my PhD and this is how I structured the methodology chapter.

Andy I used the Four Elements of Research (Crotty, 1998, p. 4). to help me structure it:

Rationale for the methodological approach

Epistemology: Constructionism

Approaches taken for the Epistemology of Constructionism

Theoretical Perspective: Interpretivism

Justification: Grounded Theory Methodology.

Grounded Theory

Method: Interviewing

Justifications: Semi-structured Interviews

Limitations: Semi-structured Interviews

Ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research

Establishing interpretive credibility

Hi Martyn

thanks for replying, that's really useful. What was your PhD on? Did you find using constructivist GT challenging? I am!! Thanks so much again. Eve

Hi Eve

PhD was on the impact of exercise referral on chronic long term. conditions.  I have published 3 papers from it.  With my supervisors Prof Diane Crone & Prof Andrew Parker from Gloucester Uni.  For me,  when I understood the axial coding paradigm and was able to apply,  everything became a lot clearer. My interpretation of GT was endorsed last year by Julie Corbin,  when I attended a day long seminar that she ran in Merida Mexico.  Have a look at the publications on RG particularly the one in obesity to see how I applied it. 

Good luck

Martyn 

Thank you. I will go to ethos and see ifI can locate and look at your thesis. Cheers, Eve.

Can someone assist me with a study using Charmaz research approach. Thank you

Hello,

This is for the attention of Carol Adams (the answer above); I looked to see what I could find:

Ghezeljeh, T. N., Nikravesh, M. Y., & Emami, A. (2013). Coronary heart disease patients transitioning to a normal life: perspectives and stages identified through a grounded theory approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23, 571-585.

This is the full text:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/46695238/Coronary_heart_disease_patients_transiti20160621-31189-6sq65e.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1527442186&Signature=SLqzT%2B6iOOe495nLpCn8XlCDGm4%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DCoronary_heart_disease_patients_transiti.pdf

This is the ResearchGate link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258212947

These are theses:

Samples, J. (2017). The pregnancy experiences of women aged 40 years and over (Doctoral dissertation, University of Huddersfield).

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/31702/1/__nas01_librhome_librsh3_Desktop_FINAL%20THESIS.pdf

Mcnatt, G. E. (2015). Easing my burden: A grounded theory study of kidney transplant recipients' experience with their transplant coordinators (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago).

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7608/7fdd569d57de50b88c0c8d8841faa7a8345d.pdf

Very best wishes,

Mary

This is a very good question. Writing up a GT analysis is extremely difficult. You need to write a theoretical narrative around your categories, sub-categories and codes. It is also important to make comparisons and connections in your narrative. I know, this is very vague, you probably need to try a few times, unfortunately.

You do not need literature when you are writing up GT analysis. In fact, be careful when using literature, because literature could bring bias to the analysis. As suggested by a number of researchers, literature come later, after the analysis and usually in the discussion section. That is, you compare your findings with the literature in your discussion.

I usually present a conceptual model in my discussion section, based on further conceptualisation of my findings.

I am actually having same problem not knowing where to place the model

According to Charmaz, Constructivist GT should begin with a minimum of preconceptions which means that you should not have a prior model. Instead, you can develop a model from the key key conceptual categories that make up your results.