Constractive Ground Theory

I am not sure on what level of abstraction your question should be interpreted and what you already included in the discussion concerning methodology.

Could you add it to your question so i t would be easier to answer it?

I was wondering if you already addressed the issues concerning: memberchecking, peer debriefing, repeated analysis, triangulation in the analysis for improving the different modes of reliability and validity of the outcomes?

It is often a good idea to use theory to shed light on the methods you have used to facilitate your research, how you have collected your data and how you have analyzed your data. Start with the HOW and go towards the more ABSTRACT by moving towards the why.

Take a look at the curriculum described in this article:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b83c34a40f0b67f4db2ec2d/YL_Impact_Case_Study_Influencing_Design_of_other_studies.pdf

The discussion is the key section of your thesis. The purpose of the discussion is to explain the central results and potential implications of your study. This is where you scrutinize your results and where the choice of method(s) is discussed including the possible influence of methodological biases and errors on data validity. The discussion should also address general limitations and weaknesses of the study and comment on these. Importantly, you have to discuss conflicting explanations for your results and defend your thesis argument by systematically relating your problem formulation and empirical findings to the existing body of knowledge and/or theory as outlined by your literature review. The discussion of your results and final thesis argument should form the basis for your conclusions.

Albertine de Haan Thanks for answering my question. I have not mentioned anything in my discussion yet. What did I understand from the meeting with my supervisors, they want me to include how constructivism GT shape my study (i mean the findings). I have no idea how to relate that methodology into my discussion. I don't think they meant the reflexivity, rigour etc. Or maybe I wrongly understand what they need me to include in the discussion...

Khansaa Azeez Obayes Al-Husseini Hashim Fawzi Kjartan Skogly Kversøy Md . Hasnain Ahamad Thank you for responding to my question. I have written my discussion on the theme emerged from the findings. However, I have no idea how to relate the methodology I used (constructivist GT) into the discussion (I have separated the rigour and reflexivity in other section). How the CGT shape the discussion?

In the discussion section, you need to write your methodology and compare your work with others. And also how your work is efficient than others. Finally if some limitation your work have, you need to write. And finally, you tell the readers that how in future work you can improve these limitations.

The following publications and link may further help, particularly: Mary Wilson’s contributions in the link: “…..I introduced it in the methods chapter…... 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' …..”

Furthermore, please refer to Bagga’s suggestions as to the Key Components of Discussion involving the discussion of methodological impact.

• Annesley, T. M. (2010) The discussion section: your closing argument, Clinical Chemistry, 56, 11, pp. 1671-1674.
• Bagga, A. (2016) Discussion: the heart of the paper, Indian pediatrics, 53, 10, pp. 901-904.
• Bavdekar, S. B. (2015) Writing the discussion section: Describing the significance of the study findings, Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63, 11, pp. 40-42.
• Day, R. A. (1998) How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 5th edn. Phoenix, Arizona: The Oryx Press.
• Hess, D. R. (2004) How to write an effective discussion, Respiratory care, 49, 10, pp. 1238-1241.
• Şanli, Ö., Erdem, S. and Tefik, T. (2013) How to write a discussion section?, Turkish Journal of Urolog, 39, Supplement 1, pp. 20-24.
• Constructivist grounded theory?: https://www.researchgate.net/post/constructivist_grounded_theory

This is something like an reflection about the methodology used in your study. You may include,

How well you have answered your research question using this methodology. The success and limitations, after finishing your study and the methods you may use in future studies to avoid the limitations you mentioned.