E-Portfolio Journal 1: Thinking About my Grounded Theory Project

MAIS 640: Grounded Theory

Athabasca University

Student: Sahar Esmaeili (3757167)

Instructor: Dr. Russ Wilde

July 13, 2025

 E-Portfolio Journal 1: Thinking About my Grounded Theory Project

About Me

I am a PhD student in Social Work with a long-standing interest in the well-being and identity development of children from marginalized communities, particularly those affected by migration and family disruption. As an Iranian individual living in Canada, my academic journey is deeply informed by both personal experience and professional practice. Over the past decade, I have worked in various capacities supporting immigrant and refugee populations, including youth impacted by trauma, displacement, and cultural transition. This work has strengthened my commitment to research that is not only academically rigorous but also ethically grounded and socially responsive. My current dissertation explores how Iranian children in Canada experience and interpret parental divorce and immigration, with a focus on theory generation using grounded theory methodology.

Introduction: Entering Grounded Theory

Entering MAIS 640 marks a pivotal moment in my academic and personal journey as a PhD student in Social Work. My aim in this course and more broadly in my dissertation work is to engage rigorously with grounded theory (GT) as both a methodology and a philosophy of inquiry. Specifically, I seek to investigate how Iranian immigrant children in Canada, aged 10–16, navigate the complex realities of parental divorce and the challenges of immigration. I am interested in understanding how these children maintain their sense of well-being amidst intersecting experiences of family rupture, cultural dislocation, and developmental transition. The choice to use grounded theory stems not only from methodological alignment but also from a deeper epistemological resonance: the belief that theory should emerge from the lived experiences of those most intimately connected to the phenomena.

My early exposure to grounded theory came through coursework in qualitative inquiry, but it remained largely theoretical until now. The concept of building theory inductively rather than deductively intrigued me but also felt abstract. As Stebbins (2001) notes, exploratory research thrives in contexts where existing theories are insufficient or absent. The lives of immigrant children of divorced families especially those from specific ethno-cultural contexts like Iranian families remain under-theorized in mainstream social work literature. This gap is precisely where grounded theory is most powerful: "It allows researchers to develop theories where little is known, rather than verifying existing frameworks" (Charmaz, 2014).

Initial Conceptualization and the Relevance of Grounded Theory

The idea for my dissertation research emerged from a broader interest in the psycho-social experiences of immigrant children in Canada. Initially, these interests lacked specificity until I began to explore the compounding effects of parental divorce. It became evident that the intersection of immigration and parental separation creates a distinct context marked by adjustment, resilience, and vulnerability. Despite the significance of this dual experience, there remains a notable gap in the literature that centers the voices of these children. In this regard, grounded theory offers not only a methodologically appropriate approach but also an ethically responsive one, as it prioritizes the lived experiences of participants as the basis for theory development (Chun et al., 2019).

As Charmaz (2014) emphasizes, grounded theory is more than a method for data analysis; it represents a mode of inquiry that interrogates the relationship between data, theory, and reality. It encourages openness to emergent patterns and unanticipated narratives, rather than imposing data into predetermined conceptual frameworks. For a topic as complex as mine where issues of identity, culture, developmental stage, and trauma converge this methodological flexibility is essential. Rich (2012) highlights grounded theory as a process requiring iterative reflection, continuous coding, and deep reflexivity at every stage. These qualities are particularly vital when engaging with vulnerable populations such as immigrant children, where researcher assumptions can easily obscure or distort participants' meanings.

Methodological Challenges and Epistemological Tensions

My enthusiasm for grounded theory is tempered by a recognition of its practical and philosophical challenges. As Timonen et al. (2018) explain, grounded theory can often seem "messy" and nonlinear, particularly for novice researchers accustomed to rigid structures and clear research steps. One challenge I anticipate is balancing GT’s open-ended nature with institutional requirements for ethical clearance, recruitment plans, and project timelines, all of which necessitate a level of predictability that GT resists (Luckerhoff & Guillemette, 2011).

For instance, when designing a proposal for ethics review, one is often expected to provide concrete interview questions or precise sampling strategies. However, in grounded theory, both the sampling and questions are meant to evolve as coding progresses (Charmaz, 2014). This tension between GT’s emergent logic and the institutional demand for detailed foresight is one I will have to navigate carefully. Furthermore, as Nagel et al. (2015) note, doctoral students using constructivist grounded theory must often justify their epistemological stance in environments that still privilege positivist traditions.

To mitigate this tension, I plan to frame my research as exploratory with emergent design, emphasizing that flexibility is not a lack of rigor but a form of responsiveness to data. I also aim to demonstrate that the iterative nature of GT coding including initial, focused, and theoretical is systematic, even if it does not conform to linear planning models. 

Coding, Data Sources, and Ethical Considerations

One insight from Dr. Kriukow’s (2020) video on grounded theory is the emphasis on conceptual sensitivity, the ability to see meaning in participant language and connect it to emerging theoretical ideas. This requires a level of immersion that goes beyond surface-level coding. As I begin data collection, I am considering of in-depth interviews and digital ethnography where Iranian children (or their parents) might share their experiences indirectly. Given the potential sensitivity of direct child interviews, especially with minors navigating both immigration and divorce, digital artifacts may provide ethically feasible supplementary data while protecting participant anonymity.

However, I am also aware of the risks of decontextualization when using digital data. As Timonen et al. (2018) caution, GT researchers must not treat online texts as inherently transparent; they must situate them within broader socio-cultural discourses. Similarly, coding must go beyond mechanical labeling. In his video on qualitative coding, Dr. Kriukow (2020) argues that coding should focus on meaning-making rather than superficial themes. This perspective resonates with Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist approach, where codes are not merely labels but interpretive acts grounded in both data and researcher insight.

To maintain ethical integrity and analytical depth, I plan to begin with open-ended interviews with Iranian parents and, where ethically feasible and with appropriate consent, with children themselves. These interviews will be complemented by analysis of textual materials such as blogs, YouTube testimonials, or diaspora narratives in Persian and English. I will use initial coding to break down actions and meanings, followed by focused coding to develop categories. Memo writing will be central throughout, helping to track theoretical insights and avoid premature closure.

Reflexive Positionality and Researcher Identity

An important part of this process involves confronting my own positionality. As an Iranian individual, I bring both insider and outsider perspectives. I share cultural knowledge, language, and values with potential participants, but I also carry the biases and privileges of academic training and adult experience. Charmaz (2014) encourages GT researchers to "remain reflexive about their interpretations" and consider how their presence shapes the construction of data. Similarly, Nagel et al. (2015) advocate for transparency about the researcher’s journey emphasizing that positionality is not a flaw, but a source of insight when acknowledged reflexively. For me, this means recognizing how my own immigration story may lead me to resonate with participants or to project meaning where it may not exist. It also means staying aware of generational differences: the experiences of today’s 12-year-olds growing up in a multicultural Canada are not the same as those of someone who migrated decades ago. I aim to hold my assumptions lightly, allowing the data to surprise me rather than affirming what I already "know."

Grounded Theory as a Journey, Not a Destination

One of the most liberating realizations in this course so far is that grounded theory is not a one-time event but a sustained engagement. As Stebbins (2001) suggests, exploratory research is inherently uncertain; it values curiosity, openness, and risk-taking. Rather than seeking to validate a hypothesis, GT invites us to remain in what Rich (2012) calls "the black box" of analysis, where ideas are in flux and theory is only partially formed. In many ways, this approach mirrors the lived realities of the children I hope to study. Their experiences are not fixed but evolving, shaped by language acquisition, peer relationships, legal processes, and cultural identity. Their well-being is not a static outcome but a dynamic process of navigation and adaptation. Grounded theory, with its attention to process, interaction, and meaning-making, offers a uniquely suited lens to explore these experiences.

As I continue this course, I plan to refine my interview guides, pilot initial conversations, and begin the process of theoretical sampling. I will also continue reading empirical studies that use GT with immigrant, to learn from their design and dilemmas. Ultimately, I hope this journey through MAIS 640 will not only prepare me for dissertation work but deepen my respect for the voices and stories that form the core of my research.

References: 

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory.

Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers. SAGE open medicine, 7, 2050312118822927.

Luckerhoff, J., & Guillemette, F. (2011). The Conflicts between Grounded Theory Requirements and Institutional Requirements for Scientific Research. Qualitative Report, 16(2), 396-414.

Nagel, D. A., Burns, V. F., Tilley, C., & Aubin, D. (2015). When novice researchers adopt constructivist grounded theory: Navigating less travelled paradigmatic and methodological paths in PhD dissertation work. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 365.

Qualitative Researcher Dr Kriukow (Director). (2020a, September 3). What is Grounded Theory | Core Elements and Common Myths [Video recording]. 

Rich, P. (2012). Inside the Black Box: Revealing the Process in Applying a Grounded Theory Analysis. The Qualitative Report, 17(25), 1–23.

Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences (Vol. 48). Sage.

Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic introduction to doing GT research. International journal of qualitative methods, 17(1), 1609406918758086.