Document is current

Article History

Accepted: 22 August 2022

First Online: 13 October 2022

Declarations

:

: This study was approved by University of Colorado Denver’s Institutional Review Board under protocol COMIRB Protocol #20–3156.

: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants gave informed consent to have excerpts from their interviews published with participant pseudonyms.

: No financial or non-financial interests to report.

: ¹Since constructivist grounded theory does not typically rely on inter-coder reliability, these multiple methods of memoing, as well as comparative coding, are commonly recommended to avoid single researcher bias (e.g., Charmaz 2006; Deterding and Waters 2021; Farkas and Haas 2012). In addition to memos, I also conducted comparative coding of both full interviews and indexed excerpts from interviews (interviews were indexed by interview question), another practice recommended to avoid single researcher bias (Deterding and Waters 2021). Also in an effort to stay close to the data, specifically participants’ own words, as I condensed specific, open codes into more categorical codes, I sought to keep these more general codes grounded in data by tracking codes in a fluid codebook that included for each code a definition, exemplar codes, and differential or distinguishing codes (interview quotes that were close to but would not qualify for inclusion under each code) (Farkas and Haas 2012).

Free to read: This content has been made available to all.