Here I outline the methodology and key methods used in the empirical study that informs the book, introduced already in Chapter 5. I set out the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation, and summarise key participant demographic details. Finally, I briefly outline the processes of analysis and refer to ethical issues and limitations.

Methodology

One strength of qualitative research is its ability to explicate the meaning of something from the viewpoint of the people involved. As an objective of this study was to explore experiences and meanings made of disablement processes, a biographical narrative method and an inductive constructivist grounded theory method were appropriate. Narrative research conveys tacit assumptions and norms of individuals and cultural groups (Wengraf, 2001). Biographical narrative was therefore a method that could, among other things, focus on how participants made sense of events and actions in their lives, empower them to co-determine important issues, and illuminate the impact of social structures on them (Elliott, 2005).

Grounded theory serves as a way to learn about the worlds we study and a method for developing theories to understand them (Charmaz, 2014: 17). A grounded theory method fitted with the research questions because it is suited to attempts to understand the process by which actors construct meaning out of intersubjective experience (Suddaby, 2006: 634). Charmaz developed what she terms a constructivist approach to grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000, 2014; see also Silverman, 2010). For Charmaz (2014: 154, 277), a constructivist approach assumes that researchers engage in an interpretive portrayal of the studied world, that is, neither the data nor theories are discovered; rather, we construct grounded theories through past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives and research practices. Thus, for Charmaz (2014: 14), ‘subjectivity is inseparable from social existence’, and she explains that her constructivist approach aligns with the form that social constructionism takes today, also distinguishing her position from those who take a radical subjectivist stance. The emphasis that Charmaz places on subjectivity of the researcher fits well with a critical gerontological approach, in which researchers reflect on their own roles in the production of knowledge (Holstein and Minkler, 2007; Ziegler and Scharf, 2014: 158).

Charmaz (2014: 15) envisages a flexible approach to address different research questions, and outlines the following steps pursued by grounded theorists:

• 1. conduct data collection and analysis simultaneously in an iterative process;

• 2. analyse actions and processes rather than themes and structure;