Shaping Beliefs, Shaping Lives: The Intersection of Self-Efficacy and Constructivist Grounded Theory

Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) has emerged as a valuable methodology in qualitative research, particularly for examining complex, socially-embedded constructs like self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, which refers to an individual’s belief in their capability to perform specific tasks, is recognized as a key factor in academic success, motivation, and resilience [1]. Traditional approaches to studying self-efficacy have largely focused on quantitative measurement, yet the contextual and interpretative nuances often remain unexplored. This is where CGT provides a unique advantage: grounded in interpretivist and constructivist paradigms, it emphasizes the co-construction of meaning between researcher and participants, acknowledging the subjective nature of individual beliefs and experiences [2].

CGT’s emphasis on context and interaction aligns well with the study of self-efficacy, [3,4] particularly within educational and social environments where belief in one’s capabilities is shaped by complex interpersonal and cultural dynamics. By capturing these nuances, CGT allows researchers to move beyond mere measurement and gain a deeper understanding of how self-efficacy develops, is challenged, and evolves within specific social contexts. This paper explores the application of CGT to self-efficacy research, discussing how the methodology illuminates the layered nature of the construct and offering recommendations for future studies.

Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) emerged as a distinct methodological approach in qualitative research [2,5] refining the traditional Grounded Theory (GT) by integrating constructivist principles. Grounded theory, originally developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in the 1960s, focused on generating theories grounded in data rather than testing preexisting hypotheses [6]. Their work laid the foundation for a systematic, yet flexible, approach to qualitative research. Over time, however, criticisms of GT’s objectivist tendencies-particularly its claim to uncover “truths” independent of researcher influence-led to a significant evolution in the methodology [7]..

In the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries, Kathy Charmaz [2,5] introduced Constructivist Grounded Theory as a response to these concerns. Charmaz’s CGT emphasizes the active role of the researcher in co-constructing meaning with participants, acknowledging that both data and interpretations are influenced by social, cultural, and historical contexts. This shift from a purely objectivist approach to a more interpretivist stance reflects broader movements in qualitative research, where the focus is on understanding phenomena from the perspective of those experiencing them, rather than seeking an external, objective reality.

The integration of constructivist principles allows CGT to address the subjective and dynamic nature of constructs like selfefficacy. In contrast to traditional self-efficacy research, which often relies on quantitative measures and pre-defined scales, CGT enables a deeper exploration of how self-efficacy is shaped by individual and collective experiences. The methodology’s emphasis on the co-construction of meaning allows researchers to capture the nuanced and evolving nature of self-belief, as it is influenced by cultural, social, and institutional contexts [8]. For example, a study applying CGT might reveal how a student’s academic selfefficacy is shaped not only by their personal achievements but also by the encouragement or discouragement they receive from family, teachers, and peers [9-11]. CGT also encourages researchers to embrace reflexivity-constantly reflecting on how their own positions, experiences, and assumptions shape the research process. This is particularly important in self-efficacy studies, where researchers’ own beliefs and biases about what constitutes “success” or “failure” can influence data interpretation. By fostering a collaborative relationship between researchers and participants, CGT facilitates a more nuanced understanding of how individuals construct meaning around their capabilities and challenges [12- 14]. The historical development of CGT underscores its capacity to adapt to the complexities of contemporary qualitative research. With its roots in grounded theory’s systematic methodology, CGT’s interpretive flexibility allows it to be applied in diverse settings, from education to healthcare, to examine how self-efficacy manifests across different life experiences.

Contributions to the natural sciences

In the natural sciences, CGT offers a unique method for exploring the dynamic processes underlying phenomena often deemed too complex or variable for conventional quantitative analysis. While the natural sciences typically rely on reductionist models, CGT emphasizes the integration of multiple perspectives and the complexity of systems. By applying CGT, researchers can develop theories grounded in real-world observations, capturing the intricate ways in which natural processes unfold. For example, CGT has been instrumental in examining ecological systems, where interactions between species are influenced by a range of environmental, biological, and social factors, enabling more holistic models that reflect the interconnectedness of life.

Contributions to the social sciences

In the social sciences, CGT has been transformative, particularly in the study of human behaviour, organizational structures, and societal change. Traditional theories in the social sciences often rely on generalized assumptions about human behaviour; however, CGT allows for a deeper exploration of the subjective experiences that shape actions and interactions. By focusing on how individuals and groups co-construct meaning, CGT has enriched research in areas like education, criminology, and psychology, particularly in understanding the ways in which identity, power, and culture influence decision-making and self-perception. This methodological shift has provided nuanced insights into issues such as social inequality, mental health, and educational engagement, which require a sensitivity to context and lived experience.

Contributions to the humanities

In the humanities, CGT’s ability to uncover the complex interplay of culture, language, and history has been particularly impactful. Unlike traditional interpretative methods that focus on textual analysis or historical events in isolation, CGT allows researchers to explore how individuals and communities make meaning of their experiences through narrative and discourse. This has proven invaluable in fields such as literature, philosophy, and cultural studies, where researchers use CGT to explore themes like identity formation, cultural conflict, and the evolution of societal norms. The flexibility of CGT has enabled scholars to capture the evolving nature of human expression and thought, offering new ways to understand the interplay between individual agency and collective memory in shaping human culture.

Given the insights derived from the application of Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) to self-efficacy research, several recommendations emerge for future studies in this domain:
A. Expand CGT Applications in Diverse Contexts: Researchers should further explore how self-efficacy develops in varied educational settings, such as vocational schools, online learning environments, or marginalized communities. CGT’s emphasis on context and social interaction makes it an ideal framework to understand how self-efficacy is influenced by unique cultural and institutional factors.
B. Incorporate Longitudinal Studies: Since self-efficacy can evolve over time, longitudinal CGT studies would provide valuable insights into how self-beliefs develop and change, particularly as students transition through different stages of their education or career.
C. Focus on Intersectionality: Future research should explore how intersectional factors-such as gender, race, and socioeconomic status-affect the formation of self-efficacy beliefs. CGT’s ability to capture multiple realities will allow researchers to better understand how individuals navigate these intersecting identities and their impact on self-belief.
D. Enhance Researcher-Participant Reflexivity: To further enrich findings, it is crucial that researchers continue to engage in reflexivity throughout the research process. This includes reflecting on how their own positionality may influence data collection, interpretation, and the co-construction of meaning with participants.
E. Collaborate Across Disciplines: CGT’s versatility across disciplines makes it an ideal method for interdisciplinary research. Collaboration between education, psychology, sociology, and even healthcare could open new avenues for understanding self-efficacy as a dynamic, context-dependent construct.
F. By addressing these areas, future studies can deepen the understanding of self-efficacy and contribute to the development of more effective interventions aimed at enhancing students’ academic and personal growth. In conclusion, Constructivist Grounded Theory offers an innovative lens through which to explore self-efficacy, unlocking new pathways for understanding the complex interplay between personal beliefs and external influences. By embracing the co-construction of meaning, CGT not only deepens our comprehension of self-belief but also empowers individuals to reshape their potential within the ever-evolving contexts of education, culture, and society. As we continue to bridge theory and lived experience, CGT stands as a transformative tool for both research and human development, shaping not only what we know, but how we live and grow.

1. Bandura A (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachandran VS (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, Academic Press 14: 71-81.
2. Charmaz K (2014) Constructing grounded theory. In: (2^nd edn), SAGE Publications, USA.
3. Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. In: WH Freeman (Ed).
4. Bandura A (2006) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F & Urdan T (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, Information Age Publishing 5: 307-337.
5. Charmaz K (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications, USA.
6. Creamer EG (2022) Advancing grounded theory with mixed methods. Routledge, UK.
7. Hergenhahn BR, Henley T (2013) An introduction to the history of psychology. In: (7^th edn), Cengage Learning.
8. Cheek J, Øby E (2023) Research design: Why thinking about design matters. In: (1^st edn), Sage Publications, USA.
9. Falanga R, De Caroli ME, Sagone E (2014) Self-efficacy beliefs and representation of self and psychology: A longitudinal study with psychology university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 140: 295-299.
10. Foulstone AR, Kelly A (2019) Enhancing academic self-efficacy and performance among fourth-year psychology students: Findings from a short educational intervention. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 13(2).
11. Livinƫi R, Gunnesch-Luca G, Iliescu D (2021) Research self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist 56(3): 215-242.
12. Mohajan D, Mohajan HK (2022) Constructivist grounded theory: A new research approach in social science. Research and Advances in Education 1(4): 8-16.
13. Bandura A (2012) Self-efficacy mechanisms in physiological activation and health-promoting behavior. In: Madden J (Ed.), Neurobiology of learning, emotion and affection, Raven, pp. 229-270.
14. Creswell JW (2021) A concise introduction to mixed methods research. In: (2^nd edn), Sage Publications, USA.