Using Constructivist Grounded Theory to Understand Why Female Secondary Students Engage in Scientific Research

Justin Andersson

doi:10.29333/ajqr/17134

Justin Andersson ¹ ^*

More Detail

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp. 191-219

https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17134

OPEN ACCESS 53 Views 30 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

In the United States, science education has undergone substantial reform efforts due to projections of an increased need for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce. Recent reform efforts call for students to engage in scientific inquiry through the practices of scientists and engineers. Research highlights the potential for student immersion in research and engineering practices, such as science fairs, to meet the needs of updated standards. Furthermore, groups of students that have traditionally been underrepresented in STEM careers, such as women, might benefit from science learning opportunities like scientific research for science fairs that can take place both within and outside of the typical school day. While some research has investigated student motivation using expectancy-value theory, for example, and other research has investigated students' compulsory participation, no known research has produced a theoretical model of why students choose to become involved in science research opportunities. Constructivist grounded theory is one approach that can develop theory about these motivational processes, from the perspective of the participant. The goal of this study was to theorize about female students' motivational processes when they re-engage with scientific research across grades 6-12. Data was collected through intensive interviews and analyzed using constructivist grounded theory from 21 students across eight rural and urban school districts in a Great Plains state. Findings, vetted through theoretical sampling and member-checking, yielded a theoretical model of the processes, challenges, and supports female students encountered. This study contributes to the literature on motivation to do scientific research through science fairs as findings highlight students’ needs for autonomy in their research topic, students’ realization of scientific research as a tool to investigate meaningful problems, and findings suggest the development of science identity. Science fairs are seen as venues where difference-making research can be divulged to the scientific community.

Keywords: Grounded theory, Motivation, Science fair, Sponsor teacher, Student research

References

Andersson, J., Schaben, C., Buhs, E., & Grandgenett, N. (2021). Phenomenology of secondary students’ experiences in out-of-school time science research. Science Educator, 28(1), 30–40. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/phenomenology-secondary-students-experiences-out/docview/2773344748/se-2
Bellipanni, L. J., & Lilly, J. E. (1999). What have researchers been saying about science fairs? Science and Children, 36(8), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.24559
Birks, M. and Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide (2^nd ed.). Sage.
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Pragmatism in research practice. Oxford University Press.
Bryant, A. (2019). The Varieties of grounded theory. SAGE.
Calabrese Barton A., Kang H., Tan E., O’Neill T. B., Bautista-Guerra J., Brecklin C. (2013). Crafting a future in science: Tracing middle school girls’ identity work over time and space. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 37–75. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0002831212458142
Carlone, H. B., Huffling, L. D., Tomasek, T., Hegedus, T. A., Matthews, C. E., Allen, M. H., & Ash, M. C. (2015) ‘Unthinkable’ selves: Identity boundary work in a summer field ecology enrichment program for diverse youth. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1524–1546. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1033776
Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237
Chan, H. Y., Choi, H., Hailu, M. F., Whitford, M., & Duplechain DeRouen, S. (2020). Participation in structured STEM-focused out-of-school time programs in secondary school: Linkage to postsecondary STEM aspiration and major. Journal of Research in Science , 57(8), 1250–1280. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21629
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2^nd ed.). Sage.
Chittum, J.R., Jones, B.D., Akalin, S. (2017). The effects of an afterschool STEM program on students’ motivation and engagement. International Journal of STEM Education 4(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0065-4
Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. (2016).  Situational analysis in practice: Mapping research with grounded theory. Routledge.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990).  Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6^th ed.). Pearson.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018).  Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4^th ed.). Sage.
Cribbs, J. D., Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2015). Establishing an explanatory model for mathematics identity. Child Development, 86(4), 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12363.
Czerniak, C. M. (1996). Predictors of success in a district science fair competition: An exploratory study. School Science & Mathematics, 96(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10208.x
Dabney, K. P., Chakraverty, D., & Tai, R. H. (2013). The association of family influence and initial interest in science. Science Education, 97(3), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.102/sce.21060
Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Hazari, Z. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 2(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.629455
DeLisi, J., Kook, J. F., Levy, A. J., Fields, E., & Winfield, L. (2021). An examination of the features of science fairs that support students’ understandings of science and engineering practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4), 491–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21669
DeWitt, J. & Archer, L. (2017) Participation in informal science learning experiences: The rich get richer? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(4), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1360531
Dionne, L., Reis, G., Trudel, L. & al. (2012). Students’ sources of motivation for participating in science fairs: an exploratory study within the canada-wide science fair 2008. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 669–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9338-3
Dou, R., Hazari, Z., Dabney, K., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. (2019). Early informal STEM experiences and STEM identity: The importance of talking science. Science Education, 103(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21499
Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Ross, R., & Rusk, T. B. (2007). Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308450
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff S. B., & Kaczala, C. M. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.) Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109-32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Finley, S., & Howard, A. (2024). Does grounded theory have a place in graduate research? American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(3), 60-75. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14889
Gee, J. P. (2001). Identity as analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X025001099
Science Center of Iowa. (n.d.). Girls in science initiative. Retrieved August 1, 2025, from https://www.sciowa.org/programs-and-events/youth-programs/girls-in-science-initiative-2/
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
Grinnell F., Dalley S., & Reisch J. (2025). High school science fair: What students say— mastery, performance, and self-determination theory. PLoS One 20(6), 1-17. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325283
Grinnell, F., Dalley, S., & Reisch, J. (2022). High school science fair: Ethnicity trends in student participation and experience. PloS ONE, 17(3 March), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264861
Grinnell, F., Dalley, S., Shepherd, K., & Reisch, J. (2017). High school science fair and research integrity. PloS ONE, 12(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174252
Grinnell, F., Dalley, S., Shepherd, K., & Reisch, J. (2018). High school science fair: Student opinions regarding whether participation should be required or optional and why. PloS ONE, 13(8), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202320
Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
Guetterman, T.C., (2015). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 16(2), Article 25. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.2.2290
Hadley, G. (2017). Grounded theory in applied linguistics research: A practical guide. Routledge.
Hazari, Z., Chari, D., Potvin, G., & Brewe E. (2020). The context dependence of physics identity: Examining the role of performance/competence, recognition, interest, and sense of belonging for lower and upper female physics undergraduates. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(10), 1583-1607. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21644
Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363.
Huang, J., Gates, A. J., Sinatra, R., & Barabási, A. -L. (2020). Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4609-4616. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1914221117
Hughes, R., Schellinger, J., & Roberts, K. (2021). The role of recognition in disciplinary identity for girls. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(3), 420–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21665
Kane, J. M. (2012). Multiple identities and the science self. In: Varelas, M. (Eds.), Identity Construction and Science Education Research. Bold Visions in Educational Research. Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-043-9_3
Keane, E. (2025). Constructivist grounded theory in qualitative research for social justice: Purpose, process, promise. New trends in qualitative research, 21(2), 1-13. Https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.21.2.2025.e1289
Kook, J. F., DeLisi, J., Fields, E. T., & Jurist Levy, A. (2020). Approaches for conducting middle school science fairs: A landscape study. Science Educator, 27(2), 71–80. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/approaches-conducting-middle-school-science-fairs/docview/2773346527/se-2
Larivière V., Sugimoto C. R. (2017). The end of gender disparities in science? If only it were true… CWTS. https://www.cwts.nl:443/blog?article=n-q2z294
Layton, D., & Gerstenblatt, P. (2022). “They’re just, like, there”: A constructivist grounded theory study of student experiences with school resource officers. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(9), 3930–3946. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22847
Lewis, C. C., Schapps, E., & Watson, M. (1995). Beyond the pendulum: Creating challenging and caring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(7), 547-554. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/beyond-pendulum-creating-challenging-caring/docview/218534313/se-2
Love, H. B., Stephens, A., Fosdick, B. K., Tofany, E., & Fisher, E. R. (2022). The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: A need to broaden and accelerate future research. Humanities and Social Science Communication, 9(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01389-w
Master, A., Meltzoff, A. N., & Cheryan, S. (2021). Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(48), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100030118
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
MIT Solve. Gender equity in STEM challenge: Girls in science as a pipeline to STEM. (2023, June 2). https://solve.mit.edu/solutions/71904
Morse, J. M. (2000). Theoretical congestion. Qualitative Health Research, 10(6), 715–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118741
Morse, J. M., & Clark, L. (2019). The nuances of grounded theory sampling and the pivotal role of theoretical sampling. The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory, 145–166. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526485656.n9
Hall, N., & Quinn, R. (2014). Parental Involvement at the High School Level: Parents’ Perspectives. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/9
Nathaniel, A. (2022). When and how to use extant literature in classic grounded theory. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 6(3), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12441
National Science Foundation. (2019, March 8). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/data/
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Welch, G., Grandgenett, N., Wu, C. R., & Nelson, C. (2015). A model of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1067–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1017863
Demir Öztürk, S., & Eren, E. (2020). The Effects of Gamification Platforms as an Assessment Tool on Students’ Participation and Academic Motivation. Asian Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 47-65.
Paul, J., Lederman, N. G., & Groß, J. (2016). Learning experimentation through science fairs. International Journal of Science Education, 38(15), 2367–2387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1243272
Perez, T., Wormington, S. V., Barger, M. M., Schwartz‐Bloom, R. D., Lee, Y., & Linnenbrink‐Garcia, L. (2019). Science expectancy, value, and cost profiles and their proximal and distal relations to undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math persistence. Science Education), 103(2), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21490
Pitts, M. J., Fanari, A., Cooper, R. A., Jiao, J., & Kim, S. (2023). The grounded model of communication savoring: theory development and age cohort study. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(3), 139-159. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13399
Pratt, H., Middleton, R., Molloy, L., & Moroney, T. (2023). Connectivity: Person-centered research principles to inform constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205788
Prussing, E., Newnham, E., & Cummins, A. (2024). The Value of Constructivist Grounded Theory in Advocating for Unheard Voices in Contemporary Maternity Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241307579
Riedl, C., Kim, Y. J., Gupta P., Malone, T. W., Woolley, A. W. (2021). Quantifying collective intelligence in human groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (21), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2005737118
Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(35), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4
Ross, M. B., Glennon, B. M., Murciano-Goroff, R., Berkes, E. G., Weinberg, B. A., & Lane, J. I. (2022). Women are credited less in science than men. Nature, 608(7921), 135–145 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w
Sahin, A. (2013). STEM clubs and science fair competitions: Effects on post-secondary matriculation. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 14(1), 5-11. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/stem-clubs-science-fair-competitions-effects-on/docview/1349180552/se-2
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
Saw, G. K., & Agger, C. A. (2021). STEM pathways of rural and small-town students: Opportunities to learn, aspirations, preparation, and college enrollment. Educational Researcher, 50(9), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211027528
Schaben, C., Andersson, J. R., & Cutucache, C. (2022). A multiple case study to understand how students experience science and engineering practices.. Frontiers in Education, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.960346
Schank, H. (2015, March 12). Science fairs aren’t so fair. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-science-fairs-arent-so-fair/387547/
Schmidt, K. M., & Kelter, P. (2017). Science fairs: A qualitative study of their impact on student science inquiry learning and attitudes toward STEM. Science Educator, 25(2), 126–132. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/science-fairs-qualitative-study-their-impact-on/docview/1865491855/se-2
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2^nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153
Sugimoto C. R., & Larivière V. (2023). Equity for women in science: Dismantling systemic barriers to advancement. Harvard University Press.
Thornberg, R., & Charmaz, K., (2012). Grounded theory. In Lapan, S. D., Quartaroli, M. T., & Riemer, F. J. (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Vennix, J., den Brok, P., & Taconis, R. (2018). Do outreach activities in secondary STEM education motivate students and improve their attitudes towards STEM? International Journal of Science Education, 40(11), 1263–1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1473659
Vincent-Ruz, P., Schunn, C.D. (2018). The nature of science identity and its role as the driver of student choices. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0140-5
Walshe, P., Commins, A., McDonnell, C., & Kelly, B. G. (2025). ‘STEAM from the Start’: Proposing a Conceptual Framework for the Development and Implementation of a STEAM Training Intervention for Early Childhood Educators. European Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17156

Citation

Andersson, J. (2025). Using Constructivist Grounded Theory to Understand Why Female Secondary Students Engage in Scientific Research. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 9(4), 191-219. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17134

Andersson, J. (2025). Using Constructivist Grounded Theory to Understand Why Female Secondary Students Engage in Scientific Research. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 9(4), pp. 191-219. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17134

Andersson J. Using Constructivist Grounded Theory to Understand Why Female Secondary Students Engage in Scientific Research. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2025;9(4), 191-219. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17134

Andersson, Justin. "Using Constructivist Grounded Theory to Understand Why Female Secondary Students Engage in Scientific Research". American Journal of Qualitative Research 2025 9 no. 4 (2025): 191-219. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17134

Andersson, Justin "Using Constructivist Grounded Theory to Understand Why Female Secondary Students Engage in Scientific Research". American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 9, no. 4, 2025, pp. 191-219. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17134

Andersson J. Using Constructivist Grounded Theory to Understand Why Female Secondary Students Engage in Scientific Research. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2025;9(4):191-219. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/17134