Grounded theory practitioners are undoubtedly familiar with critiques of their research which problematise its lack of transparency and, subsequently, trustworthiness. While the literature on grounded theory already benefits from numerous varying guides on ‘how to do grounded theory’, comparatively less instruction exists around how to do it clearly and convincingly. One of the elements of the grounded theory methodology (GT) which appears to be impacted most by confusion around transparent writeup is coding, naturally leading to the theoretical outputs thereof suffering from questionable trustworthiness. Through the course of my own postgraduate research, I developed a tool which not only makes coding more transparent to the reader, but to the researcher themselves. This tool, Relational Coding, highlights the relationships between codes which form the foundation of theory, and reveals them more obviously to the reader and researcher alike. Rather than ‘a how to guide to GT’, this is a ‘how to show you have actually done GT’ tool. This allows for stronger arguments to be built from the theory which this methodology builds due to the trustworthiness inspired by enhanced transparency. Here I demonstrate its usefulness and applicability, as well as key shortcomings which may be addressed by fellow grounded theory enthusiasts as the tool is inherently organic and modifiable.

No abstract

The urban policy assumption of public space's generative capacity for cohesion stands out as limited in the face of the reality of South African urban public space. Drawing on observations and experiences in a range of Johannesburg public spaces, we critique the assumption contained in international, national, and local South African urban policies about cohesive public space. We argue that assuming the agency of people as tending towards cohesion and that the agency of space is enough to ensure this because it is necessarily similarly cohesive, is incorrect. Likewise, assuming the primacy of the agency of space is misleading. This dichotomy of relationships focussing on space as cohesive, and people as influenced by space, requires a third element. That third element is understanding space as an amplifier of the norms people chose or appear forced to practice which exist beyond public space. This imparts the necessity of acknowledging the existence of contestation and conflict alongside cohesion and collaboration in public space, and allows for a more accurate and subsequently more effective understanding of public space, particularly in the post-segregation context. Along this vein we propose approaching public spaces through an appreciation for their complex multiple simultaneous realities, including cohesion, collaboration, tension, contestation, and even conflict as a few examples. Without seeking to imply a dichotomous categorisation, we call this approach the cohesion-contestation spectrum.