Angelina Inesia-Forde

The fight for fairness is a fight for human dignity, fulfilled by satisfying security. Current theories of collective action and democratic stability often neglect this relationship, treating security as a material endpoint rather than the condition in which dignity is experienced. This paper formalizes demoralization as a catalyst for transforming humiliation into dignity, a framework grounded in Weber's methodological individualism and Bandura's theory of collective agency. It traces how agentic individuals move from demoralization to empowerment: noticing differential treatment, awakening to structural unfairness through Freire's conscientization, recognizing their own human dignity, and mobilizing through functional hope—agency paired with pathway and subjective belief. Hope is understood through Bloch's philosophical treatment, as an ontological drive, and Snyder's cognitive model. This framework extends both by arguing that hope activates action regardless of objective viability. Unity moderates the outcome: collective action enables sustainable nonviolent change, while isolated agentic individuals risk pursuing dignity through destruction. The framework distinguishes intrinsically motivated agentic individuals from non-agentic individuals who require extrinsic motivation through contagious hope or otherwise succumb to learned helplessness. The invariant goal is the restoration of security, multidimensional psychological well-being, and human dignity. Applied to macro-historical transitions such as China's rise after the Century of Humiliation, and micro-level divergences such as school shooters who pursue dignity through violent means rather than collective agency and action. Where traditional theories stop at security, this framework argues that genuine security is the condition in which human dignity is fully realized. The fight for fairness is not complete until security satisfies dignity.

The following paper was constructed with two goals in mind: to use AI as a co-construction tool in academic research and to provide examples of how Inesia-Forde’s frameworks of social change can be applied across various fields and substantive areas, for students looking to complete their thesis or dissertations in record time. The examples cited in the paper for which AI constructed tables were previously discussed in my dissertation and other published works, but have not been formalized (ethical use of AI). However, AI identified some areas where the frameworks can be applied (e.g., unethical use by students who do not credit AI as a research tool or who use AI-generated examples rather than their own). In this paper, the focus was on how AI would apply the frameworks to areas I know it applies to, rather than to new ones. To support the new applications, I would have had to conduct independent research, which is not an aim of this paper. Analysts interested in these areas can conduct independent research to determine whether AI cited appropriate examples.

One of the most significant problems in the area of learning disabilities and delinquency is failure in recognizing the characteristics of the LD by the juvenile justice system. Therefore, a number of useful techniques, skills, and strategies are provided to help court officers, educators, mental health professionals, and community service providers divert at-risk youths from the system. This study also answers the question of whether the juvenile justice system continues to work in the best interest of the youth they have been entrusted to serve under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. It will be confined to secondary data analysis gathered from the Urban Government Division of Corrections in Lexington, Kentucky, using a survey methodology. The responses of 171 juvenile males and females between the ages of 9 to 18 will be analyzed to measure the LD population in Lexington’s correctional institution.

This study applies the Hegelian dialectic to analyze two opposing frameworks for social change processes, one disempowering and leading to demoralization, and the other empowering, leading to positive and sustainable social change across historical and contemporary contexts. It explores how seven conceptual dyads undergo aufheben (sublation) to transcend opposition. Using Hegel’s triadic dialectic (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), the study identifies absolute negations and synthesizes them into a higher-order framework. The dialectical process reveals contradictions that resolve into transformative syntheses, offering a diagnostic tool for democratic erosion and renewal. The study bridges Hegelian philosophy and sociopolitical praxis, advancing a pluriversal lens for global conflicts. The shift from a unipolar to a pluriversal global order necessitates moving beyond traditional political strategies—rooted in hegemony and zero-sum logic—toward relational frameworks centered on co-sovereignty and civil reciprocity. The framework can assist social scientists and activists in navigating power asymmetries (e.g., epistemic injustice, colonial legacies) through dialectical resolution, with speculative moments serving as a conceptual blueprint for fostering mutual recognition, coexistence, and international peace. Future research could explore how the sublated framework shapes adaptive strategies, relational bonds, and normative codes. Methodologically, scholars should investigate whether Hegel's distinctive application of deconstruction within the analytical process of abstraction constitutes a substantive departure from Derrida's approach to deconstruction. Additionally, to advance toward Hegel's ideal of comprehensive understanding and achieve a more robust synthesis, scholars should: 1) systematically integrate multiple antitheses emerging from competing ideological perspectives, and 2) identify not only their determination, but the essence of what causes dynamic tension to thereby refine and strengthen the method.

More than 50 years ago, Glaser and Strauss constructed the grounded theory methodology to develop substantive and formal data-grounded theories. Grounded theory is a rigorous methodology for generating theory grounded in data. It incorporates compare-and-contrast and abductive reasoning as its intellectual engine. Whenever one of these cognitive processes is engaged, so is the other. However, there is a need for a systematic means to assess how rigorous the grounded theory research process was employed. This paper aims to start this conversation among methodologists and practitioners by proposing three criteria to evaluate the trustworthiness of grounded theories’ research process. Grounded theory studies ought to include abductive discoveries, the results of variation-finding, and Tilly’s comparison framework. Examples from Forde’s macro-level grounded theory will be used to demonstrate the significance of adding evaluation criteria to assess the rigor of the research process.

Existing social disparities in the United States are inconsistent with Lincoln’s promise of democracy; therefore, there is a need for a critical conceptualization of the first principles that undergird American democracy and the genesis of democratic social change in America. This study aimed to construct a grounded theory that provides an understanding of the process of American democratic social change. The result was the construction of two frameworks: the demoralization process that triggers social change, and a formal grounded theory that could explain democratic social change endeavors across different domains and levels of analysis. This democratic social change grounded theory answers the research question: How do the principles of the American founding documents provide an understanding of the process of American democratic social change?

There have been 417 gun violence in schools since Columbine. In these shootings, more than 383,000 students were killed. At the time of the event, most offenders of school mass shootings were targets of school bullying, experiencing a mental health crisis, and a history of depression. Effective interventions and support that could help prevent or reduce school bullying incidents require understanding the process of demoralization and empowering social change. This paper is part of an original constructivist grounded theory study on democratic social change in America explored through a post hoc polytheoretical framework comprised of Foucauldian, Bourdieuan, and Marxist power. It aims to answer the question: In which areas would the democratic social change grounded theory resonate the most? Of significance was the finding of a novel framework from which to understand and assess how students unknowingly use power strategies that could lead to the demoralization of targets of bullying who lack adequate coping skills and meaningful support and an empowering social change process that could counter demoralization and lead to security. More research is needed on bully-involved demoralization and specific interventions that lead to positive and sustainable social change.

An outstanding group of leaders left evidence that a richer and more sustainable democracy could be achieved with American independence and democratic principles integrated into a new republican form of government. They were moved by principles that are the very spirit of democracy. These principles are needed to enhance democracy and improve well-being. Using the constructivist tradition of grounded theory and Aristotle’s conception of abstraction, the article proposes a theory of the first principles of democracy based on substantive data: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, and the United States Constitution. Knowledge, fairness, human dignity, hope, unity, and security are the first principles of democracy and are regarded as the bedrock of democracy and a government framework for the people. This theory contributed to a formal model of democratic social change. It also contributes a conceptual framework that supports Solum’s semantic originalism, a theory of constitutional interpretation. The principles of democracy can revitalize democracy and provide new possibilities by protecting education as an innate human right, abolishing capital punishment, criminalizing private prisons on the stock market, and reevaluating the proportionality of prison sentences.

Few scholars have explored the founding documents to identify the deliberate social change strategy that led to America's independence and a new form of government that was of, by, and for the people. This study aimed to apply a post-hoc polytheoretical framework of power to the findings of a democratic social change study to understand the dynamics of power between Great Britain and the American colonists. The original study employed the constructivist grounded theory tradition to explore democracy in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, and the United States Constitution. This produced two frameworks of power strategies, one empowering and the other demoralizing: principles of democracy and anti-democratic tenets. To gain a holistic perspective of the interplay of power, a polytheoretical framework of power consisting of theories of power proposed by Marx and Engels, Bourdieu, and Foucault was employed to discuss the findings. The findings suggested that democratic social change interacts with structural forces, culture, and power strategy selection. This could provide an alternative lens through which to explore whether people of color in America were used instrumentally to sustain democracy.

Customer behavior, market dynamics, and technological advances have made it challenging for marketing theorists to provide comprehensive explanations and actionable insights. Although there are numerous substantive marketing frameworks, no formal marketing theory exists. This study aims to develop the first formal grounded theory in marketing by incorporating artificial intelligence and Forde's conceptual framework as a guiding lens. Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory tradition and Forde's conceptual framework and data analysis strategy were employed for this purpose. The data analysis strategy used with grounded theory’s constant compare-and-contrast method comprises holistic and systems thinking, dramaturgical and situational analysis, perspective-taking, and deconstruction. To evaluate Glaser’s assertion that all is data, artificial intelligence was incorporated into the research as the data source for retrieving the theoretical samples to address the primary research question: How can Forde's conceptual framework and artificial intelligence be leveraged to develop a formal marketing theory grounded in evidence? Of significance was the emergence of democratic marketing behaviors and the normalization of anti-democratic marketing approaches leveraged to manipulate buyers or gain access to segments of customers. Buyers and sellers can simultaneously benefit from and be prejudiced by marketing exchange dynamics. This finding lends credibility to the newly emerged framework of strategic actions where empowerment and disempowerment are leveraged to achieve specific goals. Considering this finding, it is suggested that businesses view marketing as a symbiotic relationship between two power centers, buyers and sellers, who respectively strive to maintain human dignity and sustainability. Researchers are encouraged to apply the framework across substantive areas, international markets, public relations, political campaigns, and others.

Background: The United States symbolizes democracy in the new world and contributes to global prosperity. Nevertheless, incrementalism is a historically dominant national approach to public policy implementation that delays democracy and undermines human dignity. Human flourishing and national development are endangered by slow-moving democratic changes. This necessitates a social justice framework that traces the exploitation of incrementalism and the consequences of opportunity gaps. Objectives: This study aims to construct a grounded theory to address and answer the following research question: Are anti-democratic concepts part of a process or strategy that hinders democratic change, and what reinforces it, if anything? Methods: Two categories emerged from a grounded theory of democratic social change. This combination of anti-democratic tenets and democratic principles led to abductive reasoning to fill the research gap. Results: The key finding was the existence of a systematic approach that led to democracy while simultaneously disempowering the same group through legal and extralegal means. Two processes hinder democracy: incrementalism and an anti-democratic demoralizing process. A constructivist social justice grounded theory was developed to analyze and evaluate public policy for barriers and facilitators of democracy. A thorough analysis and evaluation of the impact and consequences of public policy is recommended to better understand how such policies impede democracy and influence American perceptions of justice.

The polarities of democracy framework is used to achieve human emancipation by simultaneously managing multiple paradoxes by employing Johnson’s polarity management as the conceptual framework. Although Johnson’s framework may be appropriate for managing other tension-dependent pairs, it is less suitable for managing multiple democratic values when the goal is human emancipation and sustainable democratic social change. Managing multiple polarities is exacerbated by the problem-shifting and problem-creation effect inherent in a tension-driven framework. The aim was to develop a constructivist grounded theory to answer the research question: How can the first principles of democracy be used to reduce dynamic tension and achieve human emancipation? This gap has been filled by a parsimonious conceptual framework based on three democratic principles: human dignity, fairness, and knowledge. The principles of democracy conceptual framework can synthesize the tension between democratic values in order to manage, plan, and evaluate democratic social change initiatives.

Grounded theory methodology is perceived as challenging due to its systematic and rigorous process. However, this is because most people do not realize that the strategies used in the grounded theory data analysis process are used by laypeople and professionals regularly, if not daily. This article aims to help others interested in grounded theory with a background in qualitative data analysis feel comfortable engaging in the methodology and constructing multiple theories in the same study. It shares my latest experience incorporating various data analysis strategies with the constructivist approach: holistic and systems thinking, situational analysis, dramaturgical analysis, perspective taking, and abstraction. The examples remove the mystery from abstraction and abductive reasoning.

Great Britain subjugated colonists using various power strategies, including dehumanization, misinformation, fear, and other divisive strategies. The Founders described these oppressive strategies as “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” Throughout the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers imbued the people with hope in a government for the people: one unlike that of the monarchy, which sought to protect itself at the expense of colonists. As a result, the Founders created a government more likely to lead with fairness, demonstrate respect for human dignity, unite Americans as one people, empower citizens through hope, and lead the nation toward security. This socio-ethical framework was an abductive discovery nested within a grounded theory study where it had been concluded that the first principles of democracy were woven within the American founding documents. Using Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory, the first principles of democracy—knowledge, fairness, human dignity, hope, unity, and security—were used to answer an emerging research question: Are there two democratic frameworks in the founding documents, and how do they differ? The first principles of democracy promote a culture of ethics, resilience, and freedom. Their empowering disposition makes them suitable as a normative framework for a democratic government for the people.

Existing social disparities in the United States are inconsistent with the promise of democracy; therefore, there was a need for critical conceptualization of the first principles that undergird American democracy and the genesis of democratic social change in America. This constructivist grounded theory study aimed to construct a grounded theory that provides an understanding of the process of American democratic social change as it emerged from the nation’s founding documents. A post hoc polytheoretical framework including Foucault’s, Bourdieu’s, and Marx and Engels’s theories of power was used to understand power dynamics. The research question focused on understanding the process of democratic social change in America. The sample comprised the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and the U.S. Constitution. The documents were retrieved from the National Archives and Library of Congress. The data analysis plan incorporated successive comparison, situational and dramaturgical analysis, deconstruction, and perspective taking as strategies. The result was the construction of a democratic social change process theory preceded by five grounded theories: (a) first principles of democracy, (b) first principles of democracy conceptual framework, (c) socio-ethical principles of democracy, (d) demoralizing process, and (e) either-or approach to democracy. Positive social change implications include applying a democratic social change process to future social change endeavors across domains and levels of analysis, a normative framework for a republican form of government, and a tool to analyze and minimize the latent consequences of social justice policies.