Grounded Theory 10 pages manuscript

Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends, 2001

2011

Nurse researcher, 2014

EPISTEMOLOGICAL, AESTHETIC, ethical and procedural concerns overlap and appear to clamour for attention to be paid to them in the various contexts in which research takes place. This 'family' approach raises a fairly generic view of qualitative research in which the similarities are considered to be more important than the differences. Appropriateness of method is therefore an acceptable focus; or perhaps 'flight from method' (Holloway 2005 p91) determines the conceptual tools used to make such 'stylistic' (Brewer 2000) choices. One such tool is described as 'progressive focusing', which would develop the content and substance of the data elaboration in Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT). A further contention of Grounded Theory (GT), as discussed by Rintala et al (2014), is the constant comparison of data while collection and analysis continues, before data are combined for analysis by the acceptable methods.

2014

Grounded Theory (GT) is analyzed in the present article, paying attention to its variety. Since GT is heterogeneous, discussions over interpretation of its variety arise. Drawing on the analysis of research literature, this article attempts to answer the question if different methods or various versions of GT method lie behind the methodological variety of GT.

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 2004

Novice qualitative researchers are often unsure regarding the analysis of their data and, where grounded theory is chosen, they may be uncertain regarding the differences that now exist between the approaches of Glaser and Strauss, who together first described the method. These two approaches are compared in relation to roots and divergences, role of induction, deduction and verification, ways in which data are coded and the format of generated theory. Personal experience of developing as a ground theorist is used to illustrate some of the key differences. A conclusion is drawn that, rather than debate relative merits of the two approaches, suggests that novice researchers need to select the method that best suits their cognitive style and develop analytic skills through doing research. r

In social research, the choice of research methodology depends on the pursued research aim and objectives. Social investigators utilize qualitative methods if interested in understanding human behavior patterns in specific situations and contexts (Newman, 2013). Qualitative researchers also assume a dynamic, social, and negotiated reality, which finds reflection in the informant’s perspective. When concerned with facts about social phenomena, social researchers prefer quantitative methodology. In this case, they assume a fixed, objective, and measurable perspective (Newman, 2013).

2018

In mid-twentieth century data enquiry, qualitative methods were viewed by many scholars as impressionistic and biased, characteristics which did not support any reliability for data enquiry at this time. Within this setting, Grounded Theory surfaced as a method. The new method required theory-grounded-in-data through rigorous data coding, which gave the qualitative a place next to the quantitative throne by forcing the two methods to work together. Yet, the combination of these opposing fields of thought produced a flexible method of research, of constant action instead of stagnant data gathering and observation. Under this light, from its beginning, Grounded Theory became popular across academic fields, encompassing research in life sciences equally as in social sciences. And although many alternative formats to go about Grounded Theory have been proposed, the current leading Grounded Theorist is Kathy Charmaz. In this text, the Grounded Theory method of ​then,​ and the changes which have brought it to the ​now w​ill be summarized​. ​

Qualitative Report, 2014