Literature DB >> 10849161

Methodological issues in grounded theory.

J R Cutcliffe1.   

Abstract

Examination of the qualitative methodological literature shows that there appear to be conflicting opinions and unresolved issues regarding the nature and process of grounded theory. Researchers proposing to utilize this method would therefore be wise to consider these conflicting opinions. This paper therefore identifies and attempts to address four key issues, namely, sampling, creativity and reflexivity, the use of literature, and precision within grounded theory. The following recommendations are made. When utilizing a grounded method researchers need to consider their research question, clarify what level of theory is likely to be induced from their study, and then decide when they intend to access and introduce the second body of literature. They should acknowledge that in the early stages of data collection, some purposeful sampling appears to occur. In their search for conceptually dense theory, grounded theory researchers may wish to free themselves from the constraints that limit their use of creativity and tacit knowledge. Furthermore, the interests of researchers might be served by attention to issues of precision including, avoiding method slurring, ensuring theoretical coding occurs, and using predominantly one method of grounded theory while explaining and describing any deviation away from this chosen method. Such mindfulness and the resulting methodological rigour is likely to increase the overall quality of the inquiry and enhance the credibility of the findings.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10849161     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01430.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  28 in total

1.  Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience.

Authors:  Meryl Brod; Laura E Tesler; Torsten L Christensen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2009-09-27       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  How could health information exchange better meet the needs of care practitioners?

Authors:  P Kierkegaard; R Kaushal; J R Vest
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Motivations for cancer history disclosure among young adult cancer survivors.

Authors:  Julie Easley
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.442

4.  Patient-perceived usefulness of online electronic medical records: employing grounded theory in the development of information and communication technologies for use by patients living with chronic illness.

Authors:  Warren J Winkelman; Kevin J Leonard; Peter G Rossos
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2005-01-31       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Understanding and Changing Older Adults' Perceptions and Learning of Social Media.

Authors:  Bo Xie; Ivan Watkins; Jen Golbeck; Man Huang
Journal:  Educ Gerontol       Date:  2012-01-11

6.  Perspectives of African Americans on lung cancer: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Christopher S Lathan; Laura Tesler Waldman; Emily Browning; Joshua Gagne; Karen Emmons
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-03-20

7.  Defining novel health-related quality of life domains in lung transplantation: a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Jonathan Paul Singer; Joan Chen; Patricia P Katz; Paul David Blanc; Marjorie Kagawa-Singer; Anita L Stewart
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  A conceptual framework for patient-reported outcomes in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer.

Authors:  Claudia Rutherford; Daniel S J Costa; Madeleine T King; David P Smith; Manish I Patel
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Developing a Peer-to-Peer mHealth Application to Connect Hispanic Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Jennifer R Banas; David Victorson; Sandra Gutierrez; Evelyn Cordero; Judy Guitleman; Niina Haas
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.037

10.  Development and Validation of the Pediatric Sleep Practices Questionnaire: A Self-Report Measure for Youth Ages 8-17 Years.

Authors:  Lisa J Meltzer; Christopher B Forrest; Anna de la Motte; Jodi A Mindell; Katherine B Bevans
Journal:  Behav Sleep Med       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 2.964

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.