Dataset Information

Discriminating among grounded theory approaches.

ABSTRACT: To rationalize the selection of a research methodology, one must understand its philosophical origins and unique characteristics. This process can be challenging in the landscape of evolving qualitative methodologies. Grounded theory is a research methodology with a distinct history that has resulted in numerous approaches. Although the approaches have key similarities, they also have differing philosophical assumptions that influence the ways in which their methods are understood and implemented. The purpose of this discussion paper is to compare and contrast three widely used grounded theory approaches with key distinguishing characteristics, enabling a more thoughtful selection of approach. This work contributes to the existing literature through contrasting classic Glaserian grounded theory, Straussian grounded theory, and constructivist grounded theory in a systematic manner with prominent distinguishing characteristics developed from a review of the literature. These characteristics included historical development, philosophical perspective, role of the researcher, data analysis procedures, perspective of the grounded theory, and strengths/critique. Based on this analysis, three considerations are proposed to direct the methodological choice for a study: purpose, philosophy, and pragmatics. Understanding the similarities and differences in the grounded theory approaches can facilitate methodological transparency and determine the best fit for one's study and worldview as a researcher.

SUBMITTER: Rieger KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6559166 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Discriminating among grounded theory approaches.

Rieger Kendra L KL

Nursing inquiry 20180819 1

To rationalize the selection of a research methodology, one must understand its philosophical origins and unique characteristics. This process can be challenging in the landscape of evolving qualitative methodologies. Grounded theory is a research methodology with a distinct history that has resulted in numerous approaches. Although the approaches have key similarities, they also have differing philosophical assumptions that influence the ways in which their methods are understood and implemente ...[more]

PMID: 30123965

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recent health policy promoting integrated care emphasizes to increase patients' health, experience of quality of care and reduce care utilization. Thus, health service delivery should be co-produced by health professionals and individual patients with multiple diseases and complex needs. Collaborative goal setting is a new procedure for older patients with multi-morbidity. The aim is to explore municipal health professionals' experiences of collaborative goal setting with patients with multi-morbidity aged 80 and above. METHODS:A qualitative study with a constructivist grounded theory approach. In total twenty-four health professionals from several health care services in four municipalities, participated in four focus group discussions. RESULTS:Health professionals took four approaches to goal setting with older patients with multi-morbidity: motivating for goals, vicariously setting goals, negotiating goals, and specifying goals. When 'motivating for goals', they educated reluctant patients to set goals. Patients' capacity or willingness to set goals could be reduced, due to old age, illness or less knowledge about the health system. Health professionals were 'vicariously setting goals' when patients did not express or take responsibility for goals due to adaptation processes to disease, or symptoms as cognitive impairment or exhaustion. By 'Negotiating goals', health professionals handled disagreements with patients, and often relatives, who expected to receive more services than usual care. They perceived some patients as passive or having unrealistic goals to improve health. 'Specifying goals' was a collaboration. Patients currently treated for one condition, set sub-goals to increase health. Patients with complex diseases prioritized one goal to maintain health. These approaches constitute a conceptual model of how health professionals, to varying extents, share responsibility for goal setting with patients. CONCLUSIONS:Goal setting for patients with multi-morbidity were carried out in an interplay between patients' varying levels of engagement and health professionals' attitudes regarding to what extents patients should be responsible for pursuing the integrated health services' objectives. Even though goal setting seeks to involve patients in co-production of their health service delivery, the health services´ aims and context could restrict this co-production.

Project description:Leadership in public health is necessary, relevant, and important as it enables the engagement, management, and transformation of complex public health challenges at a national level, as well as collaborating with internal stakeholders to address global public health threats. The research literature recommends exploring the journey of public health leaders and the factors influencing leadership development, especially in developing countries. Thus, we aimed to develop a grounded theory on individual leadership development in the Nepalese context. For this, we adopted constructivist grounded theory, and conducted 46 intensive interviews with 22 public health officials working under the Ministry of Health, Nepal. Data were analysed by adopting the principles of Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory. The theory developed from this study illustrates four phases of leadership development within an individual-initiation, identification, development, and expansion. The 'initial phase' is about an individual's wishes to be a leader without a formal role or acknowledgement, where family environment, social environment and individual characteristics play a role in influencing the actualisation of leadership behaviours. The 'identification phase' involves being identified as a public health official after having formal position in health-related organisations. The 'development' phase is about developing core leadership capabilities mostly through exposure and experiences. The 'expansion' phase describes expanding leadership capabilities and recognition mostly by continuous self-directed learning. The grounded theory provides insights into the meaning and actions of participants' professional experiences and highlighted the role of individual characteristics, family and socio-cultural environment, and workplace settings in the development of leadership capabilities. It has implications for academia to fulfill the absence of leadership theory in public health and is significant to fulfill the need of leadership models grounded in the local context of Asian countries.

Project description:ObjectivesVirtual patients (VPs) are online representations of clinical cases used in medical education. Widely adopted, they are well placed to teach clinical reasoning skills. International technology standards mean VPs can be created, shared and repurposed between institutions. A systematic review has highlighted the lack of evidence to support which of the numerous VP designs may be effective, and why. We set out to research the influence of VP design on medical undergraduates.MethodsThis is a grounded theory study into the influence of VP design on undergraduate medical students. Following a review of the literature and publicly available VP cases, we identified important design properties. We integrated them into two substantial VPs produced for this research. Using purposeful iterative sampling, 46 medical undergraduates were recruited to participate in six focus groups. Participants completed both VPs, an evaluation and a 1-hour focus group discussion. These were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory, supported by computer-assisted analysis. Following open, axial and selective coding, we produced a theoretical model describing how students learn from VPs.ResultsWe identified a central core phenomenon designated 'learning from the VP'. This had four categories: VP Construction; External Preconditions; Student-VP Interaction, and Consequences. From these, we constructed a three-layer model describing the interactions of students with VPs. The inner layer consists of the student's cognitive and behavioural preconditions prior to sitting a case. The middle layer considers the VP as an 'encoded object', an e-learning artefact and as a 'constructed activity', with associated pedagogic and organisational elements. The outer layer describes cognitive and behavioural change.ConclusionsThis is the first grounded theory study to explore VP design. This original research has produced a model which enhances understanding of how and why the delivery and design of VPs influence learning. The model may be of practical use to authors, institutions and researchers.

Dataset Information

Discriminating among grounded theory approaches.

Publications

Discriminating among grounded theory approaches.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure