Discriminating among grounded theory approaches.
Discriminating among grounded theory approaches.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/nin.12261
复制
发表时间：
2019-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Rieger KL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rieger KL
为了合理选择研究方法，必须了解其哲学渊源和独特的特征。在不断演变的定性方法的背景下，这一过程可能具有挑战性。扎根理论是一种具有独特历史的研究方法，它产生了许多方法。虽然这些方法有关键的相似之处，但它们也有不同的哲学假设，这些假设影响了它们的方法被理解和实施的方式。本讨论文件的目的是比较和对比三种广泛使用的扎根理论方法，这些方法具有关键的区别特征，从而能够更周到地选择方法。这项工作有助于现有的文献，通过比较经典的Escherian扎根理论，施特劳斯扎根理论，建构主义扎根理论在一个系统的方式与突出的显着特点，从文献回顾发展。这些特征包括历史发展、哲学视角、研究者的角色、数据分析程序、扎根理论的视角和优势/批判。在此基础上，提出了三个考虑因素，以指导研究方法的选择：目的，哲学，语用学。理解扎根理论方法的相似性和差异性可以促进方法的透明度，并确定最适合作为研究人员的研究和世界观。
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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Annells, M
通讯作者：
Annells, M
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Charmaz, Kathy
通讯作者：
Charmaz, Kathy
DOI：
10.1016/s0163-2396(08)32010-9
发表时间：
2008-01-01
期刊：
STUDIES IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTION, VOL 32
影响因子：
--
作者：
Charmaz, Kathy
通讯作者：
Charmaz, Kathy
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Annells, M
通讯作者：
Annells, M
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Amsteus, Martin Nils
通讯作者：
Amsteus, Martin Nils