Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory
Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1049732307307031
复制
发表时间：
2007-12-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Trinidad, Susan Brown
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Starks, Helene;Trinidad, Susan Brown
本文的目的是比较三种可以用于健康研究的定性方法：现象学，话语分析和扎根理论。作者包括一个模型，总结了方法之间的相似性和差异，注意他们的历史发展，目标，方法，受众和产品。然后，他们通过将这些方法应用于相同的数据集来说明这些方法的不同之处。现象学的目标是研究人们如何使他们的生活经验的意义;话语分析研究如何使用语言来完成个人，社会和政治项目;扎根理论发展了在上下文中研究的基本社会过程的解释理论。作者认为，通过熟悉这些方法的起源和细节，研究人员可以更好地将他们的研究问题与研究的目标和产品相匹配。
The purpose of this article is to compare three qualitative approaches that can be used in health research: phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. The authors include a model that summarizes similarities and differences among the approaches, with attention to their historical development, goals, methods, audience, and products. They then illustrate how these approaches differ by applying them to the same data set. The goal in phenomenology is to study how people make meaning of their lived experience; discourse analysis examines how language is used to accomplish personal, social, and political projects; and grounded theory develops explanatory theories of basic social processes studied in context. The authors argue that by familiarizing themselves with the origins and details of these approaches, researchers can make better matches between their research question(s) and the goals and products of the study.