Suppr超能文献

扎根理论:关于涌现与强制之争的思考

Grounded theory: reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate.

作者信息

Boychuk Duchscher Judy E, Morgan Debra

机构信息

Nursing Education Program of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada.

出版信息

J Adv Nurs. 2004 Dec;48(6):605-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03249.x.

Abstract

AIM

The aim of this paper is to compare Glaser's model of theory generation, where theory rises directly and rigorously out of the data, devoid of interpretivism, to Strauss's conceptually descriptive approach that encourages directive questioning and supports an interpretive stance.

BACKGROUND

The discovery of grounded theory (GT) was born out of a merger between Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, the proverbial 'fathers' of GT. Since the co-creation of their approach to theory development through research in 1967, these scholars have taken seemingly divergent paths in further developing and evolving the pragmatic use of GT.

DISCUSSION

Numerous researchers have used GT as a general method, applying it to both quantitative and qualitative research approaches. In this paper we discuss the stages and strategies of data sampling, collection, coding and analysing used by both Glaser and Strauss. Constant comparative analysis is identified as the primary strategy in the integrated coding and analysing stages of this theorizing method, regardless of the researcher's philosophical or research orientation. We also discuss initial or open coding, advanced coding, memoing, and theoretical sampling, with particular attention to comparing and contrasting the descriptive terms and application strategies that have been suggested by both Glaser and Strauss.

CONCLUSION

The reported distinctions in the approach, method, and general intent of GT reflected in this paper are not easy to comprehend. The two methods reflect different basic philosophical paradigms, and therefore represent distinct approaches to GT. Researchers need to be clear about which philosophy and resulting analysis approach they are using, and the effect that approach will have on the research process and outcomes.

摘要

目的

本文旨在比较格拉泽的理论生成模型(该模型中理论直接且严格地从数据中产生,不涉及解释主义)与施特劳斯的概念性描述方法(该方法鼓励指导性提问并支持解释性立场)。

背景

扎根理论(GT)的发现源于巴尼·格拉泽和安塞尔姆·施特劳斯的合并,他们堪称GT的“鼻祖”。自1967年通过研究共同创立理论发展方法以来,这些学者在进一步发展和演变GT的实际应用方面似乎走上了不同的道路。

讨论

众多研究者将GT用作一种通用方法,将其应用于定量和定性研究方法。在本文中,我们讨论了格拉泽和施特劳斯所使用的数据抽样、收集、编码和分析的阶段及策略。持续比较分析被确定为这种理论化方法在综合编码和分析阶段的主要策略,无论研究者的哲学或研究取向如何。我们还讨论了初始或开放式编码、高级编码、记笔记和理论抽样,特别关注比较和对比格拉泽和施特劳斯所建议的描述性术语和应用策略。

结论

本文所报道的GT在方法、方式和总体意图上的差异并不容易理解。这两种方法反映了不同的基本哲学范式,因此代表了GT的不同方法。研究者需要清楚他们正在使用哪种哲学以及由此产生的分析方法,以及该方法将对研究过程和结果产生的影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验