My research is a pure qualitative research and I am unable to find any literature answering my research question through socio-ecological model, thus I thought of grounded-theory with socio-ecological model's levels as probing during information gathering.
Guarav - yes, it certainly is possible. the socio-ecological model could serve as the underpinning theoretical framework. Of course, it would have to be rationalised and justified against the context of the topic material.
The idea of beginning with a theoretical model in Grounded Theory is quite controversial. The issue here is what is known as “preconceptions.” Glasser argues that you cannot use any preconceived ideas, Charmaz says you may use some very broad “sensitizing concepts.” However, something as specific as probes would be questionable.
Thank you all for your responses.
David, I was thinking of just probing the levels of the socio-ecological model so as to get the in-depth information within each level. Can it be done? Has it been previously?
To me - the preconception issue in GT is a very grey area. How can anyone who wants to conduct research enter a research field with no understanding of the current state of affairs? I think that many people that review GT manuscripts feel the same. While Davis is correct that reviewers may well question - I did state that you would have to clearly rationalise and justify the framework inclusion. If it is about 'sensitising' and probing then that would be the justification.
I personally think that a reviewer with a strong background in GT would indeed question using a preconceived theoretical framework. If that theory is a priority for you, then I would avoid labeling your work as GT so you can avoid any such problems.
Now I agree with David - but we might be putting words into Guarav's mouth. I'm not sure that he is saying that it is a priority. Of course, you can't have an existing strong theory governing a GT approach that is fundamentally seeking to develop theory aligned to the lack of pre-existing theory. It has to be against the context of a 'tentative guide'.
Hello: I, too, agree w/ David. The foundation of GT is the building of understanding, of a theory, from the participants in their particular context. Bringing in a theory, a priori, is imposing meaning/process on the data. Now, if you read various authors in SAGE's Encyclopedia of Qualitative Methods/Research, you'll hear support for the blending of paradigms as long as you can provide a supported rationale. For me- bottom line- I would argue against imposing concepts onto/
into the data gathered in a GT study. As DM says of Charmaz, "sensitizing" concepts can be acceptable, but must be open to different ideas/concepts/processes in the data. P. S. Now, after the study is complete the concepts/theories discussed in the conceptual framework may be used to understand what has come from the analysis.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research