The historic roots of phenomenology and Grounded Theory are quite different, also if it is possible to say, that both have to do with qualitative methods. The concept of phenomenology has Edmund Husserl's philosophy as historic starting point, enhanced for applying in social research by Alfred Schütz.

The concept of Grounded-Theory has its historic origin in American pragmatism, especially G.H. Mead, Blumer and - applied as method of social research - by Anselm Strauss (et others). Latter seems to be somewhat sophisticated with the code-technique.

What is the difference between grounded theory and phenomenology?

Grounded theory and phenomenology are the most common approaches to qualitative research used by nurses. Although there are differences between the two, they have much in common.

Similarities

Both take an interpretivist approach in which the researcher seeks to explore real-life situations, and require a high degree of interaction between the researcher and the individual, groups or situations being examined; this usually takes the form of interviews and/or observations. Both grounded theorists and phenomenologists seek to collect and analyse data from participants’ perspectives and try to ensure their findings are not influenced by preconceived ideas. To achieve this they often involve participants in data analysis to increase the trustworthiness of the findings. In brief, grounded theorists and phenomenologists both seek to explore individuals’ experiences in the context of the worlds in which they live.

Because both approaches have so much in common it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate between them. The distinction might not be important for those reading qualitative research, but it is for those undertaking it. A good starting point is to consider the philosophical and theoretical bases of the two methodologies and their influence on how research is undertaken.

Differences

Phenomenology emerged from philosophy, primarily influenced by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger; it aims to describe and explore experiences, which can only be done by collecting data from individuals who have lived through those experiences. Hence phenomenologists often refer to the “lived experience” and data is often limited to interviews, while findings are reported as a rich description of the experience drawing on characteristics identified during data analysis.

Grounded theory developed in sociology and was first described by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss as a qualitative methodological approach in which the aim was to generate a “grounded theory” to describe and explain the phenomenon under study. Unlike phenomenologists, grounded theorists seek to include all data sources that might contribute to theory development. Interviews are commonly used but they might also include observations, diaries, images, past literature and research. Using a technique described as ‘constant comparison’, they compare all the data collected with all other data look for contradictory cases, which might challenge the emerging theory but will ultimately strengthen it. This complex process of theoretical sampling, data collection and analysis can be extremely challenging.

https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-educators/what-is-the-difference-between-grounded-theory-and-phenomenology/5024881.article

Evolution

Grounded theory and phenomenology have both evolved since they were first described. Glaser and Strauss collaborated on the early development of grounded theory but as it developed they separated, developed their own ideas and became critical of each other’s ideas. As a result there are now multiple approaches to grounded theory.

Opinions have also diverged on how phenomenology should be undertaken. Some favour a Husserlian approach, where the emphasis is on description; others favour a Heideggerian approach, where the emphasis is on analysis and attempting to explain what is happening in the phenomenon examined.

Some find this methodological evolution fascinating but for many more it adds to the confusion. Fortunately, few researchers need concern themselves with such matters and many good textbooks can aid methodological decision-making.

Both grounded theorists and phenomenologists seek to understand peoples’ lives. Sticking to a single approach usually gives researchers the tools to undertake their research. There are differences but this does not mean that one approach is right and one is wrong. Grounded theory and phenomenology are research tools and one will not be suited to all jobs. The list of further reading provides more detailed information on this subject.

https://www.nursingtimes.net/roles/nurse-educators/what-is-the-difference-between-grounded-theory-and-phenomenology/5024881.article

I suggest Grounded Theory (Charmaz's 'version') as it gives you leeway to follow all data sources via GT's 'Theoretical Sampling' towards a broader explanation of how your respondents are interacting with their environment.

Phenomenology is more about 'being in the head' of respondents.

There are now several 'versions' of GT---with another one appearing every so often----some more involved than others; but Charmaz's exposition is straightforward.

Hi Beemnet Mengesha Kassahun, good information!

I personally would not recommend either phenomenology or grounded theory for this particular research question, because they both are designed for research questions that involve more meaningful involvement with the participants' lives. Here, the contact with advertisement is a relatively transient experience, and may not have that much meaning to the participant.

Instead, I would look at either qualitative content analysis (to examine a set of codes, possibly with counting of codes), or thematic analysis (to develop a set of interpretive themes from examining the data).

If you are limited to a choice between either phenomenology or grounded theory, I would recommend GT because it could be applied as just a method of coding and category building in a low-meaning context, even if that was not the purpose for which it was created.

The following sources may further help, particularly:

(1) the significant role of social marketing (and strategies/promotion/advertising, etc.) in relation to anti-smoking activities, for example, social marketing campaigns are effective/evident in inducing consumers as to smoking cessation (see: Andreasen, 1994; Donovan and Henley, 2010; Kotler and Zaltman, 1971; Kotler et al, 2011).

(2) Furthermore, attention is drawn to the proposition by Goulding (2005, p. 297) that: “……social marketing……..have significant behavioural implications, the application of grounded theory would seem appropriate”.

• Andreasen, A. R. (1994) Social marketing: Its definition and domain, Journal of public policy and marketing, 13, 1, pp. 108-114.
• Donovan, R. and Henley, N. (2010) Principles and Practice of Social Marketing: An International Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Goulding, C. (2005) Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: A comparative analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research, European Journal of Marketing, 39, 3/4, pp. 294-308.
• Kotler, P., Cheng, H. and Lee, N. R. (2011) Social Marketing for Public Health: An Introduction, in Kotler, P., Cheng, H. and Lee, N.R. (eds.) Social Marketing for Public Health: Global Trend and Success Stories. London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC, pp. 1-28.
• Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971) Social marketing: an approach to planned social change, The Journal of Marketing, 35, 3, pp. 3-12.
• Lu, Y. (2017) "It's Not a Life or Death Thing": A Grounded Theory Study of Smoking Decisions among Chinese Americans, The Qualitative Report, 22, 3, pp. 797-817.

Please send your research questions exactly But in my opinion, the grounded theory is a more appropriate method

submit the study's objective as a research question Please

The above descriptions of both approaches are excellent but to get to the grit of your dilemma is to ascertain your ultimate goal - is it to describe your participant's experiences (phenomenology) or to encapsulate their experience into a cogent explanation of behaviors (grounded theory)? Once you identify your goal that will lead you to your selection of an approach - I do agree with the above and based on what you describe your research to be - a content analysis may be sufficient to address your questions...

In the end, it's the researcher's call regarding analysis---depending on the intended purpose of the study.

Hi Hamd,

Maybe this link will be useful: https://books.google.com/books?id=bOLFDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=creswell+qualitative&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJ5tO93tfcAhVFeawKHaWFARAQuwUINDAB#v=onepage&q=creswell%20qualitative&f=false Have a great day! --Adrian

I would say grounded theory is the most suitable methodology to study the reasons and meanings behind smoker’s perception and interpretation regarding the effectiveness of these ads, through interpretation of their reaction to these ads.