You may find the discussion here useful 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_main_differences_between_Phenomenology_Grounded_Theory_in_Qualitative_Methods_Inquiry

Thank you, i looked at that but am still none the wiser

Hi Letitia,

Yours is an interesting question and Wisal's directing you to an earlier discussion on this topic is certainly full of excellent information.  However, there is so much in that discussion that I understand how you might be confused.  Let me add a few things that might clarify.

First, both Phenomenology and Grounded Theory employ similar data collection and analysis techniques. This is partially because of the time when Grounded theory was formulated by Glaser and Strauss they were not only interested in creating grounded theory as a methodological paradigm but were also interested in formulating some ways that qualitative research could be discussed, taught, and transmitted in ways different from "learning by doing" only...When they wrote of GT, there were other qualitative methodologies but most were learned by apprenticeship. So they wrote about the "what and how" that crosses much qualitative research in their book.  Of course, they went beyond this also by having a different objective....their intent of discovering a theoretical orientation or explanation for the phenomenon their were studying.

Frankly, Dean Whitehead's discussion in the piece referenced by Wisal is a very good explanation of the differences -- in terms of the goals....Let me excerpt the best parts for your needs (what follows in from Whitehead with some cuts for your clarity):

The goal of phenomenology is to develop an understanding of a phenomenon through the specific human experience of the phenomenon, in order to better understand that experience of being in that ‘life-world’. It serves to understand a person’s experiences rather than to provide causal explanation of those experiences. The process of phenomenological research, therefore, does not ‘break down’ the experience that is being studied. Instead, it provides descriptions that are rich and full and interpretations that exactly describe what it means to be a person in their particular world. The phenomenological researcher is committed to understanding the experience of the phenomena as a whole, rather than parts of that experience. Phenomenology, therefore, is mostly used to develop ‘pathic’ understanding.

Grounded theory is a widely used qualitative methodology, especially as a means to inductively separate clinical issues of importance by creating meaning about those issues through the analysis and modelling of theory. 

(This is Jack again):  The creation of what they called a "Substantive Theory" rather than an understanding of the experiences of your interviewees (in phenomenology) is what really separates the two traditions of inquiry, it seems to me....of course, to create the theoretical model, Glaser and Strauss used a few other techniques to accomplish this....matrices and the constant comparative method, for example.  So, depending on your objective.....you can phenomenology or Grounded theory.  You can collect the data via Semi-structured interviews, you can analyze your data via cyclical analysis of the interview transcripts (Interpretive Phenomenological analysis is similar to how transcripts are analyzed in GT)....but your OBJECTIVE should determine which you use.  Form your stated objective above (which referral source has a greater uptake) it appears that you are asking for a specific answer and a potential reason why.....sounds like grounded theory to me!

Hope this helps clarify.

Dear Letitia,

According with the classical or Glaserian GT, you should not start your inquiry with any pet theory or even previous ideas about the empirical area. The GT is exploratory by nature and the advised interviews are open and not structured at all. If you hace any previous concepts to explore and it takes you to develop proposals or hypotheses, I think phenomenology suits to your research.

There are of course, others interpretation about the GT, where you can go with pets theories or ideas, but as far as classical GT is concerned, it is not possible.

On the other hand, opposite to what have been said, GT is not aiming to modeling a theory. Models are artifacts which are not encouraged to use by Glaser, indeed. With GT you´ll have a theory, ssubstantive, general or formal, that explain how are things happen into the empirical setting, which is a common place with phenomenology.

Good luck

As Jack notes, the goal of phenomenology is to understand a person's life world, and the "lived experiences" that goes with it. I personally do not think a study on decision making would be a very good fit with that, since you would be examining an essentially cognitive process.

Grounded theory is much better suited to studying process, but it also is a relatively complex process that involves building theory through evolving observations and processes such as theoretical sampling.

Have you considered something more straightforward such as thematic analysis? This is a very widely used approach, and the most frequently cited source is Braun & Clarke (2006) -- see attached.

 Hi Letitia,

Simple answer: you want grounded theory.

Not so simple answer: you want to work hard to understand both methods and your research question. I'll elaborate on this.

Do not take this the wrong way, but I think you might benefit from going back and understanding the underpinnings of both methods and your research question.

I agree with David that researching processes (e.g., decision making) would best be approached via GT. However, I disagree with his recommendation to go with thematic analysis (TA). This is for the simple reason that TA is an analytical approach and not a research method. Undeniably, as you engage in GT you will most likely be using TA as an analytical procedure. But if you simply resort to it you will miss the opportunity to fully understand what it is you are seeking, what is the best way to find it, and no less importantly, what do your findings mean.

Ley me explain. GT has many versions (as does phenomenology). Each approach has its underlying ontological and epistemological premises. Glaser and Strauss' GT is not the same as Chramaz's (e.g., the former are more post-positivistic while the latter is constructivist). TA, however, is explicitly free of such governing frameworks. That is because it is, as noted, no more than an analytical procedure. You might as well read also Rennie, D. L. (2012). Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 385-398. The author aggregates both GT and phenomenology under one theoretical methodological umbrella. 

Just so you understand the complexity of things, let me demonstrate how your epistemological and ontological prejudices (as Gadamer would call them) influence your research. Consider the following questions all relating to your research question (as I understand it): 

a) Are you seeking an answer to an either-or question? (e.g., which treatment is better, this or that?)

b) Are you seeking an "objective" reality concerning such treatments (i.e., a determined answer to the question which is better) or are you seeking various perspectives (i.e., is your question one of an ontological nature or an epistemological?)

c) Whay not ask "what is the role/effect of referal source in pulminary uptake?" rather than "is there an effect?" (the latter is a binary question - yes/no - best answered quantitatively).

So you see, you must understand what it is you seek prior to deciding how to seek it. That said, you may discover on the way that you seek something other than you initially thought.

Retuning to simple answers: if you do not have the time/energy to study both methods, go with GT. Moreover, if you find that you are more of a post-positivist than a constructivist, go with the literature by Galser, Strauss, and Corbin (the latest version in this line I think is Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications. If you are in the constructivist camp (as I am) go with Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.

Hope this helps.

Cobi.

Hi Letitia

I am sure you have been given enough pointers based on the previous answers. I would simply like to share with you a table of comparison between various methods which I think will help to resolve the query that you had on the qualitative methodology of your research. Hope this helps.

Letitia, I'm going to give you a different answer than the ones above. However, Jacob Stein did ask you to consider some very pertinent questions. From the way that you phrased your research aims, it does not appear to be a question that is best suited for qualitative research. If you are trying to determine  the effect of x (referral source) on y (uptake to pulmonary rehabilitation), you would best be served by quantitative methods. Qualitative research does not look for (or find) cause-effect relationships among a set of variables. You would need to reconceptualize your research aims and questions to use any form of qualitative research.  

As a more general reply re: how to choose a qualitative research method, it depends on the purpose of the study and the research questions that you are posing.  It's also important to also distinguish between doing a Grounded Theory (GT) study -in which the outcome is the development of a theory - or using GT research methods only - but not developing a theory.   GT methods (the constant comparative method) can be used in a variety of qualitative research such as thematic analysis or content analysis.  

I am leaning in the same directions as Susan P Robbins and J. Stein.  I read your question and my first response was, "Is this a main research question that should be addressed with qualitative methods?"  When the discussion turned to Thematic Analysis, I thought "Okay, we're onto something here", but then when I see your main question again, it is proposed as a causal/correlational investigation.  This sort of linearity doesn't seem to provide the depth of data needed for TA which prioritizes pattern seeking.  If it IS a qualitative question (if you remove your reference to 'effect'), the expectation that certain referral choices are same/better/worse for individuals makes it  appropriate for constructionist GT is more accepting of advocacy and the recognition of everyday social meanings/experiences as data - See J. Stein's reference to Charmaz, 2014).  The method(s) you ask about are clearly qualitative but the question (as proposed here) is constructed with quantitative assumptions.  The quantitative epistemological assumption is what will primarily steer the data you actually end up collecting.   I suggest reassessing your question to eliminate causal assumptions, investigate GT, particularly constructionist GT, and evaluate the degree to which better/same/worse will be treated either as objectively categorical (such as in a variable measurement) or as meaningful assessments/accounts/interpretations of reality.         

Tim Gawley raises some questions that have been around for sometime in qualitative research: Can we use cause and effect language? Can we make comparisons that say something is more likely in one group (or place etc.) than another? Etc.

My own view is that philosophical arguments aside, humans invariable make assumptions about cause and effect, if only to survive in a world that calls for predicting what is or is not likely to happen. So studying the world in these terms makes sense -- especially for a pragmatist like myself.

Putting that in the framework of phenomenology versus grounded theory, GT (especially the Strauss version) is all about process and understanding alternative outcomes, which could make it a good choice in this case.

The discussion of cause and effect, and their place in qualitative (interview based) research is indeed an interesting one. Ken Gergen, in his 2009 book "relational Being" suggests dropping the cause and effect discourse for a discourse wherein we speak of co-action: things happening together. Whether we accept this or not, it serves to show that cause and effect are not ontic entities as they are filters (or discourse) through which we apprehend (i.e., interpret) reality. 

From a constructionist-pragmatic perspective, this means that one must keep in mind several things: First, that cause and effect are inferences, and are abductive inferences at that (in the Peircian sense), and as such are always fallible and no more than plausible (though often seem probable and likely). Secondly, that there is always another way to describe the phenomena under investigation, and a description that does not subscribe to a causal explanation may also be attainable, and at time preferable. 

That said, returning to Letitia's original question, phenomenology, of any kind, I would dare say, is never a causal-seeking endeavor. Phenomenological research seeks to describe rather than to explain. GT, however, seeks processes, and as such often strives to underscore causal relationships. That said, I believe every GT study would do well to begin with a phenomenological exploration, and in so doing, put aside the question of cusality and attend to that of experience qua experience. Only once this is understood, at least to some extent, should causality be sought. Moreover, if causality is sought not as an "objective" process, but as a perceived causlity (i.e., the causes participants attribute to their experiences), some versions of narrative research, particularly those attending to the unfolding plot, may be a good choice.

Phenomenological approach is more descriptive as opposed to grounded theory, you will be required to address the problem on a more conceptual level. Your RQ should be more on 'how' rather than 'what'. Grounded theory requires a more rigorous approach compared to phenomenology and need more time to connect the dots. You have to connect theory to practice. If you are looking for a more simpler approach, I would suggest phenomenology. However, that being said, it depends on your research problem and how your RQs are tailored to solve that problem.