Grounded Theory sounds good for an explorative study; suggest Kathy Charmaz's version, laid-out in Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd. Ed., (2014).

Thank you Phillip!

Hello Mariah,

I agree with Philip; I have used constructivist grounded theory, so maybe feel biased, but there was a question raised on ResearchGate that discussed grounded theory and phenomenology:

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

Prof Kathy Charmaz is a member of Researchgate - you might want to look at some of her papers:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathy_Charmaz/contributions

Very best wishes with your research,

Mary

Please also refer to the following paper, which should be helpful to your topic:

• Starks, H. and Trinidad, S. B. (2007) Choose Your Method - A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory, Qualitative Health Research, 17, 10, pp. 1372-1380. 

I had not read the above reference but have now have found it in full text:

https://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/a317/738b3a28d7c2c1af03fd1e22f67058342781.pdf

This is an interview with Prof Charmaz recorded just before the 2nd ed. of her book (cited above by Philip):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5AHmHQS6WQ

Best wishes,

Mary

Hi Mariah - it might be good for you to be aware that Grounded Theory as a research methodology has a history of disagreement as to what constitutes an authentic Grounded Theory study. Barney Glaser, one of the two originators of Grounded Theory is very critical of Charmaz's constructivist 'version' of Grounded Theory I suggest you read some of Glaser's papers published in the Grounded Theory Review, an International Journal that, as well as many papers on methodological issues, also publishes Classic Grounded Theory research studies. Grounded Theory research is not an easy path to undertake, particularly in the area of nursing where Grounded Theory methodology has a long history of application - you need to be very sure of which 'version' of Grounded Theory you are prepared to hang your Doctoral hat on :) Oh and by the way phenomenology is a theoretical perspective - Grounded Theory is a research methodology - two different things that can't be swapped one for the other :) Cheers Ali.

Thank you all for your help and for the resources! I really appreciate it ! 

When you ask whether nurses "recognize hidden ageism" and its effects, it sounds as if you already have a working hypothesis. This is not the usual starting point for Grounded Theory, where you begin with an open perspective to understand what is happening, rather than making prior assumptions. 

I agree with David insofar as yes, doing GT requires an open mind; however, at the same time, there is nothing wrong with being aware of 'what's already been done in the field', so long as you don't allow this to impinge on your data analysis during your study; you can then see what you've got in the way of conclusions-----then it's time to compare this with 'the literature'; you may have broken new ground---maybe not, in which case, you've confirmed existing theorising.

Opting for grounded theory means that you need to be open and not heading for hypothesis testing. If you want to go for GTM your design probably needs some revision work.

Totally agree with David and Charles - Mariah if you decide to use Grounded Theory (GT) research methodology you will have to start with no hypothesis or assumptions about nurses perceptions of practices in emergency medicine that involves geriatric patients ... GT is used to 'discover' new theory and therefore it always 'breaks new ground'  with a new theory about the substantive area being studied, the GT research method is never used to substantiate pre-formed hypotheses or theory. Being a GT researcher can therefore be both exciting and satisfying because original theory grounded in original research data can contribute a great deal to areas of practical and academic interest that no-one else has explored before - that is IF the tenets of doing GT are followed correctly  ... that is why I recommended in my previous post that you read as much as you can about GT as a research method before deciding if it is appropriate for your study - and if you do then I really recommend you get as much training/mentoring in GT as possible, it is very difficult to do and learn this method at the same time. Cheers Ali. 

Classic Grounded Theory is to explain the formation and interrelationship of social phenomena surrounding problems. Such interrelationship will be explored and conceptualized through the methodology of grounded theory.

The explanation is less emphasized in Constructivist Grounded Theory. Instead, it seeks to capture how meaning varies for individuals and groups. Constructs harmonized among researcher and participants are still a unit of analysis.

Given your ideas for the proposal, it seems Constructivist Grounded Theory fits better. The openness of constructivist grounded theory focuses on meanings for specific problems. Research questions can be developed to address meanings of things to people. Both researcher and participants are expected to be flexible and open to sharing their views. Constructs are rather discovered than justified and are analyzed regarding meanings to both the researcher and participants.

Hi Mariah

This will be my last post as I really don't want to get into a debate with other Research Gate members who are replying to your request about the value of Grounded Theory as method for your Doctoral research  - particularly as I encourage you to read read read about Grounded Theory and make a decision for yourself about it's value as a research method for your Study.

However I feel, as a Grounded Theory researcher, I should help clear up a misconception about 'constructivism" and Grounded Theory research methodology.

Constructivism is an epistemological perspective that a Doctoral student can take, and therefore is expected to defend, when they position their research as being capable of contributing 'new knowledge' ... epistemology being concerned with: How do we know, what we know the world is?

Grounded Theory, is however, quite simply a research method (albeit not a simple method to use). It is unwise for a Doctoral student to confuse their philosophical perspective with the research method they have chosen as an appropriate fit for their philosophical rationale, as is suggested with the notion that there could be such a thing as a 'Constructivist Grounded Theory'.

Cheers Ali.

Hi Ali,

Kathy Charmaz would take issue with you as to whether there can be such a thing as Consrtuctivist Grounded Theory.

I think perhaps what Ali is explaining is that Kathy Charmaz confines her version of GT to qualitative research which is an imposed limitation in line with her philosophical perspective. This limitation does not apply to Classic GT as a general research methodology that uses any and all kinds of data and can be used with any philosophical perspective (i.e., it is philosophically flexible).

Article What Grounded Theory Is ... A Critically Reflective Conversa...

Actually, Charmaz contends that her implementation of GT can be used in both quantitative and qualitative research Indeed, I suggest that in reading-up GT, Mariah's first port-of-call is Charmaz's Constructing Grounded Theory, either 1st. Ed. or 2nd. Edition (2014) which includes her development of the method from classic GT.

Can you offer an example of a constructivist GT using quantitative data? I am curios as to how one would collect or use such data within a constructivist stance.

Having read some of the above answers I agree with some of what is being said about Grounded Theory, though I feel as GT has been changed over the years away from its original usage, some people have not noted the true roots of Glaser & Strauss' (1967) GT and have given skewed reports of GT.  The point of grounded theory is to not have a pre-existing notion of what you expect to find (i.e. No a priori assumptions of the key findings or of the dataset or the participants - in line with Strauss, 1987).  The other factor is the Glaser's (1992) constant comparison technique.  The theory is generated by layering and nuancing the transcripts one in comparison to the last in comparison to the last.  With both the "only taking results from the participants' data" from Strauss and the "building a theory by layering each transcript" from Glaser this grounds the theory in the dataset.  Therefore it is not a matter of having a new "groundbreaking theory", but rather a new or supportive theory which is purely and systematically derived from the dataset and nothing else.  Therefore in relation to the data you wish to collect, and the assumptions you have already asserted, I would not advise using a Grounded Theory approach.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, California, United States of America: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, United States of America: Aldine.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Actually, I generally agree with what Sergio says, above; but Mariah, since your research is exploratory, I still recommend Grounded Theory as a plausible choice for your 'way to go' with your research.

Grounded Theory of the Glaserian or Straussian tendency, can seem at first sight, long-winded and therefore difficult---but it's not really; here, the method is just well-defined.; indeed, Strauss and Corbin, even in the 2nd. ed. of Basics of Qualitative Research (1998) style it as a "..fluid and flexible..." approach; this spirit reaffirmed in the 4th. ed. Corbin and Strauss (2015).

However, for a very readable primer to doing Grounded Theory, Charmaz is your author (albeit, this is her implementation of her variant Constructivist GT--while I think that it should also be said here that she was a student of Glaser and Strauss).

Judith, I'll get back to you on providing requested example(s).

Your question addressed two main methods: phenomenology and GT.

While I think GT is indeed the one you want, I think it may be valuable for you to understand why you are not sure.

The reason for this, I would venture, is because there is much overlap between the two. For one, both demand bracketing previous conceptions and avoiding theory testing. In this sense, they are bot bottom-up, emic, and in fact - grounded in the data. Moreover, they are both very much comparative in nature. This is because they (as well as much of qualitative research) are both inherently hermeneutically based (see, Rennie, D. L. (2012). Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 385-.398). 

What discerns the two methods is then more complicated, and is first and foremost a matter of research question, rather than analytic procedure (though the latter is also implicated). Phenomenology ultimately seeks to highlight experiential aspects, while GT seeks to generate a theory, typically of human behavior or experience. As such, I would say that a good GT research must entail also some phenomenological aspects, although only in the initial phases of the analysis (by the way, you may throw in also thematic analysis, for the methods are once again similar at the initial stages of analysis). That said, GT will go beyond themes and beyond experience, in an attempt to generate a more comprehensive theory. As such, the data may be richer and originate in more diverse sources, and anlysis will include axial coding or other more complicated gestalt-seeking analytical procedures (see Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.).

 Hope this helps.

Best,

Cobi.

Hi Judith,

first, all Grounded Theory is arguably Constructivist  (with, for example, Charmaz emphasising this point); and for an example of using Grounded Theory with quantitative data see Using Grounded Theory in Researching the Office Products Industry by Crowley et al 2014 at :

www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:283253

this paper also cites Glaser (1999 and 2008) as affirming Grounded Theory's use as a general method with [qualitative or..] quantitative data, albeit, to date this is less common than its use with qualitative data. 

All GT is post-positivist, but not all GT scholars are consyructivists. Indeed, Charmaz's constructivis twist (Charmaz, 2000) was in contrast to Glaser and Strauss, which were more positivist, though still on the 'post' side of positivism, and she was answered by one of them who contested that GT is not vondtructivist in natutre.

Here is Glaser's argument that GT is not constructivist

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/825/1792

Among the authors Jacob Stein mentions, I would say that it is Glaser who comes comes closest to positivism, and he has explicitly rejected Charmaz's constructivist approach (as cited above). I would describe Strauss' views as more pragmatist than constructivist (referring here to pragmatism as a philosophy of knowledge, rather than merely "what works").

First of all, I enter debate in these posts in the spirit  that the original questioners perhaps also gain insight from these debates as well as from direct answers to their questions; also, I've started to read the above citation of Glaser on Constructivist GT; and all respect to his career-length scholarship, but I must say initially that he contradicts himself even in the first paragraphs (is this because of his positivist tendency?).

Will review the whole paper and post on it shortly.

I think that the reason Glaser sounds inconsistent is because it is hard to think of an interpretative approach which is (post-)poisitivist rather than constructivist. Though there are differences. I recommend reading Schwandt (2000) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232477264_Constructivist_Interpretivist_Approaches_to_Human_Inquiry.

This reminds me of another time I felt such a contradiction, when I read Giorgi's( 2014) attemp to refute the claim that descriptive phenomenology is methodically hermeneutic - which it clearly is. By the way, I strongly recommend Rennie (2012) to which Giorgi replies. 

This just comes to show that even the experts may be questioned :-)

Article Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry

Read Glaser's  argument that GT is not Constructivist; and I think that, both he and Charmaz are doing  Constructivist GT, while his argument in this paper does not support his assertion to the contrary.

Sorry Barney; with respect, ALL GT is Constructivist.

I have never been quite sure why Charmaz choose to label Glazer's version of GT as "objectivist." Still my strong sense is that Glaser believes the results are "in the data," waiting for the analyst to bring them forth. Perhaps this is a job for an "objective" analyst? If so, a constructivist version of GT would certainly say that there is no such thing.