Theoretical sampling is a key procedure for theory building in the grounded theory method. Confusion about how to employ theoretical sampling in grounded theory can exist among researchers who use or who want to use the grounded theory method. We illustrate how we employed theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies and answer key questions about theoretical sampling in grounded theory. We show how theoretical sampling functions in grounded theory and how it differs from sampling for data generation alone. We demonstrate how induction, retroduction, and abduction operate in grounded theory and how memoing drives theoretical sampling in the pursuit of theory. We explicate how theoretical sampling can contextualize data to build concepts and theory. Finally, we show how theoretical sampling in grounded theory operates in secondary analysis to derive theory that goes beyond the original purpose of data collection.
The grounded theory (GT) method is widely applied, yet frequently misunderstood. We outline the main variants of GT and dispel the most common myths associated with GT. We argue that the different variants of GT incorporate a core set of shared procedures that can be put to work by any researcher or team from their chosen ontological and epistemological perspective. This “shared core” of the GT method is articulated as the principles of (1) taking the word “grounded” seriously, (2) capturing and explaining context-related social processes, (3) pursuing theory through engagement with data, and (4) pursuing theory through theoretical sampling. In this article, we have put forward, in a nutshell, a distillation of core principles underpinning existing GT approaches that can aid further engagement with the different variants of GT. We are motivated by the wish to make GT more comprehensible and accessible, especially for researchers who are new to the method.
This study outlines the impact of COVID-19 on paediatric emergency department (ED) utilisation and assesses the extent of healthcare avoidance during each stage of the public health response strategy. Records from five EDs and one urgent care centre in Ireland, representing approximately 48% of national annual public paediatric ED attendances, are analysed to determine changes in characteristics of attendance during the three month period following the first reported COVID-19 case in Ireland, with reference to specific national public health stages. ED attendance reduced by 27–62% across all categories of diagnosis in the Delay phase and remained significantly below prior year levels as the country began Phase One of Reopening, with an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 0.58. The decrease was predominantly attributable to reduced attendance for injury and viral/viral induced conditions resulting from changed living conditions imposed by the public health response. However, attendance for complex chronic conditions also reduced and had yet to return to pre-COVID levels as reopening began. Attendances referred by general practitioners (GPs) dropped by 13 percentage points in the Delay phase and remained at that level. While changes in living conditions explain much of the decrease in overall attendance and in GP referrals, reduced attendance for complex chronic conditions may indicate avoidance behaviour and continued surveillance is necessary.
Background The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent public health guidance to reduce the spread of the disease have wide-reaching implications for children’s health and wellbeing. Furthermore, paediatric emergency departments (EDs) have rapidly adapted provision of care in response to the pandemic. This qualitative study utilized insight from multidisciplinary frontline staff to understand 1) the changes in paediatric emergency healthcare utilization during COVID-19 2) the experiences of working within the restructured health system. Methods Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with frontline staff working in two paediatric EDs and two mixed adult and children EDs. Participants included emergency medicine clinicians (n = 5), nursing managerial staff (n = 6), social workers (n = 2) and nursing staff (n = 2). Thematic Analysis (TA) was applied to the data to identify key themes. Results The pandemic and public health restrictions have had an adverse impact on children’s health and psychosocial wellbeing, compounded by difficulty in accessing primary and community services. The impact may have been more acute for children with disabilities and chronic health conditions and has raised child protection issues for vulnerable children. EDs have shown innovation and agility in the structural and operational changes they have implemented to continue to deliver care to children, however resource limitations and other challenges must be addressed to ensure high quality care delivery and protect the wellbeing of those tasked with delivering this care. Conclusions The spread of COVID-19 and subsequent policies to address the pandemic has had wide-reaching implications for children’s health and wellbeing. The interruption to health and social care services is manifesting in myriad ways in the ED, such as a rise in psychosocial presentations. As the pandemic continues to progress, policy makers and service providers must ensure the continued provision of essential health and social services, including targeted responses for those with existing conditions.
Interviewing is a frequently deployed data collection method in grounded theory research. Theoretical sampling is a core feature of the grounded theory method. Theoretical sampling is commonly understood as a means for sampling participants with a set of theoretical considerations in mind. However, theoretical sampling also occurs in the actual data generating process, for example through interviewing. Here, we illustrate how interviewing can be used as a vehicle for theoretical sampling. We discuss how to set up an interview study for it to be amenable to theoretical sampling. We show how interviewing and theoretical sampling align as the study proceeds and how interviewing in grounded theory can steer the course for theoretical sampling. We demonstrate how co-construction of data in grounded theory interviewing fuels theoretical sampling. Finally, we show that proceeding with questions for the purpose of theoretical sampling requires reflexivity and flexibility on the part of the researcher. We conclude that generating and analyzing data through the course of interviewing allows the researcher to probe into, expand on, and saturate key concepts and categories which collectively steer the inquiry and subsequent sampling. In the absence of theoretical sampling, it is not possible to grasp the basis for modifying interview questions or to decipher what or how questions should be asked, and for what purpose.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.