La teoría fundamentada (TF) es una metodología de investigación ampliamente conocida y utilizada en las ciencias sociales. Tiene varias versiones (Teoría Fundamentada Glaseriana, Straussiana, Dimensional, Constructivista y Análisis Situacional) que muestran diferencias que tienden a generar cierta confusión en su estudio y uso. Es el caso del proceso de análisis de datos. Para identificar estas diferencias, se realizó una revisión intencionada de la literatura publicada en los últimos 20 años en español, portugués e inglés. Hicimos una búsqueda sistemática en cinco bases de datos científicas y Google Scholar Beta. Fueron seleccionados 72 textos, incluidos libros y artículos de los cuales 31 están escritos por los principales referentes de cada versión y 41 escritos por otros autores y autoras que contribuyen a la comprensión del método. El análisis de estos textos permitió identificar elementos comunes y diferencias significativas. Los resultados encontrados revelan cinco aspectos comunes entre las versiones: comparación constante, muestreo teórico, elaboración de memorandos, sensibilidad teórica y saturación teórica. Asimismo, se encontró diferencias significativas en el proceso de análisis de datos, las corrientes filosóficas de cada versión, la teoría generada, los datos recolectados como entrevistas, entre otros. En particular, el proceso de análisis en las cinco versiones tiene aspectos comunes, pero los procedimientos utilizados son diferentes. Finalmente, se elaboraron representaciones gráficas para facilitar la comprensión del análisis de datos. El artículo facilita a los investigadores, especialmente a los nuevos, reconocer cómo y cuándo encajar en los diversos aspectos utilizados para el análisis de datos, especialmente si los requisitos de la investigación obligan a mezclar o fusionar algunas perspectivas durante el proceso de análisis.Grounded Theory (TF) is a widely known and widely used research methodology in the social sciences. It has various versions (Glaserian Grounded Theory, Straussian, Dimensional, Constructivist and Situational Analysis) show differences that tend to generate some confusion in their study and use. It is the case with the data analysis process. To identify these differences, we carried out an intentional review of the literature published in the last 20 years in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. We did a systematic search in five scientific databases and Google Scholar Beta. We selected 72 texts, included books and articles. They were 31 of them written by the main referents of each version and, 41 were written by other authors who contribute to the understanding of the method. The analysis of these texts allowed us to identify common elements and significant differences. The results that we found reveal five common aspects between the versions: constant comparison, theoretical sampling, elaboration of memoranda, theoretical sensitivity, and theoretical saturation. Also, we found we find significant differences in the data analysis process, the philosophical currents of each version, the theory generated, the data collected as interviews, among others. In particular, the analysis process in the five versions has common aspects, but the procedures used are different. Finally, we elaborate graphical representations to facilitate understanding of data analysis. The article makes it easier for investigators, especially new ones, to recognize how and when to fit in the various aspects used for data analysis, especially if the research requirements force you to mix or merge some perspectives during the analysis process.
Background People with Huntington's disease (HD) have increased functional and cognitive dependence. While numerous clinical, genetic, and therapeutic management studies have been carried out, few studies have investigated the disease from the personal experience and the context of people living with HD. To better serve these patients, our purpose is to understand, from the perspective of the patient and their families, how people with HD cope with their daily lives outside the clinical setting. Methods Thirty-three affected or at-risk people participated in this study. Participants were interviewed at their homes on distinct occasions during a family visit. We analyzed the data using Grounded Theory, which allowed us to understand how people live with the disease on their own terms. Results Living with HD is a process that begins with acceptance or denial that one is at risk for the disease or, growing awareness of the condition due to motor, behavioral, and cognitive changes, and, finally, loss of autonomy with physical dependence on another person, and loss of sense of self and family. Conclusion While the daily life of patients before disease onset was characterized by physical and mental/cognitive independence, with HD they become increasingly trapped in their bodies, and their complications are due to the lack of effective curable therapy.
From human capital to social capital: relevance of doctoral training for the development of the nursing profession in Colombia
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.