Grounded Theory (GT) is an innovative research methodology, consisting of three prevailing traditions: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. Despite arising from the same root, and sharing a number of the original methodological techniques, Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT have nevertheless diverged to such an extent that they are neither homogenous nor interchangeable methodologies. They are differentiated by contrasting philosophical frameworks and conflicting methodological directives. Through a careful analysis of the literature, the authors propose that the incongruity of the three GT traditions hinges on three principal and paramount demarcations: Firstly, their contending coding procedures; secondly, their opposing philosophical positions; and thirdly, their conflicting use of literature. The authors argue that these three areas of contention represent the quintessential distinction between the three GT traditions. Accordingly, this article will illustrate and contrast the contending coding conventions, uncover the underlying philosophical positions, and explore the contrasting uses of literature embedded within Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT.
Participants were aware of the components of a therapeutic relationship and valued these as essential to their own personal understanding of positive outcomes in speech and language therapy. Therefore, specific types of attitudes and actions that constitute the speech and language therapist's contributions to the therapeutic relationship seemed to provide catalytic conditions for successful working together in therapy; and consequently, may have a bearing on effective practice and treatment efficacy.
Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) is a retinal dege nerative disease causing progressive blindness. Most research on RP is biomedical, and mostly from an observer perspective, therefore poorly reflecting the lived experience of having RP. Accordingly, the researcher conducted a retrospective qualitative self-study, to analyse reflections on his own experience of diagnosis and receiving a mobility cane, as contained in emails sent to friends and colleagues. This analysis yielded a number of interesting themes significant to the RP experience, namely diagnosis, impact and dealing with RP. Reference is made to literature encouraging ophthalmologists to be actively involved in the facilitation of adjustment to loss of vision. Other significant issues relevant to visual impairment, such as the stigma associated with the long cane and challenging the dominant social discourse regarding disability, are discussed. In addition, the importance of qualitative research to elicit the stories of blind individuals is highlighted.
KEY WORDS a d j u s t m e n t , b l i n d n e s s , d i s a b i l i t y, q u a l i t a t i ve r e s e a r c h , Re t i n i t i s P i g m e n t o s a , s e l f -s t u d y
There are very few articles, which track the history of Grounded Theory (GT) methodology from its tentative conception to its present divisions. This journal article addresses the dearth by tracing the history of GT methodology from its conception in the 1960’s, discussing the context of its composition, character, and contribution. Subsequently, the article follows the maturation of GT which is characterised by a series of contentious and, at times, antagonistic academic debates. The crux of these debates centres on disputes over core tenets of GT and have resulted in three dominant and divergent configurations of the GT methodology: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. These factions can often create confusion for the researcher wishing to embark on a GT study. However, an examination of the history of the GT methodology sheds light on the logic of these schisms.
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.