Constructivist Grounded Theory or Interpretive Phenomenology? Methodological Choices Within Specific Study Contexts

Abstract

Constructivist research methodologies are useful in discerning meanings of experience to subsequently inform and improve healthcare practice. For researchers who philosophically align with the constructivist paradigm, numerous methodologies are available from which to choose to address research questions. However, it can be challenging for researchers, especially novice ones, to choose the most appropriate methodology that aligns with the current state of knowledge of the identified topic, proposed research question, and the study purpose. To reduce the confusion faced by health researchers when choosing an appropriate methodology for a specific study, this paper compares two popular qualitative health research approaches: constructivist grounded theory and interpretive phenomenology. Philosophical underpinnings and the epistemological and ontological evolution of each methodology are explored with similarities and differences highlighted. Manifestation of the philosophical foundations of constructivist grounded theory and interpretive phenomenology are described in relation to data collection, analysis, and the research findings. To illustrate distinctions of each approach and support researchers in the navigation of methodological decision-making, a specific healthcare study context is presented: the rural family members’ experiences of a relative’s interhospital transfer for advanced critical care services. This study context is increasingly being recognized as an important area of healthcare research and practice. However, gaps in knowledge persist, specifically in relation to the experiences of rural family members when a critically ill relative requires an interhospital transfer to a distant urban center for advanced critical care services. Improved understanding of such experiences is necessary to inform the care provided to rural family members, potentially mitigating short and long-term negative consequences for these individuals. Within this example, the importance of the research purpose and research question within a specific study context is underscored as central to appropriate methodological decision-making.

The greatest challenges and solutions to improve children's health and well-being worldwide in the next decade and beyond: Using complex systems and implementation science approaches

“…Consideration may first need to be given to methodologies that commit to depth of analysis but also capture the complexity of multiple perspectives using multiple perspective designs like interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) where the focus can be on the person, family or system (51). These multiple perspective designs can inform later theory development (52). Understanding context including the drivers of child health and well-being at multiple levels of relevant systems and communities extending across the life course can be used to design interventions, models or care and community-based initiatives and provide new direction to fields of child health enquiry including public health, health services research, implementation science, sociology, genetics, and health economics.…”

Perceptions of Body Image of Women with Blindness

“…As the research had a Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT) design (see details in subsequent sections), in the initial research phase, only a brief literature review was carried out. As various authors say (Glaser, 2005;Hallberg, 2010;Burns et al, 2022), in GT, a preliminary literature review contextualises the research, but no detailed literature review should be conducted before qualitative data collection, so that researchers could remain open-minded and could avoid preconceptions. A comprehensive review of the literature was therefore carried out, and compared to the emerging theory, only after data had been analysed.…”

“…CGT phylosophycally acknowledges that knowledge is incomplete and unique to both the researcher and the participant (Charmaz, Thornberg & Keane, 2018), and that meaning is co-constructed by the researcher and the research participant. Consequently, the evolving theory is grounded on researcher's and participant's subjective life experience (Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2006;Burns et al, 2022). The two researchers had different lived experience.…”

Dialysis, Distress, and Difficult Conversations: Living with a Kidney Transplant

“…Design: This study used a qualitative methodology underpinned by Heideggerian phenomenology, which focuses on interpreting and understanding the meaning of lived experiences to gain an in-depth exploration of participant experiences [ 14 , 15 ]. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was selected as the most suitable method of qualitative enquiry that can facilitate researchers to construct insightful interpretative accounts of experiences, which are “complex, ambiguous, and emotionally laden” (p. 41, [ 16 ]).…”