Confessions from a grounded theory PhD

Today we find a variety of national and international scientific resources that describe different versions of Grounded theory (GT). It is referred to GT authors (Glaser, Strauss & Corbin, Charmaz) and other researchers who apply different versions of GT and write about its fundamental strengths: systematic procedures, emancipatory decisions, self-empowerment of researcher to immerse into the data, and emerging theory being substantiated by empirical data and its interpretation. Reading the resources leads GT researchers to the understanding of this methodology as a set of systematic procedures which are applied in an integrated way by striving to the fundamental outcome – created original and based on empirical data GT. Researchers constantly applying GT alone may learn its principles, progress of adopting the necessary intellectual skills though at some point experience “being trapped”. Why? Because GT application does not stimulate their creativity and this methodology becomes “well-known” routine or “typical” process by recognizing what is “right” and “wrong”. Such attitude regarding the qualitative research methodology is risky due to emerging normative approach to the range of qualitative data collection, analysis and interpretation. Initially, the researchers’ self- empowerment to manage the different GT versions helps to avoid the routine. However, in this case there comes a time when each version is assigned by researcher with “labels”. For example, Glaserian version is named classic, emerging and theory-driven; version of Strauss and Corbin is seen as hypothesis testing, though in fact it is treated as a resource of hypotheses; in Glaserian version GT emerges, and in Strauss and Corbin version GT is forced. Constructivist GT version states that various social realities are relevant, and the common establishment of knowledge is recognized as outcome of cooperation between researcher and research participants. However, is it possible to find the emerging and forced moments in all GT versions? This question is not easy to answer accurately. There are similarities between the mentioned GT versions, though their differences are more conceptual than procedural. When researcher exploits his/her potential of creativity by applying a range of GT versions, then the time may come to make a decision to integrate GT and other methodologies. Thus, researcher’s attempts to combine GT with other methodologies being close to the emerging nature and plural data resources methodology of GT are creditable and deserve encouragement. The article presents the example of such decision when combination or integration of GT and Action Research (AR) is considered. Research question: Do similar features of GT and AR allow combining these methodologies aiming at validity of results within the research process? Research aim is to argue the possibilities to integrate GT and AR. Methods. The information in the article is presented consequently: each methodology is presented individually and then possibilities for integration or combination are discussed. The overview for analysis of possibilities to integrate GT and AR was used in the study by providing arguments and generalization of considerations. Conclusions. Integration of GT and AR illustrates the responsibility of researcher in shaping the design of a specific research and solving specific research issue. Decision to integrate GT and AR allows researcher to be the expert in both methodologies and strictly respect the principles, procedures, and methods. Researcher may not fully apply two methodologies, starting a study with one while concluding it with another. Such a decision is risky, causing uncertainty and leading to unreliable findings. However, the integration of these methodologies cannot and should not be a mechanical action. Researcher must clearly determine the object of the research – is it process or change? This will result in a clear and basic methodology of choice, respectively GT or AR. Then, the study will be based on the fundamental principles and steps of the chosen methodology. And the relevant components will be chosen by researcher in data collection and/or analysis of process (-es). GT and AR integration is possible, therefore GT and AR complement each other and their combinations depend of researcher.

Who is sensitising whom? A participatory interview guide development as an awareness tool within a health care research project

Grounded Theory (GT) is a latent pattern recognition research method that was developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967). GT, which can use either quantitative or qualitative data, is a general research methodology and it produces empirically grounded but modifiable theory. Since the development of GT in 1967, some researchers have attempted to modify the original GT method, and remodelled GT approaches have been widely used in Information Systems (IS) research, often with unfortunate results due to disregard of the basic rules of the original GT. The continued use of remodelled GT methods has caused confusion and has prevented those in the IS research community from stimulating the development of new theory, which is the main benefit of using GT as it was originally outlined. Following publication of the original grounded theory by Glaser and Strauss (1967), Glaser (1978) went on to explain in detail how to operationalize the GT method. Despite this, some researchers mistakenly continued to classify GT as a subset of the qualitative data analysis research methodology. In doing so, they reveal that they have misunderstood both the purpose of GT and how to use it correctly. In this paper the author will concentrate on the authentic approach to GT, which is termed “Classic Ground Theory” (CGT), so as to differentiate it from any misconceived remodelled version of the theory. This paper explains how CGT can be carried out in an IS context by trusting in the emergence from the data of the required information, rather than forcing it.

“Future randomized controlled studies are needed” is a conclusion all too familiar to readers of scientific articles. This statement, distributed liberally in the literature, has come to signify little more than an obligatory admission of a study’s deficiencies. It simultaneously seeks to absolve the authors of any fault from potentially exaggerating the importance of their statistical findings while leaving it to the reader to decide how to apply and disseminate the novel information. The statement also implies that higher quality studies could and should be devised and points to salvation by way of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), the pinnacle of evidence-based medicine.1 Despite this, historical and present-day data show that RCTs are undertaken less frequently in surgery than in other areas of medicine.2–4 This raises concerns about the quality of surgical research, but what can surgeons do about it? Surveys have demonstrated a preponderance of cohort studies and case series in surgical journals, with RCTs accounting for fewer than 10% of publications.5,6 Reasons for lack of quality surgical research have been attributed to unique methodologic, practical, and ethical considerations in evaluating surgical procedures, and surgeon reluctance and lack of experience with surgical trials.3,7,8 Although high-quality RCTs are something to strive for, it is also clear that not all problems in surgery can be evaluated in an RCT. Solomon and McLeod studied 250 research questions in gastrointestinal surgery and concluded that, under ideal conditions, only 38.8% could have been answered with an RCT.9 Rather than attempting to answer every question with an RCT, surgeons should focus on using the best research design for their clinical questions. A variety of study designs can shed important insights if they are applied to the correct problem and conducted with methodologic rigor. The idea, development, exploration, assessment, and long-term study (IDEAL) model is a five-stage framework developed to guide best research practices throughout progressive stages of surgical innovation (Table 1).10,11 Early stages focus on refining the technique and its safety profile, whereas later stages are generally amenable to higher levels of scientific inquiry. With consideration for the stage of development of the surgical technique being investigated, a simple stepwise approach can be applied using the highest feasible level of evidence when choosing a study design. In this article, we outline important concepts and discuss various study designs—RCTs, observational studies with control groups, and case series—with a focus on minimizing biases. We consider various practical and methodologic issues specific to surgical research throughout. Table 1. - IDEAL Stages of Surgical Innovationa Stage Objectives Study Methods 1. Idea Initial technical description of new surgical procedure or technology Case reports, case series 2a. Development Description of early experience with new procedure or technology, including technical modifications and short-term/safety-related outcomes Prospective case series, observational studies 2b. Exploration Larger exploratory study to better define the relevant comparator groups and outcomes, and evaluate feasibility of a future RCT Prospective observational studies, RCTsb 3. Assessment Definitive comparative evaluation against the standard of care RCTs, large prospective observational studiesc 4. Long-term study Collect data for surveillance in real-world practice, identify new complications, and revise indications as needed Registry-based prospective cohort studies or case-control studies, rare case reports aDeveloped from initial description of IDEAL framework by McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009;374:1105–1112.bPerformed when feasible at this stage.cAppropriate when ethical or practical factors preclude performing an RCT. DESIGNING A SURGICAL RESEARCH STUDY A 1994 commentary entitled “The Scandal of Poor Medical Research” was a heated outcry for higher quality research to be performed for a purpose greater than expanding the researcher’s curriculum vitae.12 It pointed to a variety of factors plaguing medical research, including flawed designs, inadequate samples, inappropriate statistical analyses, and misleading interpretation of results. At the heart of the problem was the combination of the “publish or perish” research climate together with a “general failure to appreciate the basic principles underlying scientific research.” Although it is not the goal of this article to review these principles in detail, the concepts of validity, bias, and statistics warrant consideration for our subsequent discussion. Once a question and hypothesis have been established, choosing the study design is the next step. The process should consider ways to maximize validity and minimize bias. Internal validity refers to the accuracy with which the findings reflect true variation in the outcomes measured in the study sample, whereas external validity refers to the extent to which the findings are generalizable to clinical populations encountered in practice.13 The interplay between these concepts is complex. By way of selective inclusion and exclusion criteria, RCTs ensure that groups of patients compared are equivalent in almost all aspects, other than the treatment administered, in striving to achieve a high level of internal validity. This can come at the expense of external validity. For instance, surgeons in real-world practice encounter patients who would not meet the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria of such studies. Biases refer to factors outside of the surgical intervention that systematically influence the results of a study.14 They detract directly from the validity of the study and can occur during study design and preparation, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results.13,14 Biases are categorized conceptually in terms of their overarching similarities.15 Important conceptual categories are selection biases, observation biases, and confounders (Table 2). Selection biases occur during design of a study and result in unintended differences between comparison groups. They are attributable to systematic flaws in the methodology used to select patients. For instance, in a nonrandomized study investigating a novel surgical procedure compared with nonoperative treatment, patients selected to undergo surgery would likely be healthier, more compliant, and have better access to care than patients treated nonoperatively. These baseline factors stack the odds in favor of surgical outcomes. Observation biases occur during data collection and can be attributed to flaws in the measurement tools used, effects of the study environment on patient behavior, or deferential attitudes of surgeons toward one of the groups. For example, surgeons may be more invested in obtaining favorable outcomes and minimizing complications of surgically treated patients, unintentionally providing better follow-up care. A confounder is any unaccounted for “third variable” responsible for the causal relationship observed in the study. This could be a patient factor, such as smoking, in a study comparing infection rates after different wound care regimens, or a treatment-related factor, such as asymmetry in the duration of postoperative immobilization, in a study comparing different interventions for fractures. Such factors could be more pertinent than the treatments themselves to the outcomes being investigated. Table 2. - Examples of Biases in Surgical Research Bias Description Means of Minimization Selection biases Nonrespondent bias Patients declining to participate in the study differ systematically from those who take part Optimizing communication of objectives, limiting burden of participating Referral bias Patients referred to clinician and recruited to study have more severe disease Predefined and evidence-based inclusion criteria Channeling bias Patients assigned to interventions based on prognostic factors Randomized studies with allocation concealment, stratification in nonrandomized studies Chronology bias Intervention group compared with historical cohort Using concurrent comparison groups Observation biases Recall bias Inaccurate reporting of treatment response by patients Using prospective design and objective outcome measurements Hawthorne effect Change in behavior as a result of participation in a study Randomization, blinding Performance bias Results influenced by variability in surgical technique or expertise Standardized protocols, different surgeons for different procedures, stratification by surgeon level of expertise Transfer bias Patients lost to follow-up differ from those who completed study By maintaining up-to-date contact information, limiting study burden, issuing reminders Detection bias Outcomes not measured uniformly in comparison groups Concurrent comparison groups, blinding, predefined objective outcomes Conflict of interest Competing interests or secondary gain influence outcomes Mandatory disclosure, randomized blinded designs Misuse of statistics and inappropriate interpretation of statistical findings are other common culprits of poor surgical research. The majority of these issues are attributable to unintentional oversights, but a small proportion are caused by deliberate fraud.16,17 Common statistical errors include inadequate power, selection of inappropriate statistical tests, and inappropriate subgroup analysis.18–20 Complex statistical techniques are often relied on to make up for deficiencies in the study design, such as lack of randomization. Studies also tend to focus on statistical differences without considering clinically important thresholds, leading to exaggeration of the findings. Like strategies to minimize bias, the use of statistics should be planned when designing the study, with primary and secondary outcome variables and the statistical plan specified a priori. A well-designed study can also simplify the statistical methods needed. A thorough understanding of validity, bias, and statistical methods is critical when selecting any of the specific study designs discussed below. RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS Now suppose that you have formulated a novel and structurally sound research question and have the resources at your institution to conduct the ideal study. A logical approach would be to start atop the pyramid of evidence and determine whether an RCT could be devised before considering other study types at lower levels of evidence.21 RCTs are generally most appropriate in the exploration or assessment stage of surgical innovation, once the technical aspects and safety profile of the procedure are established. Conducting an RCT requires intensive devotion of resources and time. The Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial, led by the senior author (K.C.C.) to evaluate outcomes of treatments for distal radius fractures, took 10 years to complete and required funding from two National Institutes of Health grants.22 Compared with other types of studies, the same factors that make the RCT a coveted entity can also make it unwieldy in surgical research. Ethical and Practical Considerations A variety of ethical and practical considerations pose challenges for surgical RCTs. Like other comparative studies, RCTs are designed to evaluate a null hypothesis, which requires a control group. Unlike pharmaceutical trials, a methodologically equivalent control in surgery, such as a placebo, is rarely possible. One might be tempted to consider nonoperative treatment to be analogous to the placebo. This common view has been the basis of many surgical trials but is often misguided. In reality, nonoperative treatments are highly variable and difficult to control. They can be interventions such as activity modification, immobilization, physical therapy, injections, or a combination thereof. Patients may also implement their own individualized lifestyle changes, such as specialized diets and fitness regimens. Even if the nonoperative treatment is tightly and reliably controlled, the natural history of the patient’s condition may confound outcomes. In surgical trials, the true equivalent of a placebo would be sham surgery, a notion that transgresses ethical boundaries except in the most selective circumstances.23 In most cases, the use of an RCT to evaluate a surgical procedure mandates clinical equipoise between the surgical treatment being investigated and some other treatment.8 Nevertheless, even the existence of true clinical equipoise does not guarantee the feasibility of an RCT. Randomization and allocation concealment can be difficult to execute.7,8 These attributes strip the patient and physician of the opportunity for shared decision-making. Patients may be uncomfortable with randomized treatment selection without input from the surgeon, or with the notion of being part of an experiment. Patients often arrive at the surgeon’s office with a preference for a particular treatment.24 Even when all of these factors are accounted for, patients who agree to participate in an RCT may differ from patients who do not consent, introducing selection bias.3 Ethical considerations are not limited to the patient. Surgeons conducting the study must strive to treat participants equally to avoid unduly influencing the results of the treatment groups. However, surgeons often have their own preferences for one procedure over another.25 If the same surgeon is performing multiple procedures in the study, he or she may also be more facile in one of the procedures, creating potential for performance bias. This brings forth the issue of blinding, which is generally easier to accomplish in medical trials than in surgical trials. Clearly, the surgeon performing the operation cannot be blinded, but it is also difficult to ensure that patients are blinded to the treatment that they received. Patients may become aware of the surgery that was performed based on the shape of a scar, length of time spent in the operating room, or some other discernible feature. The ethics of withholding information about the surgery from the patient and examiners at follow-up visits are controversial, particularly if difficulties with recovery or complications arise. Cost and challenges recruiting patients and ensuring they return to follow-up are other factors that can make the RCT unfeasible.26 Given some of the ethical and practical factors associated with RCTs, other study designs discussed below may be better options. Minimizing Bias in RCTs Good design is crucial for maximizing validity and minimizing bias. Alarmingly, analyses of all RCTs published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery between 1998 and 2013 showed that trials evaluating surgical procedures (as opposed to nonoperative or medical interventions) and with surgeons as first authors scored significantly lower in quality.27,28 To illustrate features of a well-designed surgical RCT, consider a landmark trial investigating open reduction and internal fixation versus casting for minimally displaced scaphoid waist fractures (the Scaphoid Waist Internal Fixation for Fractures Trial).29 This study sought to answer a timely question that has been a longstanding area of clinical equipoise. Allocation concealment and randomization were used with a remote randomization service that stratified patients based on their pattern of fracture displacement, further minimizing confounders. Sample size was determined based on a priori power analysis, and statistical analyses were performed by a blinded statistician following a strict prespecified plan. Primary and secondary outcomes were stated from the outset, and potentially subjective radiologic tests were evaluated independently by two musculoskeletal radiologists and a surgeon. Instead of blinding patients and surgeons, the surgical technique and postoperative protocols were left to the discretion of the surgeons, allowing patient-centered care and accounting for differences in surgeons’ technical preference and skill. This practical approach sought to minimize bias while also maximizing external validity, which was important for a trial aiming to inform clinical practice on an international scale. Empiric data support the importance of sound study design on the results of an RCT. Colditz et al. found that the likelihood of an improved outcome from an experimental treatment increased significantly in the absence of randomization.30,31 In a study analyzing 250 controlled trials, treatment effects were increased by 41% when allocation concealment was inadequate and 30% when the extent of concealment was unclear.32 Trials that were not double-blinded yielded treatment effects 17% greater than double-blinded trials. Methodologic problems like these can lead to inaccurate interpretation of findings and distort knowledge found in the published literature. They can be avoided with use of validated quality checklists such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials guidelines when planning a study.33 Such frameworks serve as an important quality safeguard and should be familiar to surgeons undertaking RCTs. Grading systems specific to plastic surgery have also been developed.34 OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES WITH A CONTROL GROUP Many questions in surgery cannot be addressed with an RCT but are amenable to other study designs. A nonrandomized study with a control group should be considered when one of the ethical or practical factors discussed above precludes an RCT. Commonly used designs are cohort studies and case-control studies (Fig. 1).15 Although cohort studies are in a higher tier of evidence, both designs have specific indications, methodologic considerations, and biases.Fig. 1.: Observational study designs.Like RCTs, cohort studies can be highly influential in their scope. Because of fewer upfront demands on participants and less stringent inclusion criteria, these studies lend themselves to broader investigations when more knowledge is needed before performing an RCT. For instance, a prospective cohort study was devised to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with or without mesh following mastectomy (Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation study).35 This is a current topic of interest for many plastic surgeons, with recent trends toward immediate reconstruction following mastectomy.36 Although previous RCTs evaluating immediate breast reconstruction had been performed, their validity was questioned because of performance biases and low sample size.37–39 The Implant Breast Reconstruction Evaluation study addressed this gap in knowledge with an exploratory design that included more than 2000 patients from 81 participating centers. Patients underwent different variations of breast reconstruction at the discretion of the treating surgeon, eliminating concerns for patient preference that are a major hindrance to RCTs in breast surgery.40 Multiple predefined primary outcomes were evaluated and multivariable logistic regression was used to control for confounders. In addition to eliminating practical hurdles of RCTs, advantages of cohort studies illustrated in this example include obtaining larger samples, evaluating multiple exposures and outcomes at once, and generating new hypotheses for future studies through an exploratory approach. Surgeons must also be aware of the pitfalls of nonrandomized studies. Without randomization, cohort studies have limited ability to account for confounders. A causal relationship is inferred from the chronologic sequence of exposures and outcomes, which is most convincing in prospective studies. Without blinding or allocation concealment, cohort studies are also susceptible to selection biases. Recall bias is a limitation for retrospective cohort studies because of factors such as inaccurate patient recall and reliance on information from patient charts.41 Variability in documentation practices makes the fidelity of large databases particularly concerning. In case-control studies, the inference of causation is especially problematic because comparison groups are selected based on their outcomes and analyzed retrospectively for exposures. Designing an observational study with a control group requires paying special attention to these inherent limitations and must be individualized to the research question. Exposures, outcomes, inclusion criteria, and statistical methods should all be planned in advance, even for studies meant to be “exploratory” or hypothesis-generating. Observational studies should be evaluated using standardized guidelines such as the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology framework.42,43 Retrospective cohort studies lend themselves to studying rare conditions and procedures, particularly with the availability of large national databases. Vast amounts of data can be extracted and analyzed rapidly. Meanwhile, case-control studies are useful for investigating factors underlying rare outcomes or complications. When using a registry or database, its purpose, completeness, and accuracy should be carefully evaluated.44 If the question would be better suited for an RCT and there are no major practical or ethical barriers, a higher level of evidence design should be pursued. CASE SERIES An appraisal of articles published in the general surgery literature in 1996 compared the preponderance of case series, 46% of all studies, to “comic opera,” pointing to a necessary shift toward higher quality research.6 A similar survey conducted 10 years later found the proportion of case series had decreased to 34%, with 51% of publications being cohort studies.5 Case series, which typically involve a retrospective account of outcomes from a single procedure, often from a single institution and surgeon, remain a common avenue for publishing novel information. The absence of a control group is their primary flaw, as a hypothesis cannot be tested.44 Retrospective case series are also culprits of publication bias, as new procedures with poor outcomes are unlikely to be published.45–47 Furthermore, failure to favorable results of new techniques are unlikely to be concerns about the validity of a case series from a single Case series are for providing for subsequent hypothesis They should be undertaken with specific such as the safety of a novel procedure or rare or complications. The IDEAL model the use of a case series to be appropriate in the or development first with a new procedure are a and are to the surgical To some of the pitfalls discussed prospective series should be performed with protocols for the new procedure and in of conducting the study. studies should also be to publication The use of retrospective series should be but at a involve patients without and a standardized reporting in the case of RCTs and observational studies, validated checklists can be used to minimize bias when reporting novel surgical interventions in a case A simple approach can be used to the best research design for a surgical question. with consideration for the IDEAL stage of the surgery being investigated, the highest level of appropriate for that stage should be evaluated for feasibility before considering designs at lower levels of the evidence RCTs the highest level of but are not suited for many questions. such as observation studies and case series, to be when practical and ethical considerations preclude the use of an RCT. of the study surgical research should quality design and minimize bias. funding from the National Institutes of from and and a research from to study outcomes. has no interest to in to the of this The authors would like to for and to the development of this They appreciate the review and from of at the of

IntroductionHearing loss is a chronic condition affecting 12 million individuals in the UK. People with hearing loss regularly experience difficulties interacting in everyday conversations. These difficulties in communication can result...

Grounded theory is a methodology to develop theory from qualitative data to gain fresh insight about relationships between people and their experiences. The major parts of grounded theory analysis include open coding, axial coding, categorizing, memo writing, constant comparison, and conditional–consequential matrices. A number of common misconceptions of grounded theory include that it is an excuse to ignore literature, a presentation of raw data, theory testing, a formulaic technique, a perfect and easy methodology, or an excuse for the absence of methodology. Three common approaches are taken when using grounded theory. First, the classical approach was developed to push back on quantitative positivism and address misconceptions about the rigor of qualitative work. Second, the constructivist approach centers the co‐construction of reality through the interactions of researchers and participants. Third, the practical approach focuses on practical problems people face in their daily lives, working for research‐oriented solutions. Health communication scholarship using grounded theory is featured. Two widely contested debates exist about grounded theory. First, researchers disagree on the extent of a study's final theoretical contributions. Second, researchers may disagree on the use of extant literature in a study's research design. Ultimately, grounded theory is widely used in health communication research and remains distinct from other qualitative methodologies.

BackgroundSeveral typologies and guidelines are available to address the methodological and practical considerations required in mental health research. However, few studies have actually attempted to systematically identify and synthesise these considerations. This paper provides an integrative review that identifies and synthesises the available research evidence on mental health research methodological considerations.MethodsA search of the published literature was conducted using EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus. The search was limited to papers published in English for the timeframe 2000–2018. Using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, three reviewers independently screened the retrieved papers. A data extraction form was used to extract data from the included papers.ResultsOf 27 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, 13 focused on qualitative research, 8 mixed methods and 6 papers focused on quantitative methodology. A total of 14 papers targeted global mental health research, with 2 papers each describing studies in Germany, Sweden and China. The review identified several methodological considerations relating to study design, methods, data collection, and quality assurance. Methodological issues regarding the study design included assembling team members, familiarisation and sharing information on the topic, and seeking the contribution of team members. Methodological considerations to facilitate data collection involved adequate preparation prior to fieldwork, appropriateness and adequacy of the sampling and data collection approach, selection of consumers, the social or cultural context, practical and organisational skills; and ethical and sensitivity issues.ConclusionThe evidence confirms that studies on methodological considerations in conducting mental health research largely focus on qualitative studies in a transcultural setting, as well as recommendations derived from multi-site surveys. Mental health research should adequately consider the methodological issues around study design, sampling, data collection procedures and quality assurance in order to maintain the quality of data collection.

Grounded Theory (GT) has become a fundamental Qualitative research methodology for developing theories from empirical data. However, its application varies across disciplines, leading to methodological inconsistencies and debates regarding rigor, coding techniques, and researcher subjectivity. This systematic review examines methodological approaches in GT research, analyzing their implementation, strengths, challenges, and emerging trends. Following PRISMA guidelines, relevant studies were selected from academic databases, and a thematic synthesis was conducted to identify methodological patterns. The review highlights the prevalence of Classical, Straussian, and Constructivist GT approaches, each differing in coding strategies, theoretical sampling, and researcher involvement. Findings indicate that GT is widely used in sociology, psychology, healthcare, and software engineering, demonstrating its adaptability across diverse fields. Key strengths of GT include its iterative data collection process and deep contextual grounding, while challenges involve coding complexity, inter-rater reliability, and researcher bias. Emerging trends suggest increasing integration of GT with technological tools, such as Qualitative data analysis software and AI-assisted coding. Additionally, mixed-methods GT approaches are gaining traction to enhance theoretical robustness. This review underscores the need for standardized methodological guidelines to ensure consistency and rigor in GT studies. Future research should explore the intersection of GT with digital advancements and interdisciplinary applications to strengthen its methodological integrity. By synthesizing best practices and identifying methodological gaps, this study provides valuable insights for researchers seeking to apply GT effectively in Qualitative inquiry.

Over the years after its inception in 1967 the term grounded theory has been packed with multiple meanings, but also fraught by numerous misunderstandings, and complicated by competing versions. (Charmaz, 2006, 177) Introduction I am not completely convinced that this is the right place in this book for a discussion of grounded theory; it is here because it is so often referred to as a ‘research method’. Grounded theory (see Example 16.1 on page 185) is an approach that uses ‘simultaneous data collection and analysis’ (Charmaz, 2006, 20) and as such can be applied in ethnography, case study, historical or action research. It is more about how data is collected and analysed than about the entire research design. Grounded theory is a process of qualitative analysis, not a research method; it is a ‘general method of comparative analysis’ (Glaser, 1978, 116). Although taking a grounded theory approach will influence the design of a research method – for example, in pure grounded theory the literature review very often comes after the analysis of empirical data (Charmaz, 2006) – it is not a research method in its own right. Grounded theory is described as ‘a strategy for handling data in research, providing modes of conceptualisation for describing and explaining’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, 3). This is supported by Barney Glaser, who consistently refers to ‘grounded theory analysis’ and when making reference to the ways in which data can be gathered makes no reference to this as a research method (Glaser, 1998). The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) offered a systematic approach to qualitative research practice, emphasizing that qualitative research had a logic of its own, and for the first time practical guidelines were offered in applying that logic. Since 1967 the two originators have taken very different paths. Strauss (1987) and Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1994 and 1998) present a systematic and what some describe as ‘rigid’ approach to grounded theory analysis. Many claim their approach has moved too far from the original concept of grounded theory and suggest that the constant comparative method of Strauss and Corbin has changed the way data is used, from the concept of emerging theory, to theory being forced: ‘the technical tail is beginning to wag the theoretical dog’ (Melia, 1996, 371).

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present grounded theory as an alternative approach for conceptualizing and modelling the consumer experience. The basic theoretical tenets of the grounded theory approach are contrasted with more traditional assumptions and methods used in consumer research.Design/methodology/approachThe approach is based on qualitative methods and a series of systematic ethnographic procedures, which along with the simultaneous processes of data collection and analysis, lead to the development of an inductive derived grounded theory of the visitor experience. In order to develop a model of the interactive experience of visitors to heritage sites, case studies are conducted at three World Heritage Sites in Thailand.FindingsThe findings indicate that the grounded theory approach has the potential to reveal a rich and deep understanding of visitor experiences, including the ways that visitors interact with the site, their interpretation of the site, and the meaning of the site for them.Practical implicationsIt is suggested that the grounded theory approach can be a valuable tool in exploring the insights and meanings of visitors' experience and could be applied to future research in consumer behaviour. There are practical implications of this kind of research for the management of heritage sites in terms of visitor expectations, interactions and interpretations.Originality/valueThis study has developed a model of the experience and interaction of visitors to Thai World Heritage Sites which could be applied to other heritage sites. It illustrates the theoretical and practical issues of grounded theory approach to exploration and inductive development “interactive experience” of visitors at heritage sites. This is a qualitative research approach that could be adopted for a range of experience based industries such tourism, leisure and hospitality.

Usability evaluation methods have become critical in the Web domain to ensure the success of Web applications. Aim: Since a large number of proposals have been presented during the last few years, a question arises: Which usability evaluation methods have proven to be the most effective in the Web domain? Method: This paper presents a systematic review that was motivated by previous results obtained from a systematic mapping study in the Web usability evaluation field. Results: A total of 18 studies were selected from an initial set of 206 in order to extract, code, and synthesize empirical data concerning the effectiveness of usability evaluation methods for the Web. Conclusions: We detected a need of more empirical studies and more standardized effectiveness measures for comparing usability evaluation methods. Our results suggest several evaluation methods which may be useful in allowing researchers and practitioners to perform effective Web usability evaluations.

Purpose: One of the modern management approaches that has received significant attention and has addressed the weaknesses and problems of traditional management models is ethically-oriented management. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to design an ethically-oriented management model to enhance employee education in higher education, utilizing grounded theory in the free universities of Mazandaran province. Methodology: The nature of this study is exploratory and utilizes qualitative data. The research population consists of management experts and professors with management experience in the free universities of Mazandaran province. The researcher employed the snowball method to achieve theoretical saturation after conducting interviews with 13 experts and opinion leaders. Qualitative data were collected through structured interviews and analyzed using the qualitative method of grounded theory. Findings: Causal factors influencing ethically-oriented management for the development of employee education include personal characteristics, psychological capability, job identity, and organizational communications. Contextual factors include organizational ethics, organizational foundations, organizational justice, and leadership roles. Influential intervening factors include political, executive, infrastructural, and cultural factors. Additionally, three core phenomenon components have been identified and reported: ethical educational leadership skills, ethical literacy, and instructional design. Resulting strategies include external and internal university strategies, formal and informal strategies. Lastly, outcomes include structural development, educational development, communicational development, and performance development. Conclusion: This research began with the aim of achieving an ethically-oriented management model for the development of employee education in higher education using grounded theory and has completed its evolutionary journey through qualitative methods, resulting in a model. Finally, recommendations derived from the researcher's experiences are presented.

The Maeul-mandeulgi appeared to regenerate urban infrastructure and communities which have been destructed in the rapid industrialization of urban area since the 1960s. Unlike existing urban rehabilitation projects which had been led by government, the Maeul-mandeulgi is based on the participation of the inhabitants, and its ultimate purpose is local community recovery, improvement of its' life quality and living conditions etc. Yet in the process of promoting Maeul-mandeulgi as lack of conscious participation of the inhabitants and unilateral administration of government officials cause conflicts among the participants. These conflicts make Maeul-mandeulgi projects difficult to be sustainable and stable. In this study, we selected three towns where their Maeul-mandeulgi projects have been completed, and understood the general characteristics of the conflicts in the first place. By using three-step coding process(open coding, axial coding, select coding) of the 'Grounded Theory' which is one of the qualitative research methodologies, this study classified, compared and reached basic conclusions on the characteristics of the conflicts.

Grounded theory (GT) has been a popularly used qualitative research methodology in the social sciences and has become increasingly popular for doctoral theses and dissertations. Yet, issues such as the changing nature of grounded theory, time constraints, theses advisors, doctoral committee procedures and Institutional Review Board regulations create challenges for doctoral candidates (researchers) who choose to use GT for their dissertations. In this paper, we present the general and specific challenges of using GT for doctoral theses and dissertations by sharing our personal experiences from our Ph.D. programmes in the USA. We conclude by providing practical suggestions for doctoral researchers who are considering using GT for their theses and dissertations.

Objective: The purpose of this research is to present a social media marketing model in the fashion and apparel industry using grounded theory. Methodology: The nature of the present research is exploratory, employing qualitative data. The statistical population of the research includes experts and Ph.D. professors in marketing management at universities in Mazandaran Province. The researcher utilized the snowball sampling method to achieve theoretical saturation, which was attained after conducting interviews with 14 experts and scholars. Qualitative data were collected using structured interviews and analyzed through the qualitative grounded theory method. Findings: Four axial codes were identified and reported for causal factors, including online electronic business developments, online electronic business experience, characteristics of online customers, and social media marketing capabilities. For contextual factors, four axial codes were identified and reported, including online digital culture, online digital thinking, online electronic transformation infrastructure, and online digital leadership. Additionally, four axial codes were identified and reported for intervening factors, including cultural factors, social media challenges, and social and legal factors. For the central phenomenon, three axial codes were identified and reported, including social media marketing tools, social media marketing advertising, and social media marketing performance. For strategies, five axial codes were identified and reported, including the use of influencer marketing, investment in social media marketing, digital knowledge orientation, digital culture creation, and logistics (support) strategies. Finally, customer attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, as well as organizational outcomes, were identified. Conclusion: This research was initiated to develop a social media marketing model in the fashion and apparel industry using grounded theory. Through the qualitative method, the research progressed and reached a comprehensive model. At the end of the study, recommendations based on the researcher’s experiences are presented.