A discussion of differences in preparation, performance and postreflections in participant observations within two grounded theory approaches

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  • Connie Bøttcher Berthelsen, Ortopædkirurgisk afdeling, Sjællands Universitets hospital
  • ,
  • Tove Lindhardt Damsgaard, Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen
  • ,
  • Kirsten Frederiksen
This paper presents a discussion of the differences in using participant observation as a data collection method by comparing the classic grounded theory methodology of Barney Glaser with the constructivist grounded theory methodology by Kathy Charmaz. Participant observations allow nursing researchers to experience activities and interactions directly in situ. However, using participant observations as a data collection method can be done in many ways, depending on the chosen grounded theory methodology, and may produce different results. This discussion shows that how the differences between using participant observations in classic and constructivist grounded theory can be considerable and that grounded theory researchers should adhere to the method descriptions of performing participant observations according to the selected grounded theory methodology to enhance the quality of research.
Original languageEnglish
JournalScandinavian Journal of Caring Science (Scand. J Caring Sci.)
Volume31
Issue2
Pages (from-to)413-420
Number of pages8
ISSN0283-9318
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2017

    Research areas

  • Charmaz, Glaser, classic, constructivist, data collection, grounded theory, method, methodology, participant observations

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 99734427