File
Ali N1, May S1, Grafton K1
1Sheffield Hallam University, Allied Health, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Background: Grounded theory methodology (GTM) is one of the most rigorous methodologies because it provides systematic methods that enable qualitative theorizing about areas where limited or no knowledge exists. There are various versions of GTM and each version employs relatively different methods based on its philosophical underpinnings. Despite philosophical departures, Hutchison, Johnston, and Breckon (2011) identified six grounded theory methods which are considered key tenets, thus integral to valid theory development. These tenets are: 1) synchronous data collection and analysis; 2) systematic coding procedures; 3) the constant comparative method; 4) memo-writing; 5) theoretical sampling; and 6) integration of the generated theoretical framework within pre-existing literature.
Annells (1996) suggested that GTM has been applied in multiple ways that are inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of the methodology. Within physiotherapy literature, the degree to which many GTM research offered informative grounded theories has also been questioned (Mellion and Tovin 2002).
Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise GTM research in physiotherapy, to understand how the methodology was used and to produce recommendations for future GTM applications.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINHAL, SPORT Discus, Science Direct, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies in the field of physiotherapy that reported using GTM and/or methods in the study title and/or abstract. The descriptive characteristics and methodological quality of eligible studies were examined using grounded theory methodology assessment guidelines developed by Hutchison, Johnston, and Breckon (2011).
Results: The review included 68 studies conducted between 1998 and 2017. Moderate to good quality studies (n = 35, 51%) reported on applying six to four tenets of GTM and discussed how the resultant theories were developed. Poor quality studies (n = 33, 49%) employed three to none of the tenets of GTM and gave limited evidence to show that abstract theorization was conducted and/or core categories were identified; instead their findings were mostly synthesized using descriptive themes.
Overall, thirty-six studies (53%) demonstrated a good understanding and appropriate application of GTM. Thirty-two studies (47%) presented descriptive findings and were of poor methodological quality.
Conclusion(s): Iterative collection and systematic coding of data as guided by theoretical sampling were found to be integral to the process of meaningful theorization. Whenever said tenets/methods of GTM were not present, the capacity of the inquiry to move from description to abstract theorizing was limited.
Implications: As some studies used multiple versions of GTM, the researchers' role was usually overlooked. This could be a factor of swaying between conflicting epistemological positions hence Glaserian GTM requires researchers to be neutral while Straussian and constructivist GTM demand more visibility to justify how the analysis was subjectively constructed. The tug between these epistemological positions may be difficult to resolve once researchers are immersed within data. It is recommended that researchers plan before fieldwork by considering their frame of reference and position in relation to the study before selecting a particular version of GTM.
Keywords: Grounded theory methodology, systematic review, physiotherapy
Funding acknowledgements: No external funding was received
Annells (1996) suggested that GTM has been applied in multiple ways that are inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of the methodology. Within physiotherapy literature, the degree to which many GTM research offered informative grounded theories has also been questioned (Mellion and Tovin 2002).
Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise GTM research in physiotherapy, to understand how the methodology was used and to produce recommendations for future GTM applications.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINHAL, SPORT Discus, Science Direct, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies in the field of physiotherapy that reported using GTM and/or methods in the study title and/or abstract. The descriptive characteristics and methodological quality of eligible studies were examined using grounded theory methodology assessment guidelines developed by Hutchison, Johnston, and Breckon (2011).
Results: The review included 68 studies conducted between 1998 and 2017. Moderate to good quality studies (n = 35, 51%) reported on applying six to four tenets of GTM and discussed how the resultant theories were developed. Poor quality studies (n = 33, 49%) employed three to none of the tenets of GTM and gave limited evidence to show that abstract theorization was conducted and/or core categories were identified; instead their findings were mostly synthesized using descriptive themes.
Overall, thirty-six studies (53%) demonstrated a good understanding and appropriate application of GTM. Thirty-two studies (47%) presented descriptive findings and were of poor methodological quality.
Conclusion(s): Iterative collection and systematic coding of data as guided by theoretical sampling were found to be integral to the process of meaningful theorization. Whenever said tenets/methods of GTM were not present, the capacity of the inquiry to move from description to abstract theorizing was limited.
Implications: As some studies used multiple versions of GTM, the researchers' role was usually overlooked. This could be a factor of swaying between conflicting epistemological positions hence Glaserian GTM requires researchers to be neutral while Straussian and constructivist GTM demand more visibility to justify how the analysis was subjectively constructed. The tug between these epistemological positions may be difficult to resolve once researchers are immersed within data. It is recommended that researchers plan before fieldwork by considering their frame of reference and position in relation to the study before selecting a particular version of GTM.
Keywords: Grounded theory methodology, systematic review, physiotherapy
Funding acknowledgements: No external funding was received
Topic: Research methodology & knowledge translation
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: Sheffield Hallam University
Ethics committee: Sheffield Hallam University Health and Social Care Ethics Committee
Reason not required: This study is a systematic review and therefore does not require ethical approval
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
