Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: is there a difference?
Abstract
Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: is there a difference? This paper explores the differences and similarities that may exist in respect of using the interview method in phenomenological and grounded theory methodologies. Baker et al. set out to differentiate between method in grounded theory and phenomenology and concluded that it was essential to ensure that the method matches the research question being asked. However, the paper, whilst clear in intent to differentiate between the methodologies of phenomenology and grounded theory, does little to help the researcher in the differences that may exist in carrying out such research using the same method, that is, interviewing. Interviewing has become synonymous with qualitative research and may become the accepted method of data collection irrespective of methodology. We postulate that the interview as a method of data collection may be inconsistent with the underlying principles of the methodology (phenomenology or grounded theory). Should this be the case then the interview as a means of collecting data may be viewed as generic and lack a clear connection to the methodological framework. Such a position could be consistent with a critique of qualitative nursing research on the grounds of rigour.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The use of intensive interviewing allows for the acquisition of a diverse range of data and fine-tunes the data collection process, focussing on the most relevant aspects and advancing the theory's development.
“The use of intensive interviewing allows for the acquisition of a diverse range of data and fine-tunes the data collection process, focussing on the most relevant aspects and advancing the theory's development (Charmaz, 2014; Wimpenny and Gass, 2000).”
From Application and challenges of using a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to address an undertheorized clinical challenge: A discussion paper (2024) · cites this paper as Wimpenny and Gass, 2000
Cites
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277 · see citing works
‘Discovering’ chronic illness: Using grounded theory
Charmaz, K. (1990) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-r · Cited by 1,648 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · see citing works
Glaser or Strauss? Considerations for selecting a grounded theory study
Howard-Payne, L. (2016) · South African Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1177/0081246315593071 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
The Validity of Divergent Grounded Theory Method
Amsteus, M. N. (2014) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940691401300133 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Bobbink, P., Larkin, P., & Probst, S. (2024) · International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100199 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“The use of intensive interviewing allows for the acquisition of a diverse range of data and fine-tunes the data collection process, focussing on the most relevant aspects and advancing the theory ’ s development (Charmaz, 2014; Wimpenny and Gass, 2000).”
BackgroundGlassey, R., Hardcastle, S. J., O'Connor, M., Ives, A., kConFab Investigators, & Saunders, C. (2018) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.4558 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Research spotlight: constructivist grounded theory
Barrett, D. (2023) · Evidence Based Nursing · doi:10.1136/ebnurs-2023-103747 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wimpenny, P., & Gass, J.
- Affiliations
- Robert Gordon University (GB)
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1485-1492
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2149338877
- Cited by
- 472
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 4.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Keywords
- phenomenology, grounded theory, qualitative interviews, interview techniques, methodological framework, scientific rigor, qualitative nursing research, data collection
- MeSH terms
- Existentialism, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Nursing, Nursing Theory, Nursing Methodology Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review