Cited by 472Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: is there a difference?

Wimpenny, Peter, Gass, John·2000·Journal of Advanced Nursing

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

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01431.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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