CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 375Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Grounded theory research: literature reviewing and reflexivity

McGhee, Gerry, Marland, Glenn R., Atkinson, Jacqueline·2007·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aim This paper is a report of a discussion of the arguments surrounding the role of the initial literature review in grounded theory. Background Researchers new to grounded theory may find themselves confused about the literature review, something we ourselves experienced, pointing to the need for clarity about use of the literature in grounded theory to help guide others about to embark on similar research journeys. Discussion The arguments for and against the use of a substantial topic-related initial literature review in a grounded theory study are discussed, giving examples from our own studies. The use of theoretically sampled literature and the necessity for reflexivity are also discussed. Reflexivity is viewed as the explicit quest to limit researcher effects on the data by awareness of self, something seen as integral both to the process of data collection and the constant comparison method essential to grounded theory. Conclusion A researcher who is close to the field may already be theoretically sensitized and familiar with the literature on the study topic. Use of literature or any other preknowledge should not prevent a grounded theory arising from the inductive-deductive interplay which is at the heart of this method. Reflexivity is needed to prevent prior knowledge distorting the researcher's perceptions of the data.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Breggin P., 1993, Toxic Psychiatry
  2. Marland G., 2003, Medicine Taking Decisions: Schizophrenia in Comparison to Asthma and Epilepsy
  3. Robson C, 2002, Real World Research
  4. 10.7748/nr1997.04.4.3.17.c5870 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 375

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
McGhee, Gerry
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09-28
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
334-342
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04436.x
OpenAlex
W2162791924
Cited by
374
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
FWCI
41.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
grounded theory, reflexivity, theoretical sampling, researcher effects, constant comparison, researcher self-awareness, nursing research methodology
MeSH terms
Health Services Research, Humans, 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