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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“there is an ongoing controversial debate about conducting a literature review in GTM (Charmaz, 2006; McGhee et al. 2007; Dunne, 2011).”
From Dealing with Literature Review and Epistemological Underpinnings in Grounded Theory Methodology (2022) · cites this paper as McGhee et al. 2007
Citations
Cites
Wagner, H. R., Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1968) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575405 · Cited by 46,525
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
Handbook of qualitative research
Griffin, T. F. (1999) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199907)16:4 · Cited by 9,061
Goulding, C. (2002) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849209236 · Cited by 5,182
(1992) · Cited by 2,855
(1993) · Cited by 2,636
Dey, I. (2003) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203412497 · Cited by 2,410
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Breggin P., 1993, Toxic Psychiatry
- Marland G., 2003, Medicine Taking Decisions: Schizophrenia in Comparison to Asthma and Epilepsy
- Robson C, 2002, Real World Research
- 10.7748/nr1997.04.4.3.17.c5870 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience
Brod, M. I., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9 · Cited by 1,080
Nelson, J. (2017) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794116679873 · Cited by 598
The place of the literature review in grounded theory research
Dunne, C. (2011) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.494930 · Cited by 488
“…gain theoretical sensitivity (McCann & Clark, 2003b; McGhee et al., 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1998), avoid conceptual and methodological pitfalls (McGhee et al., 2007) and actually become aware of, rather than numb to, possible unhelpful preconceptions (Maijala, Paavilainen, & Astedt-Kurki,…”
BackgroundInfluentialThornberg, R. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 · Cited by 668
“Therefore, reflexivity is viewed as highly important among many later grounded theorists (e.g., Charmaz, 2006, 2008; Dey 2007; Dunne, 2011; McGhee et al., 2007; Mills et al., 2006a; Mruck & Mey, 2007).”
BackgroundMpofu, F. Y. (2020) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706 · Cited by 473
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
- 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
- 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
