CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 86Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative research in health

Negotiating With Helping Systems: An Example of Grounded Theory Evolving Through Emergent Fit

Wuest, Judith·2000·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/104973200129118246
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A strength of substantive grounded theories is that they are modifiable. Yet, little attention is given in the research literature to the evolution of grounded theories through the process of emergent fit. In this article, emergent fit is discussed, and the evolution of the theoretical understanding of relationships with helping systems is provided as an example. In a feminist grounded-theory study of women’s caring, emergent fit with existing inductive research on health care relationships resulted in a framework of negotiating, which includes four strategies: reframing responsibility, becoming an expert, harnessing resources, and taking on more. This explanatory model demonstrates how the use of emergent fit can avoid the generation of isolated theories and contribute to knowledge accumulation by producing a substantive theory with wider applicability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/104973200129118246

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Glaser endorses the use of emergent fit within grounded theory analysis to see whether a pre-existing category from a previous study fits with the emerging data in the current study.

    “However, Glaser (1978) does endorse the use of emergent fit within grounded theory analysis to see whether a pre‐existing category from a previous study fits with the emerging data in the current study (Artinian, 2009; Wuest, 2000).”

    From Discriminating among grounded theory approaches (2019) · cites this paper as Wuest, 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wuest, J.
Affiliations
University of New Brunswick (CA)
Corresponding author
Wuest, Judith
ORCID
Wuest, Judith
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2000-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
51-70
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/104973200129118246
OpenAlex
W2100412928
Cited by
86
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
15.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (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 › Education › Qualitative research in health
Keywords
health care relationships, feminist research, knowledge accumulation, explanatory models
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Canada, Empathy, Health Personnel, Helping Behavior, Humans, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Nursing Theory, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Women, Nursing Methodology Research, Models, Nursing, Negotiating, Caregivers, Feminism

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