Grounded Theory and Nursing Knowledge
Abstract
Grounded theory (GT) is a research approach with origins in the interpretive tradition of symbolic interactionism. Its influence on knowledge generation in nursing began in the 1960s and expanded over the next two decades. By the 1980s, published GT research by nurses had increased greatly in scope and direction. The focus of these studies included adaptations to illness, infertility, nurse adaptations and interventions, and status passages of vulnerable persons and groups. Within the nursing culture, use of GT has been influenced by variations in meanings ascribed to GT, changes in interpretive research practices, and environmental circumstances affecting nurse investigators. The identified theories point to the salient influences of social structure and environment on human health and well-being.
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?
A review by Benoliel (1996) showed that half of studies did not apply essential features of the method.
“A review by Benoliel (1996) showed that half of studies did not apply essential features of the method.”
From Is it really theoretical? A review of sampling in grounded theory studies in nursing journals (2016) · cites this paper as Benoliel (1996)
Grounded Theory has proved an extremely useful research approach in several fields including medical sociology, nursing, education and management theory.
“Since its inception, GT has provided an extremely useful methodological approach in numerous disciplines-notably medical sociology [15], nursing [4], education [58] and management [52].”
From Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2016) · cites this paper as [4]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 123 · Cited by 276
- Authors
- Benoliel, J. Q.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Benoliel, Jeanne Quint
- Venue
- Qualitative Health Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 406-428
- ISSN
- 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7557
- OpenAlex
- W2070537211
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 123
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 26.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative research in health
- Keywords
- grounded theory, nursing knowledge, symbolic interactionism, interpretive research, nursing research methodology, nursing culture, vulnerable populations, infertility, nursing interventions
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
