Cited by 119Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsMethodologies in Health Research and PracticeQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Selecting a Grounded Theory Approach for Nursing Research

Open access
Singh, Shaminder, Estefan, Andrew·2018·Global Qualitative Nursing Research

Abstract

Grounded theory is a commonly used research methodology. There are three primary approaches to grounded theory in nursing research: those espoused by Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz. All three approaches use similar procedures, yet there are important differences among them, which implies that researchers need to make careful choices when using grounded theory. Researchers new to grounded theory need to find the most appropriate approach that fits their research field, topic, and researcher position. In this article, we compare the three grounded theory approaches. Choices of a grounded theory approach will depend on the researcher’s understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of all three approaches. Practical aspects of grounded theory approaches should match the information processing styles and analytical abilities of the researcher and the intended use of the theory. We illustrate key aspects of decision making about which method to select by drawing upon the first author’s experiences in his doctoral research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2333393618799571

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, S., & Estefan, A.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Singh, Shaminder
Venue
Global Qualitative Nursing Research
Published
2018-01
Volume
5
Pages
2333393618799571-2333393618799571
ISSN
2333-3936 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895681440
Cited by
118
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4
FWCI
23.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Global Qualitative Nursing Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary (Graduate Student Knowledge Translation Assistantsh)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
grounded theory, nursing research methodology, Glaser and Strauss, qualitative research approaches, methodological choices, researcher positionality, theory development

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