The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selecting a Grounded Theory Approach for Nursing Research
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This impact affects both the quality criteria applied to research projects (Bøttcher Berthelsen, 2018) and the outcomes of the resulting grounded theory (Singh and Estefan, 2018).”
From Application and challenges of using a Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology to address an undertheorized clinical challenge: A discussion paper (2024) · cites this paper as Singh and Estefan, 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
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
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1993) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,625
(2014) · Cited by 15,747
Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis
Boyle, C., & Barker, A. (2006) · QMiP Bulletin · doi:10.53841/bpsqmip.2006.1.2.36 · Cited by 11,844 · cited 2×
“Charmaz introduced a constructivist perspective to grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2006, 2014).”
BackgroundMethod(1998) · Cited by 9,332
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 6,077
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research
(2009) · Qualitative Market Research An International Journal · doi:10.1108/13522750910948815 · Cited by 2,359
Thornberg, R. (2012) · Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686 · Cited by 668 · cited 1×
“Glaser’s rejection of the researcher taking a philosophical position has been criticized as naïve because Glaser’s advocacy for and use of pure induction—letting data speak for themselves—is grounded in positivism (Thornberg, 2012).”
BackgroundUsing Grounded Theory in Nursing
Barnsteiner, J. (2002) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.24041.x · Cited by 291
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Burns, M., Bally, J., Burles, M., Holtslander, L., & Peacock, S. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069221077758 · Cited by 174
“…variety of available approaches to each, make choosing an appropriate methodology challenging for researchers, especially novice ones (Green, 2014; Singh & Estefan, 2018; Starks & Brown Trinidad, Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative…”
BackgroundUrcia, I. A. (2021) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069211045474 · Cited by 120
“of subjectivism that meanings are shared subjectively by researcher and participants (Duchscher & Morgan, 2004; Rieger, 2019; Singh & Estefan, 2018).”
BackgroundChallenges in achieving effective high-level disinfection in endoscope reprocessing
Ofstead, C. L., Hopkins, K. M., Buro, B. L., et al. (2019) · American Journal of Infection Control · doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2019.09.013 · Cited by 52
Atkin, A. L., & Jackson, K. F. (2020) · Emerging Adulthood · doi:10.1177/2167696820914091 · Cited by 41
“…to constructivist grounded theory analysis, the personal and professional experiences of both authors were exchanged and discussed during these meetings to aid in new understanding of parental support by challenging and contributing further evidence to emerging themes (Singh & Estefan, 2018).”
BackgroundLeclerc, L., Kennedy, K., & Campis, S. (2020) · Journal of Nursing Management · doi:10.1111/jonm.13154 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Singh, S., & Estefan, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Singh, Shaminder
- Venue
- Global Qualitative Nursing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 2333393618799571-2333393618799571
- ISSN
- 2333-3936 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6174650
- OpenAlex
- W2895681440
- Semantic Scholar
- 0abeb749241c853e9ed8c953201a9129c4b82195
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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 › Nursing › Research and Theory › 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
