Explore the vast range of titles available.

The grounded theory (GT) method is widely applied, yet frequently misunderstood. We outline the main variants of GT and dispel the most common myths associated with GT. We argue that the different variants of GT incorporate a core set of shared procedures that can be put to work by any researcher or team from their chosen ontological and epistemological perspective. This “shared core” of the GT method is articulated as the principles of (1) taking the word “grounded” seriously, (2) capturing and explaining context-related social processes, (3) pursuing theory through engagement with data, and (4) pursuing theory through theoretical sampling. In this article, we have put forward, in a nutshell, a distillation of core principles underpinning existing GT approaches that can aid further engagement with the different variants of GT. We are motivated by the wish to make GT more comprehensible and accessible, especially for researchers who are new to the method.

What continuities and contradictions can qualitative researchers discern among versions of the grounded theory method? How do contradictions within the method affect research practice? How do new versions of grounded theory advance research practice and critical inquiry? To answer these questions, this keynote address begins with a brief overview of grounded theory for those who are unfamiliar with the method and subsequently discusses the continuities and contradictions between versions of the method. Constructivist grounded theory (CGT) uses the methodological strategies of the original version but builds on its pragmatist heritage, shifts its epistemological foundations, and resolves contradictions in earlier versions of the method. The result means placing grounded theory in the social constructionist tradition, viewing data as co-constructed with research participants, puncturing deeply held methodological preconceptions, and subsequently fostering a heightened methodological self-consciousness. The practice of CGT assists researchers in interrogating their data, nascent analyses, research actions, and themselves each step along the way. Subsequently, researchers can gain awareness of the pervasiveness of Anglo-North American worldviews throughout inquiry. CGT not only aids theorizing and defining and developing emergent critical questions during the research process but also brings power into purview.

The most widely used qualitative research methodologies are grounded theory and phenomenology. Both methodologies have expanded over time to several adaptations aligning with different paradigms, complex philosophical assumptions, and varying methodological strategies. Novice researchers either mistakenly mix the strategies of both methodologies or blend specific assumptions of methodologies’ different adaptations. Choosing the appropriate methodology and the specific adaptation in line with research inquiry and congruent with the researchers’ worldview is crucial in undertaking rigorous qualitative study. To date, there is limited literature that compared and contrasted the varying philosophical underpinnings of the two methodologies’ different adaptations. The purpose of this methodological paper is to provide a general overview of the two methodologies’ different adaptations to illustrate how they differ in approach. By immersing into the origins, philosophical assumptions, and utility of the two methodologies’ adaptations, novice researchers will develop a general overview of the foundations that support those specific adaptations. Finally, the considerations in choosing a specific adaptation of a methodology are discussed and applied by underpinning a research question on the care experiences of patients in the Accountable Care Unit. Thus, this methodological paper may assist novice researchers in deciding which specific adaptation of the two methodologies is the appropriate qualitative methodology for their research.

Background Gender inequality and violence are not mutually exclusive phenomena but complex loops affecting each other. Women in Nepal face several inequalities and violence. The causes are diverse, but most of these results are due to socially assigned lower positioning of women. The hierarchies based on power make women face subordination and violence in Nepal. The study aims to explore participants' understanding and experience to identify the status of inequality for women and how violence emerges as one of its consequences. Furthermore, it explores the causes of sex trafficking as an example of an outcome of inequality and violence. Method The study formulated separate male and female groups using a purposive sampling method. The study used a multistage focus group discussion, where the same groups met at different intervals. Six focus group discussions, three times each with male and female groups, were conducted in a year. Thirty-six individuals, including sixteen males and twenty females, were involved in the discussions. The study used constructivist grounded theory for the data analysis. Results The study participants identify that a power play between men and women reinforce inequality and increases the likelihood of violence for women. The findings suggest that the subjugation of women occurs due to practices based on gender differences, constricted life opportunities, and internalization of constructed differences among women. The study identifies that interpersonal and socio-cultural violence can result due to established differences between men and women. Sex trafficking, as an example of the outcome of inequality and violence, occurs due to the disadvantageous position of women compounded by poverty and illiteracy. The study has developed a concept of power-play which is identified as a cause and consequence of women's subordination and violence. This power play is found operative at various levels with social approval for men to use violence and maintain/produce inequality. Conclusion The theoretical concept of power play shows that there are inequitable power relations between men and women. The male-centric socio-cultural norms and practices have endowed men with privilege, power, and an opportunity to exploit women. This lowers the status of women and the power-play help to produce and sustain inequality. The power-play exposes women to violence and manifests itself as one of the worst expressions used by men.

Grounded Theory (GT) is an innovative research methodology, consisting of three prevailing traditions: Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT. Despite arising from the same root, and sharing a number of the original methodological techniques, Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT have nevertheless diverged to such an extent that they are neither homogenous nor interchangeable methodologies. They are differentiated by contrasting philosophical frameworks and conflicting methodological directives. Through a careful analysis of the literature, the authors propose that the incongruity of the three GT traditions hinges on three principal and paramount demarcations: Firstly, their contending coding procedures; secondly, their opposing philosophical positions; and thirdly, their conflicting use of literature. The authors argue that these three areas of contention represent the quintessential distinction between the three GT traditions. Accordingly, this article will illustrate and contrast the contending coding conventions, uncover the underlying philosophical positions, and explore the contrasting uses of literature embedded within Classic, Straussian, and Constructivist GT.

The benefits of interdisciplinary research teams are well-known; however, there can be challenges due to differences in how disciplines approach knowledge construction. To better understand how interdisciplinary research teams navigate these differences in thinking, we used tools from ethnography to discover the cultural knowledge created and used by an engineering education research team and individuals on the team. We then used approaches from constructivist grounded theory to interpret these insights and transform them into a preliminary model of how interdisciplinary engineering education researchers navigate differences in thinking. This methodology paper outlines our process and the benefits of combining approaches from ethnography and constructivist grounded theory to simultaneously explore group culture and individual perceptions. We describe how and why we combined approaches from these two methodologies to develop our preliminary model. The aim of this paper is to provide an example of how qualitative researchers can be creative with their methodological approaches to comprehensively explore their social reality under investigation.

This article proposes a relational approach to architectural space that moves beyond typological frameworks, focusing on how spaces accommodate life-related relationalities grounded in lived spatial relations. Drawing on new materialist theories, it conceptualizes space as a domain interwoven with bodily, temporal, and affective relations. To articulate these intricate entanglements, an interdisciplinary methodology is employed that facilitates dialogue between cinematographic narratives and architectural spaces. The research is grounded in the specific context of the Büyük Abud Efendi Han, a historic commercial building located in Istanbul’s Eminönü district, an area still central to the city’s economic life. Despite its central location and spatial complexity, the Han remains invisible mainly in dominant architectural and urban narratives. Focusing on the 1986 film Yoksul, filmed entirely within this han, the study employs constructivist grounded theory to investigate how space accommodates multilayered and unexpected life-related relationalities. This process introduces two conceptual tools—Roles and Modes—that reveal the layered, dynamic, and non-fixed nature of spatial relationality. By tracing the intersections between life, narrative, and architectural space, the article contributes to rethinking architecture as a relational and narrative practice.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a comprehensive guide for novice researchers (mostly applicable to PhD students and those new to qualitative research), teachers, and reviewers of qualitative psychology research methods. This paper delineates the main quality criteria across qualitative methods: providing a holistic framework that covers fundamental principles as well as nuanced, context-specific guidelines relevant to a chosen qualitative approach. First, we demonstrate why this overview is needed, in part because of an increasing emphasis on finding sound ways of appraising qualitative studies, the lack of agreement on quality markers, and the variety of qualitative research methodologies available. Next, we present general criteria for quality across all qualitative methods, before setting out method specific criteria for four commonly used qualitative research approaches: Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA), Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), Critical Discursive Psychology/Discursive Psychology (CDP/DP) and Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT). While the focus is on providing criteria specific to these methodological approaches, we also describe the broader philosophical foundations underpinning these approaches and other branches within these philosophies, recognising that methodological criteria can be contrasting and competing even within methodologies. The integration of general and approach-specific criteria cultivates a deeper understanding of both the philosophical underpinnings and practical intricacies of qualitative inquiry, empowering researchers to navigate the methodological landscape with critical acumen and intellectual humility. Finally, we compare the four methodologies in terms of key features and qualities they aim to achieve. The paper emphasizes that even though there are criteria that are common across the field, it is essential to maintain the specific stance of each individual methodological approach.

Reflexivity as a concept and practice is widely recognized and acknowledged in qualitative social science research. In this article, through an account of the ‘reflexive moments’ I encountered during my doctoral research, which employed critical theory perspective and constructivist grounded theory methodology, I elaborate how ethics, methodology and theory construction are intertwined. Further, I dwell on the significance of reflexivity, particularly in qualitative research analysing bioethics concepts. Through an account of the universal ethical principles that ‘I’, as a researcher, encounter, and a micro-analysis of the observed relationships that influence the theoretical construction and arguments developed, I explore the quandaries an ethics researcher undertaking a reflexive approach faces. I elucidate that reflexivity unveils – for both researcher and reader – how the researcher(s) arrive(s) at certain positions during the knowledge construction process. I conclude by stating that reflexivity demystifies the moral and epistemological stances of both the study and researcher(s).

Background Although coordination of care and integrated care models aim to enhance patient satisfaction and perceived care quality, evidence regarding their practical implementation remains scarce. Understanding the nuances of collaboration across care providers to achieve effective coordination of care is imperative for seamless care integration. The aim of this study was to construct a grounded theory of how inter-organizational collaboration is performed to support coordination of care for patients with complex care needs. Methods A qualitative design with a constructivist grounded theory approach was applied. In total, 86 participants with diverse backgrounds were recruited across multiple care settings, including hospitals, ambulance services, primary care centers, municipal home healthcare and home care services. The grounded theory was developed iteratively, based on a combination of observations and interviews, and using constant comparative analysis. Results Coordination of care, a complex process that occurs across interconnected healthcare organizations, is manifested as “Negotiating care in organizational borderlands.” Care coordination evolves through a spectrum of inter-organizational collaboration, ranging from “Dividing care by disease-specific expertise” to “Establishing paths for collaboration” and ultimately “Co-constructing a comprehensive whole.” These categories highlight the challenges of coordinating care across both professional and organizational boundaries. In the multifaceted healthcare landscape, effective care coordination occurs when healthcare professionals actively bridge the divides, leveraging their collective expertise. Importantly, organizational boundaries may serve a purpose and should not be dissolved to facilitate effective care coordination. Conclusions The key to effective care coordination lies in robust inter-organizational collaboration. Even when patients receive integrated care, healthcare professionals may have fragmented roles. This research emphasizes the importance of clearly defined lines of accountability, reinforcing mutual responsibility and facilitating bridging of professional and organizational boundaries. Healthcare professionals and policymakers can use these insights to effectively utilize inter-organizational collaboration in supporting care coordination for patients with complex care needs.