Theoretical sensitivity and reflexivity in grounded theory.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Adam Hughes, Wilfred McSherry
{"title":"Theoretical sensitivity and reflexivity in grounded theory.","authors":"Adam Hughes, Wilfred McSherry","doi":"10.7748/nr.2024.e1936","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Grounded theory (GT) has become one of the foremost tools in qualitative nursing research. There are different approaches to GT but a feature common to all of them is theoretical sensitivity, which facilitates GT's iterative process. However, differences between the approaches in how to apply theoretical sensitivity and how much influence existing knowledge should play have contributed to tribalism.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To critically evaluate the role of theoretical sensitivity and reflexivity in GT and the involvement they can have, as well as explore what steps researchers can take to improve their insight.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Theoretical sensitivity enables researchers to steer their studies to answer their research questions, gain insight into their study's findings and develop theory grounded in the data. However, reflection is required for researchers to understand their effect on the theories that emerge, prevent them from applying preconceived ideas and allow for the unfettered emergence of theory.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Researchers who do not demonstrate insight into their own philosophical positions and influences risk being accused of bias; this may result in the perceived value of their theoretical outcomes being reduced. Applying a reflexive process may mitigate this, enabling them to understand and refine their methodological processes and produce high-quality GT research.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>All researchers should consider using reflexivity when conducting research. Understanding influences and positionality in qualitative methodologies allows for transparency and improves the rigour of their outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2024.e1936","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Grounded theory (GT) has become one of the foremost tools in qualitative nursing research. There are different approaches to GT but a feature common to all of them is theoretical sensitivity, which facilitates GT's iterative process. However, differences between the approaches in how to apply theoretical sensitivity and how much influence existing knowledge should play have contributed to tribalism.

Aim: To critically evaluate the role of theoretical sensitivity and reflexivity in GT and the involvement they can have, as well as explore what steps researchers can take to improve their insight.

Discussion: Theoretical sensitivity enables researchers to steer their studies to answer their research questions, gain insight into their study's findings and develop theory grounded in the data. However, reflection is required for researchers to understand their effect on the theories that emerge, prevent them from applying preconceived ideas and allow for the unfettered emergence of theory.

Conclusion: Researchers who do not demonstrate insight into their own philosophical positions and influences risk being accused of bias; this may result in the perceived value of their theoretical outcomes being reduced. Applying a reflexive process may mitigate this, enabling them to understand and refine their methodological processes and produce high-quality GT research.

Implications for practice: All researchers should consider using reflexivity when conducting research. Understanding influences and positionality in qualitative methodologies allows for transparency and improves the rigour of their outcomes.

基础理论中的理论敏感性和反身性。
背景:基础理论(GT)已成为护理定性研究中最重要的工具之一。基础理论有不同的方法,但所有方法的一个共同特点是理论敏感性,这有助于基础理论的迭代过程。目的:批判性地评估理论敏感性和反思性在 GT 中的作用及其可能产生的影响,并探讨研究人员可以采取哪些措施来提高他们的洞察力:理论敏感性使研究人员能够指导他们的研究,以回答他们的研究问题,深入了解他们的研究结果,并发展以数据为基础的理论。然而,研究人员需要进行反思,以了解自己对所产生的理论的影响,防止他们应用先入为主的想法,并允许理论自由地产生:结论:研究人员如果不能洞察自己的哲学立场和影响,就有可能被指责存在偏见;这可能会降低其理论成果的认知价值。运用反思过程可能会缓解这种情况,使他们能够理解和完善自己的方法论过程,并开展高质量的 GT 研究:所有研究人员在开展研究时都应考虑使用反身性。对实践的启示:所有研究人员在开展研究时都应考虑使用反身性,了解定性方法中的影响因素和立场,从而提高研究的透明度和成果的严谨性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信