基础理论中的理论敏感性和反身性。

IF 1 Q3 NURSING
Adam Hughes, Wilfred McSherry
{"title":"基础理论中的理论敏感性和反身性。","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":47412,"journal":{"name":"Nurse Researcher","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":47412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nurse Researcher\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nurse Researcher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2024.e1936\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nurse Researcher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2024.e1936","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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。
Theoretical sensitivity and reflexivity in grounded theory.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nurse Researcher
Nurse Researcher NURSING-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Additionally, the website provides a range of Internet links to the latest research news, conference information, jobs and grants, and other resources. We hope that this site becomes an invaluable interactive resource for both novice and experienced researchers. If you have any comments or suggestions to improve the site, or details of additional websites that could be usefully added, please let us know. We very much welcome your ideas so that we can provide the kind of online resource that will best help you to develop your 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