N. Holt, Kurtis Pankow, I. Ormond, Helene Jørgensen, Colin J. Deal, Shannon R. Pynn
{"title":"扎根理论","authors":"N. Holt, Kurtis Pankow, I. Ormond, Helene Jørgensen, Colin J. Deal, Shannon R. Pynn","doi":"10.1080/1750984X.2022.2028305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purposes of this paper were to (a) describe and assess the use of grounded theory methodology (GTM) in sport psychology over the past 11 years and (b) provide some guidance for best practices moving forward. Following a brief summary of the history of GTM, we present the results of a rapid review of seven sport psychology journals from 2009 to 2021. A total of 35 articles that made claims regarding the use of GTM as a methodology were retained. The retained articles were assessed using 11 criteria. Overall, the methodological completeness of GTM studies in sport psychology appears to have improved over the past decade. Twenty-two of the 35 articles met all, or all but one, of the criteria. Thirteen articles did not meet two or more of the criteria. In terms of areas for improvement, the least widely reported procedures were theoretical sampling (reported in 22 of 35 studies), theoretical saturation (22 of 35 studies), and assessment of theory (22 of 35 studies). Furthermore, the sophisticated positioning of theoretical sensitivity was sometimes lacking in the articles. We discuss ways in which researchers can increase the conceptual and theoretical sophistication of methodologically sound GTM studies.","PeriodicalId":47658,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology","volume":"15 1","pages":"199 - 225"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grounded theory\",\"authors\":\"N. Holt, Kurtis Pankow, I. Ormond, Helene Jørgensen, Colin J. Deal, Shannon R. Pynn\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1750984X.2022.2028305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The purposes of this paper were to (a) describe and assess the use of grounded theory methodology (GTM) in sport psychology over the past 11 years and (b) provide some guidance for best practices moving forward. Following a brief summary of the history of GTM, we present the results of a rapid review of seven sport psychology journals from 2009 to 2021. A total of 35 articles that made claims regarding the use of GTM as a methodology were retained. The retained articles were assessed using 11 criteria. Overall, the methodological completeness of GTM studies in sport psychology appears to have improved over the past decade. Twenty-two of the 35 articles met all, or all but one, of the criteria. Thirteen articles did not meet two or more of the criteria. In terms of areas for improvement, the least widely reported procedures were theoretical sampling (reported in 22 of 35 studies), theoretical saturation (22 of 35 studies), and assessment of theory (22 of 35 studies). Furthermore, the sophisticated positioning of theoretical sensitivity was sometimes lacking in the articles. We discuss ways in which researchers can increase the conceptual and theoretical sophistication of methodologically sound GTM studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47658,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"199 - 225\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2022.2028305\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2022.2028305","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT The purposes of this paper were to (a) describe and assess the use of grounded theory methodology (GTM) in sport psychology over the past 11 years and (b) provide some guidance for best practices moving forward. Following a brief summary of the history of GTM, we present the results of a rapid review of seven sport psychology journals from 2009 to 2021. A total of 35 articles that made claims regarding the use of GTM as a methodology were retained. The retained articles were assessed using 11 criteria. Overall, the methodological completeness of GTM studies in sport psychology appears to have improved over the past decade. Twenty-two of the 35 articles met all, or all but one, of the criteria. Thirteen articles did not meet two or more of the criteria. In terms of areas for improvement, the least widely reported procedures were theoretical sampling (reported in 22 of 35 studies), theoretical saturation (22 of 35 studies), and assessment of theory (22 of 35 studies). Furthermore, the sophisticated positioning of theoretical sensitivity was sometimes lacking in the articles. We discuss ways in which researchers can increase the conceptual and theoretical sophistication of methodologically sound GTM studies.
期刊介绍:
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology is the first scholarly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes critical reviews of research literature in sport and exercise psychology. Typically, these reviews evaluate relevant conceptual and methodological issues in the field and provide a critique of the strengths and weaknesses of empirical studies that address common themes or hypotheses. The reviews present summaries of, and conclusions about, the current state of knowledge concerning topics of interest, as well as assessments of relevant unresolved issues and future trends. Reviews of research literature on theories, topics and issues that are at the interface with mainstream psychology are especially welcome.