Grounded Theory and Feminist Inquiry: Revitalizing Links to the Past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded theory has served feminist research endeavors since the mid-1990s. Researchers from a variety of disciplines claim methodological compatibility and incorporate feminist principles into their grounded theory studies. This article seeks to demonstrate the epistemological affinity between feminist inquiry and grounded theory. Although this relationship is not necessarily unique, the authors contend that when combined, it loosens the androcentric moorings of the empirical processes underpinning grounded theory, enabling the researchers to design inquiry with greater potential to reveal issues particular to the lives and experiences of marginalized women. The article begins by retracing the roots of grounded theory and feminist inquiry to identify six key areas where the underpinnings of GT are enriched by a feminist perspective when working with women. In addition, the authors draw on the literature and their experience from a 2005 study of peer support and lone mothers' health to demonstrate the advantages of combining these theoretical perspectives. Finally, the authors recommend that nurse researchers draw on feminist principles to guide their use of grounded theory to better serve the interests of women by surfacing issues of gender and power that influence the health experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.119 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.153 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".