Grounded theory in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 70
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative research in general and the grounded theory approach in particular, have become increasingly prominent in medical education research in recent years. In this Guide, we first provide a historical perspective on the origin and evolution of grounded theory. We then outline the principles underlying the grounded theory approach and the procedures for doing a grounded theory study, illustrating these elements with real examples. Next, we address key critiques of grounded theory, which continue to shape how the method is perceived and used. Finally, pitfalls and controversies in grounded theory research are examined to provide a balanced view of both the potential and the challenges of this approach. This Guide aims to assist researchers new to grounded theory to approach their studies in a disciplined and rigorous fashion, to challenge experienced researchers to reflect on their assumptions, and to arm readers of medical education research with an approach to critically appraising the quality of grounded theory studies.
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 | 0.070 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.021 |
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".