Revisiting Symbolic Interactionism as a Theoretical Framework Beyond the Grounded Theory Tradition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tight bond between grounded theory (GT) and symbolic interactionism (SI) is well known within the qualitative health research field. We aimed to disentangle this connection through critical reflection on the conditions under which it might add value as an underpinning to studies outside the GT tradition. Drawing on an examination of the central tenets of SI, we illustrate with a field study using interpretive description as methodology how SI can be applied as a theoretical lens through which layers of socially constructed meaning can help surface the subjective world of patients. We demonstrate how SI can function as a powerful framework for human health behavior research through its capacity to orient questions, inform design options, and refine analytic directions. We conclude that using SI as a lens can serve as a translation mechanism in our quest to interpret the subjective world underlying patients' health and illness behavior.
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 | 0.110 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".