The Case for Integrating Grounded Theory and Participatory Action Research: Empowering Clients to Inform Professional Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded theory and participatory action research methods are distinct approaches to qualitative inquiry. Although grounded theory has been conceptualized in constructivist terms, it has elements of positivist thinking with an image of neutral search for objective truth through rigorous data collection and analysis. Participatory action research is based on a critique of this image and calls for more inclusive research processes. It questions the possibility of objective social sciences and aspires to engage people actively in all stages of generating knowledge. The authors applied both approaches in a project designed to explore the experiences of female survivors of childhood sexual abuse with physical therapy and subsequently develop a handbook on sensitive practice for clinicians that takes into consideration the needs and perspectives of these clients. Building on this experience, they argue that the integration of grounded theory and participatory action research can empower clients to inform professional practice.
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 | 0.289 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.066 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".