The Process of Conducting Qualitative Grounded Theory Research for a Doctoral Thesis: Experiences and Reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author offers her experiences as an example of the application of a grounded theory approach in qualitative research. She describes, in detail, her experiences of the process of collecting, analyzing, and storing data for her doctoral thesis. She focuses on the special challenges of employing a qualitative methodology to developing a conceptual framework. The substantive area in which the study took place was at a hospital-based occupational health clinic for professional artists. Various stakeholders involved in the clinic participated in in-depth individual interviews and focus groups to explore how the concept of integrative health care (IHC) is understood both in theory and in practice at the clinic.
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 | 0.220 | 0.251 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".