Empirical and pragmatic adequacy of grounded theory: Advancing nurse empowerment theory for nurses' practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To draw on the findings of a grounded theory study aimed at exploring how power is exercised in nurse-manager relationships in the hospital setting, this paper examines the empirical and pragmatic adequacy of grounded theory as a methodology to advance the concept of empowerment in the area of nursing leadership and management. BACKGROUND: The evidence on staff nurse empowerment has highlighted the magnitude of individual and organisational outcomes, but has not fully explicated the micro-level processes underlying how power is exercised, shared or created within the nurse-manager relationship. Although grounded theory is a widely adopted nursing research methodology, it remains less used in nursing leadership because of the dominance of quantitative approaches to research. Grounded theory methodology provides the empirical and pragmatic relevance to inform nursing practice and policy. Grounded theory is a relevant qualitative approach to use in leadership research as it provides a fine and detailed analysis of the process underlying complexity and bureaucracy. DESIGN: Discursive paper. METHOD: A critical examination of the empirical and pragmatic relevance of grounded theory by (Corbin & Strauss, , ) as a method for analysing and solving problems in nurses' practice is provided. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides evidence to support the empirical and pragmatic adequacy of grounded theory methodology. Although the application of the ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions of grounded theory is challenging, this methodology is useful to address real-life problems in nursing practice by developing theoretical explanations of nurse empowerment, or lack thereof, in the workplace. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Grounded theory represents a relevant methodology to inform nursing leadership research. Grounded theory is anchored in the reality of practice. The strength of grounded theory is to provide results that can be readily applied to clinical practice and policy as they arise from problems that affect practice and that are meaningful to nurses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".