An Empirical Appraisal of Canadian Doctoral Dissertations Using Grounded Theory: Implications for Social Work Research and Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded theory is a popular methodological approach in social work research, especially by doctoral students conducting qualitative research. The approach, however, is not always used consistently or as originally designed, compromising the quality of the research. The aim of the current study is to assess the quality of recent Canadian social work doctoral dissertations implementing a grounded theory approach. Our analysis is based on the premise that presentations of grounded theory approaches in doctoral dissertations impact the conduct of teaching and future research and have direct implications for the legitimacy of qualitative research. Using Saini and Shlonsky’s Qualitative Research Quality Checklist, the authors appraised dissertations in terms of credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability, authenticity, and relevance. The article concludes with implications regarding the quality of studies utilizing grounded theory approaches and consequences for future doctoral education and research.
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 | 0.127 | 0.316 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".