Constructivist Grounded Theory or Interpretive Phenomenology? Methodological Choices Within Specific Study Contexts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constructivist research methodologies are useful in discerning meanings of experience to subsequently inform and improve healthcare practice. For researchers who philosophically align with the constructivist paradigm, numerous methodologies are available from which to choose to address research questions. However, it can be challenging for researchers, especially novice ones, to choose the most appropriate methodology that aligns with the current state of knowledge of the identified topic, proposed research question, and the study purpose. To reduce the confusion faced by health researchers when choosing an appropriate methodology for a specific study, this paper compares two popular qualitative health research approaches: constructivist grounded theory and interpretive phenomenology. Philosophical underpinnings and the epistemological and ontological evolution of each methodology are explored with similarities and differences highlighted. Manifestation of the philosophical foundations of constructivist grounded theory and interpretive phenomenology are described in relation to data collection, analysis, and the research findings. To illustrate distinctions of each approach and support researchers in the navigation of methodological decision-making, a specific healthcare study context is presented: the rural family members’ experiences of a relative’s interhospital transfer for advanced critical care services. This study context is increasingly being recognized as an important area of healthcare research and practice. However, gaps in knowledge persist, specifically in relation to the experiences of rural family members when a critically ill relative requires an interhospital transfer to a distant urban center for advanced critical care services. Improved understanding of such experiences is necessary to inform the care provided to rural family members, potentially mitigating short and long-term negative consequences for these individuals. Within this example, the importance of the research purpose and research question within a specific study context is underscored as central to appropriate methodological decision-making.
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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it