MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292634372 · doi:10.36367/ntqr.10.2022.e561

Conducting Grounded Theory Studies in Times of Pandemic: Challenges, Benefits, and Practical Strategies

2022· article· en· W4292634372 on OpenAlexaff
Idevânia G. Costa, Catherine Schoales

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Trends in Qualitative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHealthcare during COVID-19 Pandemic
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryOperationalizationData collectionQualitative researchProcess (computing)SociologyComputer scienceKnowledge managementEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this chapter is to provide researchers with knowledge of the challenges and benefits of moving to virtual platforms to conduct grounded theory studies during the Covid-19 pandemic era and beyond. An overview of grounded theory will be discussed highlighting interviews as the backbone of data collection for this methodology and the need to create a realistic research plan to implement the many steps the research process and document the challenges of this process during pandemic. Implementing qualitative research, including grounded theory studies in times of pandemic has not been an easy task, therefore, leading to a change in the research environment and operationalization of the well-established methods. To this regard, (qualitative) researchers were forced to adapt to virtual methods while trying to preserve the high quality and methodological rigorous of their studies. Thus, before embarking in a grounded theory study, it is important to examine the pros and cons of using online strategies to be able to make decisions related to participants’ recruitment, data collection through interviews and field notes. This chapter also provides practical strategies for scholars to implement grounded theory studies by using virtual platforms and describe the authors personal experiences in developing and supervising grounded theory studies by highlighting the challenges and benefits to both study’s participants and researchers. As the pandemic endures, it is important that researchers are aware of alternative methods for operationalizing their studies and ways of overcoming the challenges of doing recruitment and data collection through virtual means. The authors will conclude by recommending that rather than become worried about the quality of data obtained from an online interview, researchers reflect on the impact that it may have had on capturing the essence of the processes (phenomena) being studied and highlight the need of including the challenges and limitations of the study in the final report. Keywords: qualitative studies; grounded theory; data collection; recruitment; virtual platforms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.805
GPT teacher head0.642
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Trends in Qualitative ResearchSame topicHealthcare during COVID-19 PandemicFrench-language works237,207