Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory

被引:1352
作者
Starks, Helene [1 ]
Trinidad, Susan Brown
机构
[1] Univ Washington, Dept Med Hist & Eth, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[2] Univ Washington, Dept Hlth Serv, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
关键词
qualitative methods; phenomenology; discourse analysis; grounded theory;
D O I
10.1177/1049732307307031
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
The purpose of this article is to compare three qualitative approaches that can be used in health research: phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. The authors include a model that summarizes similarities and differences among the approaches, with attention to their historical development, goals, methods, audience, and products. They then illustrate how these approaches differ by applying them to the same data set. The goal in phenomenology is to study how people make meaning of their lived experience; discourse analysis examines how language is used to accomplish personal, social, and political projects; and grounded theory develops explanatory theories of basic social processes studied in context. The authors argue that by familiarizing themselves with the origins and details of these approaches, researchers can make better matches between their research question(s) and the goals and products of the study.
引用
收藏
页码:1372 / 1380
页数:9
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]   Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue [J].
Angen, MJ .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2000, 10 (03) :378-395
[2]  
[Anonymous], HEALTH MATRIX
[3]   Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis [J].
Ayres, L ;
Kavanaugh, K ;
Knafl, KA .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2003, 13 (06) :871-883
[4]   Screening for prostate cancer: Recommendation and rationale [J].
Berg, AO ;
Allan, JD ;
Frame, P ;
Homer, CJ ;
Johnson, MS ;
Klein, JD ;
Lieu, TA ;
Mulrow, CD ;
Orleans, CT ;
Peipert, JF ;
Pender, NJ ;
Siu, AL ;
Teutsch, SM ;
Westhoff, C ;
Woolf, SH .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 137 (11) :915-916
[5]  
Blumer H., 1986, SYMB INTERACT
[6]   Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems [J].
Briss, P ;
Rimer, B ;
Reilley, B ;
Coates, RC ;
Lee, NC ;
Mullen, P ;
Corso, P ;
Hutchinson, AB ;
Hiatt, R ;
Kerner, J ;
George, P ;
White, C ;
Gandhi, N ;
Saraiya, M ;
Breslow, R ;
Isham, G ;
Teutsch, SM ;
Hinman, AR ;
Lawrence, R .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2004, 26 (01) :67-80
[7]  
Chandler D., 2002, Semiotics: The basics
[8]  
Creswell J.W., 2008, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, V2nd
[9]   The power of the word: some post-structural considerations of qualitative approaches in nursing research [J].
Crowe, M .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 1998, 28 (02) :339-344
[10]   Reconsidering reflexivity: Introducing the case for intellectual entrepreneurship [J].
Cutcliffe, JR .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2003, 13 (01) :136-148