Grounded Theory in Genetic Counseling Research: An Interpretive Perspective
- PDF / 717,508 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 11 Downloads / 206 Views
THEORY BASED ARTICLE
Grounded Theory in Genetic Counseling Research: An Interpretive Perspective Robin E. Grubs & Maria Piantanida
Received: 25 February 2009 / Accepted: 15 October 2009 / Published online: 2 February 2010 # National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2009
Abstract As qualitative inquiry has gained wider acceptance in genetic counseling research, it has become increasingly important for researchers and those who evaluate their work to recognize the diversity of methods that fall under this broad umbrella. Some of these methods adhere to the traditional conventions of scientific research (e.g., objectivity, reliability, validity, replicability, causality and generalizability). When such studies are evaluated by reviewers who are well versed in scientific methods, the rigor of the study may be readily apparent. However, when researchers are using methods that do not conform to traditional scientific conventions, the distinction between well conducted and poorly conducted studies may become more difficult to discern. This article focuses on grounded theory because it is a widely used qualitative method. We highlight key components of this method in order to contrast conventions that fall within a scientific paradigm to those that fall within an interpretivist paradigm. The intent is to illustrate how the conventions within these two different paradigms yield different types of knowledge claims—both of which can advance genetic counseling theory and practice. R. E. Grubs (*) Department of Human Genetics, The University of Pittsburgh, A300 Crabtree Hall, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. Piantanida School of Education, The University of Pittsburgh, 230 South Bouquet Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Keywords Genetic counseling . Qualitative research . Grounded theory . Post-positivism . Interpretivism . Coding . Memoing . Theoretical saturation . Theoretical sensitivity . Text
Introduction The catalyst for this article is a dilemma posed by Beeson over a decade ago. In arguing that qualitative research methods can provide more nuanced insights into the complexities of genetic counseling practice, Beeson (1997) observed that such methods: . . . may not be well understood by reviewers trained in clinical research, although it is much closer to what many physical scientists actually do. This is one of the points at which qualitative grant writers often compromise in their presentations to funders and reviewers. You will have to make a strategic decision depending on your own level of comfort with some of the assumptions of the interpretive/constructivist paradigm, and the advice and assistance of your methodological consultant(s). (p. 35) We concur with Beeson’s observation that qualitative research methods may not be well understood, but see the suggestion to compromise one’s language as problematic. Doing so would be analogous to asking football referees to use only the language of baseball to judge action on the gridiron. Just as the langu
Data Loading...
