مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

video

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

sound

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Persian Version

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

View:

473
مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Download:

256
مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

ADOPTING CONSTRUCTIVIST VERSUS OBJECTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY IN HEALTH CARE RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE

Pages

  100-104

Abstract

 Background & aim: GROUNDED THEORY has taken some different theoretical perspectives since its creation in 1967 by Barney Glaser. Considering that applying GROUNDED THEORY partly depends on an awareness of its philosophical perspectives, gaining knowledge about these various perspectives is required for health care professionals who are interested in studying the social processes. This review was conducted to provide an understanding of the evolution of philosophical backgrounds of GROUNDED THEORY.Methods: Relevant literature focused on constructivist or objectivist GROUNDED THEORY were retrieved from MEDLINE, ISI and Scopus databases, bibliographies of obtained articles as well as related books. The identified data were critically reviewed from the viewpoint of the different types of philosophical backgrounds of GROUNDED THEORY approach.Results: GROUNDED THEORY has two different perspectives. Objectivist GROUNDED THEORY is rooted in post-positivist epistemology; whereas constructivist GROUNDED THEORY has its roots in an interpretive tradition and relativism. The Glaserian approach is an objectivist GROUNDED THEORY and based on etic position, where the researcher is separate from and looks at the social realities. However, the Straussian approach is a constructivist GROUNDED THEORY and based on emic position, where the researchers co-construct the data through adopting a position of mutuality and partnership between participant and researcher and create the theory of a social process using their own perspectives, values, privileges, interactions and understanding of the social realities.Conclusion: Adopting an appropriate GROUNDED THEORY approach by health care professionals depends on understanding of the philosophical foundations of the social processes and structures.

Cites

  • No record.

    • References

  • No record.

    • Cite

    APA: Copy

    TAGHIPOUR, ALI. (2014). ADOPTING CONSTRUCTIVIST VERSUS OBJECTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY IN HEALTH CARE RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, 2(2), 100-104. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/341448/en

    Vancouver: Copy

    TAGHIPOUR ALI. ADOPTING CONSTRUCTIVIST VERSUS OBJECTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY IN HEALTH CARE RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH[Internet]. 2014;2(2):100-104. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/341448/en

    IEEE: Copy

    ALI TAGHIPOUR, “ADOPTING CONSTRUCTIVIST VERSUS OBJECTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY IN HEALTH CARE RESEARCH: A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE,” JOURNAL OF MIDWIFERY & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 100–104, 2014, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/341448/en

    Related Journal Papers

  • No record.

    • Related Seminar Papers

  • No record.

    • Related Plans

  • No record.

    • Recommended Workshops






    Move to top
    telegram sharing button
    whatsapp sharing button
    linkedin sharing button
    twitter sharing button
    email sharing button
    email sharing button
    email sharing button
    sharethis sharing button