{"title":"媒体评论:用混合方法推进扎根理论","authors":"Gregory Hadley","doi":"10.1177/15586898221083765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fifty years ago, Glaser and Strauss (1967/1999, p. 18) wrote that both qualitative and quantitative data could be used in the grounded theory methodology (GTM)—a point punctuated by Glaser (1978) later when explaining, “There are no limits to the techniques of data collection, the way they are used, or the types of data required” (p. 158). The problem is that Glaser, Strauss, and other early grounded theorists focused primarily on qualitative data analysis in their instructional texts. This early branding of GTM as qualitative in nature has led to a growing interest in what is often called Mixed Methods Grounded Theory Methodology (MM-GTM). However, while increasing numbers of researchers claim to have used MM-GTM over the past 10 years, Guetterman et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis of 61 MM-GTM studies find that few “draw upon all or even most of the major features of grounded theory” (p. 188). It is out of the fog of this current confusion that Elizabeth Creamer emerges with her book entitled Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods.","PeriodicalId":47844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mixed Methods Research","volume":"58 2","pages":"381 - 383"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Media Review: Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods\",\"authors\":\"Gregory Hadley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15586898221083765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Fifty years ago, Glaser and Strauss (1967/1999, p. 18) wrote that both qualitative and quantitative data could be used in the grounded theory methodology (GTM)—a point punctuated by Glaser (1978) later when explaining, “There are no limits to the techniques of data collection, the way they are used, or the types of data required” (p. 158). The problem is that Glaser, Strauss, and other early grounded theorists focused primarily on qualitative data analysis in their instructional texts. This early branding of GTM as qualitative in nature has led to a growing interest in what is often called Mixed Methods Grounded Theory Methodology (MM-GTM). However, while increasing numbers of researchers claim to have used MM-GTM over the past 10 years, Guetterman et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis of 61 MM-GTM studies find that few “draw upon all or even most of the major features of grounded theory” (p. 188). It is out of the fog of this current confusion that Elizabeth Creamer emerges with her book entitled Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"volume\":\"58 2\",\"pages\":\"381 - 383\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221083765\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mixed Methods Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221083765","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
50年前,格拉泽和斯特劳斯(1967/1999,第18页)写道,定性和定量数据都可以用于基础理论方法论(GTM)——格拉泽(1978)后来解释道,“数据收集技术、使用方式或所需数据类型没有限制”(第158页)。问题是,格拉泽、施特劳斯和其他早期的理论家在他们的教学文本中主要关注定性数据分析。GTM的这种早期定性品牌已经引起了人们对通常被称为混合方法基础理论方法论(MM-GTM)的兴趣。然而,尽管越来越多的研究人员声称在过去10年中使用了MM-GTM,但Guetterman等人(2019)对61项MM-GTM研究的荟萃分析发现,很少有人“利用了基础理论的全部甚至大部分主要特征”(第188页)。伊丽莎白·克雷默(Elizabeth Creamer)的《用混合方法推进基础理论》(Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods)一书正是从当前的困惑中走出来的。
Media Review: Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods
Fifty years ago, Glaser and Strauss (1967/1999, p. 18) wrote that both qualitative and quantitative data could be used in the grounded theory methodology (GTM)—a point punctuated by Glaser (1978) later when explaining, “There are no limits to the techniques of data collection, the way they are used, or the types of data required” (p. 158). The problem is that Glaser, Strauss, and other early grounded theorists focused primarily on qualitative data analysis in their instructional texts. This early branding of GTM as qualitative in nature has led to a growing interest in what is often called Mixed Methods Grounded Theory Methodology (MM-GTM). However, while increasing numbers of researchers claim to have used MM-GTM over the past 10 years, Guetterman et al.’s (2019) meta-analysis of 61 MM-GTM studies find that few “draw upon all or even most of the major features of grounded theory” (p. 188). It is out of the fog of this current confusion that Elizabeth Creamer emerges with her book entitled Advancing Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Mixed Methods Research serves as a premiere outlet for ground-breaking and seminal work in the field of mixed methods research. Of primary importance will be building an international and multidisciplinary community of mixed methods researchers. The journal''s scope includes exploring a global terminology and nomenclature for mixed methods research, delineating where mixed methods research may be used most effectively, creating the paradigmatic and philosophical foundations for mixed methods research, illuminating design and procedure issues, and determining the logistics of conducting mixed methods research. JMMR invites articles from a wide variety of international perspectives, including academics and practitioners from psychology, sociology, education, evaluation, health sciences, geography, communication, management, family studies, marketing, social work, and other related disciplines across the social, behavioral, and human sciences.