Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

The Diabetes Educator

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Qualitative Health Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Starks, H.
Right arrow Articles by Brown Trinidad, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Starks, H.
Right arrow Articles by Brown Trinidad, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Choose Your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory

Helene Starks

University of Washington

Susan Brown Trinidad

University of Washington

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.

Key Words: qualitative methods • phenomenology • discourse analysis • grounded theory

References

  • Angen, M.J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378-395.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K.A. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 871-883.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Blumer, H. (1986). Symbolic interactionism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Briss, P., Rimer, B., Reilley, B., Coates, R.C., Lee, N.C., Mullen, P., et al. (2004). Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 26(1), 67-80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge.
  • Creswell, J.W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Crowe, M. (1998). The power of the word: Some post-structural considerations of qualitative approaches in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28, 339-344.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Cutcliffe, J.R. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 1476-1484.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Cutcliffe, J.R. (2003). Reconsidering reflexivity: Introducing the case for intellectual entrepreneurship. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 136-148.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 279-289.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Dey, I. ( 1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Finlay, L. (2002). "Outing" the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 531-545.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Gearing, R.E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1429-1452.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Gee, J.P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  • Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Resources Information Center Annual Review Paper, 29, 75-91.
  • Hayakawa, S.I., & Hayakawa, A. (1991). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
  • Hermanowicz, J.C. (2002). The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qualitative Sociology, 25(4), 479-499.
  • Jeon, Y.H. (2004). The application of grounded theory and symbolic interactionism. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18(3), 249-256.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Lyons, J. (1971). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Morse, J.M., & Field, P.A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Morse, J.M. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 3-5.[Free Full Text]
  • Morse, J.M. 2001). Using shadowed data. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 291-292.[Free Full Text]
  • President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1982). Making health care decisions: The ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Preventive Services Task Force. (2002). Screening for prostate cancer: Recommendation and rationale. Annals of Internal Medicine, 137(11), 915-916.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Pyett, P.M. (2003). Validation of qualitative research in the "real world." Qualitative Health Research, 13, 1170-1179.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Rimer, B.K., Briss, P.A., Zeller, P.K., Chan, E.C., & Woolf, S.H. (2004). Informed decision making: What is its role in cancer screening? Cancer, 101(5 Suppl.), 1214-1228.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 905-923.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Schiffren, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.). (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  • Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stewart, D., & Mickunas, A. (1974). Exploring phenomenology: A guide to the field and its literature. Chicago: American Library Association.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • van Manen, M. (2000). Scholars. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www.phenomenologyonline.com/scholars/scholars.html
  • Whittemore, R., Chase, S.K., & Mandle, C.L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522-537.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 17, No. 10, 1372-1380 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1049732307307031
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Qual Health ResHome page
O. Horne and E. Csipke
From Feeling Too Little and Too Much, to Feeling More and Less? A Nonparadoxical Theory of the Functions of Self-Harm
Qual Health Res, May 1, 2009; 19(5): 655 - 667.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Starks, H.
Right arrow Articles by Brown Trinidad, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Starks, H.
Right arrow Articles by Brown Trinidad, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?