Phenomenology and grounded theory
In this assessment, I will compare phenomenology and grounded theory. The two are the most common approaches to qualitative research used by nurses. Even though there are differences between the two, they also have much in common.
Similarities
Both phenomenology and grounded theory take an interpretivist approach whereby, a researcher seeks to examine real-life situations and as a result, require a high level of interaction between the researcher and the participant, situations, or groups being examined either through observations or interviews. Moreover, the two approaches seek to collect as well as scrutinize data from participants’ views and attempt to make sure their findings are not biased. They achieve this by often involving participants in data examination to ensure that the data can be trusted by any source. In brief, the two approaches seek to explore people’s encounters in the context of the worlds they live in.
Differences
Phenomenology developed from philosophy, mainly influenced by Martin Heidegger and Edmund Husserl. The approach seeks to explore and describe encounters, which can only be achieved by collecting data from persons who have lived through such encounters. Also, phenomenologists refer often refer to the lived encounter and in such an occasion, data is limited to interviews. On the contrary, the findings are reported as a good description of the experience primarily drawing on the characteristics identified during the research.
On the other hand, the grounded theory emerged from sociology and was influenced by Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser as a qualitative approach to describe and explain the phenomenon under study. Unlike in the phenomenology approach, the theory seeks to include any data source that may contribute to theory development. The main technique applied in this technique is interviews but other methods such as diaries, past literature, and observations are also used. Moreover, the researchers compare all data gathered with other data for contradictory cases, and this may challenge the developing theory but ultimately strengthen it. This method of theoretical sampling is complex and data collection, as well as analysis, can be quite challenging.