Challenging convention: symbolic interactionism and grounded theory.
Not very much is written in the literature about decisions made by researchers and the justifications on method as a result of a particular clinical problem, together with an appropriate and congruent theoretical perspective, particularly for Glaserian grounded theory. I contend the utilisation of symbolic interactionism as a theoretical perspective to inform and guide the evolving research process and analysis of data when using classic or Glaserian grounded theory (GT) method, is not always appropriate. Within this article I offer an analysis of the key issues to be addressed when contemplating the use of Glaserian GT and the utilisation of an appropriate theoretical perspective, rather than accepting convention of symbolic interactionism (SI). The analysis became imperative in a study I conducted that sought to explore the concerns, adaptive behaviours, psychosocial processes and relevant interactions over a 12-month period, among newly diagnosed persons with end stage renal disease, dependent on haemodialysis in the home environment for survival. The reality of perception was central to the end product in the study. Human ethics approval was granted by six committees within New South Wales Health Department and one from a university.
Newman
Barbara
B
Sydney Adventist Hospital, 185 Fox Valley Road, Wahroonga, 2076 NSW, Australia. barbaran@sah.org.au
D006437:Hemodialysis, Home / Q000523:psychology; D006801:Humans; D007676:Kidney Failure, Chronic / Q000628:therapy; D015399:Nursing Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000379:methods; D009742:Nursing Theory; D036301:Qualitative Research; D012107:Research Design; D013561:Symbolism