title: A discussion of differences in preparation, performance and postreflections in participant observations within two grounded theory approaches.
abstract: This paper presents a discussion of the differences in using participant observation as a data collection method by comparing the classic grounded theory methodology of Barney Glaser with the constructivist grounded theory methodology by Kathy Charmaz. Participant observations allow nursing researchers to experience activities and interactions directly in situ. However, using participant observations as a data collection method can be done in many ways, depending on the chosen grounded theory methodology, and may produce different results. This discussion shows that how the differences between using participant observations in classic and constructivist grounded theory can be considerable and that grounded theory researchers should adhere to the method descriptions of performing participant observations according to the selected grounded theory methodology to enhance the quality of research.
authors.affiliation: Orthopaedic Department, Regional Hospital of Zealand, Køge, Denmark.|Section of Nursing, Institute of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
authors.forename: Connie Bøttcher
authors.initials: CB
authors.lastname: Berthelsen
authors.affiliation: Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
authors.forename: Tove
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Lindhardt
authors.affiliation: Section of Nursing, Institute of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
authors.forename: Kirsten
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Frederiksen
mesh_terms: D000883:Anthropology; D066296:Grounded Theory; D006801:Humans
keywords: Charmaz; Glaser; classic; constructivist; data collection; grounded theory; method; methodology; participant observations