Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Type of publication: Straipsnis / Article
Author(s): Marjan, Masoodi
Title: A comparative analysis of two qualitative methods: deciding between grounded theory and phenomenology for your research
Is part of: Vocational training: research and realities, 2017, no. 28, p. 23-40
Date: 2017
Keywords: Grounded theory;Phenomenology;Research method selection;Research methodology;Qualitative research
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to compare two qualitative approaches that can be used in different researches: phenomenology and grounded theory. This overview is done to (1) summarize similarities and differences between these two approaches, with attention to their historical development, goals, methods, audience, and products (2) familiarize the researchers with the origins and details of these approaches in the way that they can make better matches between their research question(s) and the goals and products of the study (3) discuss a brief outline of each methodology along with their origin, essence and procedural steps undertaken (4) illustrate how the procedures of data analysis (coding), theoretical memoing and sampling are applied to systematically generate a grounded theory (5) briefly examine the major challenges for utilizing two approaches in grounded theory, the Glaserian and Straussian. As a conclusion, this overview reveals that it is essential to ensure that the method matches the research question being asked, helps the researchers determine the suitability of their applied approach and provides a continues training for the novice researchers, especially PhD or research students who lack solid knowledge and background experience in multiple research methods.
Appears in Collections:Vocational Training: Research and Realities 2017, vol. 28, iss. 1

Files in This Item:
Show full item record
Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats
Export to Other Non-XML Formats

CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

checked on Jun 6, 2021


checked on Jun 6, 2021

Google ScholarTM


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons