Grounded theory and phenomenology are the most common approaches to

qualitative research used by nurses. Although there are differences between the
two, they have much in common.

Both methods look at real life situations

Phenomenologists collate data from individuals and describe their experiences
Grounded theorists compare and analyse data from many sources
Neither method will suit all studies
Similarities

Both take an interpretivist approach in which the researcher seeks to explore reallife situations, and require a high degree of interaction between the researcher and
the individual, groups or situations being examined; this usually takes the form of
interviews and/or observations. Both grounded theorists and phenomenologists
seek to collect and analyse data from participants perspectives and try to ensure
their findings are not influenced by preconceived ideas. To achieve this they often
involve participants in data analysis to increase the trustworthiness of the findings.
In brief, grounded theorists and phenomenologists both seek to explore individuals
experiences in the context of the worlds in which they live.

Because both approaches have so much in common it can sometimes be difficult to

differentiate between them. The distinction might not be important for those
reading qualitative research, but it is for those undertaking it. A good starting point
is to consider the philosophical and theoretical bases of the two methodologies and
their influence on how research is undertaken.

Differences

Phenomenology emerged from philosophy, primarily influenced by Edmund Husserl

and Martin Heidegger; it aims to describe and explore experiences, which can only
be done by collecting data from individuals who have lived through those
experiences. Hence phenomenologists often refer to the lived experience and
data is often limited to interviews, while findings are reported as a rich description
of the experience drawing on characteristics identified during data analysis.

Grounded theory developed in sociology and was first described by Barney Glaser
and Anselm Strauss as a qualitative methodological approach in which the aim was

to generate a grounded theory to describe and explain the phenomenon under

study. Unlike phenomenologists, grounded theorists seek to include all data sources
that might contribute to theory development. Interviews are commonly used but
they might also include observations, diaries, images, past literature and research.
Using a technique described as constant comparison, they compare all the data
collected with all other data look for contradictory cases, which might challenge the
emerging theory but will ultimately strengthen it. This complex process of
theoretical sampling, data collection and analysis can be extremely challenging.

2. Grounded Theory and Phenomenology

2.1 Similarities

GT and phenomenology both start methodologically with data-collection and

generally share a descriptive approach. Both deal initially with unstructured data
that undergoes continuous refinement and both crystallize central themes. GT and
phenomenology are emergent strategies.

2.2 Differences
Phenomenology investigates phenomena of lived experiences in this world (Van
Manen,
1990), whereby GT is thematically open. Phenomenology strives to capture the
essence of individual experience inclusive of what and how participants have
experienced it (Moustakas, 1994). This differs from the goal of logically explaining
the phenomena in GT. Phenomenology is interpreting experiences whereby GT
extracts themes from data.
The bracketing-out of the researchers own experience to avoid bias is a major
concern in
phenomenology (Crewell, p.78) whereby GT is taking an objectified stance between
researcher and data. Types of data in GT can be broad while in phenomenology the
predominant data collection is by in-depth interviews (although observation or
documents are equally valid). Using interviews, a phenomenologist keeps centered
on eliciting experiences whereby a grounded theorist may move on to other data
collection methods, or structured interviews, to saturate emerging categories.
(Wimpenny & Gass, 2000, p.1491)

Conclusion

The main advantages of GT lie in its clearly structured approach and open
accountability of process. One could however question if, strictly speaking, inductive
reliable knowledge is epistemologically possible since even the most carefully
collected data is permeable towards normative implications, interests, bias and
salient collective beliefs. This renders the idea of phenomenological bracketing
highly attractive. Thomas and James (2006) ask what we miss or dismiss if we
continue to use GT, which appears counter-intuitive to common sense and dismisses
the validity and import of peoples account (Thomas & James, p. 790). Second
generation Grounded Theorist Kathy Charmaz answers implicitly to this critique
since she advocates a constructivist approach (Charmaz, 2008) allowing for multiple
realities to be accounted for, inclusive of phenomenology. Justified compatibility
rather than exclusivity seem to pave the way of future research approaches
(Thomas, 2012).