پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات

پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات

فراترکیب نشانگان سنجش کیفیت مطالعات روش نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
خاتون علی پور 1
کیوان صالحی 2
سیده فاطمه زارع شیخکلائی 1
1 دانشجوی دکتری برنامه ریزی درسی، گروه روشها و برنامه ریزی آموزشی و درسی، دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
2 دانشیار سنجش آموزش، بخش تخصصی پژوهش و سنجش، دانشکده روان شناسی و علوم تربیتی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران .
10.22034/jipm.2025.2058465.2000
چکیده
استفاده از روش نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها، زمینه‌ای را برای ترویج علم و ارتقای دانش در سطوحی از تحلیل‌ها و پاسخ‌ به سؤال‌ها فراهم می‌کند که دامنه‌ای از مفهوم‌پردازی تا توسعه نظریه‌ها را شامل می‌شود. مشاهدۀ منابع معتبر علمی داخلی و خارجی حاکی از آن است که سالانه پژوهش‌های گسترده‌ای با روش نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها در مراکز آموزش عالی انجام می‌گیرد؛ اما پژوهشگران در کاربرد آن دچار اشتباه می‌شوند و تاکنون نظام نشانگرهای سنجش کیفیت این مطالعات به‌صورت فراترکیب تدوین و معرفی نشده است. نباید در سنجش کیفیت این روش تعلل نمود؛ زیرا نه‌فقط در حوزه‌های نظری بلکه در حوزه‌های عملی کاربرد دارد و زندگی انسان‌ها را تحت تأثیر قرار می‌دهد. از‌این‌رو، در مطالعۀ حاضر تلاش گردید با استفاده از روش فراترکیب و هفت گام «سندولوسکی و باروسو» نشانگان سنجش کیفیت مطالعات روش نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها شناسایی و معرفی شود. تمام منابع انگلیسی‌ از قبیل کتاب، رساله و مقالات علمی-پژوهشی‌ که متن آنها به‌صورت تمام‌متن قابل ‌دسترسی بود، انتخاب شد. برای بررسی نظام‌مند متون در نرم‌افزار 8 PoP پایگاه معتبر علمی Scopus و موتور کاوش GoogleScolar و در بازۀ زمانی 2019 تا 2025 جست‌وجو شد و بر اساس ملاک‌های مختلف، از بین 2262 منبع، 21 منبع برای مطالعۀ فراترکیب انتخاب گردید. برای اعتباریابی از CASP و ضریب کاپا و نظر فرد متخصص استفاده شد. 831 نشانگان اولیه شناسایی شد که در قالب 34 زیرملاک و 20 ملاک اصلی دسته‌بندی شدند. یافته‌ها عبارت‌اند از: وضوح هدف؛ آگاهی محقق (تخصص در تحقیق و پژوهش کیفی، داشتن اطلاعات فراشناختی، درک نظری و عملی، هوشیاری و حساسیت)؛ احساس نسبت به موضوع؛ اشتیاق؛ خلاقیت و انعطاف‌پذیری؛ تمایل محقق؛ داشتن دیدگاه تفسیری، تحلیلی و انتقادی و همچنین مهارت‌های ارتباطی؛ اعتمادبه‌نفس، اخلاق پژوهشی؛ ثبات روش‌شناختی (انسجام، وضوح و تبیین، منطقی)؛ کفایت روش؛ حساسیت و دقت روشی؛ قدرت تبیین و توجیه مفاهیم و نظریه تولیدشده؛ و همچنین تغییر مداوم بدون دخالت پیش‌فرض‌ها و بازتاب‌پذیری مفاهیم و نظریه تولیدشده از داده‌ها؛ عمق و غنا و پیچیدگی در مفهوم و مفهوم‌سازی؛ جدید و به‌روز بودن؛ و صرفه‌جویی و ایجاز در متن و جذاب و خلاقانه بودن. یافته‌ها را می‌توان در چندین بُعد مقدماتی، بُعد مرتبط با محقق، بُعد روش‌شناختی، بُعد دسته‌بندی یافته‌ها و بُعد متنی و فنی دسته‌بندی کرد و توصیه می‌شود که پژوهشگران از آنها برای پژوهش‌های خود در کیفیت‌سنجی روش نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها در طرح سیستماتیک استفاده کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
کیفیت‌سنجی مطالعات نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها
رواسازی روش داده‌بنیاد
ملاک سنجش کیفیت نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها
گراندد تئوری
طرح سیستماتیک نظریه برخاسته از داده‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Metasynthesis of Quality Assessment Indicators of Studies Using the Grounded Theory Method

نویسندگان English

Khatoon Alipour 1
Keyvan Salehi 2
Sayyedeh Fatemeh Zare Sheikhkalai 1
1 PhD student in Curriculum Studies, Department of Methods, Educational Planning and Curriculum, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Educational Assessment, Division of Research and Assessment, Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Grounded theory is a prominent research method in qualitative studies. This method enables researchers to conceptualize, identify problems, theorize about the studied phenomena, generalize findings, and disseminate knowledge. Despite its widespread acceptance, many researchers misunderstand and misapply grounded theory, so that impacts the quality of their studies. Neglecting the indicators for assessing the quality of grounded theory is detrimental, particularly as it applies to practical fields. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on quality assessment indicators to ensure the correct application of grounded theory. This systematic approach's structured design offers greater clarity in quality assessment. This study adopts a qualitative approach with a meta-synthesis method conducted across seven steps as outlined by Sandelowski and Barroso. The research aims to answer the question: what indicators assess the quality of studies employing grounded theory methodology (systematic design)? The study reviews all accessible full-text English-language resources, including books, dissertations, and scientific articles. Using reputable databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar between 2019 and 2025, 21 sources were selected from an initial pool of 2,262 based on specific criteria. For validation, the research utilized the CASP framework, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, and expert judgment.
831 initial indicators were identified categorized into 34 sub-criteria and 20 main criteria.
The findings include: clarity of purpose; researcher awareness (expertise in qualitative research and investigation, having metacognitive information, theoretical and practical understanding, alertness and sensitivity); feeling for the subject; enthusiasm; creativity and flexibility; researcher's willingness; having an interpretive, analytical and critical perspective as well as communication skills; self-confidence, research ethics; methodological stability (coherence, clarity and explanation, logical); method adequacy; methodological sensitivity and precision; the power to explain and justify the concepts and theory produced; as well as continuous change without the interference of assumptions and the reflectivity of the concepts and theory produced from the data; depth, richness and complexity in the concept and conceptualization, being new and up-to-date; economy and brevity in the text and being attractive and creative.
The findings section of this study can be categorized into several dimensions. These dimensions include: introductory, researcher, method, categorization and reporting of findings, textual, and technical. In the introductory dimension, the criterion of clarity of purpose and its related symptoms are included, criteria and symptoms such as awareness, alertness, and research expertise of the researcher in which the role of the researcher is prominent, in the researcher dimension, the criterion of stability of the method and its related symptoms, in the method dimension, criteria such as explanatory power and justifiability, and novelty and relevance that imply the production of a concept or theory, in the dimension of generating a theory from data, and finally criteria such as brevity or attractiveness can be included under the textual and technical dimension. It is suggested that researchers pay attention to the findings of this study when using the grounded theory method to improve the quality of their studies. They should set criteria for clarity of purpose, role of the researcher, method, generation of concepts and theories from data, and criteria related to the textual and technical dimensions of the report as a basis for conducting and evaluating studies conducted using this method. This will allow us to witness an increasing improvement in the quality of these studies.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Quality Assessment of Grounded Theory Studies
Validating Grounded Theory Methodology
Quality Assessment Criteria for Grounded Theory
Systematic Grounded Theory
فهرست منابع
اسماعیلی، مریم، مهوش صلصالی، و محمدعلی چراغی. 1392. کیفیت در مطالعات گراندد تئوری. تحقیقات کیفی در علوم سلامت 2 (3): 287-296. https://sid.ir/paper/215398/fa
بازرگان، عباس. 1399. مقدمه‌ای بر روش‌های تحقیق کیفی و آمیخته؛ رویکردهای متداول در علوم رفتاری. تهران: دیدار.
خاکی، غلامرضا. 1392. روش تحقیق با رویکرد گراندد تئوری در پایان‌نامه نویسی. تهران: توحید دانش.
صفائی موحد، سعید. 1400. گراندد تئوری (نظریه داده بنیاد): مبانی نظری، رویکردها و رویه‌های اجرایی. تهران: دیدآور.
فراستخواه، مقصود. 1395. روش تحقیق کیفی در علوم اجتماعی با تأکید بر نظریه برپایه (گراندد تئوری GTM). تهران: انتشارات آگاه.
قربانخانی، مهدی و کیوان صالحی. 1399. رهیافتی پدیدارشناسانه در واکاوی موانع خلق دانش در علوم انسانی برپایه ادراک و تجربه زیسته نخبگان و فرهیختگان دانشگاهی. فصلنامه علمی پژوهشی راهبرد فرهنگ 13 (52): 75-110. https://doi.org/ 10.22034/jsfc.2021.126583
محمدی، بیوک. 1390. اصول تحقیق کیفی روش. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
References:
 
Alammar, F. M. A. Intezari, A. Cardow, & D. J. Pauleen. 2019. Grounded theory in practice: Novice researchers’ choice between Straussian and Glaserian. Journal of Management Inquiry 28 (2): 228-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618770743
Babchuk, W. & E. Boswell. 2023. Grounded theory. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Fourth Edition, pp. 107–122). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11013-9
Bazargan, A. 2020. Introduction to Qualitative and Mixed Research Methods; Common Approaches in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Didar. [In Persian]
Birks, M., & J. Mills. 2022. Grounded theory: A practical guide (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brunet, J. J. Price, & C. Harris. 2022. Body image in women diagnosed with breast cancer: A grounded theory study. Body Image, 41: 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.04.012
Bryant, A. & K. Charmaz. (Eds). 2019. The SAGE handbook of current developments in grounded theory.          Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bryant, A. 2021. Continual permutations of misunderstanding: The curious incidents of the grounded theory method. Qualitative Inquiry, 27 (3-4): 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420920663
Cahyadi, S. E. H. 2023. Building theory using classical grounded theory. Tasikmalaya: Langgam Pustaka.
Charmaz, K. & R. Thornberg. 2021. The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology 18 (3): 305-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1801379
Conlon, C., V. Timonen, C, Elliott-O’Dare, S. O’Keeffe, & G Foley. 2020. Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health Research 30 (6): 947-959. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319899139
Connor, J., T. Flenady, T. Dwyer, & D. Massey. 2023. Application of classic grounded theory in nursing studies: A qualitative systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 13 (7): e068588. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-068588
Corbin, J. 2021. Strauss’s grounded theory. In J. M. Morse et al. (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation revisited (pp. 25-44). New York  : Routledge.
Costa, I. G. & Schoales, C. 2022. Conducting grounded theory studies in times of pandemic: Challenges, benefits, and practical strategies. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 10, e561. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.10.2022.e561
Decker, S., W. M.  Foster, & E. Giovannoni. (Eds). 2023. Handbook of historical methods for management. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Esmaeili, M., M. Salsali, & M. A. Cheraghi. 2020. Quality in grounded theory studies. Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences 2 (3): 287-296. (accessed Nov.13, 2023) [In Persian]
Farasatkhah, M. 2016. Qualitative research methods in social sciences with an emphasis on grounded theory. Tehran: Agah Publications. [In Persian]
Ghorbankhani, M., and K. Salehi. 2021. A Phenomenological Approach to the Study of Obstacles of Creation of Knowledge in Humanities Based on the Perception and Lived Experience of the University Elites and Scholars. Strategy for Culture 13 (52): 75-110. https://doi.org/ 10.22034/jsfc.2021.126583 (accessed Nov. 26, 2023)   [In Persian]
Glaser, B. G. 2014. Choosing grounded theory. The Grounded Theory Review 13 (2): 3-19. https://www.groundedtheoryreview.com/ (accessed Dec. 1, 2023)
Grodal, S., M. Anteby, & A. L. Holm. 2021. Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review 46 (3): 591-612. https://doi.org//10.5465/amr.2018.0482
Hadi Cahyadi, S. E. 2023. Building theory using classical grounded theory. Tasikmalaya: Langgam Pustaka.
Hayes, N. 2021. Doing Psychological Research (2nd ed).  UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
Jantunen, M. 2025. Integration of artificial intelligence ethics into software engineering processes: Challenges, concerns, and opportunities (JYU Dissertations).URL: https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-86-0580-5 (accessed Nov. 13, 2023)
Khaki, G. 2013. Research methods based on grounded theory in writing thesis. Tehran: Fujan. [In Persian]
Koleva, P. 2023. Critical analysis of grounded theory strategy in organisational and management research. Qualitative Research Journal 23 (3): 258-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-08-2022-0118
Leite, F. 2023. Teorizar com a Grounded Theory: Um caminho metodológico para as pesquisas em comunicação. MATRIZes 17 (1): 165-192. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-8160.v17i1p165-192
Ludvigsen, M. S., E. O. Hall, G. Meyer, L. Fegran, H. Aagaard, & L. Uhrenfeldt. 2016. Using Sandelowski and Barroso’s meta-synthesis method in advancing qualitative evidence. Qualitative health research 26 (3): 320-329. https://10.1177/1049732315576493 (accessed  Nov. 13, 2023)
Maupa, H. & Z. Abidin. 2020. Grounded theory in management research: A literature review. American International Journal of Business Management 3 (12): 21-26. Retrieved from https://www.aijbm.com/grounded-theory-in-management-research-a-literature-review/  (accessed Nov. 17, 2023)  
McCall, C. & C. Edwards. 2021. New perspectives for implementing grounded theory. Studies in Engineering Education 1 (2): 93-197.
McCann, T. & M. Polacsek. 2023. Understanding, choosing and applying grounded theory: Part 1. Nurse Researcher 31 (2). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2018.e1592
Mohajan, D. & H. Mohajan. 2022. Classic grounded theory: a qualitative research on human behavior. Journal of Economic Development, Environment, and People 12 (1): 72-81. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/115789/ (accessed Nov. 29, 2023)
Mohammadi, B. 2011. Principles of qualitative research methods. Tehran: Research Institute for Humanity and Cultural Studies. [In Persian]
Morse, J. M. B. J. Bowers, A. E. Clarke,  K. Charma, J. Corbin & C. J. Porr. 2021. The maturation of grounded theory. In J. M. Morse et al. (Eds.), Developing grounded theory (pp. 3-22). New York: Routledge.
Nathaniel, A. K. 2022. When and how to use extant literature in classic grounded theory. American Journal of Qualitative Research 6 (2): 45-59. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/12441
Niasse, N. 2023. Limiting misleading ideas about the history of grounded theory methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221149486
Ogundipe, T. V. 2021. Competency maturing: A substantive theory of how senior information systems undergraduates develop their existing competencies and acquire additional competencies within an organic learning environment. International Journal of Management and Applied Science 7 (1): 34-38.
Osterud, K. L. 2024. Quality in critical realist qualitative research. In Critical realism for health and social research (pp. 105-121).  New Youk: Routledge.
Polacsek, M., G. Boardman, & T. McCann. 2018. Understanding, choosing and applying grounded theory: Part 2. Nurse researcher 26 (3). https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2018.e1593
Pratt, M. G., S. Kaplan, & R. Whittington. 2020. Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly 65 (1): 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663
Ravitch, S. M. & N. M. Carl. 2019. Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. LA. Ca: SAGE Publications.
Rieger, K. L. 2018. Discriminating among grounded theory approaches. Nursing Inquiry, 26(1), e12261. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12261
Saedi-Pour, E. 2016. Research methods in psychology and educational sciences 2. Tehran: Doran Publications. [In Persian]
Safai-Movahhed, S. 2021. Grounded theory (data-based theory): Theoretical foundations, approaches, and executive procedures. Tehran: Did Avar. [In Persian]
Sandelowski, M. & J. Barroso. 2007. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Sandelowski, M. 2012. Metasynthesis of qualitative research. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 19–36). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-002
Savin-Baden, M. & C. H. Major. 2023. Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice.  ?: Taylor & Francis.
Sebastian, K. 2019. Distinguishing between the strains of grounded theory: Classical, interpretive, and constructivist. Journal for Social Thought 3 (1): 50-64.
Tarozzi, M. 2020. What is grounded theory? New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Timonen, V., G. Foley, & C. Conlon. 2018. Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic introduction to doing GT research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918758086
Verdecchia, R., P. Kruchten, P. Lago, & I. Malavolta. 2021. Building and evaluating a theory of architectural technical debt in software-intensive systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 176, 110925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2020.110925
Weed, M. 2009. Research quality considerations for grounded theory research in sport & exercise psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10 (5): 502-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.007
White, R. E. & K. Cooper. 2022. Grounded theory. In Qualitative research in the post-modern era: Critical approaches and selected methodologies (pp. 339-385). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
 

  • تاریخ دریافت 07 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 21 خرداد 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 26 خرداد 1404