Top

Published in:

01-04-2010 | Theory Based Article

Grounded Theory in Genetic Counseling Research: An Interpretive Perspective

Authors: Robin E. Grubs, Maria Piantanida

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 2/2010

Abstract

As qualitative inquiry has gained wider acceptance in genetic counseling research, it has become increasingly important for researchers and those who evaluate their work to recognize the diversity of methods that fall under this broad umbrella. Some of these methods adhere to the traditional conventions of scientific research (e.g., objectivity, reliability, validity, replicability, causality and generalizability). When such studies are evaluated by reviewers who are well versed in scientific methods, the rigor of the study may be readily apparent. However, when researchers are using methods that do not conform to traditional scientific conventions, the distinction between well conducted and poorly conducted studies may become more difficult to discern. This article focuses on grounded theory because it is a widely used qualitative method. We highlight key components of this method in order to contrast conventions that fall within a scientific paradigm to those that fall within an interpretivist paradigm. The intent is to illustrate how the conventions within these two different paradigms yield different types of knowledge claims—both of which can advance genetic counseling theory and practice.

Available only for authorised users

We are using the term “scientific research” as the descriptor for a set of assumptions rooted in the philosophical tradition of positivism and, more recently, post-positivism. In this tradition, the hallmarks of legitimate research are seen to be objectivity, reliability, validity, replicability, causality, and generalizability. We use the term “interpretive research” as the descriptor for an alternative philosophical tradition that sees knowledge as socially constructed within historical, cultural, and political contexts. We recognize that this is an oversimplification of the descriptors, the philosophical traditions, and the debates about what constitutes scientific knowledge. More nuanced discussions of various research traditions may be found in Barone 1995; deMarrais and LeCompte 1999; Eisner 1997; Lather 2004; Paul 2005; Schwandt 2003, 2007

For those who want to read more about these various perspectives on grounded theory please see the following references: Annells 1996; Charmaz 1994, 2000, 2006; Corbin and Strauss 1990; Corbin 1998; Glaser 1992, 1994, 1998; Piantanida et al. 2004; Rennie 2006; Stern 1994; Strauss and Corbin 1990, 1994, 1998.

“Heuristics are conceptual devices (e.g., principles, guidelines, typologies, models, hypotheses) depicting complex phenomena. As such, heuristics serve to further discourse and inquiry by offering coherent portrayals of phenomena. Heuristics are not claimed as verifiable accounts that correspond directly to an external, objective reality.” (Piantanida et al. 2004)

We speculate that such mixed messages contributes in no small measure to concerns about the quality of grounded theory studies that have begun to appear in the literature. See, for example, Stern (1994).

For a more extensive discussion of issues surrounding the concept of “text” in interpretive research see: Atkinson 1990; Barthes 1979; Bazerman and Paradis 1991; Garman 2006; Gergen 1988; Piantanida and Garman 2009; Ricoeur 1981, 1991; Schwandt 1999; Tierney and Lincoln 1997.

Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and postmodernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 379–393.CrossRef

Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. New York: Routledge.

Barone, T. E. (1995). The purposes of arts-based educational research. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(2), 169–180.CrossRef

Barthes, R. (1979). From work to text. In J. Harari (Ed.), Textual strategies: Perspectives on post-structural criticism (pp. 73–82). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (Eds.). (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Beeson, D. (1997). Nuance, complexity, and context: qualitative methods in genetic counseling research. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 6(1), 21–43.PubMed

Bombard, Y., Penziner, E., Suchowersky, O., Guttman, M., Paulsen, J. S., Bottorff, J. L., et al. (2008). Engagement with genetic discrimination: concerns and experiences in the context of Huntington disease. European Journal of Human Genetics, 16(3), 279–289.PubMedCrossRef

Bruner, J. (1986). Acutal minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Charmaz, K. (1994). The grounded theory method: an explication and interpretation. In B. G. Glaser (Ed.), More grounded theory methodology: A reader (pp. 95–115). Mill Valley: Sociology.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Clarke, S., Butler, K., & Esplen, M. J. (2008). The phases of disclosing BRCA1/2 genetic information to offspring. Psychooncology, 17(8), 797–803.PubMedCrossRef

Corbin, J. M. (1998). Alternative interpretations: valid or not? Theory & Psychology, 8(1), 121–128.CrossRef

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRef

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

deMarrais, K. B., & LeCompte, M. (1999). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Eisner, E. W. (1997). The new frontier of qualitative research methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 249–273.CrossRef

Garman, N. B. (2006). Imagining an interpretive dissertation: voice, text, and representation. In N. B. Garman & M. Piantanida (Eds.), The authority to imagine: The struggle toward representation in dissertation writing (pp. 1–15). New York: Peter Lang.

Gergen, K. (1988). If persons are texts. In S. B. Messer, L. A. Sass & R. L. Woolfolk (Eds.), Hermeneutics and psychological theory (pp. 28–51). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Advances in the methodology of grounded theory: Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley: Sociology.

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology.

Glaser, B. G. (1994). More grounded theory methodology: A reader. Mill Valley: Sociology.

Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine Publishing Company.

Grubs, R. E. (2002). Living with shadows: Contextualizing the experience of being at-risk and reaching a decision about prenatal genetic testing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.

Hamilton, R. J., & Bowers, B. J. (2007). The theory of genetic vulnerability: a Roy model exemplar. Nursing Science Quarterly, 20(3), 254–264.PubMedCrossRef

Hamilton, R. J., Bowers, B. J., & Williams, J. K. (2005). Disclosing genetic test results to family members. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(1), 18–24.PubMedCrossRef

Hamilton, R., Williams, J. K., Bowers, B. J., & Calzone, K. (2009). Life trajectories, genetic testing, and risk reduction decisions in 18–39 year old women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(2), 147–159.PubMedCrossRef

Kessler, S. (2000). Psyche and Helix: Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Lather, P. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15–34.CrossRef

Lippman, A. (1999). Embodied knowledge and making sense of prenatal diagnosis. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 8(5), 255–274.PubMedCrossRef

Lippman-Hand, A., & Clarke Fraser, F. (1979a). Genetic counseling-the postcounseling period: I. Parents’ perceptions of uncertainty. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 4(1), 51–71.PubMedCrossRef

Lippman-Hand, A., & Clarke Fraser, F. (1979b). Genetic counseling—the postcounseling period: II. Making reproductive choices. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 4(1), 73–87.PubMedCrossRef

McAllister, M. F. (2001). Grounded theory in genetic counseling research. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10(3), 233–250.CrossRef

McAllister, M. F., Evans, D. G. R., Ormiston, W., & Daly, P. (1998). Men in breast cancer families: a preliminary qualitative study of awareness and experience. Journal of Medical Genetics, 35(9), 739–744.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

McAllister, M., Payne, K., Macleod, R., Nicholls, S., Donnai, D., & Davies, L. (2008a). Patient empowerment in clinical genetics services. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(7), 895–905.PubMedCrossRef

McAllister, M., Payne, K., Macleod, R., Nicholls, S., Donnai, D., & Davies, L. (2008b). What process attributes of clinical genetics services could maximise patient benefits? European Journal of Human Genetics, 16(12), 1467–1476.PubMedCrossRef

Newman, J. (1997). Religion and technology: A study in the philosophy of culture. Westport: Praeger.

Paul, J. L. (2005). Introduction to the philosophies of research and criticism in education and social sciences. Upper Saddles River: Prentice Hall.

Piantanida, M. (2008). Resonance. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encylopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Piantanida, M., & Garman, N. B. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Piantanida, M., Tananis, C. A., & Grubs, R. E. (2004). Generating grounded theory of/for educational practice: the journey of three epistemorphs. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(3), 325–346.CrossRef

Rennie, D. L. (2006). The grounded theory method: application of a variant of its procedure on constant comparative analysis to psychotherapy research. In C. T. Fischer (Ed.), Qualitative research methods for psychologists: Introduction through empirical studies (pp. 59–78). Boston: Elsevier.CrossRef

Resta, R. G. (2000). Preface. In R. G. Resta (Ed.), Psyche and helix: Psychological aspects of genetic counseling (pp. ix–xii). New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences (Vol. 21). Newbury Park: Sage.CrossRef

Ricoeur, P. (1981). The model of the text: meaningful action considered as text (J. B. Thompson, Trans.). In J. B. Thompson (Ed.), Hermeneutics and the human sciences (pp. 197–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Ricoeur, P. (1991). From text to action: Essays in hermeneutics II (K. Blarney & J. B. Thompson, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Schwandt, T. A. (1999). On understanding understanding. Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 451–464.CrossRef

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. (2003). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 292–331). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRef

Skirton, H. (2001). The client’s perspective of genetic counseling—a grounded theory study. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10(4), 311–329.PubMedCrossRef

Stern, P. N. (1994). Eroding grounded theory. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 212–223). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks: Sage.

Tierney, W. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1997). Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice. Albany: SUNY.

Veach, P. M., LeRoy, B. S., & Bartels, D. M. (2003). Facilitating the genetic counseling process: A practice manual. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.

Weil, J. (2000). Psychosocial genetic counseling. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Title: Grounded Theory in Genetic Counseling Research: An Interpretive Perspective
Authors: Robin E. Grubs
Maria Piantanida
Publication date: 01-04-2010
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-009-9270-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Grounded Theory in Genetic Counseling Research: An Interpretive Perspective

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome: Comparison of Screening Practices in the UK and USA

Doris Teichler Zallen, To Test or Not To Test: A Guide to Genetic Screening and Risk

Efficacy of the Health Belief Model for Predicting Intention to Pursue Genetic Testing for Colorectal Cancer

Women’s Perceptions of the Personal and Family Impact of Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment: Focus Group Findings

Caring for the Caregivers: An Investigation of Factors Related to Well-Being Among Parents Caring for a Child with Smith-Magenis Syndrome

Examining the Relationship Between Genetic Counselors’ Attitudes Toward Deaf People and the Genetic Counseling Session