Search

Aim In this paper, the choice of classic grounded theory will be discussed and justified in the context of the first author's PhD research. Background The methodological discussion takes place within the context of PhD research entitled: Development of a stakeholder-led framework for a structured education programme that will prepare nurses and healthcare assistants to deliver a psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. There is a lack of research and limited understanding of the effect of psychosocial interventions on people with dementia. The first author thought classic grounded theory a suitable research methodology to investigate as it is held to be ideal for areas of research where there is little understanding of the social processes at work. Data sources The literature relating to the practical application of classic grounded theory is illustrated using examples relating to four key grounded theory components: Theory development: using constant comparison and memoing. Methodological rigour. Emergence of a core category. Inclusion of self and engagement with participants. Discussion Following discussion of the choice and application of classic grounded theory, this paper explores the need for researchers to visit and understand the various grounded theory options. Conclusion This paper argues that researchers new to grounded theory must be familiar with and understand the various options. The researchers will then be able to apply the methodologies they choose consistently and critically. Doing so will allow them to develop theory rigorously and they will ultimately be able to better defend their final methodological destinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The decision to use grounded theory is not an easy one and this article aims to illustrate and explore the methodological complexity and decision-making process. It explores the decision making of one researcher in the first two years of a grounded theory PhD study looking at the psychosocial training needs of nurses and healthcare assistants working with people with dementia in residential care. It aims to map out three different approaches to grounded theory: classic, Straussian and constructivist. Background In nursing research, grounded theory is often referred to but it is not always well understood. This confusion is due in part to the history of grounded theory methodology, which is one of development and divergent approaches. Common elements across grounded theory approaches are briefly outlined, along with the key differences of the divergent approaches. Data sources Methodological literature pertaining to the three chosen grounded theory approaches is considered and presented to illustrate the options and support the choice made. Discussion The process of deciding on classical grounded theory as the version best suited to this research is presented. The methodological and personal factors that directed the decision are outlined. The relative strengths of Straussian and constructivist grounded theories are reviewed. Conclusion All three grounded theory approaches considered offer the researcher a structured, rigorous methodology, but researchers need to understand their choices and make those choices based on a range of methodological and personal factors. In the second article, the final methodological decision will be outlined and its research application described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental illness is the number one health issue facing 14-25 year olds in England, which contributes to almost half the burden of disease in this age group ( Kessler et al 2005 , Kim-Cohen et al 2003 ). A total of 75% of all mental health disorders are established by the age of 18 which is a critical point of emotional, educational and social development. All nurses working with children and young people (CYP) across all health and social care settings should be familiar with national guidelines and the services available to treat CYP with mental health conditions such as depression.