Hi All, I'm doing research on access to HIV treatment in resource poor settings. Does anyone know the difference between Grounded theory, narrative analysis, thematic analysis and interpretive phenomenological analysis?

Not quite sure why this is a poll! What you need is a book on qualitative research - loads to choose from but I particularly like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Qualitative-Inquiry-Research-Design-Traditions/dp/0761901442/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

The best book to get on this is Cassell and Symon - it actually tells you how to do them, rather than just what they are.

http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Qualitative-Methods-Organizational-Research/dp/0761948872/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225210418&sr=1-1

You can look at large sections of this book on amazon and google books if you don't want to buy it!

I love the following:

Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goes through what they are, how to decide which method is most appropriate and how to do it.

I do access to service research and I use phenomenology, specifically IPA but the choice basically comes down to what kind of question you want to ask. I'm interested in the experience of accessing care so IPA was really the only option for me. When developing questionnaires I used thematic analysis. If I was interested in understanding the meaning of living with a chronic illness I'd use narrative.

Good luck!

Here are two useful online resources:

http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/what_is_qda.php

http://www.trentrdsu.org.uk/resources_resource_qualitative.html

Here's one for Grounded Theory:

http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html

This book is really good for Thematic Analysis:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transforming-Qualitative-Information-Thematic-Development/dp/0761909613

This site is good for Conversational Analysis:

http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssca1/sitemenu.htm

A simple key word search of these terms in Google or Google Scholar will give you plenty of material on this stuff.

Grounded Theory is a good way of detecting patterns in your data, basically analysing data 'without' a theory, allowing the theory to emerge from the data itself. Bit of a paradox that one, but anyway. Thematic analysis is developing a set of themes/patterns which say something about your data (and builds on nicely from Grounded Theory approach). Conversational Analysis is good for thinking about interview transcripts - turn-taking, power in discourse, etc.

Here is a really good resource on a type of thematic analysis:

http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/research/template_analysis/

Thanks very much for the resources. I'm really wondering about the difference between GT and TA. I've read some of the books recommended. With Grounded Theory (GT) and inductive thematic analysis (TA) i think the researcher builds on themes grounded in the data.  I think GT is iterative as analysis and data collection is done concurrently and GT has the open, axial and selective coding which is not in TA. Also GT aims to develop theory from the data which TA does not claim to do. GT is also tied to symbolic interactionistic theoretical perspective while TA is not tied to any epistemology or theory. With phenomenology the researcher is looking for the essence or meaning of the data from the participants perspective but in GT one is using the participants experience to explain a basic social process. Phenomenology also has some roots with symbolic interactionism but epouses epoch, where the researcher brackets what he/she knows about the phenomenon and reveals only what the participants mean about the phenomenon being studied. In conversation analysis the researcher is interested in the communication dynamics between the interveiwer and the interviewee. I'm still trying to read what narrative analysis is all about. If you have different thoughts or additions, i'll be grateful to have them.

If you end up doing TA I recommend using Nvivo.

Just be very very careful. Traditionally grounded theory proposed that theories should be born entirely out of data and as such no literature review should be performed. I assume that is not your plan and that you will be reading some literature before you start. The iterative process in grounded theory is called the "constant comparative method" and this is where your constantly seek to recruit more participants in order to reach data saturation and compare themes throughout all transcripts. Many journals incorrectly say they have used grounded theory when in fact they have use a constant comparative method. Just be wary of what you call it because if you have a grounded theorist on your viva panel they may pick you up on it.



I can't really get my head around narrative but it is al to do with how the experience fits in to the individuals life and how they tell stories and folk stories etc to understand it all. think that's right anyway.

Lots to say, most said below...but two things: why IS this a poll? and second, what does the poll mean?

======= Date Modified 30 Oct 2008 13:54:31 =======
Thanks A116 and all, This is partly in response to A116's comment about doing a literature review.I'm thinking of using the constructionist version of GT. Glaser and Strauss first designed the methodology in 1967 with the 'discovery of grounded theory'. Glaser prosposes that it is an objective method with the researcher playing a passive role in developing theory from the data. The themes are supposed to 'emerge' from the data.

Strauss later parted ways with Glaser and teamed up with Corbin. They co-authored the 'basics of qualitative research;techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. This provoked a verocious attack by Glaser who authored Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs forcing. In His book he accuses Strauss and Corbin of developing a new methodology and forcing theory from the data through their prescription of the 'coding paradigm'. Student of strauss suggest that He espouses a symbolic interactionist approach in his version of GT analysis.

Charmaz, herself a student of both Glaser and Struass proposes a constructionist version of grounded theory in her book 'constructionist grounded theory' She suggests that the researcher in not passive but actively involved in constructing knowledge from the data. The data itself is a social construction of reality as percieved by the participants whose experiences are being studied.

In the constructionist version a preliminary literature review is permitted to increase knowledge base, identify gaps in the theoretical literature that the proposed research will filll and also pass through ethics and research committee requirements. With GT review of preliminary and secondary literature also constitute part of the data being analysed and continues even during data collection.


I think i ticked on the poll box by mistake. Does anyone know how to remove it? Thanks everyone for your comments

Ah Koturu.

You sound like an expert!!! You'll be absolutely fine. I just wanted to press the issue because I've had lecturers stress the importance of the language you use in qualitative. But you sound like you know all the historical perspectives back to front!

I just like to giggle at all the fallings out between some very heavy weight academics.

A

Hi, thematic analysis is classically really hard to find information about. This paper (link below) is really good at overcoming the lack of info available in text books as well as explaining why ta is so hard to find info on.
http://science.uwe.ac.uk/psychology/drvictoriaclarke_files/thematicanalysis%20.pdf

Whichever method you choose good luck with it!

Grounded theory begins without a theoretical/conceptual framework, this is then derived throughout data analysis. Narratives are the idea of 'story telling' as an interview method. Phenomenological/interpretive are both broader qualitative terms, definitions are readily available in any good text.

Oh, Schouten 1991 is an excellent example of thematic analysis using both a priori and emergent themes. The context is cosmetic surgery, self concept, identity.