An Empirical Appraisal Of Canadian Doctoral Dissertations Using Grounded Theory Implications For Social Work Research And Teaching

An Empirical Appraisal of Canadian Doctoral Dissertations
Using Grounded Theory: Implications for Social Work
Research and Teaching
Morgan Braganzaa
, Bree Akesson a
, and David Rothwell b
a
Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada; b
College of Public Health
and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
ABSTRACT
Grounded theory is a popular methodological approach in
social work research, especially by doctoral students conduct-
ing qualitative research. The approach, however, is not always
used consistently or as originally designed, compromising the
quality of the research. The aim of the current study is to assess
the quality of recent Canadian social work doctoral disserta-
tions implementing a grounded theory approach. Our analysis
is based on the premise that presentations of grounded theory
approaches in doctoral dissertations impact the conduct of
teaching and future research and have direct implications for
the legitimacy of qualitative research. Using Saini and
Shlonsky’s Qualitative Research Quality Checklist, the authors
appraised dissertations in terms of credibility, dependability,
confirmability, transferability, authenticity, and relevance. The
article concludes with implications regarding the quality of
studies utilizing grounded theory approaches and conse-
quences for future doctoral education and research.
KEYWORDS
Canadian; doctoral
education; teaching research
First articulated by Glaser and Strauss (1967), grounded theory is one of the
most widely used and thoroughly described research approaches in the social
sciences, including social work (McKibbon & Gadd, 2004). A review of 248
Canadian social work doctoral dissertations found that of the 83% (n = 206)
dissertations coded as qualitative or mixed methods, 22% used grounded
theory (as compared to 26% qualitative description, 23% not classified, 12%
phenomenology, 5% ethnography, and 2% case study (Rothwell, Lach,
Blumenthal, & Akesson, 2015)). However, like other qualitative approaches,
such as phenomenology (Norlyk & Harder, 2010), grounded theory is not
always used consistently or as originally designed, potentially compromising
research quality.
The aim of this study is to appraise the quality of Canadian social work
doctoral dissertations that use a grounded theory approach to advance
debates on the quality of qualitative social work research. This article
CONTACT Bree Akesson bakesson@wlu.ca Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University, 120 Duke
Street West, Kitchener, Ontario N2H 3W8, Canada.
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2017.1386259
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

provides a review of elements of grounded theory research among Canadian
social work doctoral dissertations published between 2001 and 2011. To
appraise the quality of the dissertations, we used (Saini, 2011) the
Qualitative Research Quality Checklist (QRQC). The QRQC is a comprehen-
sive assessment tool designed to assess the quality of any qualitative approach
to research, such as ethnography and case study. It includes practical assess-
ments (e.g., around the articulation of the research question, number of
participants, ethical considerations), as well as epistemological considerations
in the research design (see Table 1). Our analysis is based on the premise that
presentations of empirically grounded theory approaches in doctoral disser-
tations have consequences for the teaching and conduct of research, as well
as direct implications for the legitimacy of qualitative research itself (Norlyk
& Harder, 2010). Our findings lead to a series of questions that have
implications for teaching, as well as use of grounded theory in qualitative
doctoral research. This process, however, raised more questions than answers
for social work teaching and pedagogy, and we offer them as points of
discussion for both methods courses and advising doctoral students.
We wish to emphasize that the motive for this article was to attempt to
assess the overall quality of grounded theory in social work doctoral disserta-
tions, clarify the challenges in conducting grounded theory research, and
provide steps to advance the practice of qualitative inquiry. In the Findings
Table 1. Elements of the Qualitative Research Quality Checklist.
Qualitative framework ● Research purpose and question
● Appropriateness of qualitative approach
Study setting ● Appropriateness and specificity of study setting
● Prolonged engagement
● Persistent observation
Study design ● Appropriateness of research design
Sampling procedures ● Sample selection
● Sample size and composition
Data collection ● Description of methods
● Consistency of methods
● Range of methods (triangulation)
● Articulation of collection and analysis
● Audit trail
Ethical issues ● Informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, and protection from harm
Data analysis ● Detail and depth of analysis description
● Matching quotes to concepts/themes
Findings ● Emergence of findings from experiences of sample
● Member checking
● Thick description
Authenticity ● Stakeholders’ involvement
Fairness ● Stakeholders’ access to research process and benefits
Promotion of justice ● Enhancement of stakeholders’ reality
● Empowerment of stakeholders
Note. Source: Saini (2011).
2 M. BRAGANZA ET AL.
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

and Discussion section, we use examples from actual dissertations to enable
readers to follow how we came to our conclusions.
Assessing the quality of qualitative and grounded theory research
Since the introduction of qualitative methods, there has been the need to
verify qualitative studies through a careful assessment of methodological
quality and rigor. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), “We have the
unappealing double bind whereby qualitative studies can’t be verified because
researchers don’t report on their methodology, and they don’t report on their
methodology because there are no established cannons or conventions for
doing so” (p. 244). In light of this, several scholars have made attempts to
establish general guidelines for assessing the qualitative research process
using notions such as rigor (Rubin, 2000; Tobin & Begley, 2004), trustworthi-
ness (Krefting, 1991; Shenton, 2004), and authenticity (Erlandson, Harris,
Skipper, & Allen, 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Whittemore, Chase, &
Mandle, 2001).
At the same time, others have argued against developing any standardized
criteria for evaluating qualitative research. For example, Padgett (2008) felt
that because qualitative research begins from the premise that knowledge is
both created and contextual (as opposed to discovered), developing standar-
dized criteria across different research contexts would be the antithesis to
authentic qualitative inquiry. Along the same lines, Barbour (2001) noted, “If
we succumb to the lure of ‘one size fits all’ solutions we risk being in a
situation where the tail (checklist) is wagging the dog (the qualitative
research)” (p. 1115). In other words, although quality assessment checklists
may contribute to increased confidence in the quality of qualitative inquiry,
they also can be counterproductive if rigidly followed.
In light of these debates, there is no agreement on an actual tool to aid in
assessing the quality of qualitative studies. In fact, there are more than 100
quality appraisal processes to assess the rigor and credibility of qualitative
research studies (see, e.g., Creswell & Miller, 2000; Drisko, 1997; Forchuk &
Roberts, 1993; Patton, 1999; Reid & Gough, 2000; Tracy, 2010). Although
helpful, many of these tools “do not distinguish between different epistemo-
logical and ontological differences, theoretical frameworks, study designs,
and standards for rigor, credibility, and relevance” (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012,
p. 113). These tools, therefore, do not offer a quality appraisal process specific
to grounded theory (and therefore attend to the inherent ideological tensions
between the various epistemological approaches that influence the assess-
ment of quality).
Specifically, Glaser and Strauss (1967) introduced grounded theory as a
response to the trend in positivistic approaches to social science research.
Whereas much theory development was done a priori, before collecting and
JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK 3
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

analyzing data, Glaser and Strauss argued for an alternative approach in
developing theories. Indeed, as a methodology, grounded theory generated
new theory from data, as opposed to testing existing theory (Strauss & Corbin,
1994). Nevertheless, the approach and rigor related to data collection, hand-
ling, and analysis created differences between Glaser and Strauss. Following an
“epistemological divorce” from his colleague Glaser, Strauss forged an alliance
with qualitative researcher Corbin to advance the grounded theory method
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). They were informed by pragmatism and symbolic
interactionism. Later, Charmaz (2006) introduced a constructivist approach to
grounded theory, arguing that there are multiple realities in the world and
“generalisations are partial, conditional and situated in time and space” (p.
141). The epistemological approaches to grounded theory methodology alter
the research design, influencing the assessment of quality, as well as necessitat-
ing the usage of a checklist that considers epistemology. Based on our apprai-
sal, we hope this article may advance current debates on the quality of
qualitative social work, as well as illuminate the inherent ideological tensions
between positivist and constructivist positions.
Method
Sample
Our sample was drawn from a database of 248 publically available social work
PhD dissertations between 2001–2011 at 14 postsecondary institutions in
Canada that offer a PhD program (Rothwell, Lach, & Blumenthal, 2013). Most
dissertations were found in library searches using ProQuest. The doctoral
dissertation is considered to be the signature pedagogy of doctoral education
in social work (Anastas, 2012), representing the culmination of doctoral studies
through the conduct and reporting of original empirical research that generates
new knowledge to advance the discipline (Maynard, Vaughn, Sarteschi, &
Berglund, 2014b). In this way, doctoral dissertations are an important barometer
for understanding the current methodological trends in a given field. In com-
parison to other mediums, such as journal articles, doctoral dissertations were
chosen due to their comprehensive nature. Although not exhaustive, we feel a
10-year period provides a reasonable sampling to gauge major features of
contemporary social work dissertations (Maynard, Vaughn, & Sarteschi,
2014a). (For details regarding the original sampling frame from which our
sample was drawn, please see Rothwell et al., 2015.)
Of the 248 dissertations from the larger study, 46 dissertations were
categorized as implementing a grounded theory methodology. Upon close
examination of the sample, one dissertation was deleted from the sample due
to being miscategorised as grounded theory, and six dissertations were
eliminated because they were written in French (in which neither of the
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

researchers conducting the analysis was fluent). Hence, the final sample was
39 dissertations.
Appraisal tool
To appraise the quality of the social work dissertations, we used Saini’s
(2011) QRQC, a 25-point rating form. The QRQC was pilot tested for
interrater agreement by master’s-level social work students, and modifica-
tions subsequently were made based on interrater agreement (Saini &
Shlonsky, 2012). The QRQC evaluates qualitative studies in terms of their
epistemological and theoretical frameworks, study setting, study design,
sampling procedures, data collection, ethical issues, data analysis, findings,
and authenticity. In addition, fairness and promotion of justice are included
to evaluate studies for which the central purpose is to empower participants
through participatory research (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012). Table 1 identifies
these elements. (A more detailed overview of how these elements were
operationalized can be found in Braganza, Akesson, & Rothwell, 2015.)
Procedure
We (the first two coauthors) conducted the data analysis independently. We
reviewed the abstract, introduction, methods, and findings sections of all 39
dissertations, appraising the various elements of them according to the
QRQC. When considering elements of grounded theory, we maintained an
open stance, acknowledging the range between grounded theory approaches
from the more positivist Glaser and Strauss (1967) approach to the more
constructivist Charmaz (2006) model. We tracked our ratings independently,
meeting every 2 to 3 weeks over a 6-month period to check interrater
reliability and to develop consensus on any responses that differed, using a
consensus-building process (Jones & Hunter, 1995).
Each item was assigned two ratings—“applicable” and “addressed”—each
of which consisted of three possible elements (yes, no, or unclear (Saini &
Shlonsky, 2012, p. 170)). (Due to differences in epistemological and ontolo-
gical stance, not all elements of the QRQC are “applicable” to qualitative
studies.) The QRQC includes three columns for each element. The first
column indicates whether the element is relevant to the particular study.
Our determination of applicability was made based on (a) what the respon-
dents stated they did and (b) their epistemological paradigm. In this study,
the dissertation author’s epistemological lens, whether stated or implicit, was
considered in order to assess the overall quality of the study and became a
standard against which to measure. The appropriateness of the research
design also was considered vis-à-vis the author’s epistemological paradigm.
The second column indicates whether there is sufficient information in the
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

study for the reviewer to be able to assess whether the specific element has
been “addressed.” A third column provides space for the reviewer to com-
ment generally upon the study and the qualitative element being addressed.
Ethical considerations
According to Padgett (2008), the use of labels “often obscures the blurriness
of categories and can easily verge into name calling” (p. 89). Saini and
Shlonsky (2012) therefore recommend that a qualitative methods expert be
included on the research team. However, although we all have to varying
degrees experience conducting quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods
research, none of us claims to be an expert on qualitative research or
grounded theory. Consequently, we made every effort to consult grounded
theory researchers (and their scholarship) when we had questions about an
element of this checklist.
Findings and discussion
The following section is organized by highlighting the most relevant findings
related to how the surveyed dissertations addressed the following: (a) research
question and design, (b) literature review, (c) methods used, and (d) the
analysis and presentation of findings. (For a comprehensive presentation of
the findings, please see Braganza et al., 2015.) A discussion of the findings also
has been integrated in this section because these findings unearthed a variety of
important questions and considerations. Hence, we believe these are best
presented with the findings themselves to facilitate understanding.
Research question and design
Epistemological decisions
Many dissertation authors clearly articulated their epistemological stance and
related methodological decisions. Their doing so was helpful for assessing the
quality of other criteria, such as research design and research question. In
fact, it is recommended by Saini and Shlonsky (2012) that, when applying
grounded theory, the epistemological lens of the research be considered
against the research question and associated design. The quality of construc-
tivist grounded theory cannot be assessed in the same way as classical
grounded theory, because there are slightly different methodological deci-
sions to be made.
This finding also has larger implications for social work research and
teaching. Epistemology and methodology intimately are connected in
grounded theory. Perhaps social work instructors might teach epistemology
and research methods together to highlight the connections. Doing so may
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

assist students in clearly articulating their epistemological and methodologi-
cal decisions, as well as to avoid inconsistency between epistemological
stance and the research design. With this said, not all researchers (or social
work instructors) agree on the importance of epistemology in the first place.
Is a clear (or overt) articulation of one’s epistemological stance even impor-
tant in research? How problematic is a mismatch between epistemological
stance and research design?
Research question
Our analysis pointed to variation in how the research question was presented
in each dissertation, which of course is not necessarily a problem unique to
grounded theory. To be specific, in many dissertations the question was
stated differently throughout the dissertation (e.g., in the introduction vs.
the methods section) or was not clearly stated in the first place. In Dergal’s
(2011) dissertation, for instance, the stated research purpose was to “provide
empirical evidence about who private companions are, what they do, and
why they are” (p. ii), whereas in the introduction, the stated purpose was “to
understand the reasons private companions are hired in long-term care
facilities, and the role they play within the care environment” (p. 2). In
some instances, there were several inquiries embedded in the research ques-
tion. For doctoral students, who are often at the beginning of their research
careers, it may be difficult to articulate one consistent research question,
because their research may gradually be evolving during their doctoral
studies. Instructors, therefore, might wish to consider whether variation is
due to the evolution of students’ studies or difficulty in articulating research
questions. Identifying the source of the challenge facilitates its resolution.
We also examined the alignment between design and research questions.
Generally, most research designs seemed to fit with the research question. In
most instances, based on the purpose of the studies, an exploratory or
qualitative design was indeed most appropriate. However, in at least one
study, the author did not clearly justify why a qualitative approach was best.
The few that did not seem to fit included mixed-methods designs that could
have been “generally qualitative” rather than specifically grounded theory,
and one that seemed to have methods that better reflected a case study
methodology. These findings suggest that instructors need to continue their
approach to educating students on how to select the most suitable research
design for their research question.
Reviewing the literature
The inclusion of an extensive literature review in a doctoral dissertation is
common and usually expected (Boote & Beile, 2005; Bruce, 1994), and thus all
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

of the dissertations reviewed included an extensive literature review.
Nevertheless, the use of the literature challenged the assessment of quality of
some of the dissertations when considering the research design and the usage of
classic grounded theory methodology (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007), with its
origins in the work of Glaser and Strauss (1967). Classic grounded theory was
developed at a time when social science researchers did not have to satisfy
human subjects ethics boards (Oktay, 2012). Therefore, when implementing a
grounded theory approach, researchers were not required to consult literature
prior to data collection and analysis. In this way, theory was authentically
derived directly from the data while being uninfluenced by prior biases and
ideas. These findings highlight the complexity of rigidly complying with both a
methodology and doctoral requirements (Dunne, 2011; Nagel, Burns, Tilley, &
Aubin, 2015). Indeed, one of dissertations discussed this reality, stating,
Classic grounded theory methodology requires the researcher to approach the field
without preconceived notions of the phenomena under study. . . . One enters the
field interested in a general subject area and elicits from participants their main
concerns or social problem. The nature of a doctoral dissertation is contrary to this
classic notion of grounded theory in that a clearly set out question and full
literature review are typically required, prior to the initiation of the study.
(McLaughlin, 2006, p. 99)
Social work instructors may need to consider whether (and how) it would be
possible for doctoral students to fully comply with methodologies, as
designed, and whether methodological purity (as opposed to methodological
pluralism) is even the ideal to strive for. Furthermore, who has the power to
decide whether a research project should have methodological purity—stu-
dents or instructors? Such questions and considerations may be worth dis-
cussing in research methods courses.
Methods used
We found that dissertations used different terminology when describing the
same elements (e.g., thick description, reflexivity, etc.). Further, not all were
clear on how these things were actually done. These factors are a challenge
within doctoral education, consistent with the findings of Nagel and collea-
gues (2015). For example, Lawson (2009) used the term “journals” to describe
what we interpreted to be memos. But again, as readers we were unsure
about the author’s use of this element of the methodology. This reality calls
into question why authors are using these terms, whether they actually know
what they mean, and how they are defining them. In other words, how these
elements are identified and operationalized may be more important in
qualitative research than we think. Instructors may consider acknowledging
the challenges inconsistency creates for assessing quality and sharing
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

differing definitions of terminology in order to enter into debate about what
these terms actually refer to.
Moreover, qualitative research permits flexibility in terms of usage (or not)
of elements like reflexive journals or thick description. Therefore, instructors
might wish to guide their students in operationalizing and describing their
decisions. Doing so will not only assist readers in assessing quality but also
provide both budding and seasoned qualitative researchers direction on how
to implement these elements.
Sample size and theoretical saturation
Many dissertations in our appraisal were missing details on how the sample
was created. Further, such studies often lacked detail on sample size and
composition, or the justification for them. These omissions made it unclear
who was involved in the research and why they were involved. Although
grounded theory provides clear guidance about what constitutes theoretical
and data saturation, how to apply them, and when to use them (Guest, Bruce,
& Johnson, 2006), a number of dissertations applied theoretical and data
saturation incorrectly.
For instance, in some, it was unclear whether participants were sampled
until data or theoretical saturation was achieved or if saturation was used as
the justification for small sample size (see Brake, 2010; Dergal, 2011; Lach,
2004). In other words, a number of authors simply equated data or theore-
tical saturation with how many people agreed to participate. In one disserta-
tion, a number of participants were invited to participate in the research, and
all did, which raises questions about reaching saturation or achieving a target
number of participants (Walker, 2005). In another, the final sample size was
justified based on cost and time considerations. Later, in the same disserta-
tion, the author claimed to reach theoretical saturation (McLaughlin, 2006).
These findings suggest that doctoral social work faculty may wish to dedicate
more time to conversations about sampling. Relatedly, instructors may con-
sider linking sampling strategies to specific methodological designs so that
students can understand that different methodological designs, such as
grounded theory, have distinct sampling procedures. For example, theoretical
sampling is a feature of grounded theory and is explicitly operationalized
based on its connection to this methodology.
Similarly, it was not always clear whether theoretical sampling—the process
by which codes and analysis inform the researcher’s decision about where to
next collect data (Glaser, 1978)—in fact was used as a rationale for sample sizes,
or whether theoretical sampling was an appropriate sampling strategy to use to
achieve an appropriate sample size and composition (Lawson, 2009). Such are
important considerations for grounded theory in particular because some
scholars have argued that sample sizes are expected to be larger for grounded
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

theory research designs than for other qualitative designs, such as case study,
ethnography, and phenomenology, to account for data saturation, theoretical
saturation, and theoretical sampling (Saini & Shlonsky, 2012).
This raises considerations for social work instructors such as whether it is
possible for students to successfully achieve certain sampling features, like a
large sample size or theoretical sampling, when they are faced with time and
resource constrictions. Elements of sample size and saturation must also
consider factors such as hard-to-reach populations (and other designs rela-
tive to the research project), which ultimately may require or result in a
smaller sample size. Pursuing hard-to-reach populations is common in social
work, and in such situations a smaller sample size does not mean that data
saturation, theoretical saturation, and theoretical sampling cannot (or will
not) be achieved, or that sampling was somehow flawed because the sample
size ought to have been larger. Nevertheless, this finding raises questions
about whether adopting saturation as a generic marker of quality is appro-
priate given that its meaning has evolved and transformed in a way that has
been unchallenged in the literature (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012). How, then, can
doctoral social work instructors explain the features of qualitative research
that convey quality? One may also raise questions about whether these terms
are actually unclear in the qualitative literature, or whether doctoral students
are unclear about how to apply them. Findings like these suggest that perhaps
social work research faculty should consider dedicating more time to explain-
ing terms and to providing examples of how such terms are often applied
differently in social work research.
Triangulation
We found a range of methods and strategies used to achieve different types of
triangulation. In some situations, mixing methods was considered triangulation
(Lawson, 2009). In other cases, comparing data from one interview against the
data in another interview was deemed triangulation (Baylis, 2009; Munoz,
2011). In still another instance, “theoretical triangulation” was cited and
named (Gowthorpe, 2010, p. 5). Many dissertation authors claimed triangula-
tion was achieved, but it was difficult to tell whether this happened, and if so,
whether it was relevant, based on the inconsistencies in definition and usage.
The diverse strategies used to achieve triangulation, and different definitions of
the term, also make it difficult to assess when and how triangulation occurred.
Social work instructors might consider intentionally engaging with students in
debates about what the definition, and therefore the usage and achievement of
triangulation, ought to be. In these dissertations, was triangulation being used
to understand the topic in a more nuanced way or to achieve some form of
validity? In this way, instructors might encourage students to consider the
purpose of triangulation in addition to its operationalization.
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

Transparency
Many researchers do not explicitly say who collected the data, the dates when
the research took place, or even who analyzed the data. Grounded theory, not
unlike other research methodologies, is based on transparency and docu-
menting every step of the process. How important is articulation, and how
much detail ought to be provided in order to assess quality? These are
important questions for the students to address.
Ethics
Most dissertations spoke briefly about ethical procedures, as well as actual or
potential ethical issues. Some provided more detail than others. Where
dissertations focused on vulnerable populations or addressed very sensitive
issues, we found that more information about ethical considerations clearly
should have been included. In many dissertations, there was only a brief
cursory overview of ethical procedures, such as providing informed consent,
even when working with highly vulnerable populations, like adolescents with
learning disabilities (Muskat, 2008). Faculty, therefore, might also consider
whether enough time is spent discussing ethical issues in the classroom to
ensure the centrality of this topic is understood.
Analysis and presentation of findings
Findings
Per the QRQC, we aimed to determine if the findings emerged from the
experiences of the sample. In one dissertation, it was difficult to say with
surety the findings emerged from the experiences of the sample (Levy, 2004),
because the findings section included fewer quotes than one might expect to
find in a qualitative dissertation in order to demonstrate the connection
between the subjective experience of the sample and the interpretation of
the author. This example highlighted the importance of including direct
quotations within a dissertation to support analysis and interpretation
(Padgett, 2008). Dissertations with more quotes to illustrate themes, in
addition to a detailed discussion about how data were derived from in vivo
coding (Worthington, 2001), were easier to assess for quality.
Thick description
According to Ryle (1949) and Geertz (1976), thick description includes not only
facts about the phenomenon under study but also the details, commentary, and
interpretation of conceptual structures and meanings. (Thick description is
more commonly used in ethnography than in grounded theory.) As one
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

dissertation author states, “A thick description of the individual participants is
contrary to grounded theory (Glaser, 1978) as analysts are interested in sam-
pling and comparing emerging concepts, not individuals” (McLaughlin, 2006,
pp. 94–95). However, thick description was assessed due to its inclusion in the
QRQC and because, in a number of dissertations, either it was named as
relevant or the author actually offered a thick description of the sample in the
dissertation (Muskat, 2008; Timoshinka, 2008). Nevertheless, in many disserta-
tions, insufficient details were provided to make the description of the sample
“thick” (Monahan, 2001; Yan, 2002). In other words, the description of the
sample was limited to biographical or demographic details. In others, the
terminology used made it unclear whether thick description was relevant. For
instance, some dissertation authors talked about offering “thick stories” of the
sample (Lawson, 2009, p. 70; Munoz, 2011, p. 49; Zuk, 2009, p. 73), whereas
others claimed to offer a “thick description of the situation” (De Zeeuw Wright,
2010, p. 64) or “thickness of the data” (Riedel Bowers, 2001, p. 110). Based on
these definitions, it is unclear if a thick description of the sample even was
relevant in many dissertations, although in some instances it was provided. This
observation raises further questions regarding how thick description should be
operationalized, and whether such operationalization should be consistent or
flexible, and indeed whether thick description should be a feature in grounded
theory studies. The findings suggest there are no straightforward or consistent
answers for these questions.
Member checking
Member checking entails providing the research participants with a portion
of the analyzed data in order to check its authenticity (Yanow & Schwartz-
Shea, 2006). Most dissertations used member checking during the data
analysis process, even though it is considered controversial within grounded
theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 2002). Yet, we found that most examples of
member checking did not provide a lot of detail (e.g., how many people were
involved, how they were recruited), complicating our assessment. For
instance, in two dissertations, justification was missing for why only two or
three (among a larger number of participants) were selected to engage in the
member checking process (Dergal, 2011; Gowthorpe, 2010). In one disserta-
tion, it is not clear how many participated in member checking, even though
the author talks about engaging in the process (Jenney, 2011). In another, the
research justification for only selecting “the most articulate” participants to
participate in member checking was not clear (Doiron, 2007, p. 29). In the
remaining three dissertations, the authors described the theoretical rationale
for engaging in member checking but did not provide enough detail on
whether (McNeill, 2001) or how they engaged in the process (Helpard,
2010; Monahan, 2001), which raises questions about the rationale, process,
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

and articulation of member checking. For example, should member checking
be used even if it is not traditionally included within a particular methodol-
ogy, such as grounded theory? What should the member checking process
look like within a grounded study?
Identified biases
In about half of the dissertations, the potential and actual biases of the
researcher were identified and described, and there was a discussion about
how these biases may have influenced the research design and/or process
(Barnoff, 2002; Muskat, 2008). Engaging in reflexive practice throughout the
research process is important in grounded theory because the emphasis of
the constructivist paradigm is the construction of meaning (Charmaz, 2006).
However, in several of these dissertations, researchers discuss their social
location rather than their biases and do not identify the impact their biases
could (or did) have on their research (Dill, 2010). For instance, in one
dissertation the author identifies the various “selves” and experiences
brought to the study but does not go on to describe how these may well
have influenced the research design or process: “As the primary researcher in
this study, therefore, it is appropriate to identify the intersecting selves that I
bring to the study” (Milliken, 2008, p. 21). Our analysis raises questions for
social work instructors to be prepared to field about reflexivity, to wit, Is
social location always sufficient to identify biases? And is the integration of a
reflexive journal—a written document detailing the researcher’s thoughts,
feelings, and decisions—critical? Further, is acknowledging biases important
when coming from a positivist paradigm?
Developing theory
The goal of grounded theory is to develop new theory; a grounded theoretical
model or typology; or a deeper, more contextualized understanding of a
phenomenon (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Yet many of the dissertation authors
did not explicitly develop any of the preceding from their data and analysis.
It would seem here that grounded theory is being used more for exploratory
purposes than for theory-generation purposes. This challenges the assess-
ment of quality and also raises questions about why theory is not being
generated. Perhaps developing a new theory is perceived as too ambitious for
a doctoral dissertation project?
One dissertation author stated that “sampling among divergent groups” is
required in order to achieve a “full theory” (McLaughlin, 2006, p. 100),
which, considering time and financial constraints, may not always be possible
within the context of doctoral research. Some dissertation writers, however,
did successfully collect data from “divergent groups” without producing new
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

theory. It is possible that the methodology is attractive for exploratory or
analysis purposes only, rather than for theory generation, particularly given
the detailed steps that can be applied to either process. Indeed, a number of
dissertation authors credit their usage of grounded theory to its “rigor” rather
than its theory-building goal. Nonetheless, it is important for doctoral faculty
to consider why theory is not being developed in studies utilizing grounded
theory and whether this might relate to social work doctoral studies in
particular. At a minimum, must a grounded theory study contribute to the
theoretical understanding of a problem? The answer seems to be “yes,”
otherwise the study may veer too far from the original goal of grounded
theory as proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). The development of theory
within this sample of dissertations raises further questions such as, Can the
grounded theory methodology be used only for exploratory or analysis
purposes, and if so, under what conditions? Indeed, is this usage considered
a modification to the methodology or an inappropriate designation? Further,
consideration should be given to those instances where authors claim to be
using the grounded theory methodology, but only parts of the study (such as
the analysis) make use of the design. How much can a methodology be
altered before it is no longer that methodology? These questions have
implications for instructors assisting students in choosing and utilizing
selected designs to answer their research questions.
Limitations
First, our analysis was limited to the dissertation abstract, introduction,
methodology, and findings sections. Although these portions compose the
majority of the dissertation, and we often found all the elements within these
sections, there was the possibility that elements may have been included
elsewhere. For instance, the development of a theory, model, or typology
may have been presented in the Discussion section, which was not assessed.
Nevertheless, this limitation raises questions about what should be included
in certain sections in qualitative research reports. Second, we reviewed only
dissertations that were available in the data set, which included only dis-
sertations that were publically available through the library. It is possible that
other dissertations were produced that were not included in the data set.
Third, the dissertation authors were not blinded during the appraisal process,
which may have led to some element of observer bias. We attempted to
control for this by including the reviews of two researchers, discussing any
areas of potential bias, using the checklist to objectively rate quality, and
using a consensus-building process. Fourth, although our sample of disserta-
tions had many methodological strengths, this article focused primarily on
what was lacking in order to underscore areas for future improvement and to
comply with publishing space constraints. (A more detailed discussion of the
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

strengths of the dissertations is available in Braganza et al., 2015). Fifth, our
analysis was solely of Canadian dissertations that were written in English.
Finally, the implications for research and teaching raised in this article were
derived from an analysis informed by the QRQC. It is possible that using a
different assessment tool (or other analysis strategies) would have provided
additional insights and implications.
Recommendations for research and teaching
Assessing the quality of qualitative research using a grounded theory design
produced more questions than answers in relation to research and teaching.
For instance, questions were raised about assessing the quality of qualitative
research itself. As the author of one of the dissertations in our sample asked,
What are the criteria for evaluating a methodology? Who decides on them? For
what purposes? Through what processes do some and not others rise to promi-
nence? These questions problematize the question of evaluation and reveal the
processes of social construction beneath. And they are critical to ask, given that
research results often become legitimized knowledge. (Brown, 2008, p. 92)
Each dissertation might employ a different epistemological paradigm. This leads
to the question of how to measure “quality” in qualitative research. It also offers
a query about how social work faculty go about attending to and teaching on
issues of quality. A dissertation that doesn’t meet the criteria of a checklist such
as the QRQC might simply be reflecting a mismatch between the paradigm of
the dissertation and of the approach to its appraisal. Furthermore, we acknowl-
edge that a dissertation not achieving each and every one of the preceding
standards should not suggest that the dissertation is not “good” or is of lesser
quality. Nevertheless, difficult questions about the assessment of quality remain.
Doctoral dissertations represent “a culmination and reflection of students’
personal and professional experience, substantive and methodological train-
ing, and professional socialization received in their doctoral programmes”
(Maynard et al., 2014a, p. 269; see also Anastas, 2012). All doctoral social
work programs, of course, provide research methods courses. Yet in quali-
tative method courses, grounded theory may be only a small part of a broad
education on qualitative methods. To avoid some of the pitfalls uncovered
through this research—such as having inconsistency between the epistemo-
logical stance and methodological design, or a misalignment between the
research question and the research design—we suggest that social work
programs consider offering full courses on particular methodologies such
as grounded theory. Relatedly, we recommend considering whether to offer
these courses earlier in a student’s program of study, such as before a
literature review is completed, so students will be able to comply with the
tenets of classic grounded theory.
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

In addition, the finding that most dissertations did not generate new
theory suggests that grounded theory may often be taught more as a data
collection and analysis strategy than as a theory-generating process. The
importance of developing theory may need to be more strongly emphasized
in discussions of qualitative research methods within doctoral social work.
On the other hand, perhaps some doctoral social work dissertations should
aim to explore a social issue rather than generate theory?
Many of the dissertation authors claimed to arrive at the research from a
constructivist paradigm and therefore utilized Charmaz’s (2006) version of
grounded theory. This illuminates several important considerations about the
adherence to specific epistemological paradigms, and relatedly the student
selection of research designs (e.g., case study, ethnography, grounded theory,
narrative, or phenomenology). The first consideration this observation raises is
whether the choice of epistemological paradigm and research design was
influenced by the dissertation author’s advisor, discipline, and/or university,
or whether it actually was voluntarily selected by the doctoral student. As
Maynard et al. (2014a) note, “Given that dissertations are conducted under the
advisement of a dissertation committee, the dissertation can also be viewed as a
reflection of the interests and expertise of social work faculty” (p. 269). Hence,
as Nagel and colleagues (2015) suggested, it is possible that the selection of
research design is driven by social work faculty, especially when Canadian
dissertations are compared to social work dissertations in other countries. For
instance, Canadian doctoral students are more likely (65.3%) to use qualitative
methods than students in Sweden (50%; Dellgran & Hojer, 2001), the United
Kingdom (40%; Scourfield & Maxwell, 2010), and the United States (22%;
Maynard et al., 2014). Having said this, in Gringeri and colleagues’ (2013)
research of American qualitative dissertations that were completed between
2008 and 2010, it was found that grounded theory was a popular research
design just as it is here in Canada (Rothwell et al., 2015). We would, in sum,
recommend that social work instructors consider how these choices are pre-
sented and who holds the power to make the methodological choices.
That many more authors used grounded theory from a constructivist rather
than a more positivist, postpositivist, or pragmatic paradigm raises additional
considerations with respect to epistemology. For instance, the trend raises
questions about the popularity (and appropriateness) of particular epistemo-
logical paradigms in social work. Perhaps the positivist paradigmatic
approaches used by Glaser and Strauss (1967) or Strauss and Corbin (1990)
are less encouraged than the constructivist approach of Charmaz (2006)? Or
perhaps positivism has less value in Canadian social work research than the
constructivist approach? Or, perchance, the problems researched by these
scholars simply lent themselves more appropriately to a constructivist use of
grounded theory? Perhaps, as dissertation authors Dergal (2011) and De
Zeeuw Wright (2010) claimed, grounded theory is simply a methodology
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

that ought to be considered for its rigor and its selection has little to do with
epistemology. This suggestion, of course, raises questions about how authors
approaching their research from various epistemological paradigms define
“rigor.” Ultimately it is difficult to ascertain why approaching grounded theory
through a constructivist paradigm would be more common in these disserta-
tions. Yet, for the purposes of our discussion, this emphasis on a constructivist
approach does raise larger epistemological considerations. For example, how
should students be taught about the connection between methodological
designs and each design’s epistemological stance? Should positions like posi-
tivism and constructivism be presented as equally valid positions by social
work faculty? Or should instructors put forth positions that resonate more
with their own epistemological stances? No matter the answer, we recommend
that doctoral faculty engage students in dialogue about the variety of episte-
mological options and debates that inform the profession.
Conclusions
This study highlights the importance of assessing the quality of social work
dissertations using a grounded theory approach specifically, and qualitative
research more generally. It also points to the utility of a checklist, such as the
QRQC, being applied to other research outputs such as articles in peer-
reviewed journals. More important, we believe our assessment of quality
unearthed important yet challenging methodological and epistemological
questions, which have significant implications for social work research and
education. Although this inquiry perhaps raised more questions than answers,
we believe these questions can stimulate fruitful class and mentor discussions.
Acknowledgments
We thank Lucy Lach for help with conceptualizing the study, as well as Jennifer Root and
Victoria Burns for their helpful feedback and suggestions on an earlier version of this article.
We also acknowledge the extremely helpful comments of the anonymous peer reviewers who
made suggestions to deepen the final analysis.
ORCID
Bree Akesson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6760-7198
David Rothwell http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0633-4071
References
Anastas, J. W. (2012). Doctoral education in social work. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

Barbour, R. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail
wagging the dog? British Medical Journal, 322, 1115–1117. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Barnoff, L. (2002). New directions for anti-oppressive practice in feminist social service agencies
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Baylis, P. (2009). The therapeutic alliance as experienced by children and its effect on neuro-
logical functioning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in
research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X034006003
Braganza, M., Akesson, B., & Rothwell, D. (2015, November 5). Grounded theory in Canadian
social work dissertations: Preliminary findings. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved
from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2685945
Brake, E. S. (2010). A grounded theory study: Valuing aging - A model describing gerontological
social work career choice (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Brown, M. (2008). She hits like a girl: Contexts and constructs of femininity, use of violence and
living in group homes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Memorial University, St. John’s,
Newfoundland, Canada.
Bruce, C. S. (1994). Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review.
Studies in Higher Education, 19, 217–229. doi:10.1080/03075079412331382057
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. London,
UK: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. London, UK: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory
Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
De Zeeuw Wright, M. (2010). The dance in contexts: Exploring the complexity of the helping/
healing process with a focus on client satisfaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Dellgran, P., & Hojer, A. (2001). Mainstream is contextual: Swedish social work research
dissertations and theses. Social Work Research, 25(4), 243–252. doi:10.1093/swr/25.4.243
Dergal, J. (2011). Family members’ use of private companions in nursing homes: A mixed
methods study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Dill, K. A. (2010). “Fitting a square peg into a round hole”: Understanding kinship care outside
of the foster care paradigm (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Doiron, N. H. (2007). People with environmental sensitivities: Life, identity, and services
Drisko, J. (1997). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to enhance aca-
demic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 1–13.
Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14, 111–124. doi:10.1080/
13645579.2010.494930
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to
methods. London, UK: Sage.
Forchuk, C., & Roberts, J. (1993). How to critique qualitative research articles. Canadian
Journal of Nursing Research, 25(4), 47–56.
Geertz, C. (1976). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory.
Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 23–38. doi:10.1177/160940690200100203
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gowthorpe, J. L. (2010). Making the adjustment: A grounded theory study of what works and
does not work in postdivorce parenting relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., & Cambron, C. (2013). Examining foundations of qualitative
research: A review of social work dissertations. Journal of Social Work Education, 49,
760–773.
Guest, G., Bruce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82. doi:10.1177/
1525822X05279903
Helpard, E. J. (2010). Making room to practice: A grounded theory of counsellors’ experiences of
unplanned endings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada.
Jenney, A. C. (2011). Doing the right thing: Negotiating risk and safety in child protection work
with domestic violence cases (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto,
Jones, J., & Hunter, D. (1995). Qualitative research: Consensus methods for medical and health
services research. British Medical Journal, 311, 376–380. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy.: Official Publication of the American
Occupational Therapy Association, 45, 214–222. doi:10.5014/ajot.45.3.214
Lach, L. M. (2004). Social experiences of children and adolescents diagnosed with intractable
epilepsy: Maternal representations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lawson, J. J. (2009). A grounded theory study: Exploring the process of forgiving within
significant relationships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Levy, J. (2004). Deviance and social control among Haredi adolescent males (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maynard, B. R., Vaughn, M. G., & Sarteschi, C. M. (2014a). The empirical status of social
work dissertation research: Characteristics, trends and implications for the field. British
Journal of Social Work, 44, 267–289. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs123
Maynard, B. R., Vaughn, M. G., Sarteschi, C. M., & Berglund, A. H. (2014b). Social work
dissertation research: Contributing to scholarly discourse or the file drawer. British Journal
of Social Work, 44, 1045–1062. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs172
McKibbon, K., & Gadd, C. (2004). A quantitative analysis of qualitative studies in clinical
journals for the 2000 publishing year. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 4,
11–20. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-4-11
McLaughlin, A. M. (2006). Clinical social work and social justice (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
McNeill, T. (2001). Holistic fatherhood: A grounded theory approach to understanding fathers
of children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milliken, E. J. (2008). Towards cultural safety: An exploration of the concept for social work
education with Canadian Aboriginal peoples (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Memorial
University, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada.
Monahan, M. F. (2001). An exploration of the context of women’s experience of unwanted sex
in couple partnerships (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto,
Munoz, M. (2011). Continuum of success: A case study of Colombian refugee women in
Canada (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
Muskat, B. L. (2008). Identity formation in early adolescents with learning disabilities
Nagel, D. A., Burns, V. F., Tilley, C., & Aubin, D. (2015). When novice researchers adopt
constructivist grounded theory: Navigating less travelled paradignmatic methodological
paths in PhD dissertation work. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 365–383.
Norlyk, A., & Harder, I. (2010). What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological?
An analysis of peer-reviewed empirical nursing studies. Qualitative Health Research, 20,
420–431. doi:10.1177/1049732309357435
O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2012). “Unsatisfactory saturation”: A critical exploration of the
notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13, 190–197.
doi:10.1177/1468794112446106
Oktay, J. S. (2012). Grounded theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Padgett, D. K. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health
Services Research, 34(5), 1189–1208.
Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research:
What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6(1), 59–91. doi:10.1080/
135046200110494
Riedel Bowers, N. (2001). A journey within a journey: A naturalistic study of the early
relationship development process in non-directive play therapy (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Rothwell, D. W., Lach, L., & Blumenthal, A. (2013). Social work doctoral scholarship in
Canada (Version V2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Dataverse Network. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21789
Rothwell, D. W., Lach, L., Blumenthal, A., & Akesson, B. (2015). A scoping review of doctoral
scholarship in Canada: Implications for the discipline. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
35(1–2), 46–64. doi:10.1080/08841233.2014.977988
Rubin, A. (2000). Standards for rigor in qualitative inquiry. Research on Social Work Practice,
10, 173–178.
Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London, UK: Hutchinson.
Saini, M. (2011). Qualitative research quality checklist (Unpublished manuscript). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Saini, M., & Shlonsky, A. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Scourfield, J., & Maxwell, N. (2010). Social work doctoral students in the UK: A web-based
survey and search of the index to theses. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 548–566.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn165
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22, 63–75. doi:10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. London, UK: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 217–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Timoshinka, N. (2008). Non-hierarchical organizing and international women’s NGOs: An
exploratory study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388–396. doi:10.1111/jan.2004.48.issue-4
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121
Walker, D. E. (2005). Learning to be a social worker: From the voices of students (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537. doi:10.1177/104973201129119299
Worthington, C. A. (2001). Being tested: An investigation of recipient perspectives on HIV
testing services using a multi-method approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Yan, M. C. (2002). A grounded theory study on cultural and social workers: Towards a
dialectical model of cross-cultural social work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.). (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research
methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Zuk, G. (2009). Honoring the subjective: An exploration of the self-reflexive portfolio in social
work education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Memorial University, St. John’s,
Newfoundland, Canada.
Downloaded
by
[99.252.168.12]
at
11:50
09
November
2017

An Empirical Appraisal Of Canadian Doctoral Dissertations Using Grounded Theory Implications For Social Work Research And Teaching

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Empirical Appraisal Of Canadian Doctoral Dissertations Using Grounded Theory Implications For Social Work Research And Teaching

Similar to An Empirical Appraisal Of Canadian Doctoral Dissertations Using Grounded Theory Implications For Social Work Research And Teaching (20)

More from James Heller

More from James Heller (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Empirical Appraisal Of Canadian Doctoral Dissertations Using Grounded Theory Implications For Social Work Research And Teaching