This study aims to compare the analytical processes involved in two theorizing approaches applied to secondary qualitative data. To this end, the two authors individually analyzed the same raw material, one using the grounded theory approach and the other using the general inductive approach. Our comparison of these processes brought out the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. More specifically, this study found that data analysis using the grounded theory approach makes it possible to go beyond the analysis and interpretation resulting from the general inductive approach. Recommendations are made regarding the importance of the conceptual framework when theorizing from qualitative data. Finally, this study highlights relevant ways to use secondary qualitative data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
F.-Dufour et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: