Main Article Content

Jenny Salmon
Stephen Buetow


Classic grounded theory, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, mixed methods, pragmatism, qualitative approaches, transcendental phenomenology, triangulation


Despite the risk of ‘method slurring’, researchers have triangulated within a single qualitative study methods that are philosophically incongruent or in a limited context, are congruent, as with hermeneutic phenomenology and constructivist grounded theory.

Methods/ Materials
We aimed to make the case that what works best can be to mix two qualitative methods that are philosophically congruent. Thus, we used transcendental phenomenology (TP) and classic grounded theory (CGT) in synergetic sequence to answer our research question. These methods have not previously been used together and one method would not have sufficed. Using the same participant sample, we sought to explore and understand the daily challenges of living with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) since no study to date had addressed these issues within New Zealand. Our retrospective exploratory two-phase sequential design was framed by the meta-theory of pragmatism. It mixed qualitative strategies that are ontologically and epistemologically compatible (i.e. TP and CGT are ontologically realist, but epistemologically idealist). They are useful together for the aim of meaningfully studying the lived experiences of purposively selected participants. Empirical data, as secondary results, provide supportive evidence.

The first paper from this study was published in J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol Vol 19(1):e41-e50 when the main findings were reported. This second paper gives greater focus to the methodologies employed and data analysis from the second phase.

Abstract 359 | PDF Downloads 124


1. Denscombe M. Communities of practice. A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2008;2(3):270-283.
2. Collins KMT, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Jiao QG. A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2007; 1(3): 267-294.
3. Creswell JW, Fetters MD, Ivankova NV. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. In Mixed Methods Vol III (Ed. Alan Bryman). London: Sage Pubs.
4. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools 2006;13(1):48-63.
6. Morse JM, Niehaus L. (2009). Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
7. Baker C, Wuest J, Stern PN. Method slurring: the grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1992;17:1355-1360.
8. Annells M. Triangulation of qualitative approaches: hermeneutical phenomenology and grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2006;56(1):55-61.
9. Foss C, Ellefsen B. The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method triangulation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2002;40(2):242-248.
10. Benoliel J. Grounded theory and nursing knowledge. Qualitative Health Research 1996;6(3):406-428.
11. Patton MQ. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p.72.
12. Morgan DL. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2007;1(1):48-76.
13. Johnson B, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 2004;33(7):14-26.
14. Simons L, Lathlean J, Squire C. Shifting the focus: Sequential methods of analysis with qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research 2008;18(1):120-132.
15. Schwandt TA. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p.204.
16. Glaser BG, Strauss AL. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
17. Glaser BG. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
18. Glaser BG. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
19. Glaser BG. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. p.3.
20. Glaser BG. The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research 1999; 9(6):36-845.
21. Moustakas C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
22. McCarl-Nielsen J. (1990). Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23. Doyle L, Brady A-M, Byrne G. An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing 2009;14(2):175-185.
24. Creswell JW. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. McMillan JH, Schumaker S. (2001). Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction (5th Edn.). New York: Longman.
26. Morse JM. Simultaneous and sequential qualitative mixed method designs. Qualitative Inquiry 2010;16(6):483-491.
27. Caracelli VJ, Greene JC. Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1993;15:195-207.
28. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Bryant A. Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2009;10(3) Article 2.
30. Morse JM. Mixing qualitative methods. Qualitative Health Research 2009;19(1): 1523-1524.
31. Fochtman D. Phenomenology in pediatric cancer nursing research. J Pediatric Oncology Nursing 2008;25(4):185-192.
32. Thorne S. (1994). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: Issues and implications. In Morse J (Ed.), Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pgs 263-279.
33. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech, NL. Enhancing the interpretation of ‘significant’ findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report 2004a;9(4):770-792.
34. Streissguth AP. (1997). Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A Guide for Families and Communities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co.
35. Wilson HS, Hutchinson, SA. Triangulation of Qualitative Methods: Heideggerian Hermeneutics and Grounded Theory. Qualitative Health Research 1991;1(2):263-276.
36. Husserl E. (1982). General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology (Kersten F., trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
37. Merleau-Ponty M. (1974). The Primacy of Perception and Other Essays on Phenomenological Psychology. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
38. Merleau-Ponty M. (1989). Phenomenology of Perception (Smith C, trans.). London: Routledge.
39. van Manen M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience. State University of New York Press, New York.
40. van Manen M. (2002). Writing in the Dark: Phenomenological Studies in Interpretive Research. Althouse, London, Canada.
41. Strauss A, Corbin J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In: Denzin N. and Lincoln Y. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pgs 273-285.
42. Greene JC. Towards a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools 2006;13(1):93-99.
43. Bray A, Gates S. (2003). Community participation for adults with an intellectual disability. National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (National Health Committee), Wellington: NZ.
44. Slade B, Beyene J, Buller K, et al. Feeling different: The experience of living with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol 2011;18(3):e475-e485.
45. Denzin NK. 1989. Interpretive Interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46. Howe KR. Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or, dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher 1988;17:10-16.