Quality and Quantity

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 391–409 | Cite as

A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews

  • Hennie Boeije
Article

Abstract

The constant comparative method (CCM) together with theoretical sampling constitutethe core of qualitative analysis in the grounded theory approach and in other types ofqualitative research. Since the application of the method remains rather unclear, researchers do not know how to `go about' the CCM in their research practice. This study contributes to a purposeful approach of the CCM in order to systematize the analysis process and to increase the traceability and verification of the analyses. The step by step approach is derived from and illustrated with an empirical study into the experience of multiple sclerosis (MS) by patients and their spousal care providers. In this study five different steps were distinguished on the basis of four criteria: (1) the data involved and the overall analysis activities, (2) the aim, (3) the results and (4) the questions asked. It is concluded that systematization of qualitative analysis results from the researcher using a sound plan for conducting CCM regarding these four aspects.

qualitative research constant comparative method grounded theory qualitative analysis interviews 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boeije, H. R., Bromberger, N., Duijnstee, M. S. H., Grypdonck, M. H. F. & Pool, A. (1999). In relatie tot MS. Zorgafhankelijke mensen met Multiple Sclerose en hun partners. Utrecht: NIZW.Google Scholar
  2. Chenitz, W. C. & Swanson, J. M. (eds.) (1986). From Practice to Grounded Theory: Qualitative Research in Nursing. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis. A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of Dying. Chicago: Aldine Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  7. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Emergence vs. Forcing. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kimchi, J., Polivka, B. & Stevenson, J. S. (1991). Triangulation. Operational definitions. Nursing Research 40: 120-123.Google Scholar
  9. Kuckartz, U. (1998). WinMAX 97. Scientific Text Analysis for the Social Sciences. Berlin.Google Scholar
  10. Layder, D. (1993). New Strategies in Social Research. An Introduction and Guide. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Morse, J. M. & Field, P. A. (1998). Nursing Research of Qualitative Approaches. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.Google Scholar
  13. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry. A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Sivesind, K. H. (1999). Structured, qualitative comparison. Quality and Quantity 33: 361-380.Google Scholar
  15. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative Research. Analysis Types and Software. London: Falmer press.Google Scholar
  18. Wester, F. (1995). Strategieë n voor kwalitatief onderzoek. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hennie Boeije
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Methodology & StatisticsUtrecht University, Faculty of Social SciencesUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations