Grounded theory and participatory action research methods are distinct approaches to qualitative inquiry. Although grounded theory has been conceptualized in constructivist terms, it has elements of positivist thinking with an image of neutral search for objective truth through rigorous data collection and analysis. Participatory action research is based on a critique of this image and calls for more inclusive research processes. It questions the possibility of objective social sciences and aspires to engage people actively in all stages of generating knowledge. The authors applied both approaches in a project designed to explore the experiences of female survivors of childhood sexual abuse with physical therapy and subsequently develop a handbook on sensitive practice for clinicians that takes into consideration the needs and perspectives of these clients. Building on this experience, they argue that the integration of grounded theory and participatory action research can empower clients to inform professional practice.
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
3.
Berkowitz, C. (2000). The long-term medical consequences of sexual abuse. In R. M. Reece (Ed.), Treatment of child abuse: Common ground for mental health, medical and legal practitioners (pp. 54-64). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
4.
Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2001). Conclusion: Broadening the bandwidth of validity—Issues and choice-points for improving the quality of action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 447-455). London: Sage.
5.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivists and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-538). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Courtois, C. (1999). Recollections of sexual abuse: Treatment principles and guidelines. New York: Norton.
7.
Crews, F. (2004, March 11). The trauma trap. The New York Review, 51(4), 37-40.
8.
Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and challenges. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 27-37). London: Sage.
9.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2001). Power and knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 70-80). London: Sage.
11.
Gergen, M. M., & Gergen, K. J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1025-1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
13.
Golding, J. M. (1994). Sexual assault history and physical health in randomly selected Los Angeles women. Health Psychology, 13, 130-138.
14.
Greenwood, D. J. (2002). Action research: Unfulfilled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts and transformation, 7, 117-139.
15.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between universities and society through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 85-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Hammell, K. W., & Carpenter, C. (Eds.). (2004). Qualitative research in evidence-based rehabilitation. Edinburgh, UK: Harcourt.
18.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Kvale, S. (2002). The social construction of validity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The qualitative inquiry reader (pp. 299-325). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Levin, M., & Greenwood, D. (2001). Pragmatic action research and the struggle to transform universities into learning communities. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 103-113). London: Sage.
21.
Lewin, K. (1999). The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader (M. Gold, Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
22.
Lindsay, D. S., & Briere, J. (1997). The controversy regarding recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 631-647.
23.
Low, J., Shelley, J., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Problematic success: An account of top-down participatory action research with women with multiple sclerosis. Field Methods, 12, 29-48.
24.
Madjar, I., & Walton, J. A. (2001). What is problematic about evidence? In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 28-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Melrose, M. J. (2001). Maximizing the rigor of action research: Why would you want to? How could you?Field Methods, 13, 160-180.
26.
Morse, J. M., Swanson, J. M., & Kuzel, A. J. (Eds.). (2001). The nature of qualitative evidence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Ornstein, P., Ceci, S. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1996). Adult recollections of childhood abuse: Cognitive and developmental perspectives. In J. Alpert, L. Brown, S. Ceci, C. Courtois, E. Loftus, & P. Ornstein (Eds.), Working group on investigation of memories of childhood abuse (pp. 150-197). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
28.
Ray, L. D., & Mayan, M. (2001). Who decides what counts as evidence? In J. M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 50-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action research. London: Sage.
30.
Regehr, C. (2000). Action research: Underlining or undermining the cause?Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 8, 194-206.
31.
Schachter, C. L.Stalker, C. A., & Teram, E. (1999). Toward sensitive practice: Issues for physical therapists working with childhood sexual abuse survivors. Physical Therapy, 79, 248-261.
32.
Schachter, C. L., Stalker, C. A., & Teram, E. (2001). Handbook on sensitive practice for health professionals: Lessons from women survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Ottawa, Canada: National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, Family Violence Prevention Unit, Health Canada. Retrieved July 5, 2004, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/pdfs/handbook_e.pdf
33.
Schachter, C. L., Teram, E., & Stalker, C. A. (2004). Integrating grounded theory and action research to develop sensitive practice with survivors of childhood sexual abuse. In K. W. Hammell & C. Carpenter (Eds.), Qualitative research in evidence-based rehabilitation (pp. 77-88). Edinburgh, UK: Harcourt.
34.
Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing social problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.
35.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
36.
Springs, F. E., & Friedrich, W. N. (1992). Health risk behaviors and medical sequelae of childhood sexual abuse. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 67, 527-532.
37.
Stalker, C. A., Schachter, C. L., & Teram, E. (1999). Facilitating relationships between survivors of childhood sexual abuse and health professionals: Lessons from survivors who have received physical therapy. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 14, 176-198.
38.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39.
Tandon, R. (1996). The historical roots and contemporary tendencies in participatory research: Implications for health care. In K. de Koning & M. Martin (Eds.), Participatory research in health: Issues and experiences (pp. 19-26). London: Zed.
40.
Teram, E., Schachter, C. L., & Stalker, C. A. (1999). Opening the doors to disclosure: Childhood sexual abuse survivors reflect on telling physical therapists about their trauma. Physiotherapy, 85, 88-97.
