Gender in Post-Pandemic Research: The Potentials of Grounded Theory to Explicitly Guide Gender-Sensitive Inquiry on Discrimination and Violence

Abstract

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, a re-exacerbation of gender inequalities and violence against women was reported. For adequately responding to the causes of this situation and its aftermath, a detailed understanding of the gendered impacts of the pandemic and of subsequent developments is necessary. This aim may be supported by particularly using gender-sensitive modes of inquiry. Against this backdrop, we explore the methodological potential of grounded theory (GT) to explicitly guide gender-sensitive research. Given its methodological variations, we argue that an adequate handling of gender in GT can only be determined in relation to a researcher's positioning within the GT landscape. Thus, to assist readers in translating their gender sensitivity into GT practices, this article outlines various interpretations of GT elements, discussing their relation to gender. Furthermore, strategies addressing gender-related challenges are presented and underlined by, among others, studies on discrimination and violence.

Keywords

gender gender sensitivity gendering qualitative methods grounded theory grounded theory–gender nexus shadow pandemic

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acharya

S. S.

Mukherjee

Dutta

(2020). The shadow pandemic in India: ‘Staying home’ and the safety of women during lockdown. Gender Forum, 76, 46–61.

Aggestam

Bergman Rosamond

(2018). Re-politicising the gender-security nexus: Sweden’s feminist foreign policy. European Review of International Studies, 5(3), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.3224/eris.v5i3.02

Ahmed

D. A. A.

Hundt

G. L.

Blackburn

(2011). Issues of gender, reflexivity and positionality in the field of disability: Researching visual impairment in an Arab society. Qualitative Social Work, 10(4), 467–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010370188

Allen

(2011). Violence and voice: Using a feminist constructivist grounded theory to explore women’s resistance to abuse. Qualitative Research, 11(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110384452

Anwar

N. H.

Viqar

(2017). Research assistants, reflexivity and the politics of fieldwork in urban Pakistan. Area, 49(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12307

Applin

Simpson

J.-M.

Curtis

(2023). Men have gender and women are people: A structural approach to gender and violence. Violence Against Women, 29(5), 1097–1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221104844

Bading

Bosch

(2018). Denken und empirisch arbeiten mit der Grounded Theory: Eine anwendungsorientierte Reflexion eigener Forschungserfahrungen [Thinking and conducting empirical research with grounded theory: A practice-oriented reflection on our research experiences]. In Wintzer

(Ed.), Sozialraum erforschen: Qualitative Methoden in der Geographie (pp. 69–87). Springer Spektrum.

Bading

Kazzazi

Wintzer

(Eds.). (2025). (Fremd-)Sprache und Qualitative Sozialforschung: Forschungsstrategien in mehrsprachig-interkulturellen Kontexten [(Foreign) language and qualitative social research: Research strategies in multilingual-intercultural contexts]. Springer Spektrum.

Bastia

Lulle

King

(2022). Migration and development: The overlooked roles of older people and ageing. Progress in Human Geography, 46(4), 1009–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221090535

10.

Belgrave

L. L.

Seide

(2019). Coding for grounded theory. In Bryant

Charmaz

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 167–186). Sage.

11.

Blumer

(1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088165

12.

Bourgault

Peterman

O’Donnell

(2021). Violence against women and children during COVID-19: One year on and 100 papers in a fourth research round up. CGD.

13.

Breuer

Muckel

Dieris

(2019). Reflexive Grounded Theory: Eine Einführung für die Forschungspraxis [Reflexive grounded theory: An introduction for research applications] (4th ed.). Springer VS.

14.

Bridge

(2014). Resource geographies II: The resource-state nexus. Progress in Human Geography, 38(1), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513493379

15.

Brubaker

S. J.

(2021). Embracing and expanding feminist theory: (Re)conceptualizing gender and power. Violence Against Women, 27(5), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780122 0958494

16.

Bryant

(2009). Grounded theory and pragmatism: The curious case of Anselm Strauss. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 10(3), 113 paragraphs. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-10.3.1358

17.

Cayir

Spencer

Billings

Hilfinger Messias

D. K.

Robillard

(2021). Working against gender-based violence in the American South: An analysis of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in advocacy. Qualitative Health Research, 31(13), 2454–2469. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211041327

18.

Charmaz

(2012). Writing feminist research. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (2nd ed., pp. 475–494). Sage.

19.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

20.

Charmaz

(2015). Grounded theory: Methodology and theory construction. In Wright

J. D.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed, pp. 402–407). Elsevier.

21.

Charmaz

(2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105

22.

Charmaz

(2020). “With constructivist grounded theory you can’t hide”: Social justice research and critical inquiry in the public sphere. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419879081

23.

Clarke

A. E.

(2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553

24.

Clarke

A. E.

(2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage.

25.

Clarke

A. E.

(2008). Sex/gender and race/ethnicity in the legacy of Anselm Strauss. In Denzin

N. K.

(Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (Vol. 32, pp. 161–176). JAI.

26.

Clarke

A. E.

(2011). Von der Grounded-Theory-Methodologie zur Situationsanalyse [From grounded theory methodology to situational analysis]. In Mey

Mruck

(Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed, pp. 207–229). VS Verlag.

27.

Clarke

A. E.

(2012). Feminism, grounded theory, and situational analysis revisited. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(Ed.), Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis (2nd ed., pp. 388–412). Sage.

28.

Clarke

A. E.

Friese

Washburn

R. S.

(2018). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the interpretive turn (2nd ed.). Sage.

29.

Clarke

A. E.

Keller

(2014). Engaging complexities: Working against simplification as an agenda for qualitative research today. Adele Clarke in conversation with Reiner Keller. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(2), 137 paragraphs. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.2.2186

30.

Cook Heffron

(2019). “Salía de uno y me metí en otro”: Exploring the migration-violence nexus among Central American women. Violence Against Women, 25(6), 677–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218797473

31.

Corbin

J. M.

Strauss

A. L.

(2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.

32.

Datta

Hopkins

Johnston

Olson

Silva

J. M.

(Eds.). (2020). Routledge handbook of gender and feminist geographies. Routledge.

33.

Davis

Evans

Lorber

(Eds.) (2006). Handbook of gender and women’s studies. Sage.

34.

Deitch

(2021). Feminist methodologies. In Naples

N. A.

(Ed.), Companion to feminist studies (pp. 213–230). Wiley-Blackwell.

35.

Dekel

Abrahams

(2021). ‘I will rather be killed by corona than by him…’: Experiences of abused women seeking shelter during South Africa’s COVID-19 lockdown. PLOS ONE, 16(10), Article e0259275. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259275

36.

Denzin

N. K.

(2010). Grounded and Indigenous theories and the politics of pragmatism. Sociological Inquiry, 80(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00332.x

37.

Dey

(1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge.

38.

Dlamini

N. J.

(2021). Gender-based violence, twin pandemic to COVID-19. Critical Sociology, 47(4–5), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520975465

39.

Durfee

(2021). The use of structural intersectionality as a method to analyze how the domestic violence civil protective order process replicates inequality. Violence Against Women, 27(5), 639–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220958495

40.

European Commission. (2021). 2021 report on gender equality in the EU. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/57887

41.

Ferrales

Brehm

H. N.

McElrath

(2016). Gender-based violence against men and boys in Darfur: The gender-genocide nexus. Gender and Society, 30(4), 565–589. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24756217 https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216636331

42.

Franklin

R. S.

Houlden

Robinson

Arribas-Bel

Delmelle

E. C.

Demšar

Miller

H. J.

O’Sullivan

(2021). Who counts? Gender, gatekeeping, and quantitative human geography. The Professional Geographer, 73(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2020.1828944

43.

Freeman

E. C.

(2009). Blazing a trail: A constructivist grounded theory study of the experiences of Canadian women with endometriosis (Doctoral dissertation, McMaster University). https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/17306

44.

Geiselhart

Park

Schlatter

Orlowski

(2012). Die Grounded Theory in der Geographie. Ein möglicher Weg zu Empirie und Theoriebildung nach dem Cultural Turn [Grounded theory in geography: A possible way towards empiricism and theory construction after the cultural turn]. Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde, 86(1), 83–95. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-67511-2

45.

Gibson

P. R.

Horan

M. C.

Billy

(2016). Women growing older with environmental sensitivities: A grounded theory model of meeting one’s needs. Health Care for Women International, 37(12), 1289–1303. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2016.1191495

46.

Glaser

B. G.

(1992). Emergence vs forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Sociology Press.

47.

Glaser

B. G.

(2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description. Sociology Press.

48.

Glaser

B. G.

(2002a). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3), 47 paragraphs. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-3.3.825

49.

Glaser

B. G.

(2002b). Grounded theory and gender relevance. Health Care for Women International, 23(8), 786–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330290112317

50.

Glaser

B. G.

Holton

(2011). Der Umbau der Grounded-Theory-Methodologie [Remodeling grounded theory methodology]. In Mey

Mruck

(Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed, pp. 137–161). VS Verlag.

51.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967/2008). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine (Original work published 1967).

52.

Glaser

B. G.

Tarozzi

(2011). Vierzig Jahre nach „The Discovery“: Grounded Theory weltweit. Barney G. Glaser im Gespräch mit Massimiliano Tarozzi [Forty years after “The Discovery”: Grounded theory worldwide]. In Mey

Mruck

(Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed, pp. 53–67). VS Verlag.

53.

Gram

Paradkar

Osrin

Daruwalla

Cislaghi

(2023). ‘Our courage has grown’: A grounded theory study of enablers and barriers to community action to address violence against women in urban India. BMJ Global Health, 8(1), Article e011304. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011304

54.

Guadalupe-Diaz

X. L.

Jasinski

(2017). “I wasn’t a priority, I wasn’t a victim”: Challenges in help seeking for transgender survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 23(6), 772–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216650288

55.

Guizzo

Alldred

Foradada-Villar

(2018). Lost in translation? Comparative and international work on gender-related violence. In Lombard

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of gender and violence (pp. 237–249). Routledge.

56.

Heeg

(2009). Mädchen und Gewalt: Bedeutungen physischer Gewaltausübung für weibliche Jugendliche [Girls and violence: The meaning of practicing physical violence for female adolescents]. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

57.

Henwood

Pidgeon

(2003). Grounded theory in psychological research. In Camic

P. M.

Rhodes

J. E.

Yardley

(Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 131–155). APA.

58.

Irwin

(2019). Grounded theory methods in the context of masculinity and violence. In Bryant

Charmaz

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 374–391). Sage.

59.

Jakobsen

(2014). What’s gendered about gender-based violence? An empirically grounded theoretical exploration from Tanzania. Gender & Society, 28(4), 537–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214532311

60.

Järviluoma

Moisala

Vilkko

(2003). Gender and qualitative methods. Sage.

61.

Jazeel

(2014). Subaltern geographies: Geographical knowledge and postcolonial strategy. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 35(1), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12053

62.

Jordan

S. P.

Mehrotra

G. R.

Fujikawa

K. A.

(2020). Mandating inclusion: Critical trans perspectives on domestic and sexual violence advocacy. Violence Against Women, 26(6–7), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219836728

63.

Kamuya

D. M.

Molyneux

C. S.

Theobald

(2017). Gendered negotiations for research participation in community-based studies: Implications for health research policy and practice. BMJ Global Health, 2(2), Article e000320. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000320

64.

Kleinman

(2007). Feminist fieldwork analysis. Sage.

65.

Kowalski

(2024). Language beyond labeling: Toward a language ideologies analysis of anti-violence interventions. Violence Against Women, 30(2), 668–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012221140135

66.

Krause

(2021). The ethics of ethnographic methods in conflict zones. Journal of Peace Research, 58(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320971021

67.

Kuskoff

Parsell

(2021). Striving for gender equality: Representations of gender in “progressive” domestic violence policy. Violence Against Women, 27(3–4), 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220909892

68.

Latta

R. E.

Goodman

L. A.

(2011). Intervening in partner violence against women: A grounded theory exploration of informal network members’ experiences. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(7), 973–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011398504

69.

Leck

Conway

Bradshaw

Rees

(2015). Tracing the water-energy-food nexus: Description, theory and practice. Geography Compass, 9(8), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12222

70.

Lefkowich

(2019). When women study men: Gendered implications for qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919 872388

71.

Letcher Lazo

C. J.

(2020). Mixed messages: COVID-19, a cartoon heroine, and violence against women in Mexico (#WitnessingCorona). https://www.medizinethnologie.net/mixed-messages-mexico-witnessing-corona/

72.

Levy

D. L.

(2022). Discovering grounded theories for social justice. In Johnson

C. W.

Parry

D. C.

(Eds.), Fostering social justice through qualitative inquiry: A methodological guide (2nd ed, pp. 83–102). Routledge.

73.

Liong

(2015). Like father, like son: Negotiation of masculinity in the ethnographic context in Hong Kong. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(7), 937–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.917280

74.

Liu

Yamashita

(Eds.) (2020). Routledge handbook of East Asian gender studies. Routledge.

75.

Lombard

(Ed.) (2018). The Routledge handbook of gender and violence. Routledge.

76.

Marchbank

Letherby

(2014). Introduction to gender: Social science perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge.

77.

McPhail

B. A.

DiNitto

D. M.

(2005). Prosecutorial perspectives on gender-bias hate crimes. Violence Against Women, 11(9), 1162–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205277086

78.

Merchant

L. V.

Whiting

J. B.

(2015). Challenges and retention of domestic violence shelter advocates: A grounded theory. Journal of Family Violence, 30(4), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9685-y

79.

Merriman

Galizia

Tanaka

Sheffel

Buse

Hawkes

(2021). The gender and geography of publishing: A review of sex/gender reporting and author representation in leading general medical and global health journals. BMJ Global Health, 6(5), Article e005672. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005672

80.

Morris

E. D.

(2016). ‘Let me know when you figure everyone around here out’: Placing gender in the ethnographic process. In Ward

M. R. M.

(Ed.), Gender identity and research relationships (pp. 125–144). Emerald.

81.

Nef

(2020). Ringen um Bedeutung: Die Deutung häuslicher Gewalt als sozialer Prozess [Struggling for meaning: Interpreting domestic violence as social process]. Beltz Juventa.

82.

Oertelt-Prigione

(2020). The impact of sex and gender in the COVID-19 pandemic. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/17055

83.

Offenberger

(2019). Anselm Strauss, Adele Clarke und die feministische Gretchenfrage: Zum Verhältnis von Grounded-Theory-Methodologie und Situationsanalyse [Anselm Strauss, Adele Clarke and the feminist Gretchen question: On the relationship between grounded theory methodology and situational analysis]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(2), 38 paragraphs. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-20.2.2997

84.

Olesen

V. L.

(2007). Feminist qualitative research and grounded theory: Complexities, criticism, and opportunities. In Bryant

Charmaz

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 417–435). Sage.

85.

Palser

E. R.

Lazerwitz

Fotopoulou

(2022). Gender and geographical disparity in editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 25(3), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01012-w

86.

Patró-Hernández

R. M.

(2017). Intimate partner violence against women: Prevention and intervention strategies in Spain. In Sánchez-López

M. P.

Limiñana-Gras

R. M.

(Eds.), The psychology of gender and health: Conceptual and applied global concerns (pp. 199–229). Elsevier.

87.

Perez-Brumer

Silva-Santisteban

(2020). COVID-19 policies can perpetuate violence against transgender communities: Insights from Peru. AIDS and Behavior, 24(9), 2477–2479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02889-z

88.

Phillimore

Pertek

Akyuz

Darkal

Hourani

McKnight

Ozcurumez

Taal

(2022). “We are forgotten”: Forced migration, sexual and gender-based violence, and coronavirus disease-2019. Violence Against Women, 28(9), 2204–2230. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211030943

89.

Pillay

S. R.

Ntetmen

J. M.

Nel

J. A.

(2022). Queering global health: An urgent call for LGBT+ affirmative practices. The Lancet Global Health, 10(4), e574–e578. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00001-8

90.

Redman-MacLaren

Mills

(2015). Transformational grounded theory: Theory, voice, and action. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400301

91.

Renzetti

C. M.

Campe

(2021). Feminist praxis and gender violence. In Naples

N. A.

(Ed.), Companion to feminist studies (pp. 411–426). Wiley-Blackwell.

92.

Renzetti

C. M.

Miller

S. L.

Gover

A. R.

(Eds.). (2013). Routledge international handbook of crime and gender studies. Routledge.

93.

Rezwana

(2023). Risks and challenges in fieldwork on gender-based violence: Gendered identity, social taboo and culture. In Uddin

Paul

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of social fieldwork (pp. 237–251). Palgrave Macmillan.

94.

Rogers

(2019). Challenging cisgenderism through trans people’s narratives of domestic violence and abuse. Sexualities, 22(5–6), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460716681475

95.

Ross

(2015). “No sir, she was not a fool in the field”: Gendered risks and sexual violence in immersed cross-cultural fieldwork. The Professional Geographer, 67(2), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2014.907705

96.

Sánchez de Madariaga

Neuman

(Eds.) (2020). Engendering cities: Designing sustainable urban spaces for all. Routledge.

97.

Sawyer

J. M.

Brady

S. R.

(2022). Applying critical grounded theory to community intervention development methodology: Designing the critical difference engagement approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406 9221141308

98.

Schouten

(2018). Discrimination and gender. In Lippert-Rasmussen

(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of the ethics of discrimination (pp. 185–195). Routledge.

99.

Schurr

Müller

Imhof

(2020). Who makes geographical knowledge? The gender of geography’s gatekeepers. The Professional Geographer, 72(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2020.1744169

100.

Schwarz

(2022). “Can you tell me a story?”: Speaking alongside anti-trafficking narratives. In Petillo

A. D. J.

Hlavka

H. R.

(Eds.), Researching gender-based violence: Embodied and intersectional approaches (pp. 92–105). New York University Press.

101.

Simmons

Brüggemann

A. J.

Swahnberg

(2016). Disclosing victimisation to healthcare professionals in Sweden: A constructivist grounded theory study of experiences among men exposed to interpersonal violence. BMJ Open, 6(6), Article e010847. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010847

102.

Small

J. L.

(2022). “Just a darling little girl”: Attorneys, power, and notes from the field in research on sexual violence. In Petillo

A. D. J.

Hlavka

H. R.

(Eds.), Researching gender-based violence: Embodied and intersectional approaches (pp. 130–143). New York University Press.

103.

Springer

K. W.

Stellman

J. M.

Jordan-Young

R. M.

(2012). Beyond a catalogue of differences: A theoretical frame and good practice guidelines for researching sex/gender in human health. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1817–1824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.033

104.

Sri

A. S.

Das

Gnanapragasam

Persaud

(2021). COVID-19 and the violence against women and girls: ‘The shadow pandemic’. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 67(8), 971–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764021995556

105.

Stahl

(2016). Relationship-building in research: Gendered identity construction in researcher-participant interaction. In Ward

M. R. M.

(Ed.), Gender identity and research relationships (pp. 145–165). Emerald.

106.

Strübing

(2011). Theoretisches Sampling [Theoretical sampling]. In Bohnsack

Marotzki

Meuser

(Eds.), Hauptbegriffe qualitativer Sozialforschung (3rd ed, pp. 154–156). Verlag Barbara Budrich.

107.

Strübing

(2014). Grounded Theory: Zur sozialtheoretischen und epistemologischen Fundierung eines pragmatistischen Forschungsstils [Grounded theory: On the socio-theoretical and epistemological foundation of a pragmatist research style] (3rd ed.). Springer VS.

108.

Suddaby

(2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159789

109.

Tarozzi

(2019). Coding and translating: Language as a heuristic apparatus. In Bryant

Charmaz

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of current developments in grounded theory (pp. 186–205). Sage.

110.

Thambiah

Chakraborty

Sarker

(2016). Negotiating male gatekeeper violence in team-based research on Bangladeshi migrant women in Malaysia. Gender, Place & Culture, 23(8), 1150–1163. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2015.1136814

111.

Thornberg

(2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686

112.

Thornberg

Charmaz

(2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In Flick

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 153–169). Sage.

113.

Thurnell-Read

(2016). Masculinity, age and rapport in qualitative research. In Ward

M. R. M.

(Ed.), Gender identity and research relationships (pp. 23–41). Emerald.

114.

Tomm-Bonde

L. N.

Schreiber

MacDonald

(2021). Putting on and taking off the Capulana: A grounded theory of how Mozambican women manage gender oppression. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936211051701

115.

Treiber

Kazzazi

(2020). Migration Übersetzen: Erwartungen—Konzeptionen—Strategien [Translating migration: Expectations—conceptions—strategies]. In Treiber

Kazzazi

Jaciuk

(Eds.), Migration Übersetzen: Alltags- und Forschungspraktiken des Dolmetschens im Rahmen von Flucht und Migration (pp. 89–120). Springer VS.

116.

Truschkat

Kaiser

Reinartz

(2005). Forschen nach Rezept? Anregungen zum praktischen Umgang mit der Grounded Theory in Qualifikationsarbeiten [A recipe book approach to research? Practical suggestions for using grounded theory in dissertations and thesis projects]. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), 48 paragraphs. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.2.470

117.

Uddin

(2023). Fieldwork with opposite gender: Exploring the agency of left-behind women of migrant households in rural Bangladesh. In Uddin

Paul

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of social fieldwork (pp. 295–312). Palgrave Macmillan.

118.

UN Women. (2014/1995). Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action: Beijing+5 political declaration and outcome (Original work published 1995). https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2015/01/beijing-declaration

119.

UN Women. (2020a). Policy brief: The impact of COVID-19 on women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/04/policy-brief-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-women

120.

UN Women. (2020b). COVID-19 and its economic toll on women: The story behind the numbers. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/9/feature-covid-19-economic-impacts-on-women

121.

UN Women. (2021). The Shadow Pandemic: Violence against women during COVID-19. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/in-focus-gender-equality-in-covid-19-response/violence-against-women-during-covid-19

122.

Wake

A. D.

Kandula

U. R.

(2022). The global prevalence and its associated factors toward domestic violence against women and children during COVID-19 pandemic—“The shadow pandemic”: A review of cross-sectional studies. Women’s Health, 18, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057221095536

123.

Wang

(2021). Struggle with multiple pandemics: Women, the elderly and Asian ethnic minorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. PORTAL: Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 17(1–2), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.5130/pjmis.v17i1-2.7400

124.

Ward

M. R. M.

(Ed.) (2016). Gender identity and research relationships. Emerald.

125.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Lynch

K. R.

Golding

J. M.

Renzetti

C. M.

(2017). The impact of gender stereotypes on legal perceptions of lesbian intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515586370

126.

Whittingdale

(2021). Becoming a feminist methodologist while researching sexual violence support services. Journal of Law and Society, 48(S1), 10–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12335

127.

Wilson

J. M.

Goodman

L. A.

(2021). “A community of survivors”: A grounded theory of organizational support for survivor-advocates in domestic violence agencies. Violence Against Women, 27(14), 2664–2686. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220981143

128.

Wintzer

(Eds.) (2018). Sozialraum erforschen: Qualitative Methoden in der Geographie [Researching social space: Qualitative methods in geography]. Springer Spektrum.

129.

Yakubovich

A. R.

Maki

(2022). Preventing gender-based homelessness in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: The need to account for violence against women. Violence Against Women, 28(10), 2587–2599. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211034202

130.

Yang

(2023). Gendered fieldwork with Chinese police: Negotiations among a researcher, gatekeeper, and participants. Qualitative Research, 23(6), 1574–1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221110165

131.

Yarrow

Pagan

(2021). Reflections on frontline medical work during COVID-19 and the embodiment of risk. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(S1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12505

132.

Yoshihama

Hammock

A. C.

Baidoun

(2022). Peerformance: Bystanders enacting and challenging gender norms in community-based theater to prevent domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 28(3–4), 922–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211014556