Article

Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts

Glenn A. Bowen
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA

© 2006 Bowen. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that uses inductive analysis as a principal
technique. Yet, researchers who embrace this approach often use sensitizing concepts to guide
their analysis. In this article, the author examines the relationship between sensitizing concepts
and grounded theory. Furthermore, he illustrates the application of sensitizing concepts in a study
of community-based antipoverty projects in Jamaica. The article contains commentary about
trustworthiness techniques, the coding process, and the constant comparative method of analysis,
as well as a synopsis of study findings.

Keywords: grounded theory, inductive analysis, naturalistic research, sensitizing concepts,

themes, trustworthiness

Author’s Note: Thanks to the College of Health and Urban Affairs (School of Social Work) at
Florida International University, Miami, USA, for financial assistance toward my participation in
a qualitative methods workshop in August 2003. Dr. Deborah Pad- gett (New York University)
provided expert guidance during the workshop, organized by the Institute for the Advancement of
Social Work Research. Special thanks to my research advisors, Drs. Miriam Potocky-Tripodi,
David Cohen, Barbara Thomlison, and Anthony Maingot, for their invaluable support.

Introduction

Grounded theory is a popular research approach embraced by scholars in anthropology, sociology, health
care, and many other fields. Sensitizing concepts provide a theoretical foundation for its development. In
this article, I provide an overview of grounded theory and explain the purpose of sensitizing concepts
within the context of the research method. Moreover, I illustrate the functions of sensitizing concepts in a
study of community-based antipoverty projects, which generated a theory of development-focused
stakeholder collaboration. In particular, I examine the relationship between the initial concepts, emergent
themes, and the theory itself.

12
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a research approach or method that calls for a continual interplay between data
collection and analysis to produce a theory during the research process. A grounded theory is derived
inductively through the systematic collection and analysis of data pertaining to a phenomenon (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). Data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocal relationship with one other.
Sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967) discovered grounded theory in the 1960s; Strauss and Corbin (who
has a nursing research background) are credited with refining the approach.

Inductive Analysis

Inductive analysis is the principal technique used in the grounded theory method. “Inductive analysis
means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the
data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (Patton, 1980, p. 306).

Grounded theory is a very popular method in nursing research (see, e.g., Beck, 1993; Knobf, 2002;
Marcellus, 2005; Nathaniel, 2006; O‟Connell & Irurita, 2000). Over the years, scholars in many other
fields have embraced this research approach. Student affairs professionals, for instance, view grounded
theory as a powerful research method that can produce information to increase educators‟ understanding
of the complex interactions between students and college environments (Brown, Stevens, Troiano, &
Schneider, 2002).

Themes

A grounded theory is generated by themes, and themes emerge from the data during analysis, capturing
the essence of meaning or experience drawn from varied situations and contexts. According to Morse and
Field (1995),

Thematic analysis involves the search for and identification of common threads that extend
throughout an entire interview or set of interviews. Themes are usually quite abstract and
therefore difficult to identify. Often the theme does not immediately “jump out” of the interview
but may be more apparent if the researcher steps back and considers. “What are these folks trying
to tell me?” The theme may be beneath the surface of the interviews but, once identified, appears
obvious. Frequently, these themes are concepts indicated by the data rather than concrete entities
directly described by the participants. . . . Once identified, the themes appear to be significant
concepts that link substantial portions of the interviews together. (pp. 139-140, emphasis in
original)

Although Morse and Field focused on interviews, a variety of data sources may be tapped in a grounded
theory study. As the researcher analyzes the data, major themes are expected to emerge and to be
categorized in such a way that they yield a theory.

Sensitizing concepts

In this section, I define and explain the purpose of sensitizing concepts within the context of grounded
theory. The term originated with Blumer (1954), the late American sociologist, who contrasted definitive
concepts with sensitizing concepts. Blumer explained,

A definitive concept refers precisely to what is common to a class of objects, by the aid of a clear
definition in terms of attributes or fixed bench marks. . . . A sensitizing concept lacks such
specification of attributes or bench marks and consequently it does not enable the user to move

13
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

directly to the instance and its relevant content. Instead, it gives the user a general sense of
reference and guidance in approaching empirical instances. Whereas definitive concepts provide
prescriptions of what to see, sensitizing concepts merely suggest directions along which to look.
(p. 7)

Social researchers now tend to view sensitizing concepts as interpretive devices and as a starting point for
a qualitative study (Glaser, 1978; Padgett, 2004; see also Patton, 2002). Sensitizing concepts draw
attention to important features of social interaction and provide guidelines for research in specific
settings. According to Gilgun (2002), “Research usually begins with such concepts, whether researchers
state this or not and whether they are aware of them or not” (p. 4).

Sociologist Charmaz (2003) has referred to sensitizing concepts as “those background ideas that inform
the overall research problem” and stated further,

Sensitizing concepts offer ways of seeing, organizing, and understanding experience; they are
embedded in our disciplinary emphases and perspectival proclivities. Although sensitizing
concepts may deepen perception, they provide starting points for building analysis, not ending
points for evading it. We may use sensitizing concepts only as points of departure from which to
study the data. (p. 259, emphasis in original)

For his part, Blaikie (2000) has argued that research that is concerned with theory generation might
require sensitizing concepts but no hypotheses. Indeed, qualitative research, including grounded theory
research, does not start with hypotheses or preconceived notions. Instead, in accordance with its inductive
nature, it involves the researcher‟s attempts to discover, understand, and interpret what is happening in the
research context.

Sensitizing concepts can be tested, improved, and refined (Blumer, 1954). However, researchers taking
the grounded theory path do not necessarily seek to test, improve, or refine such a concept. They might
use sensitizing concepts simply to lay the foundation for the analysis of research data. Researchers might
also use sensitizing concepts in examining substantive codes with a view to developing thematic
categories from the data. For example, MacIntosh (2003) reported that in the process of substantive
coding, she used sensitizing concepts in further data collection and analysis. Although Macintosh cited
Will van den Hoonaard‟s (1997) primer, Working with Sensitizing Concepts, her description of the
application of sensitizing concepts in the research process is at best vague and inadequate.

It is important to bear in mind that whereas sensitizing concepts might alert researchers to some important
aspects of research situations, they also might direct attention away from other important aspects (Gilgun,
2002). In any case, the ultimate survival of a sensitizing concept “depends on where the data take us;
emergent concepts may supplement or displace them altogether” (Padgett, 2004, p. 301).

Illustrating sensitizing concepts in a study

I used sensitizing concepts to shape my study of community-based antipoverty projects in Jamaica, which
generated a substantive-formal theory of stakeholder collaboration (Bowen, 2003, 2005). It was an
exploratory qualitative study of projects supported by the Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF), an
autonomous agency of the national government that funds small-scale community improvement projects.
In exploratory research, social phenomena are investigated with minimal a priori expectations to develop
explanations of these phenomena (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

I collected data primarily by means of in-depth, open-ended interviews involving knowledgeable

respondents from community-based organizations or nongovernmental organizations that sponsored

14
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

social fund projects in each of eight selected communities in Jamaica. Nonparticipant observation of
organization/community conditions and products, as well as reviews of available project documents, also
produced data for analysis.

The use of sensitizing concepts was appropriate for a study that fit into the framework of “naturalistic”
ontology. Naturalistic research includes, among other characteristics, inductive analysis and special
criteria of trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In my study of social fund projects, I used an
inductive approach to identify patterns and interrelationships in the data by means of thematic codes. The
trustworthiness standard in naturalistic research is in contrast to the conventional, positivistic criteria of
internal and external validity, reliability, and objectivity (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba,
1985). In my study, I included such trustworthiness techniques as member checks, negative case analysis,
“thick” description of phenomena, and an audit trail, so that the process of theory development would be
both visible and verifiable. Ultimately, I was able to produce a plausible and coherent explanation of the
phenomena.

Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework links various concepts and serves as an impetus for the formulation of theory
(Seibold, 2002). The sensitizing concepts included in my study formed the conceptual framework. These
concepts were derived from a thorough review of the literature on social funds, poverty reduction, and
community development. The reviewed literature indicated that the basic theoretical argument was that
involving local community residents in partnership-based social fund projects could create social capital
and foster empowerment of the community, and of lower income people, in particular. Partnership based
means that stakeholders from various social sectors—public (government), private (business), and civic
(community)—were involved in the funded projects. The concepts of community participation, social
capital, and empowerment seemed to underpin social funds as an approach to poverty reduction, and I
assumed that these concepts contained theoretical ideas that would help to set the context and direction
for my study. Therefore, I decided to examine the nexus among them.

Hence, the conceptual framework for the study included three sensitizing concepts, which formed part of
the analysis. I treated these concepts as variables through the specification of procedures to measure them
(Blaikie, 2000). The concepts provided an analytic frame, serving as a point of reference and a guide in
the analysis of data with theory-producing potential.

Community/citizen participation

Community participation was deemed essential to every phase of a JSIF-funded project—from identifying
and preparing the project to managing and evaluating it. Moreover, predetermined criteria for approving
the allocation of funds included community participation in all phases of the project and a (minimum) 5%
contribution from the local sponsor. In theory, the “demand-driven” approach used by JSIF allowed poor
communities to articulate their priority needs and to receive funding for projects selected by the
community (Bowen, 2003, p. 27). JSIF claimed to value local knowledge and involvement in the design
of projects. This was indicative of a “bottom-up” approach to local development.

According to one report, the Jamaica Social Investment Fund had put “a strong emphasis on using
participatory approaches which allow all, young/old, men/women, poor/less poor and those traditionally
unseen and unheard to be actively involved” in the JSIF-funded development projects (Jupp, 2000a, p. 2).
After reviewing the literature, I concluded that “how such an „emphasis‟ is translated into action needs to
be examined, and how effective this approach really is remains to be seen” (Bowen, 2003, p. 29).

15
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

A detailed review of the literature revealed that community participation was often treated as synonymous
with citizen participation. Citizen participation is defined as “the active, voluntary engagement of
individuals and groups to change problematic conditions and to influence policies and programs that
affect the quality of their lives or the lives of others” (Gamble & Weil, 1995, p. 483). Community
participation, therefore, was seen as citizen engagement in the change or development process at the
community level. In reviewing the literature, I argued, “To the extent that a CBO (community-based
organization) truly represents ordinary citizens, the two concepts, community participation and citizen
participation, properly merge in relation to a social fund project” (Bowen, 2003, p. 28, italics in original).

The term community participation, or citizen participation, was defined operationally more easily than the
other concepts were. In my study, community/citizen participationwas defined as the active involvement
of local community residents, and particularly persons identified as poor, in the social fund project and in
project-related activities. Genuine participation, and not mere presence, would be indicated by, inter alia,
community members‟ roles in designing, implementing, monitoring, evaluating, and maintaining the
project; sharing of information and contribution of ideas; and contributions to decision making.

Social capital

JSIF projects aimed to create social capital by providing support, training, and opportunities for people to
build trust and collaboration within communities (World Bank Group, 2001a). Social capital facilitates
cooperation and collective action, necessary factors for the success of JSIF projects (Jupp, 2000b). In an
exploratory study, I could not afford to ignore this concept.

Social capital involves norms, social networks, and relationships (Coleman, 1988). It has been described
as the glue that holds groups and societies together (Jupp, 2000b). Jupp has described two types of social
capital “glue”: (a) “bonding”—the glue within homogeneous groups, which provides help for group
members; and (b) “bridging”—the glue that links these groups to other, unlike groups (e.g., linking poor
communities to the business sector or utility companies). Several researchers have indicated that social
capital was related to poverty alleviation (e.g., Moser & Holland, 1997; Narayan, et al., 2000; Tolbert,
Irwin, Lyson, & Nucci, 2002). One illuminating study found a significant relationship between social
capital and the probability of escaping poverty (Gray-Molina, Jiménez, Pérez de Rada, & Yáñez, 2001).

Although the literature is replete with references to social capital, this concept remained difficult to define
in operational terms. In fact, according to the World Bank, obtaining a “true” measure of social capital is
probably not possible (World Bank Group, 2001b). In light of this, many researchers have been using
proxy measures. I expected that the most visible proxies for social networks in local Jamaican
communities would be parent-teacher associations, citizens‟ associations, community councils, youth and
sports clubs, and informal or semiformal credit and job networks.

Empowerment

The final concept that seemed to undergird a social fund strategy of poverty reduction was empowerment.
A principal objective of the Jamaica Social Investment Fund was to assist in empowering communities by
seeking to ensure greater levels of community involvement in development programs and community
participation in decision making. JSIF claimed to invest in communities by empowering them and
building their capacity to manage their own development more effectively (Jupp, 2000a).

The idea of capacity building has generated considerable interest among community development
practitioners and scholars in the United States (McLean et al., 2001). Capacity for local community action
appeared to be intertwined with empowerment and was a common theme underlying both community
participation and social capital. Community participation is now regarded as an important means by

16
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

which community capacity can be enhanced (Carvalho et al., 2002); and capacity to engage in effective
community development work typically involves some combination of knowledge, skills, commitment,
and resources (McLean et al., 2001).

Like community participation, the concept of empowerment is said to have its origin in the fight against
poverty (Barry & Sidaway, 1999). An empowered community is one that initiates self-improvement
efforts, responds to threats to quality of life, and provides opportunities for citizen participation,
according to Zimmerman (2000). In my study, indicators of empowerment were expected to include
entrepreneurial activities by local residents, organizational leadership, control of funds, and results of
decision-making processes in relation to public and social services.

The second of three questions that I attempted to answer in the study was related to these three sensitizing
concepts. The question was this: Does a social fund project (a) foster community/citizen participation, (b)
create social capital, and (c) empower the poor—and if so, in what specific ways?

Analysis

A constructivist-interpretive paradigm (Schwandt, 1994) underpinned my study. Accordingly, I analyzed

the data using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In line
with this approach, my interpretation of events and situations involving local community actors provided
building blocks for theory construction. As explained by Glaser and Strauss (1967), comparative analysis
can be used to generate two basic kinds of theory: “substantive” and “formal” (p. 32). Substantive theory
is developed for a substantive, or empirical, area of sociological inquiry; formal theory is developed for a
formal, or conceptual, area of sociological inquiry. Both substantive and formal theories must be
grounded in data.

In my study, the substantive (empirical) area of inquiry was poverty, whereas the formal (conceptual) area
of inquiry was community/citizen participation, social capital, and empowerment, taken together. As
Glaser and Strauss (1967) observed, most studies generating substantive theory will ultimately generate
and improve formal theory.

I used the constant comparative method, marked by an iterative process, to identify the latent pattern in
multiple participants‟ perspectives, as specified primarily in their words. In this regard, I reviewed line,
sentence, and paragraph segments of the transcribed interviews and field notes with a view to deciding
what codes fit the concepts suggested by the data. The interview data were given more weight in the
analysis than were the nonparticipant observation and the document reviews. Each code was constantly
compared to all other codes to identify similarities, differences, and general patterns.

Themes gradually emerged as a result of the combined process of my becoming intimate with the data,
making logical associations with the interview questions, and considering what was learned during the
initial review of the literature. At successive stages, themes moved from a low level of abstraction to
become major, overarching themes rooted in the concrete evidence provided by the data. When
“theoretical saturation” occurred—that is, when additional data failed to uncover any new ideas about the
developing theory—the coding process ended.

Relationship of sensitizing concepts to theory

Four emergent themes together, with a substantive-formal theory of development-focused collaboration,

became the major findings of the study. A complete analysis of the data has revealed that the approach to
poverty reduction in social fund-supported communities is a process of development-focused
collaboration among various stakeholders. The underlying theory posits that collaboration increases the

17
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

productivity of resources and creates the conditions for community-driven development. “Community-
driven development represents a people-centered approach to social change, whereby local actors take the
lead in conceptualizing projects and programs that address social and economic needs” (Bowen, 2003, p.
76).

Noting that local actors were also fully involved in implementing such projects and programs, I concluded
that stakeholder involvement was a key element of development-focused collaboration (Bowen, 2003,
2005). Furthermore, a major hypothesis embedded in the stakeholder involvement theory is that “the
greater the collaboration, the greater the productivity of the resources and the more favorable the
conditions for community-driven development” (Bowen, 2005, p. 78).

Communities that received social fund assistance for projects attempted to deal with local-level poverty-
related problems by following a four-stage process: (a) Identifying Problems and Priorities, (b)
Motivating and Mobilizing, (c) Working Together, and (d) Creating an Enabling Environment. Each stage
is regarded as a theme. The first stage (theme) encompasses subthemes that reflect community conditions;
the conditions identified at the first stage produced strategies at the second stage of the collaboration
process; three forms of interactions comprise the third stage (Working Together); and consequences of
social fund projects in beneficiary communities are mirrored at the final stage of the process (see Table
1).

Conditions Identifying Problems and Priorities

Voicing common concerns
Understanding the system
Strategies Motivating and mobilizing
Focusing on the common good
Emphasizing collective responsibility
Seeking stakeholder support
Interactions Working together
Matching resources to requirements
Getting the job done
Showing tangible results
Consequences Creating an enabling environment
Looking beyond the present
Sustaining interest and support
Maintaining pride and satisfaction

Table 1. Stakeholder collaboration theory

For each stage, codes at three levels—open, axial, and selective—were identified, compared and
contrasted, and collapsed to produce themes. In analyzing the data, I sought to answer the research
question regarding the sensitizing concepts by looking for empirical instances of citizen participation,
social capital, and empowerment. The themes outlined above were truly emergent and therefore do not
reflect any a priori selection on my part.

What follows is a brief examination of the three sensitizing concepts in relation to the theory of local-
level stakeholder collaboration. Each concept is considered in turn.

18
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

Community/citizen participation

Social fund projects, according to background documents, have roles for local beneficiary communities in
every phase: selection, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. However, in the study, I
found that by and large, community participation was limited, if not lacking, in several phases of the
funded projects. Participation was highest during project implementation (Bowen, 2003). Yet,
community/citizen participation found its way into the theory as part of the third stage of the process of
development-focused collaboration, when local project sponsors concentrated on “matching resources to
requirements” and “getting the job done.” However, this sensitizing concept was not forced on the data.

Line-by-line coding of the data (and additional data collection after the first round of coding) led to the
refinement of the community/citizen participation concept. This initial concept helped me make sense of
the data and was integral to the theory-generating analysis. For example, to meet the social fund
guidelines for community participation, communities and project sponsors identified money, materials or
supplies, personnel, and labor as the available resources. A respondent stated,

Our association tried to pool whatever resources we had available to us. We decided to beg,
borrow, or steal—no, we didn‟t really steal! However, we asked the business people to support us
and we decided to put in as much work as necessary so we could have the project.

Through coding this statement (as well as others) line by line, I linked it to the emerging theme,
“Matching Resources to Requirements.” The analysis showed this theme to be part of the third stage of
development-focused collaboration, when community associations concentrated on project
implementation.

An additional example of line-by-line coding is given in Table 2. The respondent whose four-line
statement is quoted was a member of the executive committee of a community-based organization that
organized a funded project. The “community involvement” and “people‟s responsibility” codes come
closest to the community/citizen participation concept identified in the literature.

Social Capital

The findings indicated that social capital formation across communities in the study was not substantial.
“Bonding” social capital was evident in all communities, albeit to varying degrees, whereas “bridging”
social capital was less evident. Rural communities had higher levels of social capital than urban
communities (Bowen, 2003). The main manifestations of social capital included the collective action of
citizen groups during the planning and implementation stages of each social fund project as well as in
subsequent projects and programs. The findings suggested that leadership roles tend to be distributed
mostly among “better off” people in the communities.

The social capital concept per se was not included in the theory. Arguably, however, it was reflected in
the concept of collaboration, which turned out to be central to the emergent theory. The literature had
indicated that social capital was connected to collaboration, in the sense that social capital is a resource
for collective action, and collective action is the essence of collaboration. To be sure, collaborationis
defined as “a mutually beneficial relationship between two or more parties to achieve common goals by
sharing responsibility, authority and accountability for achieving results” (Chrislip & Larson, 1994, p. 5).
The purpose of collaboration is to create a shared vision and joint strategies to address concerns that go
beyond the purview of any particular party.

19
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

Empowerment

In general, the JSIF-funded projects were more enabling than empowering. “Creating an enabling
environment” was identified as the final stage of the process of development-focused collaboration
(Bowen, 2003). The state—through its social fund agency, with the assistance of one of JSIF‟s partners,
the Social Development Commission—created an enabling environment for local communities to get
involved in local development processes. In other words, the state created conditions for citizen groups to
carry out certain tasks and make certain decisions to deal with specific social or economic problems
within a community. However, the projects did not allow the communities to gain power or control
resources on their own without further substantial support from public or private institutions or agencies.
Therefore, although some activities in social fund beneficiary communities were potentially empowering,
there was only minimal empowerment of those communities.

By considering the concept of empowerment in the analysis, I discovered the concept of enablement in
relation to the thematic categories identified by the study. Thus, based on my analysis of the data,
enablement supplanted empowerment.

Line-by-Line Coding Interview Statements

Recognizing limitations “We the executive can do so much and no more”
Recognizing limitations “We the executive can do so much and no more”
“We always try to keep all the members actively
Noting importance of community of involvement
involved in everything we do in the community”
“After all, this community belongs to all of us;
Accepting “ownership” of community and we cannot depend on the government to do
everything for us”
Emphasizing people‟s responsibility (combined
“We have to take some responsibility too”
with government‟s)

Table 2. Line-by-line coding of an interview statement

In sum, I included the sensitizing concepts in an analytic frame that reflected current theoretical ideas
from the literature on social funds, poverty reduction, and community development. In the course of the
analysis, the first sensitizing concept, community/citizen participation, became an integral part of one of
the themes. The other sensitizing concepts, social capital and empowerment, were, in effect, discarded.
Although they did not find a place in the emergent theory, those concepts sensitized me to more fruitful
lines of inquiry. By putting aside preconceptions and using the constant comparative method of analysis, I
was able to move beyond extant concepts in the literature and to “ground” the theory.

Conclusion

Sensitizing concepts provide starting points for building analysis to produce a grounded theory. As a
research approach, grounded theory is appropriate for identifying and explaining social processes.
Sensitizing concepts give the researcher a sense of how observed instances of a phenomenon might fit
within conceptual categories. My research has demonstrated that sensitizing concepts can be effective in
providing a framework for analyzing empirical data and, ultimately, for developing a deep understanding
of social phenomena. In this regard, what is interesting is that the process has become clear to me only in
hindsight.

In this article, I have discussed the place and purpose of sensitizing concepts in relation to grounded
theory research. Furthermore, I have illustrated the use of such initial concepts in a study of community-

20
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

based antipoverty projects. A vital part of the process of theory generation was to move beyond the
sensitizing concepts. It was vital, too, to move beyond the words drawn from interview transcripts and
various documents—from a descriptive to an interpretive and explanatory mode—so that concepts would
give way to themes and themes would produce a theory. As a researcher recently reminded us, “Theory is
powerful because it organizes what professionals pay attention to and how they pay attention. It shapes
beliefs that in turn shape action” (Domahidy, 2003, p. 76). If the emergent theory contributes to problem
solving and positive social change, then the research project will truly have been worthwhile.

References

Barry, M., & Sidaway, R. (1999). Empowering through partnership—The relevance of theories of
participation to social work practice. In W. Shera & L. Wells (Eds.), Empowerment practice in
social work: Developing richer conceptual foundations(pp. 13-37). Toronto, Canada: Canadian
Scholars‟ Press.

Beck, C. T. (1993). Teetering on the edge: A substantive theory of postpartum depression. Nursing
Research, 42(1), 42-48.

Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 18, 3-10.

Bowen, G. A. (2003). Social funds as a strategy for poverty reduction in Jamaica: An exploratory study
(Doctoral dissertation, Florida International University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 65, 1557.

Bowen, G. A. (2005). Local-level stakeholder collaboration: A substantive theory of community-driven

development. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, 36(2),
73-88.

Brown, S. C., Stevens, R. A., Troiano, P. F., & Schneider, M. K. (2002). Exploring complex phenomena:
Grounded theory in student affairs research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(2), 173-
183.

Carvalho, S., Perkins, G., White, H., Bahnson, C., Kapoor, A. G., & Weber-Venghaus, S. (2002). Social
funds: Assessing effectiveness. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249-291). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can
make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95-S121.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

Domahidy, M. (2003). Using theory to frame community practice. Journal of the Community
Development Society, 34(1), 75-84.

Gamble, D. N., & Weil, M. O. (1995). Citizen participation. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.-in-

Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 483-494). Washington, DC: National
Association of Social Workers/NASW Press.

Gilgun, J. F. (2002). Some notes on the analysis of qualitative data. Retrieved January 29, 2006, from
http://ssw.che.umn.edu/img/as sets/5661/Data%20analysis%2010-02.pdf

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.

Gray-Molina, G., Jiménez, W., Pérez de Rada, E., & Yáñez, E. (2001). Poverty and assets in Bolivia:
What role does social capital play? In O. Attanasio & M. Székely (Eds.), Portrait of the poor: An
assets-based approach (pp. 46-83). Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.

Jupp, D. (2000a). How is JSIF responding to the problems of poor communities?: Report prepared for
The Rt. Hon. P. J. Patterson, Prime Minister [of Jamaica], March 30, 2000. Kingston, Jamaica:
Jamaica Social Investment Fund.

Jupp, D. (2000b). JSIF’s goal: Investing in social capital. Kingston, Jamaica: Jamaica Social Investment
Fund. Retrieved February 5, 2002, from http://www.jsif.org/public.htm

Knobf, M. T. (2002). Carrying on: The experience of premature menopause in women with early stage
breast cancer. Nursing Research, 51(1), 9-17.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

MacIntosh, J. (2003). Reworking professional nursing identity. Western Journal of Nursing

Research, 25(6), 725-741.

Marcellus, L. (2005). The grounded theory method and maternal-infant research and practice. Journal of
Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 34, 349-357.

McLean, S., Ebbesen, L., Green, K., Reeder, B., Butler-Jones, D., & Steer, S. (2001). Capacity for
community development: An approach to conceptualization and measurement. Journal of the
Community Development Society, 32(2), 251-270.

Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moser, C. O. N., & Holland, J. (1997). Urban poverty and violence in Jamaica (World Bank Latin
American and Caribbean Studies/Viewpoints). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., & Koch-Schulte, S. (2000). Voices of the poor: Can
anyone hear us? New York: World Bank/Oxford University Press.

22
 International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2006, 5(3)

Nathaniel, A. K. (2006). Moral reckoning in nursing. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 28(4), 419-
438.

O‟Connell, B., & Irurita, V. (2000). Facilitating the process of theory development by creating a visual
data analysis trail. Graduate Research Nursing, 1(1), Article 1. Retrieved January 7, 2006, from
http://www.graduateresearch.com/oconnell.htm

Padgett, D. K. (2004). Coming of age: Theoretical thinking, social responsibility, and a global perspective
in qualitative research. In D. K. Padgett (Ed.), The qualitative research experience (pp. 297-315).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin &

Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seibold, C. (2002). The place of theory and the development of a theoretical framework in a qualitative
study. Qualitative Research Journal, 2, 3-15.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tolbert, C. M., Irwin, M. D., Lyson, T. A., & Nucci, A. R. (2002). Civic community in small-town
America: How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism and civic engagement. Rural
Sociology, 67(1), 90-113.

van den Hoonaard, W. C. (1997). Working with sensitizing concepts: Analytical field research.Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

World Bank Group. (2001a). Jamaica: Social Investment Fund. Retrieved February 9, 2002, from
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/external/lac/lac.nsf

World Bank Group. (2001b). Social capital for development. Retrieved February 9, 2002, from
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm

Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of

analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology(pp. 43-63).
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

23