QUESTION B
Article1: Bowen (2006) Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts.
Article 2: Balcazar, Fabrico et al (2012), A Case Study on liberation among Latino Immigrant families (with Disabled Children)
Both studies can be used in qualitative and quantitative studies depending on the researchers’ interests. And support employment of multiple approaches in one study while collecting data.
Both studies aimed at exploring emancipation, empowerment and liberation of the vulnerable groups of people.
Both studies may be applicable for exploratory, descriptive or explanatory purposes, and may take critical, typical, or deviant approaches.
However, Explaining and predicting a phenomenon or to build a theory is a subjective process, which relies
He conveyed to readers both the practical and theoretical and ways of approaching theory generation.
Additionally, the author tried to bring to light on how sensitizing concepts provide starting point for building analysis of data to generate a grounded theory. As a research method, it’s appropriate for identifying and explaining phenomenon and social processes.
The author clearly explains dynamics of theoretical framework in his study. This clearly gives the readers a line of reasoning and basis as to why we should move grounded theory further into postmodernism.
He expounds on the importance of discourse analysis, and he tries explains how one can analyze discourse. Each section of this article has merit and readable and understandable.
The author tried to balance the article that with inventive and creative practical applications in his article, He used appropriate literature, and good scholarly writing.
Weakness
However this article provides an argument as to the benefits of using grounded theory and builds a rational line of reasoning in defence of the argument. Although his article was logically written, it is somehow lacking some practical
The study explored the data in real-life environment and also helped to explain the complexities of actual life situation which may not be captured via experimental or other methods.
The article was clearly written, with credible scholarly referencing. All necessary quotes made the arguments hold water and a strong base.
The author s clearly out lays the study population and the sample size which they involved in their study.
The authors clearly showed the methods adopted in analyzing data. They used naturalistic inquiry approach and narrative recording. This makes their study more reliable and credible.
Weakness
‘‘We encouraged potential participants to initiate the gradual process to create critical awareness by sharing personal life stories and helping to collect the experiences’’ (Balcazar, Fabrico et al (2012), the authors did not clearly reveal to the readers how they ensured ‘‘do no harm principle’’ Saying stories may open the wounds of the parents.
There is a little basis for scientific generalization in this study especially with this single case. You cannot make generalization from one single case. It lacks