بررسی ویژگی ها و ابعاد رویکردهای مختلف نظریه داده بنیاد در برنامه ریزی‌شهری: یک مطالعه مروری نظام‌مند

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

اسماعیل کلاته رحمانی ¹

کوروش افضلی ²

جواد معین الدینی ³

¹ دانشجوی دکتری شهرسازی، دانشکده هنر،معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه آزاد واحد کرمان

² دانشیار گروه شهرسازی دانشکده هنر،معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرمان

³ دانشیار گروه جامعه شناسی دانشکده علوم انسانی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرمان

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2022.68544.1012

چکیده

یکی از پر کاربردترین روش­های تحقیق در میان روش­های کیفی، روش نظریه داده بنیاد بوده که دارای رویکردهای مختلف روش­شناسی است. هدف این مقاله بررسی رویکردهای مختلف نظریه داده بنیاد و بیان شباهت­ها، تفاوت­ها ،ویژگی­ها و ابعاد هر کدام از آنها، به منظور شفافیت هرچه بیشتر در استفاده از این روش در برنامه­ریزی شهری است. در این مقاله با مروری نظام­مند، به بررسی پژوهش­های چاپ شده در سال 2020 میلادی به زبان انگلیسی در زمینه استفاده از نظریه داده بنیاد در برنامه­ریزی شهری، اقدام شده است. از این رو­، "برنامه­ریزی شهری به اضافه نظریه داده بنیاد" به عنوان کلیدواژه­ای برای جستجو تعیین شد. در مجموع 116 پژوهش شناسایی شد که از این میان 12 پژوهش مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. یافته­های این تحقیق نشان می­دهد که در بررسی پژوهش­های انتخاب شده، 4 رویکرد اصلی از نظریه داده بنیاد و ویژگی­های مرتبط با هر کدام با عناوین رویکرد نظریه داده بنیاد اولیه­، گلاسرین، استراووسین و رویکرد نظریه داده بنیاد برساختی شناسایی شد، که از سمت پژوهشگران مورد استفاده قرار گرفته است. نتیجه تحقیق نشان داد که برنامه­ریزان شهری در استفاده از نظریه داده بنیاد نیازمند توجه بیشتر به رعایت نمونه ­گیری نظری، اشباع نظری، نوشتن یادداشت­های تحلیلی هستند. همچنین آگاهی از تفاوت­های رویکردهای مختلف نظریه داده بنیاد از جمله بنیان فلسفی و تأکیدات نظری به ارائه نتایج بهتر در استفاده از نظریه داده بنیاد منجر می­شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

مرور نظام مند"

تحقیقات کیفی"

نظریه داده بنیاد"

رویکردهای نظریه داده بنیاد"

"

برنامه ریزی شهری"

20.1001.1.25383531.1400.8.2.4.0

---

عنوان مقاله English

Investigating the Characteristics and Dimensions of Different Approaches to Grounded Theory in Urban Planning: A Systematic Review

نویسندگان English

Esmaeil Kalateh Rahmani ¹

Korosh Afzali ²

Javad Moinaddini ³

¹ PhD student in Urban Planning, Faculty of Art, Architecture and Urban Planning, Azad University, Kerman

² Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art, Architecture and Urban Planning, Islamic Azad University, Kerman Branch

³ Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Kerman Branch

چکیده English

One of the most widely used research methods among qualitative methods is the grounded theory (GT) method, which has different methodological approaches. The purpose of this article is to examine the different approaches of GT and show the similarities, differences, features and dimensions of each of the grounded theory approaches to offer clearer details on using this method in urban planning. In this article, with a systematic review the research published over the last year (i.e. 2020) in English in the field of using GT in urban planning was examined. Hence, "urban planning + grounded theory" was chosen as the keyword for the search. A total of 116 studies were identified as such from which 12 studies were reviewed. The findings of this study showed that in the review of selected research, four main approaches of GT and related features were identified with the titles of original GT approach, Glaserian, Straussian and structural grounded theory approach. The results showed that urban planners in using the GT need to pay more attention to theoretical sampling, theoretical saturation, and writing analytical notes. In addition, being aware of the differences between different GT approaches, including philosophical foundation and theoretical emphasis, leads to better results in using grounded theory.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Systematic Review

Qualitative Research

Grounded Theory

Grounded Theory Approaches

Urban Planning

مراجع

1. Anzoise, V., Slanzi, D., & Poli, I. (2020). Local stakeholders’ narratives about large-scale urban development: The Zhejiang Hangzhou future Sci-Tech City. Urban Studies, 57(3), 655-671.
2. Azami-Aghdash, S., Sadeghi-Bazargani, H., Saadati, M., Mohseni, M., & Gharaee, H. (2020). Experts’ perspectives on the application of public-private partnership policy in prevention of road traffic injuries. Chinese journal of traumatology, 23(3), 152-158.
3. Allen, N., & Davey, M. (2018). The value of constructivist grounded theory for built environment researchers. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 38(2), 222-232.
4. Bollo, C., & Collins, T. (2017). The power of words: Grounded theory research methods in architecture & design. Architecture of Complexity: Design, Systems, Society and Environment: Journal of Proceedings, 87-94.
5. Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4, 25–42.
6. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
8. Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory method, Handbook of constructionist research. New York: The Guilford Press.
9. Charmaz, K. (2009). Shifting the grounds: Constructivist grounded theory methods. In J. M. Morse, P. N. Stern, J. Corbin, B. Bowers, K. Charmaz, & A. E. Clarke (Eds.), Developing grounded theory: The second generation. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
10. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. Qualitative Report, 19, 32-45.
11. Coral, C., Bokelmann, W., Bonatti, M., Carcamo, R., & Sieber, S. (2020). Agency and structure: a grounded theory approach to explain land-use change in the Mindo and western foothills of Pichincha, Ecuador. Journal of Land Use Science, 15(4), 547-569.
12. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: Sage publications.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4^th ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine.
15. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
16. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
17. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press
18. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qualitative health research, 27(4), 591-608.
19. Hussein, F., Stephens, J., & Tiwari, R. (2020). Grounded Theory as an Approach for Exploring the Effect of Cultural Memory on Psychosocial Well-Being in Historic Urban Landscapes. Social Sciences, 9(12), 219.
20. Jayakody, C., Amaratunga, D., & Haigh, R. (2017, December). Grounded Theory as an Approach to Explore the Use of Public Open Spaces to Enhance the Cities' Resilience to Disasters. In 10th International Built Environment Research Conference:" Design that Cares": An Interdisciplinary Approach to Making Built Environments Efficient and Meaningful. Moratuwa: Faculty of Architecture, University of Moratuwa.
21. Khairabadi, O., Sajadzadeh, H., & Mohammadianmansoor, S. (2020). Assessment and evaluation of tourism activities with emphasis on agritourism: The case of simin region in Hamedan City. Land Use Policy, 99, 2-12.
22. Karimimoshaver, M., Ahmadi, M. A., Aram, F., & Mosavi, A. (2020). Urban views and their impacts on citizens: A grounded theory study of Sanandaj city. Heliyon, 6(10), 2-10.
23. Lambert, M. (2019). Grounded theory(pp. 132-141). Routledge.
24. Lak, A., Aghamolaei, R., Baradaran, H. R., & Myint, P. K. (2020). A Framework for Elder-Friendly Public Open Spaces from the Iranian Older Adults' perspectives: A Mixed-Method Study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 56, 5-37.
25. Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006a). Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: Implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12, 8–13.
26. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 1(2), 13-22.
27. Morse, J. (2015). Data were saturated: what is saturation, [Editorial]. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 587–588.
28. Rupsiene, L., & Pranskuniene, R. (2010). The variety of grounded theory: Different versions of the same method or different methods. Socialiniai mokslai, 4(70), 7-20.
29. Thornberg, R. (2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 56(3), 243-259.
30. Tarozzi, M. (2020). What is Grounded Theory? Bloomsbury Publishing.United Kingdom.
31. Taghipour, A. (2014). Adopting constructivist versus objectivist grounded theory in health care research: A review of the evidence. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, 2(2), 100-104.
32. Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic introduction to doing GT research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 2-10.
33. Shahabadi, M. R. Y. P., Sajadzadeh, H., & Rafieian, M. (2020). Explaining the theoretical model of place branding: an asset-based approach to regeneration of the historic district of Tehran. Journal of Brand Management, 1-16.
34. Silva, C., Clifton, K., & Moeckel, R. (2019). Observational method and coding framework for analyzing the functionality of unprotected bicycle lanes. Transportation research procedia, 41, 559-571.
35. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage
36. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 273–285). Sage Publications.
37. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
38. Wanqing, S., Tianyu, Z., Zhichong, Z., Jian, K., & Jianhua, S. (2020). A grounded theory approach to the understanding of creativity in common spaces of universities. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 744-761.
39. Xiao, J., Tait, M., & Kang, J. (2020). Understanding smellscapes: Sense-making of smell-triggered emotions in place. Emotion, Space and Society, 37, 2-9
40. Zamani, B., & Babaei, E. (2020). A Critical Review of Grounded Theory Research in Urban Planning and Design. Planning Practice & Research, 36(1), 77-90.
41. Zhang, W., Zhang, M., Zhang, W., Zhou, Q., & Zhang, X. (2020). What influences the effectiveness of green logistics policies? A grounded theory analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 714, 2-49.