
This article focuses on some of our reflections of using processes inherent within classic grounded theory methodology to build knowledge surrounding military personnel who experienced combat-related limb-loss from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. We conclude that instead of adding to the issue of mixing different grounded theory perspectives, researchers should instead follow guidance from one approach to avoid becoming perplexed as each strand produces a different product. This article provides our own philosophy and compatibility with a classic grounded theory approach, and we encourage researchers to capitalise on the wealth of exemplar theories within the Grounded Theory Review journal and to engage with Barney Glaser’s books.
Social sciences (General), H1-99, Combat-Trauma, Combat-Related Limb-Loss, Grounded Theory, Classic Grounded Theory, Military Trauma
Social sciences (General), H1-99, Combat-Trauma, Combat-Related Limb-Loss, Grounded Theory, Classic Grounded Theory, Military Trauma
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
