##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Raquel Marta https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4011-4021

Resumen

A investigação da realidade social, das interações humanas e das suas dinâmicas contextuais, espaciais e temporais requer um diálogo entre as dimensões objetiva e subjetiva do conhecimento. Das várias estratégias de pesquisa qualitativa, a grounded theory oferece a possibilidade de conciliar ambas as dimensões e interpretar as complexidades das experiências humanas e das realidades sociais através de uma metodologia indutiva e comparativa. Tal possibilidade não é alcançada sem desafios, uma vez que diferentes fatores, tais como as capacidades de observação e interpretação do investigador, com os seus próprios preconceitos e ideias pré-concebidas, estão incorporados na dinâmica da realidade ou interação a ser estudada. Este artigo começa por articular o contributo do pensamento complexo para as discussões sobre as dimensões ontológica, epistemológica e axiológica da grounded theory. Reconhecendo a natureza criativa do paradigma da complexidade, o artigo alonga o argumento ao lugar do gesto criador nos diferentes momentos metodológicos que a convergência entre a grounded theory e a complexidade tem para oferecer, proporcionando ao investigador uma maior liberdade para explorar a dinâmica da investigação. Em consonância com o processo de investigação sistemático, criativo e interativo subjacente à grounded theory, o artigo termina com uma breve visão geral dos métodos complementares de recolha de dados, integrando e fundindo a comunicação verbal e não verbal. Esta integração pode ser conseguida com a utilização de métodos audiovisuais, como a gravação de vídeo, promovendo a emergência de camadas adicionais de significado e uma compreensão partilhada mais profunda entre o investigador e o sujeito da investigação, aumentando assim a validade e a profundidade e facilitando a criação de conhecimento.

Descargas

Los datos de descarga aún no están disponibles.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Sección
Ensayos científicos

Cómo citar

Marta, R. (2026). GROUNDED THEORY: CRIATIVIDADE E COMUNICAÇÃO COMPLEXA. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 22(2), e1288. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.22.2.2026.e1288
Referencias

Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2003, October). Rethinking transformative learning and the concept of “critical reflection” through the paradigm of complexity. 5th International Transformative Learning Conference: Transformative Learning in Action: Building Bridges Across Contexts and Disciplines, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.

Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2008). Three generations of complexity theories: Nuances and ambiguities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00411.x

Buck, R., & VanLear, A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbal behavior. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 522–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02560.x

Bull, P. (2001). State of the art: Nonverbal communication. The Psychologist, 14, 644–647.

Cassell, J., McNeill, D., & McCullough, K.-E. (1999). Speech–gesture mismatches: Evidence for one underlying representation of linguistic and nonlinguistic information. Pragmatics & Cognition, 7(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.7.1.03cas

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357

Chiovitti, R., & Piran, N. (2003). Rigour and grounded theory research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44(4), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0309-2402.2003.02822.x

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. Academic Press.

DuFon, M. A. (2002). Video recording in ethnographic SLA research: Some issues of validity in data collection. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 40–59. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/10125-25142/

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system: A technique for the measurement of facial movement. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 695–727). SAGE Publications.

Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867

Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Sociology Press.

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

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

Goulding, C. (1998). Grounded theory: The missing methodology on the interpretivist agenda. Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 50–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522759810197587

Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. SAGE Publications.

Grimshaw, A. D. (1982). Sound-image data records for research on social interaction: Some questions and answers. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124182011002002

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). SAGE Publications.

Guillemette, F. (2006). L’approche de la grounded theory: Pour innover? Recherches Qualitatives, 26(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.7202/1085397ar

Jones, R., & Noble, G. (2007). Grounded theory and management research: A lack of integrity? Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 2, 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465640710778502

Kuhn, T. (2009). A estrutura das revoluções científicas. Guerra e Paz.

Lee, R. (2003). Métodos não interferentes em pesquisa social. Gradiva.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Luckerhoff, J., & Guillemette, F. (2011). The conflicts between grounded theory requirements and institutional requirements for scientific research. The Qualitative Report, 16(2), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1062

Marta, R. (2016). Investigação em serviço social: O futuro no presente. Reflexões em torno do processo de construção de conhecimento científico português. Trabajo Social Global. Revista de Investigaciones en Intervención Social, 6(10), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.30827/tsg-gsw.v6i10.4084

Marta, R. (2025a). Poetic epistemological turbulence: Towards an interactive framework for social work knowledge construction. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-08-2025-2071

Marta, R. (2025b). Transdisciplinarity: Reimagining improvisation, creativity and complexity. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101913

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986229

McNeill, D. (1985). So you think gestures are nonverbal? Psychological Review, 92, 350–371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.3.350

McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. University of Chicago Press.

Montuori, A. (2006). The quest for a new education: From oppositional identities to creative inquiry. ReVision, 28(3), 4–20.

Montuori, A. (2013). Complexity and transdisciplinarity: Reflections on theory and practice. World Futures, 69(4–6), 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2013.803349

Montuori, A. (2024). Complexity and creativity. In J. Kociatkiewicz & M. Kostera (Eds.), How to do social science that matters (pp. 124–139). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035314546.00018

Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Hampton Press.

Morin, E., & Kern, A. B. (1999). Homeland Earth: A manifesto for the new millennium. Hampton Press.

Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N., & Collins, K. (2010). Innovative data collection strategies in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 696–726. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1171

Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the Nonverbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measures of self- and other-perceived nonverbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 504–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370170

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). SAGE Publications.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.). (1997). Grounded theory in practice. SAGE Publications.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2017). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 273–285). SAGE Publications.

Tsourvakas, G. (1997). Multi-visual qualitative method: Observing social groups in mass media. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1997.2018

Tulku, T. (1987). Love of knowledge. Dharma

Walker, D., & Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded theory: An exploration of process and procedure. Qualitative Health Research, 16(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305285972