Improving grounded theory research in sport and exercise psychology: Further reflections as a response to Mike Weed

Objective: The purposes of this paper were to respond to and expand upon Weed's (2009) critique of the use of grounded theory methodology in sport and exercise psychology. Our objectives were to clarify and correct some issues and suggest solutions to the valid problems identified. Method: Weed reviewed 12 grounded theory articles published in four sport and exercise psychology journals between 2000 and 2008. We conducted a thorough review of the literature and found Weed's inclusion/exclusion criteria were not consistently applied. The search also appeared incomplete because papers published outside the four journals reviewed were not included. As a result, some of the criticisms raised were unfounded while others were even more prevalent. We have provided a precise and balanced critique of the literature based on eight core characteristics of grounded theory. We have also suggested some practical solutions for improving grounded theory research. Conclusion: The original review identified some important points, particularly that researchers should use grounded theory as a methodology. Researchers in sport and exercise psychology should embrace such criticism and strive to improve their use of grounded theory methodology. To assist with this process we presented a list of tips for optimal conditions for planning grounded theory studies. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. As researchers in the area of sport and exercise psychology, we welcomed Professor Mike Weed's critique of grounded theory research in our discipline (Weed, 2009). The purposes of this paper were to respond toWeed's article (whichwe refer to as ‘the original article’) and further examine the use of grounded theory methodology in sport and exercise psychology. Our objectives were to clarify and correct some issues and suggest some solutions to the valid problems identified. We contextualize our paper by locating the recent emergence of qualitative methods and grounded theory within the broader evolution of the field of sport and exercise psychology. Writing in the first issue of Psychology of Sport and Exercise (PSE), Biddle (2000) reflected there has been a fairly rapid expansion of specialist journals in the area and the field has also become more international, evidenced by the emergence of international editorial boards and use of reviewers from around the world. Despite this growth and diversity, a small number of research perspectives and designs have dominated the literature. For example, Conroy, Kaye, and Schantz (2008) coded articles published in the first 26 All rights reserved. volumes of Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology (JSEP). They found that over the 26-year period an average 84% of articles were original empirical reports. Of those empirical reports, approximately 93% used quantitative data. Compared to fields such as nursing, we are a long way behind in the use and sophistication of qualitative research. However, the use of qualitative research in sport and exercise psychology has grown over the past few decades. Culver, Gilbert, and Trudel (2003) examined qualitative studies published in the leading sport and exercise psychology journals between 1990 and 1999. Having identified 84 articles that used qualitative data, these studies were primarily characterized by the use of one-time interviews and inter-rater reliability tests to ensure the consistency of analysis. Brustad (2008) suggested that the reliance on a few types of qualitative methods or techniques (e.g., interview, content analysis, etc.) limits knowledge generation, and noted that a more diverse range of qualitative methodologies are starting to be published, including grounded theory. Therefore, qualitative research in general, and grounded theory in particular, are relatively new research approaches in our field that are now being used more regularly. By critically examining methodological issues in published grounded theory studies we hope to help advance the methodological sophistication of research in our the field. N.L. Holt, K.A. Tamminen / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 (2010) 405e413 406 Grounded theory research in sport and exercise psychology In the original article studies published between 2000 and 2008 in the four sport and exercise psychology journals with the highest impact factors in the year 2007were reviewed. These journals were PSE, JSEP, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (JASP), and The Sport Psychologist (TSP). The search term “grounded theory” was used to examine “the electronic archives” of the journals (Weed, 2009, p. 503). This search produced 12 articles. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were not reported, but it was claimed the studies represented “research labeled grounded theory in sport and exercise psychology” (p. 503). We conducted several searches of the sport psychology literature to confirm the evidence base (Fig. 1). The first author conducted a Boolean search of Sport Discus on June 4, 2009, using the keywords “grounded theory” (all text field selected), and “sport psychology” (no field selected) or “exercise psychology” (no field selected) limited from January 2000 to December 2008 and peer reviewed (scholarly) articles only. The initial search returned 1191 hits. Changing the Boolean operators and conducting separate searches for sport psychology and exercise psychology refined the search. Hence, a follow up searchwas run (June 4, 2009) using the keywords “grounded theory” (all text field selected), and “sport psychology” (no field selected) and this produced 27 hits. A third search was run (June 4, 2009) using the keywords “grounded theory” (all text field selected) and “exercise psychology” (no field selected) which produced 30 hits. For thoroughness, and to include articles that may not be indexed in Sport Discus, a Google Advanced Scholar search was conducted limited to 2000–2008 with ‘all of the words’ “sport psychology” ‘the exact phrase’ “grounded theory” and ‘at least one of the words’ “qualitative” (slightly different search terms were used because Sport Discus and Google Advanced Scholar have different search parameters). This produced 253 hits. The same Google Advanced Scholar search was conducted using “exercise psychology” inplace of “sport psychology.” This search produced 175