Reactions to reading “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”: A comment on Gurd

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”, a paper by Gurd.

Design/methodology/approach

Like Gurd, the authors conducted a bibliographic study on prior pieces of research claiming the use of grounded theory.

Findings

The authors found a large diversity of ways of doing grounded theory. There are as many ways as articles. Consistent with the spirit of grounded theory, the field suggested the research questions, methods and verifiability criteria. From the same sample as Gurd, the authors arrived at different conclusions.

Research limitations/implications

In our research, the authors did not verify the consistency of claims with grounded theory. The authors took for granted that the article authors had understood and made operational the suggestions of the founders of the method.

Practical implications

The four canons of grounded theory can be considered as reference marks rather than as the rules of the method. Accordingly, the researcher is free to develop his or her own techniques and procedures.

Originality/value

This paper stimulates debate on grounded theory‐based research. On the other hand, it conveys the richness and the variety of interpretive research. Two similar studies, using similar samples and methods, arrive at different (divergent) conclusions.

Citation

Joannidès, V. and Berland, N. (2008), "Reactions to reading “Remaining consistent with method? An analysis of grounded theory research in accounting”: A comment on Gurd", Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 253-261. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766090810910254