Search results

The paper revisits the intellectual roots of grounded theory and aims to analyze the consistency of the method used in grounded theory research in accounting. About 23 papers are identified and analysed.

The paper is an analytical review of the research literature. It uses four fundamental canons of grounded theory to analyze accounting research.

Some accounting researchers who have used the label “grounded theory” for their research have misunderstood or not applied the core canons of grounded theory established by Glaser and Strauss and developed with diversity in other disciplines. Most claim to follow the specific approach of Strauss and Corbin, but the published research shows limited explication of method.

Since Parker and Roffey in 1997, there has been no analysis and re‐evaluation of the burgeoning academic accounting literature using grounded theory. While celebrating the growth of this research, the paper does raise concerns about the lack of consistency of grounded theory research in accounting with the central canons of grounded theory, and it provides some directions for future grounded theory research by encouraging accounting researchers who wish to use grounded theory to engage more strongly in understanding the method and providing transparent explanations of their data collection and analysis methods.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Restates the case for accounting and management research from a grounded theory perspective, and advocates its informed and more frequent application. Examines the intellectual foundations and key tenets of grounded theory in the context of researchers’ theoretical assumptions and methodological characteristics, discussed in relation to Laughlin’s (1995) classification schema. Pays particular attention to grounded theory assumptions and methods in relation to other interpretive paradigms such as symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology and hermeneutics. Describes the basic principles and methods of grounded theory research, and presents potential applications to the accounting and management research arenas. Argues that rigorous grounded theory research can offer the accounting and management literatures unique understandings that provide additional perspectives to those already being offered by major schools of thought, and discusses implications of grounded theory for informing contemporary professional practice.

Grounded theory (GT) is a very crucial qualitative tool in research inquiry. It embraces systematic, inductive, and comparative inquiry method to construct a theory. GT is mostly appropriate to investigate organizational phenomena, which involves a change process. In this chapter, the authors focus on the emergence of GT as a research inquiry tool with the focus how GT evolves from classis grounded theory to constructivist ground theory. In the detailed method of GT, a focus is given on coding method along with theoretical sampling and theoretical saturation points. Despite being a powerful technique, GT has drawn a number of criticisms. Majority GT researchers consider the technique as an inductive method with a few exceptions, where it has been deliberated as a deductive method. However, in the line of Corley (2015), it can be argued that GT should be considered as a methodological approach to study inductive phenomena having less understanding of theoretical perspective. Chapter concludes with identifying future scope of study in the field of GT.

This chapter explores the potential of grounded theory research methods for eliciting threshold concepts. It begins with an overview of threshold concept theory, then reviews current methodological approaches, as well as challenges encountered, when researching threshold concepts. The discussion argues for the suitability of grounded theory for this purpose, using a specific case for illustration. Specific elements of the research design that strengthened the use of grounded theory in the exploration of threshold concepts are described. The case example used is of graduate students and practicing professionals’ learning experiences when acquiring expertise in the online environment. The case is used to demonstrate the grounded theory method’s efficacy for eliciting evidence of transformative learning experiences, leading to implications for improving curriculum design.

This contribution argues that Kathy Charmaz's career did not burst into full intellectual bloom until the last 25 years of her life – from 55 to her death at 80. I examine why and how this scholarly blossoming happened so late in her life and the nature of its many manifestations, especially research on a wide variety of social justice issues. After her initial focus on medical sociology, specializing in chronic illness, Kathy became an innovative and renowned qualitative methodologist, developing constructivist grounded theory (CGT) method taken up in many amazingly heterogeneous scholarly fields transnationally.

Grounded theory (GT) is an inductive paradigm-based research method that focuses more on data depth and quality than the generalizability of results to a broader population and is substantially different from conventional hypothetico-deductive research approaches. GT has become a popular research approach in several social science fields including tourism and hospitality. By reviewing the development of GT and its associated philosophical underpinning, this chapter compares three widely used GT approaches advocated by Glaser (Classical GT), Strauss and Corbin (Straussian GT), and Charmaz (Constructivist GT). Given the various interpretations and approaches to GT, this chapter therefore offers an overview of the key distinguishing characteristics of these approaches to GT so as to facilitate more thoughtful approach selection in keeping with philosophical positions, research questions, and research objectives. This chapter then proposes a step-by-step guideline of the application of this method through an illustrative example in tourism. The chapter concludes with a critical reflection on this widely used qualitative research method and considers possible future developments.

Anselm is perhaps best known for creating the grounded theory method with Barney G. Glaser. The Discovery of Grounded Theory was a cutting-edge book that fueled the qualitative revolution. I agree – strongly – with Norm Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (1994, p. ix) that a qualitative revolution has taken place in the United States. The Discovery book arrived on the sociological scene at just the right time. Quantitative research had become systematic and quantitative researchers saw their work as “scientific.” The worship of a narrow conception of science abounded. By the time Anselm studied at Chicago, qualitative scholars had moved from life histories to case studies and established a rich ethnographic tradition that shaped Chicago School sociology in the 1940s. Yet, by the time Barney and Anselm wrote The Discovery of Grounded Theory in 1967, quantification was becoming entrenched as “the” sociological method. The ethnographic tradition was losing ground.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the implementations and implications of Grounded Theory as an exploratory and inductive research method in the LIS studies. The paper seeks to illustrate the opportunities and challenges that this methodology has brought to the methodological paradigms of LIS research body. Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on two blended constituents including a selective literature review and the author's personal experience in using Grounded Theory. Regarding the paper's scope it possesses a holistic approach to the issue and does not examine the results of individual reviewed studies in detail. Findings – The results suggest that up to now there have been a considerable number of studies in the LIS area that have successfully employed Grounded Theory. Nevertheless, it does not mean that this methodology is applicable in any research context. Accordingly, there is not a unanimous agreement on the usefulness of this methodology in the research community. Nevertheless, these arguments not only did not diminish the value of Grounded Theory but also helped grounded theorists to enhance this methodology's credibility and trustfulness. Research limitations/implications – Regarding the wide use of Grounded Theory it was not possible to carry out an exhaustive review of all studies that have employed Grounded Theory. However, the reviewed studies in this paper can be considered as a representative of the targeted research body. Providing the research community with an overall image of the applicability of Grounded Theory in LIS research is the main implication of the paper. Future researchers will benefit from the paper by finding out about the nature of this methodology and the aspects that they need to consider before using it. Originality/value – Although Grounded Theory is a widely used methodology, there are few publications about its applicability in LIS research. Therefore, this paper can contribute to the area through providing a holistic picture of the role of this methodology in LIS research.

Libraries are closing or reducing opening hours in the UK due to budgetary cuts. Library provision for children is consequently diminishing and libraries have to justify their existence. Therefore a reliable methodology for assessing the importance of libraries is vital to demonstrate their value to children’s literacy. Two methodologies were combined to study children visiting children’s mobile libraries (CMLs). The purpose of this paper is to consider whether the combined, qualitative methodology was the correct choice.

Aspects of each methodology are examined for their appropriateness for researching children. The compatibility of their philosophical stance and the validity of combining ethnography and grounded theory is explored and questioned.

It is found that grounded theory and ethnography were the optimum combination to form a powerful research tool that allows children to be active participants in research. The combined methodology was successful because the ethnographic elements allowed the researcher to enter to the children’s world, whereas the grounded theory elements provided a structural framework, exploration into a novel research topic and ensured that a valid conclusion was drawn.

It is unusual for qualitative methodologies such as grounded theory and ethnography to be combined in order to study learning in a non-pedagogic, library environment. This paper is valuable reading for librarians, or educationalists wishing to examine how libraries aid literacy because it verifies the benefits of the combined methodology of grounded theory and ethnography and provides a template which can be used by other researchers.