Search results

The paper will concentrate on the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) from the point of view of the contemplative social sciences (CSS). It will analyze how the mind is engaged in the construction of concept and what the role is of the consciousness of the mind's work in creating a theory that is based on the analysis of empirical data. We will review the research and analytical methods that could be inspirations for Contemplative Grounded Theory (CGT): constructivist grounded theory, classic grounded theory, transformational grounded theory, sociological introspection, holistic ethnography, mindful inquiry and transformational phenomenology, and contemplative qualitative inquiry.

We can find in many classical books from grounded theory (GT) some seeds of contemplative thinking, and we can reconstruct them (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987). We would like to develop the inspirations more and perhaps change the sense of GT after the contemplative turn. We would like to show the possibilities of using CGT in research and also its limitations. Some empirical examples from research and analysis will be given to show how contemplation could be used in 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.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal, reflective account of applying grounded theory, in particular Glaser's approach, in accounting research. It seeks to reduce barriers to adopting the grounded theory approach.

The approach taken is providing an overview of Glaser's grounded theory and discussing the authors' application of it, thus discussing their personal experiences.

The paper seeks to provide a greater insight into using the grounded theory approach, through illustrating the authors' personal experiences with its application. It seeks to highlight the merits and pitfalls, including any attempts to overcome these, as these are perceived from a subjective viewpoint.

The paper provides an individual account of how a grounded theory study was undertaken. The subjectivity of such undertaking has to be taken into consideration.

The application of the grounded theory approach is discussed retrospectively, in a bid to provide an insight to interpretive research projects in general and grounded theory in particular. It is still rarely used in accounting research, but has potential to contribute at all levels of accounting research. The paper provides an individual account of using this approach.

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.

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 analyze previous grounded theory articles and, based on this analysis, to provide a framework to assist reviewers in evaluating grounded theory research and increasing the rigor and credibility of this methodology in logistics and supply chain journals.

An analysis of existing articles appearing in the leading logistics and supply chain journals combined with an extensive review of the grounded theory method literature were used to develop a comprehensive framework for evaluating grounded theory research.

The paper finds that no standard criteria for publication of grounded theory research exists in logistics and supply chain journals. Grounded theory is routinely confused with other qualitative methodologies. Overall, this situation leads to publications that do not adequately address or report on the process for developing a grounded theory.

Reviewers can use this paper to establish the quality of grounded theory research. Reviewers who are unfamiliar with or skeptical of the grounded theory method can use the framework to evaluate the rigor and credibility of a grounded theory study rather than rejecting such research. The checklist can be used to provide thorough and constructive reviews to authors.

The paper presents a framework that provides a ready reference for reviewers to assess whether the authors have taken appropriate action in selecting a grounded theory methodology, collecting and analyzing data, developing a theory grounded in the data, and for evaluating their research. Existing research is compared with the framework to identify potential shortcomings in the review process. The application of the framework to the review of future articles provides an opportunity to increase the credibility and rigor of grounded theory research in logistics and supply chain management journals.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to describe accomplishments and conundrums in a midcareer program of research with roots in the Strauss and Corbin seminars at UCSF in the early 1990s. My use of grounded theory methods in a succession of studies, all focused on family caregiving during cancer treatment, has generated theory on family caregiving skill, a phenomenon that was underconceptualized in the early 1990s. However, my successive grounded theory studies have raised a number of methodological conundrums pertaining to researcher perspective. I describe two here. First, how can a researcher develop grounded theory through successive studies without becoming so analytically enmeshed with previous study results that what gets noticed in new data is limited? Second, how strong a presence can a researcher's clinical perspective have in an analysis without violating the tenets of grounded theory? I argue that recent scholarship in grounded theory provides new ways of thinking about these conundrums.

This paper aims to analyse the manner in which “objectivist” grounded theory methodology has progressively developed since 1967 and how it has been employed by management researchers.

The paper traces the methodological development of grounded theory with particular emphasis on the variations, contradictions and modifications to the methodology both between and within the Glaserian and Straussian Schools. Totally 32 empirical grounded theory studies published in the management literature since 2002 are analysed in order to gauge the impact of these variations on the manner in which researchers have employed the grounded theory methodology.

It is argued that grounded theory in management research is in danger of losing its integrity. The methodology has become so pliant that management researchers appear to have accepted it as a situation of “anything goes” “Grounded theory” is now loosely used as a generic term to refer to any qualitative approach in which an inductive analysis is grounded in data.

It could be argued that grounded theory cannot continue to be regarded as a moving target, or to be practised as a free‐for‐all methodology in management research, without risking serious danger of becoming irrelevant. Three suggestions are offered for restoring more discipline into grounded theory studies.

The grounded theory method is more appropriate than just a grounded theory “approach,” for teasing out the detail of the level of analysis of constructs. Also, triangulation is important to this kind of research, but the methodological distinctions between qualitative and quantitative data and qualitative and quantitative analysis need to be made clear when mapping out a methodology. The contention here is that the qualitative analysis of quantitative data is more important than the quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Qualitative analysis in line with the full grounded theory method will generate explanations of how and why a construct is represented at various levels of analysis. In turn, such an explanation can illustrate whether the questionnaire instrument is representing the levels of analysis of the construct adequately or not.