Search results

Recurrent “methodological disputes” have haunted the social sciences, again and again polarizing the case-oriented quest for specification against the natural science inspired quest for general, high-level theory. As a consequence, too much social science research is captured in either one of two vicious circles: ever more highly specified monographic case studies or preoccupation with periodically shifting general theories. The interaction of these two circles increases the risk of widespread amnesia: as social scientists are either bogged down in a stream of cases or flying high with the most recent grand (meta-)theories, social science forgets the actual empirical knowledge that is being meticulously created, maintained and revised in the daily handicraft carried out by a growing mass of researchers.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 compare fundamental concepts from the grounded theory approach to social science research and concepts from entity‐relationship diagramming, a technique used to model data from the field of systems analysis, and propose that entity‐relationship diagramming can be a useful tool for grounded theory researchers.

The paper compares and contrasts concepts from the two different fields, demonstrating the construction of an entity‐relationship diagram from data from an existing grounded theory research project, and the correspondence between the data model constructs and the grounded theory constructs.

A strong correspondence was found between these two sets of concepts and suggests that the entity‐relationship diagramming technique may be a useful addition to the social scientist's toolkit when carrying out research using the grounded theory approach.

The paper bridges two distinct fields – information systems and grounded theory – and proposes a novel way for qualitative researchers to analyse and depict data.

In this paper, grounded theory is investigated and applied to research on electronic commerce in order to demonstrate its use and potential limitations in accounting research. Grounded theory enables relevant theoretical concepts to emerge from the data and, in this way, leads to discovery. In treating ‘all as data’, grounded theory uses a pragmatic approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data and datagathering methods to encourage a rich understanding of the situation. This enables the generation of theory rather than the confirmation of existing theory. To illustrate this process, this paper demonstrates the emergence, with the use of grounded theory, of a definition for electronic commerce.

Couched within the author’s memories and correspondence with Kathy Charmaz, this chapter considers the philosophical nature of Constructivist, or Charmazian Grounded Theory, and contrasts it with the philosophical underpinnings of Critical Grounded Theory. Using an autopoietic framework, this chapter sees Charmazian and Critical Grounded Theory as interconnected, complementary, but distinct in the way they each approach research participants and interpret social processes. The chapter ends with reflections on Kathy Charmaz's contribution to critical grounded theory and where she had hoped the next generation of grounded theorists might expand the methodology.