Search results

During Strauss's formative years as a sociologist, neither sex nor gender, nor for that matter race/ethnicity, was central to the broader American sociological agenda. Social class and mobility were, and Strauss wrote on these issues, both in terms of their social psychological dimensions vis-à-vis transformations of identity (1959) and their situatedness (1971b/2006). Immigration issues were also vivid for American sociology (especially for Chicago School sociologists) and for Strauss, a child of German Jews. He took up these concerns most directly in his urban sociology (Strauss, 1961, 1991, pp. 287–312), and in his work on large-scale symbolization (1971a, 1971b/2006, 1993, pp. 162–167).

It is almost unbelievable that it is already 11 years ago that our most beloved friend and teacher Anselm Strauss died. In 1999 we had a conference in Magdeburg, Germany, where we tried to commemorate his very personal and creative way of doing sociological research and of teaching sociology that established an almost miraculous bridge to the minds of German and other European social scientists even though Anselm Strauss was very American. He was American in the best sense of using and encouraging creative freedom of expression, of showing witty nonconventionality, of relating in an egalitarian way to his interaction partners, of being empathically cooperative and practical in his thinking and in his personal relationships with his European students and colleagues. Today, instead, I would like to talk a little bit about his longer lasting impact on German-speaking social sciences and on other European social sciences as far as I have insight into them.

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.

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.

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.

Officially, of course, the world is now post-imperial. The Q’ing and Ottoman empires fell on the eve of World War I, and the last Leviathans of Europe's imperial past, the Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist empires, lumbered into the grave soon after. Tocsins of liberation were sounded on all sides, in the name of democracy (Wilson) and socialism (Lenin). Later attempts to remake and proclaim empires – above all, Hitler's annunciation of a “Third Reich” – now seem surreal, aberrant, and dystopian. The Soviet Union, the heir to the Tsarist empire, found it prudent to call itself a “federation of socialist republics.” Mao's China followed suit. Now, only a truly perverse, contrarian regime would fail to deploy the rhetoric of democracy.

This special section of Studies in Symbolic Interaction offers papers originally presented at the Second Anselm Strauss Colloquium, “Forty Years of Grounded Theory,” held at UC San Francisco on October 5, 2007.¹ The colloquium celebrated several events: the 40th anniversary of The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the Doctoral Program in Sociology at UCSF (1968), the centennial of the UCSF School of Nursing (2007), and the life and work of Anselm Strauss.²

The purpose of this paper is to clarify four common confusions in grounded theory (GT) use by demonstrating an example of the author's doctoral study into conceptualising higher education students' learning and knowledge sharing by exploring blogging phenomena. It seeks not only to present the author's personal experience and views, but also to shed light on the causes of the confusion for novice qualitative researchers.

A review of literature on GT and the author's practical experience of undertaking an empirical study into the blogging phenomenon in LIS discipline form the approach to addressing the issue.

The paper summarises four common issues that hinder inexperienced qualitative researchers when they undertake GT research: using GT as a methodology or method; how to use literature review; how to use coding strategy; and what is the generated theory.

The paper provides practical suggestions of what matters when adopting GT approach. It needs more new researchers to further confirm the suggestions that the author stated in terms of a researcher's unique experience.

The paper attempts to bridge the gap of insufficient discussion in the literature, focuses on new researchers' GT adopting experiences and provides them with practical directions.

The small accounting practice, despite being the most numerous part of the profession by number of firms, remains largely under-researched. Part of the reason the small practice category remains elusive is that researchers find it difficult to precisely define the object to study, and yet, this may be precisely the reason for studying it. Envisaging how this category is “represented” in institutionalized settings, constitutes a rich agenda for future research as it allows the small practitioner world to be connected to the issue of intra-professional segmentation. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper proposes reinvigorating research around Bucher and Strauss’ (1961) conceptualization of professions as “segments in movement”. At the same time as advocating a better investigation of the small practitioner segment itself, it suggests to take the latter as an example to further explore the vision of professions as segments “more or less delicately held together”. To this end, there is a potential for cross-fertilization between Bucher and Strauss’ research programme and a range of other theoretical frameworks.

The discussion points towards how small practice, as a segment whose history and characteristics reflect the different struggles that have led to the creation of the professional accounting body and marked its subsequent evolution, is far from insignificant. Segmenting the profession in categories related to “size” offers an opportunity to deal with an under-investigated aspect of professions’ sociology and history, which encapsulates its inherent diversity and hierarchy. Whilst the professional body may replicate the hierarchy that structures broader society, the meaning of small itself, within a hierarchy of organizations, is also a relative concept. It is politically charged, and must be delicately managed in order to maintain harmony within the polarized professional space.

The small practitioner has been much overlooked in the accounting literature, and the literature on the professions has overemphasized aspects of its cohesiveness. The authors contribute a revitalized agenda for researchers to explore the dynamics of heterogeneity and unity in the professional body, by focusing a lens on the small practice and extending the “segments in movements” premise beyond the functional division of professions.

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.