Regular Article

Grounded Theory: A Guide for

International Journal of Qualitative
Methods
Volume 20: 1–14
Exploratory Studies in Management ª The Author(s) 2021
DOI: 10.1177/16094069211013654

Research journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq

Chara Makri1,2 and Andy Neely2

Abstract
Grounded theory was first introduced more than 50 years ago, but researchers are often still uncertain about
how to implement it. This is not surprising, considering that even the two pioneers of this qualitative design,
Glaser and Strauss, have different views about its approach, and these are just two of multiple variations found
in the literature. While studies using grounded theory in management research are becoming more popular,
these are often mixed with the case study approach, or they provide con- tradictory guidelines on how to use it.
The aim of this paper is to provide a clear guide for researchers who wish to use grounded
theory in exploratory studies in management To support this goal, the methodology’s different terms and
research. as found in the literature, are also discussed. This study can support researchers using this
variations,
methodology, but it is also useful for reviewers and examiners who wish to understand more about it and the
different ways in which researchers have implemented it.

Keywords
Glaserian GT, grounded theory, methods in qualitative inquiry, interpretive phenomenology, secondary data
analysis

Introduction: The Need for a Guide the term “grounded theory” in Scopus returned 24,086
to Grounded Theory Methodology results,1 a number that has been constantly increasing since the
Even though there is no single approach to grounded theory creation of the methodology; yet only 7% (2,565 studies) of
(GT), and the methodology has undergone many changes these stud- ies were in the “business and management”
since it was first introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 category (Figure 1). It should be noted that a similar search for
(Cho & Lee, 2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002), it has become the term “case study” returned 788,460 results, from which
the leading qualitative approach across various disciplines 78,603 studies, significantly more than those using GT, were
(Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, as citied in Walsh et al., 2015). relevant to busi- ness and management studies.
Qualitative research has also seen constant growth since the At the same time, the validity of qualitative studies has also
introduction of GT (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Indeed, while been criticized on the basis of their unstructured nature and
much attention has been paid in the past to quantitative the
research, arguably this has been at the expense of a deeper subjectivity involved (see, for example, Easterby-Smith et al.,
understanding of the phe- nomena under study, especially in 2002). Different solutions have been recommended in the
subject areas that involve
real-lifetheevents extant literature to deal with this weakness, such as the use
of mixed methods (e.g., Opoku et al., 2016), the support of the
investigation of and human interactions chosen methodology through a detailed research protocol (e.g.,
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). It has also been argued that Yin, 2003), or the support of a study through a systematic
organizational studies in academic research offer no practical
literature review (e.g., Tranfield et al., 2003). All these
guidance to practitioners (Daft & Lewin, 1990); therefore,
“more inductive, theory-building studies, using empirical data
to build theories which are useful, relevant and up-to-date” 1
Centre for Digital Built Britain, University of Cambridge, United
(Partington, 2000, p. 91), are needed. Kingdom
This situation has also led to an increase in qualitative stud- 2
Cambridge Service Alliance, Institute for Manufacturing, University
of Cambridge, United Kingdom
ies in management research in recent decades, such as case
study research, which can provide a better understanding of Corresponding Author:
real-world events (McCutcheon & Meredith, 1993). However, Chara Makri, Centre for Digital Built Britain, University of
this does not seem to be the case for GT studies. A search for Cambridge, Broers Building, 21 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3
0FA, United Kingdom.
Email: [email protected]
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission
provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-
access-at-sage).
 2 International Journal of Qualitative

Figure 1. Scopus search results for “grounded theory” by subject.

approaches require the identification of a specific research gap p. 601). Notwithstanding its potential benefits, it is therefore
within the literature review. The traditional method of “gap- particularly challenging for researchers to take this journey,
spotting,” however, has also been criticized, as it can lead “to since it is undoubtedly far from easy to understand the process
a shortage of really interesting and influential studies within and which of the methodology’s variation is the most
management science” (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, p. 266). appropri- ate for a study. To understand which approach best fits
GT, as introduced in 1967 by Glaser and Strauss, offers a a study, it is important to understand not only its history but
compromise between the two. Specifically, researchers are also the main arguments within the literature. Indeed,
now advised to collecting data from the outset in order to
start choosing the most suit- able methodology for a study is
a deeper understanding of real-life problems, and before pro- potentially both the most impor- tant and most difficult part of the
ceeding with a more detailed literature review and identifica- research process (Opoku et al., 2016). The choice should depend
tion of specific research questions. Importantly, the GT on various parameters, such as the state of the relevant
approach allows researchers “to make statements about how literature, the research objective, the resources available, and
actors interpret reality” (Suddaby, 2006, p. 636), while the researcher’s philosophical view (e.g., Easterby-Smith et
provid- ing the opportunity to use both quantitative and al., 2002; Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Saunders et al.,
qualitative data. Put simply, the researcher has the
to “see” 2009). A better understanding of the evo- lution and variations
opportunity that GT has undergone over the years will therefore allow
the research problem through the eyes of the practitioners, researchers to have a better understanding of the methodology,
rather than through a gap-spotting analysis of the literature, in addition to the different ways that it can be used. Most
thus providing more practical and targeted solutions. Although importantly, this will allow them to decide whether GT is the
the extent of the literature review conducted before focusing best fit for their study and how to implement it.
on a more particular research scope depends on which GT This paper begins by providing an overview of different
approach the researcher decides to follow, it is generally research strategies before focusing explicitly on exploratory
accepted that grounded theorists should focus on what arises studies and the GT approach. The study further provides a
from the data, and data only, by delaying the literature review historical overview of the different approaches to GT, social
(Charmaz, 2006). More about the differences between the var- constructionism as a methodological fit, data collection and
ious approaches to GT are presented later in this paper. analysis methods, and the recommended research quality and
Indeed, despite its increasing popularity, due to the validity criteria. Within these sections, we also discuss the
numerous variations in the methodology “it is no longer different arguments within the literature. Finally, this paper
possible to tell precisely what researchers have done presents the challenges inherent in designing, undertaking, or
methodologically when they say they used ‘grounded theory reviewing GT research in management studies.
methods’” (Corley, 2015,
 Makri and 3

Table 1. Opposing Views of Positivism and Social Constructionism.

Positivism Social Constructionism

The observer Must be independent Is part of what is being observed

Human interests Should be irrelevant Are the main drivers of science
Explanations Must demonstrate causality Aim to increase general understanding of the
situation
Research progresses through Hypothesis and deductions Gathering rich data, from which ideas are
induced
Concepts Need to be operationalized so Should incorporate stakeholder perspectives
they can be measured
Units of analysis Should be reduced to simplest terms May include the complexity of the whole
situation
Generalization through Statistical probability Theoretical abstraction
Sampling requires Large numbers selected randomly Small numbers of cases chosen for specific
reasons
Note. This table was adopted from Easterby-Smith et al. (2002, p. 30).

An Overview of Different Research Strategies analysis (Saunders et al., 2009). The deductive approach is
According to the Oxford Living Dictionaries, research is “the more appropriate for theory testing. The combination of induc-
systematic investigation into and study of materials and tive and deductive research is called abductive research and
sources in order to establish facts and reach new con- refers to “the process by which a researcher moves between
induction and deduction while practicing the constant com-
clusions.”2 Research has the aim of making contributions to
parative method” (Suddaby, 2006, p. 639). Thus, abductive
theory (Sutton & Staw, 1995), either through theory testing or the
theory building (e.g., Colquitt & Zapata-phelan, 2007; Saun- approach is common when inductive research progresses and
ders et al., 2009). There are many different strategies that can the researcher seeks to develop, and later test, the developed
(Saunders et al., 2009). In the context of GT, Creswell
be used to conduct research. For example, research can be theory
(2012) refers to this process (of comparative method) as
quantitative or qualitative. The former is more suitable when “zigzagging.” He describes it as the process of moving back
the aim is to describe, code, or count events (Easterby-Smith and forth between the data collection and analysis, in order to
et al., 2002), while the latter is more suitable when the aim is reveal “clues” or “underdeveloped categories” and inform
to
explain “social events as experienced by individuals in their sub- sequent data collection (Creswell, 2012, p. 433).
natural context” (Malterud et al., 2001, p. 397).
Research can also be exploratory, descriptive, or explana- Exploratory Studies: Methodological Fit
tory. The classification of research into one of these categories
Saunders et al. (2009) present seven different research strate-
depends on the purpose of the study. Saunders et al. (2009)
gies and suggest that more than one can be used for
explain that the purpose of exploratory research is to find out
exploratory
“what is “seek new insights,” and “assess phenom- studies (i.e., experiment, survey, case study, GT, and archival
ena in new light ” (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 139). In contrast, the research), but they argue that the final choice should also
purpose of descriptive study is to provide an accurate depend on the researcher’s own philosophical positioning.
a of a person, event, or situation,while that of an explanatory Indeed, several authors have argued that understanding one’s
tion
study is to establish the relationships between different vari- values, and the way in which they view the world, can have a
ables. Considering that theory is not just a list of factors, char- major impact on the quality of a management study (see, for
acteristics, or concepts, but it should also how and why example, Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Guba & Lincoln, 1994;
explain
these factors fit together, as well as the connections, relation- Saunders et al., 2009). In more detail, understanding one’s
ships, and timings between phenomena and events (e.g., Sutton philosophical positioning is extremely important, as it can
help
& Staw, 1995; Whetten, 1989), these types of research are not researchers to refine their research design by considering not
necessarily mutually exclusive. A descriptive study, for exam- only the type of evidence required to answer their research
ple, can be the extension of an exploratory or an explanatory questions, but also how this evidence should be gathered and
research (Saunders et al., 2009). interpreted (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002).
Research can also be inductive, deductive, or abductive. In To define the most appropriate research method for a
inductive research, the researcher starts by collecting data and study, an author must consider alternative philosophies of
analyzing them in order to guide any subsequent work (Saun- social sci- ence. For example, Easterby-Smith et al. (2002)
present an
ders et al., 2009). This approach is more suitable for theory analysis of positivism, relativism, critical realism, and social
building and in cases where little or no previous theory exists constructionism, with positivism and constructionism being the
(Edmondson & McManus,
deductive 2007). The
research, existing authors
theory call this
is used type of
in order to In
formulate“nascent
research the research questions or hypotheses,
research.” which are
 4 International Journal of Qualitative
then used to organize and guide any subsequent data two most opposing views. The differences between the two
collection and are presented in Table 1. The key issue between the different
debates relates to the epistemology and ontology of each phi-
losophical approach. Epistemology refers to “the researcher’s
view regarding what constitutes acceptable knowledge ,”
 Makri and 5

Table 2. Comparison of Philosophical Views in Management Research.

Positivism Relativism Critical Realism Social Constructionism

Methods Quantitative Compromise Qualitative

between
positivism and
social
constructionism
Epistemology: a set of The social world exists externally, Different observers Human interests are the main
assumptions about the best and its properties should be have different drivers of science, and
way of inquiring into the measured through subjective viewpoints meanings are subjective
nature of the world methods
Ontology: assumptions that Reality is external and objective Reality depends on the Reality is socially
we make about the nature viewpoint of the constructed and subjective
of reality observer and may change

Note. This table was adjusted from Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) and Saunders et al. (2009).

Table 3. Summary of Theory, Research Type, and Philosophical Positioning Adopted in This Study.
Nascent Theory Exploratory Research

Type of data collected Qualitative, initially open-ended data that Qualitative, open-ended data
need
to be interpreted for meaning In-depth or semi-structured interviews to find out
Data collection methods Exploratory interviews with what is happening and seek new insights,
organizational observations, and documents from field sites
informants or experts in the subject
matter
Data analysis methods Thematic content analysis for pattern identification Qualitative analysis methods
Note. This table was adjusted from Easterby-Smith et al. (2002), Edmondson and McManus (2007), and Saunders et al. (2009).

and
aboutontology refers to
a substantive “the researcher’s view of the nature of
topic ” (Creswell, 2012, p. 423), in
reality” (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 119). A more detailed cases were existing theories cannot address the research
description of the characteristics of the different views is pre- problem.
sented in Table 2.
Table 3 summarizes and compares the type of data, data
collection, and analysis methods suggested by different
authors for nascent theory and exploratory research studies.
As pre- sented in this table, the proper type of data is
qualitative, and the most suitable data collection methods are
exploratory, in-depth, or semi-structured interviews, analyzed
using thematic content analysis.
Thus, based on the information presented in Table 3, the
type of data required for both qualitative and nascent theory
studies is qualitative.
In the literature there are contradictory views about which
methodology is best suited to exploratory studies that seek to
build theory. Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2003) suggest that case
studies are the most appropriate methodology, while Glaser
and Strauss (1967), Glaser (1978, 1992), Strauss (1987), and
Strauss and Corbin (1998) recommend the use of GT.
Gustafsson (2017) defines case studies as “an intensive study
about a person, a group of people or a unit, which is aimed to
generalize over several units. ” Gerring (2004) provides a similar
definition and further argues that the case study methodology
is “not a way of analyzing casual relations” (Gerring,
2004,
p. 341). In contrast, GT is ideal for exploring social relationships
(Mfinanga et al., 2019). Creswell defines GT as “a systematic,
qualitative procedure used to generate a theory that explains, at
a broad conceptual level, a process, an action, or an interaction
 6 International Journal of Qualitative
Table 4. Comparison of Case Studies and Grounded Theory.

Case Grounde
Studie d
s Theory
Suitable for qualitative research P P
Suitable for exploratory research P P
Suitable for theory building P P
Suitable for interpretivist research P P
Requires theoretical propositions P O
(or pre-identified) research questions

Indeed, while the two approaches are very similar, the main
difference (and purpose) of using the GT approach is the absence
Table 4 summarizes of any research questions or propositions.
the similarities and differences between the two.
Indeed, especially for nascent theory research, where very
little is known about the issues that may arise from the data, we
recommend not only avoiding the use of any propositions but
also using qualitative data to help with the introduction of new
constructs (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Using case studies
requires the formulation of specific research questions and study
propositions (Yin, 2003). According to Yin (2003,
p. 22), only “if you are forced to state some propositions will you
move in the right direction.”

The Grounded Theory Approach

History and Overview
Even though there is no single approach to GT, and the meth-
odology has undergone many changes since it was first
 Makri and 7

introduced by Glaser and Strauss in 1967 (Cho & Lee, 2014; selecting a particular method, or a combination of methods
Easterby-Smith et al., 2002), most authors agree that it has the (e.g., Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Saunders et al., 2009).
ability to introduce new concepts, as these emerge directly Despite the various differences, the main debate remains
from the data without forcing any leads. As Glaser (1998) between the methodology’s two creators. For example, Glaser
points out: “The grounded theorist has no preconceived view has remained faithful to the initial approach of GT (Heath &
of what problems they may encounter in the research or how Cowley, 2004), arguing that the researcher should follow an
the participants resolve their problem or main concern. . . He open and flexible process, where the theory emerges directly
sees that forcing only derails and fails this purpose. He does from the data, and where the data resolves around the main
not let the normal instructions of forcing stop him” (Glaser, concern of the actors involved (Corley, 2015; Easterby-Smith
1998, p. 119). This view is reinforced by Corley (2015), who et al., 2002; Glaser, 1978, 1992, 1998, 1999). Indeed,
points out that: “it’s not unexpected that all the powerful according to Glaser (1998), researchers should stop worrying
exam- ples of grounded theory research we have in our field about “doing it right,” and start working on it, while naturally
do not all look the same and have not all followed Glaser and fol- lowing the data instead of focusing on the technique
Strauss’s (1967) original GT prescriptions to their precise (Heath & Cowley, 2004, p. 149). What is more, the GT
letter. What these papers do have in common is that all have researcher should be imaginative, courageous, and creative
faithfully followed the spirit of the GT approach and done (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002) and have the “ability to tolerate
nothing to violate any of its main tenets” (Corley, 2015, p. confusion” (Glaser, 1999, p. 838). Glaser believes that the
604). researcher should no
start with
propositions, or a previous search of the
Indeed, GT has largely evolved since its first introduction literature (e.g., Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Glaser, 1978,
by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, and it has many variations, 1992, 1998; Heath & Cowley, 2004). The more flexible
depend- ing on which author is using it (e.g., Cho & Lee, approach proposed by Glaser is often referred to as the
2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). For example, as a result of “Glaserian” or “classic” view (see, for example, Glaser &
the numerous changes and forms that the methodology has Holton, 2004; Howard-Payne, 2016; Wiesche et al., 2017).
under- gone since its first introduction in 1967, it has been On the other hand, Strauss proposes a more structured
argued that “the term grounded theory has taken on a life of approach (e.g., Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Strauss, 1987; Strauss
its own” (Corley, 2015, p. 601). Therefore, when deciding & Corbin, 1998), and, as a result, the “Straussian” view has
to use GT to conduct research, it is important to understand been criticized by Glaser as no longer being GT but rather a
its origins, forces data into categories
history, and the main arguments that exist within the
literature.
As with most elements of the GT methodology, there are new methodology that often (e.g.,
several arguments regarding its philosophical positioning (see, Cho & Lee, 2014; Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Glaser, 1992;
for example, Holton, 2008, for an extended discussion regard- Heath & Cowley, 2004). Based on the Straussian view, the
ing the GT epistemological and ontological perspective). researcher should become familiar with any pre-existing
While Glaser supports the ideaGT thatis “a systematic research research in order to be able to generate theory (Easterby-
method” (Glaser, 1998, p. 62) that can support any philosophi- Smith et al., 2002). The more “mechanistic” view of GT
recommended by Strauss led others to argue that the Straussian
cal view that the researcher has embraced (Holton, 2008), oth- view is a small move toward positivism (see, for example,
ers argue that GT is best suited to inductive with “little Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; Suddaby, 2006).
theoretical understanding” (Corley, 2015, p. 601). While the
author keeps an open mind and suggests that further changes
and improvements in the methodology can allow it to be used Social Constructionism
equally for deductive studies, he argues that currently “the In order to remain faithful to “the heart and soul of GT meth-
best GT research has to offer will be found in inductive odologies [which] lies in engaging a phenomenon from the
research from a non-positivistic perspective” (Corley, 2015, perspective of those living it” (Corley, 2015, p. 600), this
p. 604). paper focuses on providing a guide for conducting GT
In order to understand some of the other arguments sur- research, in exploratory, social constructionism studies.
rounding GT research, it is also important to clearly define the Social constructionism is an interpretivist approach and
different terms that are being used. For example, many studies “ . . . focuses on the ways that people make sense of the world
use the terms “research method” and “research methodology” especially through sharing their experiences with others via
interchangeably (Saunders et al., 2009). We recommend how- medium of language the
ever, using the term method to refer to an individual tool or ” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002, p. 29). In
technique used for a specific reason, such as data collection or contrast to the positivist view, where “the researcher is
data analysis (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002). For instance, an independent of the data and maintains an objective stance”
interview is a method used for collecting data, while content research. Put simply, methodology is the justification for
analysis is a method used for analyzing the collected data;
meanwhile, the term methodology should be used to describe
the combination of methods (or tools and techniques) used to
guide the researcher’s practices in order to undertake this
 8 International Journal of Qualitative
(Saunders et al., 2009, p. 119), in social constructionism “the
” and “the reality is observer is part of what is being observed
not objective and exterior” but “it is given meaning by people-
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2002, p. 29). The researcher should not,
therefore, look for external causes to explain different beha-
viors, but instead, aim to understand why individuals behave in
 Makri and 9

different ways based on their unique experiences (Easterby- used in surveys and are similar to questionnaires (Leavy, 2014).
Smith et al., 2002). It is therefore recommended, that the sam- Unstructured interviews have no pre-identified questions and
pling process for social constructivist studies should include a are recommended for field-work or ethnography research were
small number of cases, chosen for specific reasons: for participants are expected to discuss the topic in their own way
instance, a small number of in-depth interviews with experts (Jamshed, 2014). In semi-structured interviews, although there
in the field, or individuals directly involved in the is a pre-identified guide with open-ended questions, the
phenomenon under study (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002; researcher has the flexibility to improve them, or change
Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Saunders et al., 2009; Starks direc- tion, as new themes emerge and the research progresses
& Trinidad, 2007). In GT, and in qualitative research more (Jamshed, 2014). As presented in Table 3, for exploratory and
general, it is recommended that should be determined based on
sample size nascent theory studies, data are most often collected with
reaching theoretical saturation and the type of research. While unstructured or semi-structured interviews (Saks & Allsop,
there is no definite number, and each project is different, in 2012; Starks & Trinidad, 2007). These allow interviewers to
GT an average of about 30 interviews (or cases/informants) gain new insights, and a deeper understanding of the phenom-
should work for most projects (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Sim enon under study and the relationships between the emerging
et al., 2018; Thomson, 2010). themes (Saunders et al., 2009), since they allow the flexibility
to explore the topic and delve further into these (Saks &
Allsop, 2012).
Data Collection Methods According to Silverman (2010), by following the partici-
Glaser argues that “all is data” (Glaser, 1998; Glaser & pants’ leads during the discussions, using open-ended
Holton, 2004; Holton, 2008), and researchers should make the questions can uncover elements that were not previously
best of whatever data is available, including information from considered. Therefore, while it is also recommended to use
previ- ous studies or other researchers: a predefined set of questions that have already been tested in
other studies, they should only be used as a guide (Easterby-
“Built into the grounded theory methodology are motivational Smith et al., 2002; Saks & Allsop, 2012; Silverman, 2010).
pulls at virtually every stage of the project. First, if the researcher The confidenti- ality of the participants and external nature of
is using a cache of data, whether from the library or secondary the interviewer can further reveal new themes and uncover
analysis of others’ data, it is exciting to mine such a treasure issues not previ- ously considered within an organization.
where others had not gotten far. Most research consists mainly of Despite of which data collection method GT researchers
a few generalizations from it. Grounded Theory has virtually decide to follow, the process must be supplemented by what
carte blanche in analyzing existing data. The challenge and Glaser (1998, p. 184) calls “memoing” (see also, Bryant, 2017,
opportunity is great and fun. What was an overwhelming pile of “move quickly through data” guideline; Charmaz, 2006):
data to the original collector becomes a joyous treasure to the
grounded the- ory analyst.” (Glaser, 1998, p. 60)
“At the start the researcher faces virtually one large pile of
memos. He should enter the pile anywhere, no matter, and pick a
To this end, data collection can come from various sources. memo. Place the memo somewhere on a table; it does not matter
For example, observation is important when research is where. He should usually choose a large table, like a dining table.
looking into human behavior (Walshe et al., 2012). During the It is important to have lots of space. Then pick another memo and
observa- see
tion, it is important that researchers also take field notes, that by comparing how it is related to the first one picked. Upon com-
can be used not only as their personal thoughts, but as an parison they will relate empirically in some fashion like the sub-
“additional layer of data” (Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018, stantive area is integrated.”
p. 381). Interviews are also useful for collecting data for GT
studies. According to Burgess (1982, p. 107), an interview is While memoing is a process similar to the one of taking
“the opportunity for the researcher to probe deeply to uncover field notes, it is an essential process in the GT methodology
new clues, open up new dimensions of a problem and to as it can support researchers “in making conceptual leaps from
secure vivid, accurate inclusive accounts that are based on raw data to those abstractions that explain research phenom-
personal experience.” They are also particularly useful when ena in the context in which it is examined” (Birks et al., 2008).
the topic is confidential or sensitive, as many individuals often Memos should be written throughout the course of the
prefer talk- ing to an independent (and external to the research to support any other data collection method selected,
organization) party about their experiences (Easterby-Smith et by com- paring data, exploring the researchers’ ideas, and
al., 2002). The interviews can be structured, semi-structured, guiding any subsequent data collection cycles (Charmaz,
or unstructured (in-depth), depending on the type of research 2006).
problem and research questions (Saunders et al., 2009). The sampling process for GT studies should involve
According to Leavy (2014), although there can never really be purpose sampling and the recruitment of organizations and
a completely struc- tured or completely unstructured participants that are experts in the subject matter, or which are
interview, it is more helpful to consider them as a continuum directly involved in the research problem (e.g., Easterby-
with semi-structure interviews somewhere in the middle. Smith et al., 2002; Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Saunders
Structured interviews are most often et al., 2009; Silverman, 2010). In GT this process of
sampling is called
 1 International Journal of Qualitative

Table 5. Different Approaches to Conducting Grounded Analysis.

Glaser & Strauss (1967) Corbin & Strauss (1990, 1998) Glaser (1992, 1998)

Initial coding Stage 1: Open coding: Substantive coding:

Comparing – Use of analytical technique Data-dependent
incidents – Sampling of people, places, and
applicable to situations that will provide the best
each category opportunities for collecting
relevant data Continuous with previous phase,
Axial coding: comparisons with focus on data,
Intermediate phase Stage 2: Integrating – Reduction and clustering of become more abstract, categories
categories and categories (paradigm model) refitted, emerging frameworks
their properties – Focused sampling of people,
places, and situations that will
provide opportunities to gather
data about
the properties and dimensions of
the categories, as well as how Theoretical coding:
the categories are related to one Refitting and refinement of categories
Final development Stage 3: another that integrate around emerging core
Delimitating Selective coding:
the theory – Detailed development of
categories, selection of core,
integration of categories
– Very focused and deliberate
sampling of people, places, and
situations that will fill in and refine
the story line of the core
categories and the proposed
relationships between categories
Theory Stage 4: Writing Detailed and dense process fully described Parsimony, scope, and
the theory modifiability
Note. This table was adjusted from Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) and Heath and Cowley (2004).

theoretical sampling, and the selection of participating organi- nascent theory

zations and individuals includes cases that are most represen-
tative of the phenomenon under investigation (Corbin &
Strauss, 1990; Glaser, 1998; Starks & Trinidad, 2007).
In accordance with the GT approach, both primary and
second- ary data can be used to address the research problem
of a study (Glaser, 1998). In addition to the interviews, the
researcher can use, for instance, archival documents, such as
internal reports or news reports. These can be used either to
supplement and compare information collected during the
interviews or as the basis for selecting the most suitable
candidates, or narrowing down the scope of the research,
before proceeding with further data collection.

Data Analysis Methods

The second major debate in GT research is related to the
method that can be used for data analysis. Table 5 summarizes
the main stages of data analysis, depending on which view the
researcher decides to adopt. As shown in this table, Strauss
and Corbin (1998) describe a process of open, axial, and
selective coding, while Glaser (1998) proposes a process of
substantive and theoretical coding.
According to a number of studies, however, the proper
method for data analysis when using GT is qualitative content
analysis (see, for example, Clancy & Vince, 2019;
Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Suddaby, 2006). According
to these stud- ies, GT is an overall methodology suitable for
 Makri and 1
studies, while content analysis is one of multiple methods that
can be used for analyzing data when using GT. Nevertheless,
some scholars argue that content analysis and GT are different
approaches. For instance, Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) distin-
guish between grounded analysis and content analysis. They
describe seven distinct stages in order to make the GT process
more understandable, but without specifically supporting a
Glaserian or Straussian view. They present content analysis as
a different method for analyzing qualitative data without directly
comparing it to grounded analysis. Hsieh and Shannon (2005, p.
1278) present GT and content analysis as two “of numerous
research methods [used] to analyze text data.” Indeed, as
Urquhart et al. (2010) argue, GT has often been used as a coding
method and not as a complete methodology. Finally, Cho and
Lee (2014) do not make the distinction between method and
methodology, but argue that the main difference between the two
depends on whether the researcher wants to identify the
relationship between categories and gen- erate theory. If this is
the case, then it is recommended to use GT, whereas if the
researcher is interested in identifying a list of categories (or
themes and components), it is recommended to use content
analysis. Finally, according to Bryant (2017), different GT
researchers can have different approaches to data analysis as long
as they follow Charmaz’s (2006, p. 49) coding guidelines: remain
open, stay close to data, keep your codes simple and precise,
preserve actions, compare data with data, and move quickly
through the data. After all, at its core GT is
(see also, Corley, 2015). an open and flexible methodology
 1 International Journal of Qualitative

Table 6. Grounded Theory Coding Guidelines.

Remain open Remain open to new ideas, avoid using experience and pre-existing knowledge when
coding
Stay close to data Coding must clearly derive from the data and not from previous experience or
knowledge of
the researcher
Keep your codes simple and precise Avoid using lengthy codes, and include longer explanations in the memos
Preserve actions Distinguishing the coding process in “topics and themes,” and “thematic coding” is not
necessary
Compare data with data Use constant comparison to avoid the list of codes becoming unmanageable
Move quickly through data Keep field notes and memos, use them for analysis, and frequently revisit them
Note. This table is based on the guidelines presented in Bryant (2017, pp. 175–176).

Table 7. Three Approaches to Content

Analysis. Type of Content Analysis
Study Starts With Timing of Defining Codes or Keywords Source of Codes or
Keywords
Conventional content analysis Observation Codes are defined during data analysis Codes are derived from data
Directed content analysis Theory Codes are defined before and Codes are derived from theory or
during relevant research findings
data analysis Keywords are derived from the
Summative content analysis Keywords Keywords are identified before interest of re-searchers or the
and literature review
during data analysis
Note. This table was adopted from Hsieh and Shannon (2005, p. 1286).

initial values of the methodology of being open and

A more detailed description of Charmaz’s concepts is flexible is more
presented in Table 6.
Depending on the type of research project, researchers can
decide to follow different guidelines. For example, Urquhart
et al. (2010) recommend the following for studies in informa-
tion systems: constant comparison, iterative conceptualiza-
tion, theoretical sampling, scaling up, and theoretical
integration (Urquhart et al., 2010, p. 369). In spite of which
set of guidelines researchers decide to follow, the two main
characteristics of data analysis in GT are the constant com-
parative analysis between the data and the literature, and the
use of memos throughout the whole process in order to
uncover not only a list of categories, but also the relationship
between them and to generate theory. As GT requires, data
analysis should begin soon after the first data are available by
studying the interview transcripts for emerging themes, and
by constantly comparing and updating them. Nevertheless, as
Corley (2015, p. 602) describes:

“Yes, I very much agree that there are key components to the
methodology—emergence, theoretical sampling, constant compar-
ison (as Holton describes), open coding, selective coding, memo-
ing (as Glaser explains)—that must be used in conjunction to
have the best chance at truly uncovering novel and theoretically
inter- esting patterns in the data. But I don’t agree there is one
best sequence to follow in deploying those techniques, nor do I
believe that effective GT research can be anything other than
cyclical, reciprocal (almost by definition, if you take Glaser’s and
Strauss’s descriptions of constant comparison to heart), and even
a bit messy.”

Therefore, regardless of which method researchers decide

to use, they should remember that remaining faithful to the
 Makri and 1
important than following a pre-specified sequence of steps and
guidelines, since GT is, in essence, cyclical and untidy.
Especially in the case that the initial motivation of a researcher
for selecting GT as the best methodological fit is to avoid
using any propositions, coupled with the fact that there may be no
previous theory to support the methodology for their study, we
recommend using a more flexible approach, as sug- gested by
Heath and Cowley (2004), using frequent recoding cycles instead
of having a clear distinction between substantive and theoretical
coding. This process can facilitate the develop- ment of the
categories from the data and data only, allowing the concerns of
the participants to emerge. More specifically, we recommend the
use of both conventional and directed content analysis, as defined
by Hsieh and Shannon (2005), depending on the stage of the
study.
A detailed definition of the different types of content anal- ysis
is presented in Table 7.
Researchers can code their data either manually or by using
(CAQDAS). a computer-assisted qualitative analysis software
As with every element of qualitative research, there is “no size
fits all” solution, and both have pros and cons. According to St
John and Johnson (2000) decision should be based on a number
of criteria such as the researcher’s capabilities, the available time,
and the type of data, among others (see also, St John & Johnson,
2000, Table 1, p. 397). Due to the iterative process that GT
requires however, we recommend that researchers opt
for a CAQDAS, such as NVivo®. Using CAQDAs can support
the researchers in a number of ways. To begin with, GT sup-
ports the use of data from multiple sources and in different forms,
for example, both primary and secondary, and qualita- tive and
quantitative data can be integrated, among others. The use of
memos is also very important. Collating all the different types of
data manually can be a challenging task for research- ers. Using
a CAQDAS, can support the collation of different
 1 International Journal of Qualitative

Figure 2. Data analysis process.

types of data, including memos, and the iteration between the The Qualitative Content Analysis Process
different coding stages. CAQDAS also provide visual support
that can make the relationships between the codes more According to Charmaz (2006), data analysis should begin soon
visible (e.g., the use of tree nodes in NVivo®). Furthermore, after the researcher collects the first data. The analysis should
the search function can help with verification of the results. begin with the researcher reading each transcript or document
For example, by searching for specific words the researcher carefully, highlighting any relevant text. It is important to start
can verify if all the relevant text has been attributed to the the analysis as soon as possible and not to wait for data collec-
right nodes. Bringer et al. (2006) provide an extended tion to be completed. After working through the first tran-
discussion, with examples, regarding the use of (CAQDAS) in scripts, the researcher should re-read the highlighted text
a GT project. It should be noted however, that opting for a (references) more carefully and attempt to assign each to a
CAQDAS solution, does not mean that the software will “code.” Following this process, the first step must be repeated
perform the analysis for the researcher. Analysis of data still for more transcripts, in order to assign more to one of the
falls under the responsibility emerging codes. In cases where the new data could not be
of the researcher and the software can only support this process. matched with a pre-existing code, the researcher should assign
Finally, we recommend that, where possible, interviews are new ones. The same steps should be followed iteratively until
recorded and transcribed later. While transcription can take all transcripts have been coded (Figure 2). This process aligns
place during the interview, it is more important to focus on the not only with Charmaz’s “constant comparative method” but
discussion and taking memos. Transcribing one’s own inter- also with Creswell’s “zigzagging” approach and allows
views, soon after they are completed, is also recommended. enough flexibility for the researcher regardless of which GT
This process will allow for a deeper understanding of the dis- approach they decide to follow. In contrast to surveys and case
cussions. Professional transcription is also an option, but we studies where it is not recommended to change the questions
recommend that the service is selected from an approved list (e.g., interview or survey questions, see, for example, Yin,
of suppliers and that a sample of the transcriptions’ quality is 2003) during the data collection and analysis phases, in GT
checked against the original audio to ensure their quality studies the researcher should review and improve/amend their
(Poland, 1995). ques- tions if necessary. As mentioned previously, during the
Although we recommend that researchers follow the inter- views, interview questions should only be used as a
approach that best suits their style and philosophical approach, guide for the discussion, and additional questions should be
the following section provides a guide for those who choose to asked in order to help reveal the emerging themes.
use content analysis.
 Makri and 1

The process can be further supported by the use of mind Transferability, also called theoretical generalization (Yin,
maps. For example, all the coded references can be added in a 2003), refers to the degree to which the findings can be used in
mind map, created during the memoing process, and mapped other contexts. This can be addressed with a diverse sample of
against the assigned codes. Some of the codes will be grouped in participants from different locations and sectors, by
the same category, while others which may seem to fit into more comparing and connecting the research findings with prior
than one category, should be moved to different ones until all the theory, and by explicitly outlining any identified limitations
codes have been mapped against at least one of the final cate- and recommen- dations for further research. It should be
gories (see, also, Figure 2). In his coding manual, Saldan˜a noted, however, that studies in management research, and
(2013) proposes using a process more similar to the Straussian especially studies looking into human behavior, are
approach and recommends the use of six methods as part of particularly complex and unique; or, as Saunders et al. (2009,
GT coding.InThese
Vivo,are:
Process, Initial (or Open), Focused, Axial, p. 116) point out, “they are a function of a particular set of
and Theoretical (or Selective) Coding. He also emphasizes the circumstances and individuals coming together at a specific
use of analytic memos throughout the process. The process we time.” This has led some scholars to argue that it is the
recommend however, as presented in Figure 2, is more similar to responsibility of those applying the findings to their own
Saldan˜a’s “streamlined codes-to-theory model” as presented settings to test their transferability (Lincoln et al., 1985, as
in Saldan˜a (2013, p. 13) and Saldan˜a (2016, p. 14). The referenced by Petty et al., 2012).
process should always be supported by the use of memos. Dependability is the extent to which the study can be
During this process, the analysis, the mind map, and the repeated and replicated by another. Since the data are dynamic
different versions of the categories and concepts must also be and largely depend on the time, location, and individuals
presented to others, such as colleagues, academic conferences, involved, this can be addressed by detailed audit trails carried
or the organization(s) where the data were collected, in order out by the researcher. In order to address this issue, the
researcher should provide detailed explanations and descrip-
to test the emerging concepts and their relationships, and to
tions of the processes, in addition to justification of their
increase the validity of the final concepts. Including others in
selec- tion, and a variety of data samples, coding examples,
the analysis has two main benefits: first, it reduces bias intro-
photographs of the memoing process, and participants’ quotes
duced by the researcher; and, second, it can often help gain
(see, for example, Barratt et al., 2011; Clissett, 2008; Yin,
new insights, and therefore increase the validity of the
2003, among others).
research (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
Confirmability is the degree to which the findings reflect
the collected data. In other words, confirmability, or objectiv-
ity, should provide evidence that the researcher was not
Research Quality and Validity
biased, and that the results emerged from the data only. The
Charmaz (2006) proposes that the following criteria define the built-in GT process, with the constant comparative methods, is
quality of GT research: data analysis must begin as soon as one of the key steps that can help to address thisTheissue.
emerging
the first data have been collected in order to help improve themes and analysis methods should also be presented fre-
subsequent data collection; themes must emerge from the data quently (e.g., to academic conferences, to the participating
only, without the use of any preconceived hypotheses; and a organizations) in order to consult and request feedback. This
constant compara- tive method must be used between the process can help to further reduce bias and allow new insights
different data collection stages and the literature to ensure the to emerge (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).
generation of theory during each step of data collection and The researcher should consider these criteria during both
analysis (see also Table 6). the formulation and execution of the research and take regular
While these criteria should be used and reviewed frequently steps to reflect how trustworthy it is.
to ensure the quality of a study, four more criteria that
enhance the quality and trustworthiness of quality research Challenges
overall should be considered. These are recommended by Guba
(1981) and include transferability
the following: credibility (or internal (or As we have presented in this paper, there are several
validity), external validity/generalizability),
dependability (or reliability), arguments in the literature regarding the use of GT
and confirmability (or objectivity). methodology. This is because GT is, at its core, flexible
and “may be perceived
Credibility refers to the extent to which the findings repre- differently by different researchers [ . . . ]. This situation has
sent the views of the participants and not of the researcher. led over the years to the emergence of different streams of
This can be addressed not only by remaining faithful to the GT, which have tended to blur the overall scope and reach of
criteria proposed by Charmaz (2006), but also through GT” (Walsh et al., 2015, p. 582). This can lead to a number
prolonged engagement with the participating organizations, of challenges, especially for less experienced researchers or
as well as by collecting a variety of data from different those who have not used GT before.
sources (triangu- lation) and looking for contradictory, as well The first, and perhaps most important, challenge a
as confirmatory, views and themes, and consulting
finally through
both aca- researcher will have to face is to understand the process of the
demic and industrial contacts and colleagues (see also, Cho methodology and decide whether this is the right approach for
& Lee, 2014; Petty et al., 2012; Starks & Trinidad, 2007). their research. Even those who are courageous enough to take
 1 International Journal of Qualitative

Figure 3. Research design.

on this journey must be well prepared “[ . . . ] to tolerate con- As Glaser (1978) points out, any prior reading should focus
fusion, hard work and the tedium of the constant comparative on the general problem only, with more focused reading
method and wait for concepts to emerge” (Heath & Cowley, taking place when the emerging themes have been sufficiently
2004, p. 144), and to vigorously defend their choice to devel- oped (Heath & Cowley, 2004). As a result,
potential reviewers and audiences. presenting one’s research in a traditional structure can be
Another one of the key challenges when using GT is the rather daunting, espe- cially for unexperienced researchers.
structure of theses and articles. Researchers are expected to Even the more experi- enced reviewers tend to find it
follow a traditional structure in their texts, where data and unstructured and confusing, especially if they are used to the
findings follow the initial theoretical overview. The actual more structured approach of case study research. Indeed, one
pro- cess of GT, however, is far less linear. The grounded of the unique characteristics of GT is this constant
approach of any research would require the reporting of a comparative analysis and theoretical sam- pling (e.g., Cho &
lengthy pre- sentation of qualitative data and analysis, and a Lee, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Easterby-Smith et al.,
constant com- parison between the different emerging 2002; Glaser, 1992, 1998; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Heath &
categories long before the reader would have the opportunity Cowley, 2004; Starks & Trinidad, 2007; Suddaby, 2006), and
to learn about the theo- retical context of the research and its great effort must be made in order not to distinguish between
potential contributions. Thus, the literature review would have data collection, analysis, and inter- pretation (e.g., Easterby-
to follow the data pre- sentation and findings chapter or be Smith et al., 2002; Silverman, 2010). The oral presentation of
presented in parallel. It is, after all, in the nature of the GT research (for example, in aca- demic conferences, or
methodology for the researcher to start collecting data in the viva examinations) can also be very challenging, since
first instance, to remain unbiased and open to themes researchers are expected to follow the tradi- tional “literature
emerging directly (and only) from the data, and not to be review—research gap and question—find- ings—discussion”
“blocked by a preconceived problem, a methods chapter or a structure. We therefore recommend that, while researchers
literature review” (Glaser & Holton, 2004). should still follow the traditional structure
 Makri and 1

(especially in theses), they should clearly explain the cyclical Notes

process in their methodology chapter and support their text
1. Based on a search of the Scopus database using the term
and arguments with a detailed research design, diagrams and
“grounded theory” in the title, abstract and keywords, performed
graphs, and numerous quotes, while clearly explaining their on June 3, 2020.
choices and steps along their GT research journey. 2. Oxford Living Dictionaries: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com
Researchers should also provide a detailed description of their (accessed on 24/07/18).
data analysis and coding techniques in their methodology
chapters, while also providing descriptive examples and
detailed tables of how their codes have emerged and References
progressed over the course of their research (Suddaby, 2006). Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions
through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2),
247–271. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330882
Conclusion
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in
This paper was motivated by the challenges faced by manage- operations management: Trends, research outcomes, and future
ment researchers when applying the GT methodology, research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4),
because of the various changes the methodology has 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.06.002
undergone in recent decades. We began by providing an Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in
overview of the different research strategies before focusing qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of
on the GT metho- dology. We also provided a historical Research in Nur- sing, 13(1), 68–75.
overview of the metho- dology’s evolution and discussed https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254
social constructionism as a good methodological fit for GT Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2006). Using
studies. The paper builds on the idea that there is no single computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a
approach to the methodology. grounded theory project. Field Methods, 18(3), 245–266. https://
Although we urge researchers to follow the approach that doi.org/10.1177/1525822X06287602
best suits their style and philosophical approach, the historical
Bryant, A. (2017). Grounded theory and grounded theorizing: Prag-
evolution, and the various arguments found in the literature
matism in research practice. Oxford University Press.
and discussed here, can support researchers to make informed
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded
decisions.
theory. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607941
We have also provided a guide for exploratory studies in
Burgess, R. G. (1982). Field research: A sourcebook and field manual.
management research, based on the arguments identified in Routledge.
the literature. This guide is particularly useful, both for Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical
researchers new to the GT approach and for examiners or
guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications.
reviewers of these studies. An overview of the recommended
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E.-H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded
research design is presented in Figure 3.
theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differ-
Finally, we have recommended a set of quality and validity
ences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20. https://doi.org/
criteria for exploratory GT studies and presented the main
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf
challenges that researchers using GT should expect to face.
Clancy, A., & Vince, R. (2019). Theory as fantasy: Emotional
Based on these, we recommend that, while a traditional struc-
dimen- sions to grounded theory. British Journal of Management,
ture should be followed in texts and presentations, the unstruc-
tured and iterative nature of the methodology should be 30(1), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12304
clearly articulated and depicted, both in the methodology and Clissett, P. (2008). Evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Ortho-
data analysis chapters. paedic Nursing, 12(2), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joon.
2008.07.009
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
build- ing and theory testing: A five-decade study of the
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect “academy of management journal”. The Academy of Management
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Proce-
Funding dures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology,
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for 13(1), 3–21.
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research:
research is part of a research project that was funded by the Engineer- Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage
ing and Physical Sciences Research Council [Grant Number
Publications.
1497970].
Corley, K. G. (2015). A commentary on “what grounded theory
is .. . ”: Engaging a phenomenon from the perspective of those
ORCID iD living it. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 600–605.
Chara Makri https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0046-0915 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115574747
 1 International Journal of Qualitative

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Grounded theory designs. In J. W. Creswell Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and
(Ed.), Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qua- observation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87–
litative research (pp. 422–500). Addison Wesley. 88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.141942
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1990). Can organization studies begin to Leavy, P. (2014). The oxford handbook of qualitative research
break out of the normal science straitjacket? An editorial essay. (P. Leavy, Ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
Organization Science, 1(1), 1–9. oxfordhb/9780199811755.001.0001
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qua- Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage
litative research. Sage Publications. Publications.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management Malterud, K., Horton, R., Sassower, R., Grodin, M., Stein, H., Wulff,
research: An introduction. Sage Publications. H., Sackett, D., Richardson, W., Rosenberg, W., Haynes, R.,
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in Scho¨ n, D., Skelton, A., Murphy, E., Murphy, R., O’Dowd,
management field research. Academy of Management Review, T., Miller, W., Stensland, P., Malterud, K., Malterud, K., &
32(4), 1155–1179. Barbour,
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. R. (2001). The art and science of clinical knowledge: Evidence
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/ beyond measures and numbers. Lancet, 358(9279), 397–400.
10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05548-9
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? McCutcheon, D. M., & Meredith, J. R. (1993). Conducting case
American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354. https://doi. study research in operations management. Journal of Operations
org/10.1017/S0003055404001182 Man- agement, 11(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodol- 6963
ogy of grounded theory. Sociology Press. (93)90002-7
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs Mfinanga, F. A., Mrosso, R. M., & Bishibura, S. (2019). Comparing
forcing. Sociology Press. case study and grounded theory as qualitative research
Glaser, B. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. approaches. International Journal of Latest Research in
Sociology Press. Humanities and Social Science (IJLRHSS), 02(05), 51–56.
Glaser, B. (1999). The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Opoku, A., Ahmed, V., & Akotia, J. (2016). Choosing an appropriate
Research, 9(6), 836–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973 research methodology and method. In V. Ahmed, A. Opoku, & Z.
299129122199 Aziz (Eds.), Research methodology in the built environment:
Glaser, B., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Quali- A selection of case studies (pp. 32–49). Routledge. https://doi.
tative Social Research, 5(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae. org/10.4324/9781315725529
2007.06.001 Partington, D. (2000). Building grounded theories of management
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: action. British Journal of Management, 11(2), 91–102.
Strategies for qualitative research. In Aldine Publishing. Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of nat- paradigm shift? Part 2: Introducing qualitative research
uralistic inquiries. Educational Communication & Technology, methodologies and methods. Manual Therapy, 17(5), 378–384.
29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777 https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.math.2012.03.004
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research: Context and conversation. Qualitative Health
qualitative research (1st ed., pp. 105–117). Sage Publications. Research, 28(3), 381–388.
Gustafsson, J. (2017). Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102
A comparative study (pp. 1–15). Academy of Business, Engineer- Poland, B. D. (1995). Transcription quality as an aspect of rigor in
qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 290–310. https://
ing and Science Halmstad University. http://www.diva-portal.org/
doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100302
smash/record.jsf?pid¼diva2:1064378%0Ahttp://www.diva-
Saks, M., & Allsop, J. (2012). Researching health: Qualitative,
portal. org/smash/get/diva2:1064378/FULLTEXT01.pdf
quan- titative and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a grounded theory
Saldan˜a, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative
approach: A comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International
researchers (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Jour- nal of Nursing Studies, 41(2), 141–150.
https://books.google.com/books/
https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0020-7489(03)00113-5
about/The_Coding_Manual_for_Qualitative_Resear.html?id¼V3
Holton, J. (2008). Grounded theory as a general research methodol-
tTG4jvgFkC
ogy. Grounded Theory Review, 7(2), 1–15. Saldan˜a, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative
Howard-Payne, L. (2016). Glaser or Strauss? Considerations for researchers
selecting a grounded theory study. South African Journal of Psy- (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
chology, 46(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246315593071 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to business students (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical hand-
1277–1288. book (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can
sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? Inter-
 Makri and 1
national Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619–634.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643
 2 International Journal of Qualitative

Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). Choose your method: A means of systematic review. British Journal of Management,
compar- ison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372– Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the
1380. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1049732307307031 “theory” back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded the-
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cam- ory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal,
bridge University Press. 20(4), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., &
Tech- niques and procedures for developing grounded theory Glaser, B. (2015). What grounded theory is .. . a critically reflec-
(2nd ed.). Sage Publications. tive conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Meth-
St John, W., & Johnson, P. (2000). The pros and cons of data anal- ods, 18(4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114565028
ysis software for qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholar- Walshe, C., Ewing, G., & Griffiths, J. (2012). Using observation as a
ship, 32(4), 393–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2000. data collection method to help understand patient and professional
00393.x roles and actions in palliative care settings. Palliative Medicine,
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. 26(8), 1048–1054. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216311432897
Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution?
https://doi.org/ Editorial Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. 10.5465/AMR.1989.4308371
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384. Wiesche, M., Jurisch, M. C., Yetton, P. W., & Krcmar, H. (2017).
Thomson, S. B. (2010). Sample size and grounded theory. Journal of Grounded theory methodology in information systems research.
Administration and Governance, 5(1), 45–52. MIS Quarterly, 41(3), 685–701.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodol- Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.).
ogy for developing evidence-informed management knowledge Sage Publications.
by