Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Theories in Information Systems Research: The Grounded Theory Method Applied

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Information Systems Theory

Part of the book series: Integrated Series in Information Systems ((ISIS,volume 29))

Abstract

Scientific work depends on a foundation of strong and robust theories to guide the process of scientific discovery. Theories are paramount for the understanding, description, and prediction of phenomena studies in the field. In information systems research (ISR), however, only few domain-specific theories have emerged from that last decades of scientific work. To help researchers answer the call for more IS-specific theoretical work, this chapter introduces the Grounded Theory Method (GTM) as one approach to conceptual, theory generating work that extends our understanding beyond the use of grand theories from adjacent disciplines. Based on a brief historical overview, the chapter shows some particularities of ISR and how GTM can be used to address them. It introduces the general process of GTM-based studies and shows how theories emerge ground observations grounded in the field. Afterwards, the chapter shows some of the often rather small and substantive theories in IS can mature toward grand theories using the GTM approach. The ability to frame our research results in a theoretical way is important to build a cumulative research tradition in IS. This will not only help to gradually extend our understanding of relevant phenomena, but will also allow for advances in the discipline search for domain identity and in our race for credibility with the adjacent disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

AIS:

Association of information systems

CASE:

Computer-aided software engineering

EJIS:

European Journal of Information Systems

GT:

Grounded theory

GTM:

Grounded theory method

ICIS:

International Conference on Information Systems

IS:

Information systems

ISJ:

Information Systems Journal

ISR:

Information systems research

JAIS:

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

JIT:

Journal of Information Technology

JMIS:

Journal of Management Information Systems

JSIS:

Journal of Strategic Information Systems

MISQ:

Management Information Systems Quarterly

References

  • Alter, S. (2002). The work system method for understanding information systems and information systems research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 9(6), 90–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atmanspacher, H. (2007). On the role of theoretical work in the sciences. http://www.igpp.de/english/tda/pdf/theory.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2010.

  • Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Olbrich, S., & Pfeiffer, D. (2008). Forschungsmethodik Einer Integrationsdisziplin – Eine Fortführung Und Ergänzung Zu Lutz Heinrichs “Beitrag Zur Geschichte der Wirtschaftsinformatik” Aus Gestaltungsorientierter Perspektive. In J. Becker, H. Krcmar, & B. Niehaves (Eds.), Wissenschaftstheorie Und Gestaltungsorientierte Wirtsch­aftsinformatik (pp. 5–26). Münster: Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik – Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I. (2001). Editorial notes. Information Systems Research, 12(2), iii–iv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Empirical research in information systems: The practice of relevance. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the IS discipline: Defining and ­communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding grounded theory. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2004). Pursuit of MIS theories: Process, variance, and systems. Working Paper Department of Computer Information Systems, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calloway, L. J., & Ariav, G. (1995). Designing with dialogue charts: A qualitative content analysis of end-user designers’ experiences with a software engineering design tool. Information Systems Journal, 5(2), 75–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social ­justice studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 559–604). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society, 1, 104–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! – towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, J. M., Junglas, I., & Silva, L. (2009). Information flow impediments in disaster relief supply chains. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(8), 637–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vreede, G.-J., Jones, N., & Mgaya, R. J. (1998). Exploring the application and acceptance of group support systems in Africa. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(3), 197–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearden, J. (1972). MIS is a mirage. Harvard Business Review, 50(1), 90–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLuca, D., Gallivan, M. J., & Kock, N. (2008). Furthering information systems action research: A post-positivist synthesis of four dialectics. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(2), 48–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Eugenio, B. (2000). On the usage of kappa to evaluate agreement on coding tasks. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2000), May 30–June 2, 2000, Athens, Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: A rejoinder to eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evermann, J., & Tate, M. (2009). Constructs in the mist: The lost world of the IT artifact. Proceedings of the 30th international conference on information systems (ICIS 2009), December 15–18, 2009, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Fitzgerald, B., & Hayes, J. (2008). From peer production to productization: A study of socially enabled business exchanges in open source service networks. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, W. D. (2005). The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: Issues and design. In D. Hart & S. Gregor (Eds.), Information systems foundations: Constructing and criticising (pp. 43–60). Canberra, Australia: School of Business and Information Management, The Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fettke, P. (2006). State-of-the-Art Des State-of-the-Art: Eine Untersuchung der Forschungsmethode “Review” Innerhalb der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 48(4), 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, U. (2006). In H. Adelsberger, P. Chamoni, F. Dorloff, K. Echtle, S. Eicker, U. Frank, M. Goedicke, T. Kollmann, B. Müller-Clostermann, K. Pohl, E. P. Rathgeb, R. Unland, & S. Zelewski (Eds.), Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research (ICB-research reports, Vol. 7, 84pp). Essen: Institut für Informatik und Wirtschaftsinformatik (ICB).

    Google Scholar 

  • Galal, G. H. (2001). From contexts to constructs: The use of grounded theory in operationalising contingent process models. European Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 2–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (2008). Doing quantitative grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulielmos, M. (2004). Systems development approach: Transcending methodology. Information Systems Journal, 14(4), 363–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2009). Building theory in the sciences of the artificial. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology, May 7–8, 2009, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 313–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, L. J. (2005). Forschungsmethodik Einer Integrationsdisziplin: Ein Beitrag Zur Geschichte der Wirtschaftsinformatik. NTM International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine, 13(2), 104–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A. R. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2003). Crisis in the IS field? A critical reflection on the state of the discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 4(5), 237–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, M. G., & Beck, J. E. (2000). Using repertory grids to conduct cross-cultural information systems research. Information Systems Research, 11(1), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irani, Z., Love, P. E. D., & Jones, S. (2008). Learning lessons from evaluating egovernment: ­reflective case experiences that support transformational government. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen, P. G. W. (1980). Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on information systems (ICIS 80), Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, U. (2006). “Emergence” vs. “forcing” of empirical data? A crucial problem of grounded theory reconsidered. In: U. Kuckartz (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th computergesetützte analyse qualitativer daten (CAQD 2006), (pp. 8–30). Marburg, Germany: Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft, Philipps-Universität Marburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. F. (1996). Case tools and organizational action. Information Systems Journal, 6(3), 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, L. J. (2004). Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 374–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1), 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuechler, B., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008). On theory development in design science research: Anatomy of a research project. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(5), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, A. L., & Mendelow, A. L. (1990). The impact of the environment on the management of information systems. Information Systems Research, 1(2), 205–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S. (2001a). Editor’s comments – Research in information systems: What we haven’t learned. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), v–xv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S. (2001b). Editor’s comments – MIS quarterly’s editorial policies and practices. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), iii–vii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, H. P. (2001). A grounded theory of international information systems. Auckland, New Zealand: School of Business and Information Management, University of Auckland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2008). Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 307–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1945). The research center for group dynamics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sociometry, 8(2), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2009). Choosing a caqdas package. CAQDAS networking project and qualitative innovations in CAQDAS project (QUIC). http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/791/1/2009ChoosingaCAQDASPackage.pdf. Accessed 17 June 2010.

  • Lewis, M. W., & Grimes, A. I. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 672–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen theorie. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundell, B., & Lings, B. (2003). The 2g method for doubly grounding evaluation frameworks. Information Systems Journal, 13(4), 375–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2004). Nothing at the center? – Academic legitimacy in the information systems field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(6), 220–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2001). Combination and integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(6), Art 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melia, K. M. (1996). Rediscovering glaser. Qualitative Health Research, 6(3), 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (2002). A system of logic: Ratiocinative and inductive. Seattle, WA: University Press of the Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior: The limits and possibilities of theory and research. San Francisco, CA: Proquest Info & Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 309(6954), 597–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 241–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). Case tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research–a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. G. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth a grounded theory of mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology, 24(2), 172–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paré, G. (2004). Investigating information systems with positivist case study research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2004(13), 233–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauleen, D. J. (2003). An inductively derived model of leader-initiated relationship building with virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(3), 227–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrini, M., & Pozzebon, M. (2009). Managing sustainability with the support of business intelligence: Integrating socio-environmental indicators and organisational context. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(4), 178–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ransbotham, S., & Mitra, S. (2009). Choice and chance: A conceptual model of paths to information security compromise. Information Systems Research, 20(1), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribes, D., & Finholt, T. A. (2009). The long now of technology infrastructure: Articulating tensions in development. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 375–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romano, N. C., Donovan, C., Hsinchun, C., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2003). A methodology for analyzing web-based qualitative data. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 213–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal, R., & Robey, D. (1995). Reconciling variance and process strategies for studying information system development. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 303–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker, S., & Sarker, S. (2009). Exploring agility in distributed information systems development teams: An interpretive study in an offshoring context. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 440–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, C., Avison, D., Davis, G., Ein-Dor, P., Galletta, D., Hirschheim, R., & Straub, D. (2006). Senior scholars’ basket of journals. Retrieved June 03, 2010, from http://home.aisnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=346.

  • Schneberger, S., & Wade, M. (2007). Theories used in IS research. http://www.fsc.yorku.ca/york/istheory/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. Accessed 6 March 2010.

  • Scott, J. E. (2000). Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(2), 81–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeley, M. E., & Targett, D. (1997). A senior executive end-user framework. Information Systems Journal, 7(4), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siau, K., Tan, X., & Sheng, H. (2007). Important characteristics of software development team members: An empirical investigation using repertory grid. Information Systems Journal 20(6), 563–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The science of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tingling, P., & Parent, M. (2004). An exploration of enterprise technology selection and evaluation. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(4), 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. A. (1983). The use of grounded theory for the qualitative analysis of organizational behaviour. Journal of Management Studies, 20(3), 333–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C. (2002). Regrounding grounded theory – Or reinforcing old prejudices? A brief reply to Bryant. Journal of Information Technology: Theory and Application, 4(3), 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010). Putting the “Theory” back into grounded theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4), 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Nothing is quite so practical as a good theory. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 486–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. (1989). Some notes on the importance of writing in organizational studies. In J. I. Cash & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), The information systems research challenge (pp. 27–33). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkoff, O., Strong, D. M., & Elmes, M. B. (2005). Understanding enterprise systems-enabled integration. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1999). Erklären Und Verstehen. Bodenheim: Hain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wales, R. C., Shalin, V. L., & Bass, D. S. (2007). Requesting distant robotic action: An ontology for naming and action identification for planning on the Mars exploration rover mission. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(2), 75–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Bulding an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, B., & Gallagher, S. (2009). Action in context and context in action: Modeling complexity in multimedia systems development. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, B., & Mallon, B. (2007). A method to bridge the gap between breadth and depth in IS narrative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(7), 368–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (1997). Ontological foundations of information systems. Melbourne: Coopers & Lybrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, R. (2003). Editor’s comments – Theoretically speaking. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), iii–xii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1992). Agenda setting in organizational behavior: A theory-focused approach. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1(3), 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Work, B. (2002). Patterns of software quality management in tickIT certified firms. European Journal of Information Systems, 11(1), 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, F., Van Pelt, W. V., & Srite, M. (2006). Web documents’ cultural masculinity and femininity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1), 87–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zmud, B. (1998). Editor’s comments – “Pure” theory manuscripts. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), xxix–xxxii.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Research on Information Systems (IRIS), EBS Business School, EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht, 65201, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Benjamin Müller

  2. Mercator School of Management, University of Duisburg-Essen (Campus Duisburg), 47057, Duisburg, Germany

    Sebastian Olbrich

Authors
  1. Benjamin Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Olbrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Müller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, Wales, SA2 8PP, United Kingdom

    Yogesh K. Dwivedi

  2. IMD, Ch. de Bellerive 23, Lausanne, 1001, Switzerland

    Michael R. Wade

  3. Principia College, Maybeck Place 1, Elsah, 62028, Illinois, USA

    Scott L. Schneberger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Müller, B., Olbrich, S. (2012). Developing Theories in Information Systems Research: The Grounded Theory Method Applied. In: Dwivedi, Y., Wade, M., Schneberger, S. (eds) Information Systems Theory. Integrated Series in Information Systems, vol 29. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9707-4_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation