Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adapting and blending grounded theory with case study: a practical guide

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article tackles how to adapt grounded theory by blending it with case study techniques. Grounded theory is commended for enabling qualitative researchers to avoid priori assumptions and intensely explore social phenomena leading to enhanced theorization and deepened contextualized understanding. However, it is criticized for generating enormous data that is difficult to manage, contentious treatment of literature review and category saturation. Further, while the proliferation of several versions of grounded theory brings new insights and some clarity, inevitably some bits of confusion also creep in, given the dearth of standard protocols applying across such versions. Consequently, the combined effect of all these challenges is that grounded theory is predominantly perceived as very daunting, costly and time consuming. This perception is discouraging many qualitative researchers from using grounded theory; yet using it immensely benefits qualitative research. To gradually impart grounded theory skills and to encourage its usage a key solution is to avoid a full-scale grounded theory but instead use its adapted version, which exploits case study techniques. How to do this is the research question for this article. Through a reflective account of my PhD research methodology the article generates new insights by providing an original and novel empirical account about how to adapt grounded theory blending it with case study techniques. Secondly, the article offers a Versatile Interview Cases Research Framework (VICaRF) that equips qualitative researchers with clear research questions and steps they can take to effectively adapt grounded theory by blending it with case study techniques.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allwood, C.M.: The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Qual. Quant. 46(5), 1417–1429 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, A.D.: Interpretive research aiming at theory building: adopting and adapting the case study design. Qual. Rep. 14(1), 42–60 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruscaglioni, L.: Theorizing in grounded theory and creative abduction. Qual. Quant. 50(5), 2009–2024 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, G., Morgan, G.: Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Heinemann, London (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A.F.: What is This Thing Called Science? Open University Press, Maidenhead (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, G.P.: Researching strategy formation process: an abductive methodology. Qual. Quant. 40, 289–301 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Research. Sage Publications Ltd, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. SAGE, London (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, F.L.: Concepts, contexts, and mindsets: putting human resource management research in perspectives. Hum. Resour. Manag. 28(1), 1–13 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cope, J.: Toward a dynamic learning perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 29(4), 373–397 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J.W.: Qualitative Inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, 3rd edn. Sage Publications Ltd., London (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I.: Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. Academic, San Diego, CA (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Diefenbach, T.: Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?: Methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Qual. Quant. 43(6), 875–894 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, C.: The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 14(2), 111–124 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G.T., Putnam, L.L.: An integrative methodology for organizational oppositions: aligning grounded theory and discourse analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 22(4), 917–940 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J.J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M.P., Grimshaw, J.M.: What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol. Health 25(10), 1229–1245 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.: Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA (1998)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J.: The voice of the social worker: a narrative literature review. Br. J. Soc. Work. 48(5), 1333–1350 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlady-Rispal, M., Jouison-Laffitte, E.: Qualitative research methods and epistemological frameworks: a review of publication trends in entrepreneurship. J. Small Bus. Manag. 52(4), 594–614 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iman, M.T., Boostani, D.: A qualitative investigation of the intersection of leisure and identity among high school students: application of grounded theory. Qual. Quant. 46(2), 483–499 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J.A., Aldrich, H.E., Welbourne, T.M., Williams, P.M.: Guest editor’s comments special issue on human resource management and the SME: toward a new synthesis. Entrep. Theory Pract. 25(1), 7–10 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kibuku, R.N., Ochieng, D.O., Wausi, A.N.: Developing an e-learning theory for interaction and collaboration using grounded theory: a methodological approach. Qual. Rep. 26(9), 0_1-2854 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, Y., Saridakis, G., Johnstone, S.: Human resource practices, employee attitudes and small firm performance. Int. Small Bus. J. 35(4), 470–494 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauckner, H., Paterson, M., Krupa, T.: Using constructivist case study methodology to understand community development processes: proposed methodological questions to guide the research process. Qual. Rep. 17(13), 1–22 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Levers, M.J.D.: Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence, pp. 1–6. Sage Open, London (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlow, S.: Human resource management in smaller firms: a contradiction in terms? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 16(4), 467–477 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlow, S., Taylor, S., Thompson, A.: Informality and formality in medium sized companies: contestation and synchronization. Br. J. Manag. 21(4), 954–966 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M.: Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Qual. Soc. Res. (2010). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauceri, S.: Mixed strategies for improving data quality: the contribution of qualitative procedures to survey research. Qual. Quant. 48, 2773–2790 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, M., Budeva, D.G., Doney, P.M.: Research methods in the leading small business entrepreneurship journals: a critical review with recommendations for future research. J. Small Bus. Manage. 47(3), 287–307 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M.: Can findings of qualitative research in education be generalized? Qual. Quant. 41(3), 429–445 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolan, C.T., Garavan, T.N.: Human resource development in SMEs: a systematic review of the literature. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18(1), 85–107 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: A call for qualitative power analyses. Qual. Quant. 41(1), 105–121 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B.T.: Building process theory with narrative: from description to explanation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24(4), 711–724 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, Tuebingen (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramalho, R., Adams, P., Huggard, P., Hoare, K.: Literature review and constructivist grounded theory methodology. Qual. Soc. Res. J. 16(3), 1–13 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., Jinks, C.: Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. 52, 1893–1907 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G., Kulshreshtha, K., Bajpai, N.: Getting over the issue of theoretical stagnation: an exploration and metamorphosis of grounded theory approach. Qual. Quant. 56(2), 857–884 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E.: The Art of Case Study Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.: The Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thistoll, T., Hooper, V., Pauleen, D.J.: Acquiring and developing theoretical sensitivity through undertaking a grounded preliminary literature review. Qual. Quant. 50(2), 619–636 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobi, H., Kampen, J.K.: Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework. Qual. Quant. 52, 1209–1225 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomaszewski, L.E., Zarestky, J., Gonzalez, E.: Planning qualitative research: design and decision making for new researchers. Int J Qual Methods 19, 1–7 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.: Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14(3), 207–222 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travers, G.: New methods, old problems: a sceptical view of innovation in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 9(2), 161–179 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzagkarakis, S.I., Kritas, D.: Mixed research methods in political science and governance: approaches and applications. Qual. Quant. 57, 1–15 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C.: Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide. Sage, London (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., Young, T.: Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18(1), 1–18 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., Mantymaki, E.P.: Theorising from case studies: towards a pluralist future for international business research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 42(5), 1–24 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiles, R., Crow, G., Pain, H.: Innovation in qualitative research methods: a narrative review. Qual. Res. 11(5), 587–604 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, London (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to Professor Ben Lupton, my PhD Director of Studies and Dr Valerie Antcliff my second PhD supervisor, for their mentorship over the years. I continue to draw on the wealth of knowledge they invested in me to generate knowledge. My profound gratitude also goes to the chief editor, associate editor and reviewers for this journal whose insightful review strengthened this article.

Funding

This methodology was formulated and executed in a PhD that was fully funded by the Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decent Work and Productivity Research Centre, Manchester Metropolitan University, All Saints Building, Manchester, M15 6BH, UK

    Charles Dahwa

Authors
  1. Charles Dahwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr CD is the sole author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles Dahwa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This article has not been submitted to any other academic journals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dahwa, C. Adapting and blending grounded theory with case study: a practical guide. Qual Quant 58, 2979–3000 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01783-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01783-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation