Methodological Issues and Challenges of Grounded Theory in Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Studies

  • C. P. PrinceEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


Grounded theory (GT) is developed by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss as a qualitative research approach and methodology. Although it has been widely used in qualitative research, there are methodological contentions with regard to the use of this approach. This chapter discusses some of the methodological issues and challenges of using grounded theory approach in social entrepreneurship research. It is argued that while using this approach, the qualitative nature of the design need to be preserved, the objectivity from the subjective experience needs to be validated and also maintain equilibrium in resolving the differences and challenges in methodological issues.


Grounded theory Methodological issues Interpretivist agenda Social innovation Social entrepreneurship Reflexivity 


  1. Allan, G. (2003). A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Agencia Nacional Para la Superacion de la Pobreza. (2013). Glosario de terminus. Retrieved November 20th, 2013 from
  3. Antle May, K. (1986). Writing and evaluating the grounded theory research report. In W. C. Chenitz & J. M. Swanson (Eds.), From Practice to Grounded Theory (pp. 146–154). Mill Valley, California: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., Wei-Skillern, J., & Leonard, H. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the social sector. Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Backman, K., & Kyngas, A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded theory approach to a novice researcher. Nursing and Health Sciences, 1(3), 147–153.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. (1992). Method slurring: The grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17(11), 1355–1360.Google Scholar
  7. Benton, D. (2000). Grounded theory. In D. Cormack (Ed.), The research process in nursing (4th ed., pp. 153–164). Oxford: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, R. J. (1995). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Bogdan, R., & Taylor, S. J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Boschee, J., & McClurg, J. (2003). Toward a better understanding of social entrepreneurship: Some important distinctions (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved at September 2009.Google Scholar
  12. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–536). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  14. Curran, J., & Blackburn, R. (2001). Researching the small enterprise. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Cutcliffe, J. (2003). Reconsidering reflexivity: Introducing the case for intellectual entrepreneurship. Qualitative Health Research, 13(1), 136–148.Google Scholar
  16. Davisson, P., Low, M., & Wright, M. (2001). Editor’s introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on: Achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4), 5–15.Google Scholar
  17. Davisson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2000). Levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research: Current research practice and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25(4).Google Scholar
  18. Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. Wiley, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Douglas, D. (2004). Grounded theory and the ‘And’ in entrepreneurship research electronic. Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(2), 59–68.Google Scholar
  21. Drayton, W. (2002). The citizen sector: Becoming as entrepreneurial and competitive as business. California Management Review, 44(3), 120–132.Google Scholar
  22. Duhscher, J., & Morgan, D. (2004). Grounded theory: Reflections on the emergence vs. forcing debate. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(6), 605–612.Google Scholar
  23. Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111–124.Google Scholar
  24. Freshwater, D., & Rolfe, G. (2001). Critical reflexivity: A politically and ethically engaged research method for nursing. NT Research, 6(1), 526–550.Google Scholar
  25. Gephart, R. P. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 454–462.Google Scholar
  26. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence versus forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  29. Glaser, B. (2001). The grounded theory perspective: Conceptualisation contrasted with description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  30. Glaser, B. G. (2012). Stop, write. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  31. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  32. Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from
  33. Hubert, A., et al. (2010). Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Brussels: BEPA (Bureau of European Policy Advisers) (Ed.).
  34. Hutchinson, S. A. (1993). Grounded theory: The method. In P. Munhall & C. O. Boyd (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (pp. 180–212). New York: National League for Nursing Press.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 131–156.Google Scholar
  37. Light, P. C., & Wagner, R. F. (2005). Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they might be found, what they do. Paper prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of the Association for Research on Nonprofit and Voluntary Associations. November 17–18.Google Scholar
  38. Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2003). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social enterprise get formed. Barcelona: IESE Business School Working Paper No. 521.Google Scholar
  39. McGhee, G., Marland, G. R., & Atkinson, J. M. (2007). Grounded theory research: Literature reviewing and reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(3), 334–342.Google Scholar
  40. Neil, S. (2006). Grounded theory sampling. Journal of research in Nursing, 11(3), 253–260.Google Scholar
  41. Perrini, F. (2006). The new social entrepreneurship: What awaits social entrepreneurial ventures? Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671–686.Google Scholar
  42. Prince, C. P. (2017). Social innovation in the care and rehabilitation of the differently abled (Ph.D. thesis unpublished). Mumbai, India: Tata Institute of Social Sciences Library.Google Scholar
  43. Riley, R. (1996). Revealing socially constructed knowledge through quasi-structured interviews and grounded theory analysis. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2), 21–40.Google Scholar
  44. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research—A resource for social scientists and practitioner researchers. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  45. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Shaw, E. (1999). A guide to the qualitative research process: Evidence from a small firm study. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 2, 59–70.Google Scholar
  47. Stahl, B. C. (2007). Positivism or non-positivism—tertium non datur: A critique of ontological syncretism in IS research. In R. Kishore, R. Ramesh, & R. Sharman (Eds.), Ontologies: A handbook of principles, concepts and applications in information systems (pp. 115–142). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Steyaert, C., & Dey, P. (2010). Nine verbs to keep the social entrepreneurship research agenda “dangerous”. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 231–254.Google Scholar
  49. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 520.Google Scholar
  54. Walls, P., Parahoo, K., & Fleming, P. (2010). The role and place of knowledge and literature in grounded theory. Nurse Researcher, 17(4), 8–17.Google Scholar
  55. Weerawardena, J., & Mort, J. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21–35.Google Scholar
  56. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 519–532.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Green Dale SchoolRangaparaIndia

Personalised recommendations