Advertisement

Using Grounded Theory Method in Information Systems: The Researcher as Blank Slate and Other Myths

  • Cathy Urquhart
  • Walter Fernández
Chapter

Abstract

Grounded theory method (GTM) was developed in the field of sociology during the 1960s (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) and has been adopted in many fields of research, including information systems (IS). The use of GTM in IS studies echoes the progress of interpretive research from insignificance in the 1980s (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991) to its current mainstream status in the IS community (Markus, 1997; Klein and Myers, 2001). Grounded theory research has been published in the major journals of IS and the methodology has gained enough support to have its own special interest group within the Association of Information Systems.

Keywords

Information System Ground Theory Substantive Theory Information System Research Repertory Grid 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive Methodology: New vistas for qualitative research, London, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  2. Andrew, T. (2006). The Literature Review in Grounded Theory: A response to McCallin (2003), The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal 5(2/3): 29–41.Google Scholar
  3. Annells, M.P. (1996). Grounded Theory Method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and postmodernism, Qualitative Health Research 6(3): 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, M. and Walsham, G. (1999). Electronic Trading and Work Transformation in the London Insurance Market, Information Systems Research 10(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (1999). Grounded Action Research: A method for understanding IT in practice, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 9(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baskerville, R.L. and Myers, M.D. (2002). Information Systems as a Reference Discipline, MIS Quarterly 26(1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, P.H. (1993). Common Pitfalls in Published Grounded Theory Research, Qualitative Health Research 3(2): 254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoliel, J.Q. (1996). Grounded Theory and Nursing Knowledge, Qualitative Health Research 6(3): 406–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryant, A. (2002). Re-grounding Grounded Theory, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4(1): 25–42.Google Scholar
  10. Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds.) (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, London, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Calloway, L.J. and Ariav, G. (1991). Developing and Using a Qualitative Methodology to Study Relationships among Designers and Tools, in H.E. Nissen, H. Klein and R. Hirschheim (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference, 14–16 December 1991; (Copenhagen, DK) Amsterdam: North-Holland, 175–193.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, P.J. and Davis, G.B. (1998). An Investigation of Media Selection among Directors and Managers: From ‘Self’ to ‘Other’ orientation, MIS Quarterly 22: 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A.L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.Google Scholar
  16. Ekstrom, H. (2006). Aspects on McCallin’s Paper, ‘Grappling with the Literature in a Grounded Theory Study’? The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal 5(2/3): 45–47.Google Scholar
  17. Elliott, N. and Lazenbatt, A. (2005). How To Recognise a ‘Quality’ Grounded Theory Research Study, Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 22(3): 48–52.Google Scholar
  18. Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Fitzgerald, B. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fendt, J. and Sachs, W. (2008). Grounded Theory Method in management research: Users’ perspectives, Organizational Research Methods 11: 430–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernandez, W.D. and Lehmann, H.P. (2005). Achieving Rigour and Relevance in Information Systems Studies: Using grounded theory to investigate organizational cases, The Grounded Theory Review: An international Journal 5(1): 79–107.Google Scholar
  21. Galal, G. (2001). From Contexts to Constructs: The use of grounded theory in operationalising contingent process models, European Journal of Information Systems 10(1): 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallie, W.B. (1956). Essentially Contested Concepts, in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 56, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 167–198.Google Scholar
  23. Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2005). Vicious and Virtuos Circles in the Management of Knowledge: The case of Infosys Technologies, MIS Quarterly 29(1): 9–33.Google Scholar
  24. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.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). Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of grounded theory analysis, 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.G. (2001). The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization contrasted with description, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  30. Glaser, B.G. (2005). The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical coding, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  31. Glaser, B.G. (2007). Doing Formal Grounded Theory: A proposal, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  32. Glaser, B.G. (2009). Jargonizing: Using the grounded theory vocabulary, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1965). Awareness of Dying, New York: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  34. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  35. Gopal, A. and Prasad, P. (2000). Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shifting the focus from technology to interaction, MIS Quarterly 24(3): 509–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Green, J. (1998). Grounded Theory and The Constant Comparative Method, British Medical Journal 316(7137): 1064–1065.Google Scholar
  37. Hunter, M.G. and Beck, J.E. (2000). Using Repertory Grids to Conduct Cross-cultural Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research 11(1): 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones, R. and Noble, G. (2007). Grounded Theory and Management Research: A lack of integrity? Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 2(2): 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaplan, B. and Duchon, D. (1988). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A case study, MIS Quarterly 12(4): 571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirsch, L.J. (2004). Deploying Common Systems Globally: The dynamics of control, Information Systems Research 15(4): 374–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 23(1): 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (2001). A Classification Scheme for Interpretive Research in Information Systems, in E.M. Trauth (ed.) Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and trends, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Lamb, R. and Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing Users as Social Actors in Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly 27(2): 197–236.Google Scholar
  44. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data, Academy of Management Review 24(4): 691–710.Google Scholar
  45. Layder, D. (1993). New Strategies in Social Research: An introduction and guide, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lee, A.S. (2010). Retrospect and Prospect: Information systems research in the last and next 25 years, Journal of Information and Technology 25(4): 336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Levina, N. (2005). Collaborating on Multiparty Information Systems Development Projects: A collective reflection-in-action view, Information Systems Research 16(2): 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Levina, N. and Ross, J.W. (2003). From the Vendor Perspective: Exploring the value proposition in information technology outsourcing, MIS Quarterly 27(4): 331–364.Google Scholar
  49. Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2005). The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems, MIS Quarterly 29(2): 335–363.Google Scholar
  50. Levina, N. and Vaast, E. (2008). Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration, MIS Quarterly 32(2): 307–332.Google Scholar
  51. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Lings, B. and Lundell, B. (2005). On the Adaptation of Grounded Theory Procedures: Insights from the evolution of the 2G method, Information Technology and People 18(4): 196–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Madill, A., Jordan, A. and Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and Reliability in Qualitative Analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies, British Journal of Psychology 91(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Markus, M.L. (1997). The Qualitative Difference in Information System Research and Practice, in J.I. DeGross, J. Liebenau and A.S. Lee (eds.) Information Systems and Qualitative Research, London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Markus, M.L. and Saunders, C. (2007). Looking for a Few Good Concepts … and Theories … for the Information Systems Field, MIS Quarterly 31(1): iii–vi.Google Scholar
  56. Martin, P.Y. and Turner, B.A. (1986). Grounded Theory and Organizational Research, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22(2): 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Martin, V.B. (2006). The Postmoderm Turn: Shall classic grounded theory take that detour? A review essay, The Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal 5(2/3): 119–129.Google Scholar
  58. McCallin, A.M. (2003). Grappling with the Literature in a Grounded Theory Study, Contemporary Nurse 15(1–2): 62–69.Google Scholar
  59. Montealegre, R. and Keil, M. (2000). De-escalating Information Technology Projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport, MIS Quarterly 24 (3): 417–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Myers, M.D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 21(2): 241–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Myo (2012). Grounded theory: ‘Whenever possible, stay away from it’ ‘It is too complicated, and difficult to handle and manage’, [WWW document] http://whatihavelearntrecently.blogspot.co.uk (accessed 26 April 2012).Google Scholar
  62. Orlikowski, W.J. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development, MIS Quarterly 17(3): 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Orlikowski, W.J. (1996). Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A situated change perspective, Information Systems Research 7(1): 63–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research 2(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ransbotham, S. and Mitra, S. (2009). Choice and Chance: A conceptual model of paths to information security compromise, Information Systems Research 20(1): 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  67. Stern, P.N. (1994). Eroding Grounded Theory, in J. Morse (ed.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  68. Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  70. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the Editors: What grounded theory is not, Academy of Management Journal 49(4): 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Taylor, H., Dillon, S. and Van Wingen, M. (2010). Focus and Diversity in IS Research: Meeting the dual demands of a healthy applied discipline, MIS Quarterly 34(4): 647–667.Google Scholar
  72. Toraskar, K. (1991). How Managerial Users Evaluate Their Decision Support: A grounded theory approach, in H.E. Nissen, H. Klein and R. Hirschheimeds (eds.) Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference, 14–16 December 1991; (Copenhagen, DK) Amsterdam: North-Holland, 195–225.Google Scholar
  73. Trauth, E.M. and Jessup, L.M. (2000). Understanding Computer-mediated Discussions: Positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use, MIS Quarterly 24(1): 43–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Urquhart, C. and Fernandez, W.D. (2006). Grounded Theory Method: The researcher as blank slate and other myths, in The International Conference on Information Systems, 2006 (Milwaukee, WI, USA).Google Scholar
  76. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H. and Myers, M. (2010). Putting the Theory Back into Grounded Theory: Guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems, Information Systems Journal 20(4): 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1989). Methods for Studying Innovation Processes, in A.H. Van de Ven, H.L. Angle and M.S. Poole (eds.) Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota studies, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  78. Vannoy, S.A. and Salam, A.F. (2010). Managerial Interpretations of the Role of Information Systems in Competitive Actions and Firm Performance: A grounded theory investigation, Information Systems Research 21(3): 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems 4(2): 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Webster, J. (1998). Desktop Videoconferencing: Experiences of complete users, wary users, and non-users, MIS Quarterly 22(3): 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cathy Urquhart
    • 1
  • Walter Fernández
    • 2
  1. 1.Manchester Metropolitan University Business SchoolManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Research School of Accounting & Business Information SystemsAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations