Advertisement

On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin

  • Stefan Seidel
  • Cathy Urquhart

Abstract

Grounded theory method (GTM) (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Charmaz, 2006) is characterized by the continuous interplay between the collection and analysis of data in order to generate theory that is firmly grounded in empirical phenomena (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The method is now an accepted research approach in the information systems (IS) discipline (Urquhart et al., 2010; Matavire and Brown, 2011). That said, there are many debates around the application of GTM, and the method is contested (Duchscher and Morgan, 2004; Bryant and Charmaz, 2007). Important debates relate to the underlying epistemology (Mills et al., 2006), role of prior theory (Jones and Noble, 2007), and coding procedures (Kelle, 2007). As a result, there are now different strands of GTM, which differ in various aspects, including induction, deduction, and verification (Heath and Cowley, 2004; Matavire and Brown, 2011). Bryant and Charmaz (2007) argue strongly that GTM can be seen as a ‘family of methods’, and we would concur with that view. Mills et al. (2006) write that GTM ‘can be seen as a methodological spiral that begins with Glaser and Strauss’ original text and continues today’ (p. 25). Specifically, they use the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘evolved’ in order to distinguish the work of Glaser from that of Strauss, the two co-founders of the method.

Keywords

Information System Ground Theory Axial Code Paradigm Model Information System Research 
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. Ågerfalk, P.J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2008). Outsourcing to an Unknown Workforce: Exploring opensourcing as a global sourcing strategy, MIS Quarterly 32(2): 385–409.Google Scholar
  2. AIS (2007). Senior scholar’s basket of journals. [WWW document] http://home.aisnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=346 (accessed 5 August 2009).Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. (2008). Examining Technology, Structure and Identity During an Enterprise System Implementation, Information Systems Journal 18(2): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edn, Washington DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  5. Azad, B. and King, N. (2008). Enacting Computer Workaround Practices within a Medication Dispensing System, European Journal of Information Systems 17(3): 264–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (2001). A Multiple-Theory Analysis of a Diffusion of Information Technology Case, Information Systems Journal 11(3): 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. (2004). Short Cycle Time Systems Development, Information Systems Journal 14(3): 237–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjørn, P. and Ngwenyama, O. (2009). Virtual Team Collaboration: Building shared meaning, resolving breakdowns and creating translucence, Information Systems Journal 19(3): 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boychuk Duchscher, J.E. and Morgan, B. (2004). Grounded Theory: Reflections on the emergence vs forcing debate, Journal of Advanced Nursing 48(6): 605–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryant, A. (2002). Re-Grounding Grounded Theory, Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 4(1): 25–42.Google Scholar
  12. Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (eds.) (2007). Grounded Theory Research: Methods and practices, in The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, London: Sage, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
  13. 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(3): 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chakraborty, S., Sarker, S. and Sarker, S. (2010). An Exploration into the Process of Requirements Elicitation: A grounded approach, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 11(4): 212–249.Google Scholar
  15. Charmaz, K. (1983). The Grounded Theory Method: An explication and interpretation, in R.M. Emerson (ed.) Contemporary Field Research: A collection of readings, Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co, pp. 109–126.Google Scholar
  16. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 509–535.Google Scholar
  17. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke, A.E. (2003). Situational Analyses: Grounded theory mapping after the postmodern turn, Symbolic Interaction 26(4): 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clarke, A.E. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Conboy, K. (2010). Project Failure En Masse: A study of loose budgetary control in ISD projects, European Journal of Information Systems 19(3): 273–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.L. (1990). Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria, Qualitative Sociology 13(1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Day, J.M., Junglas, I. and Silva, L. (2009). Information Flow Impediments in Disaster Relief Supply Chains, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10(8): 637–660.Google Scholar
  24. DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive structuration theory, Organization Science 5(2): 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct, New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  26. Dey, I. (1999). Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry, San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Doherty, N.F., Coombs, C.R. and Loan-Clarke, J. (2006). A Re-Conceptualization of the Interpretive Flexibility of Information Technologies: Redressing the balance between the social and the technical, European Journal of Information Systems 15(6): 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Espinosa, J.A., Slaughter, S.A., Kraut, R.E. and Herbsleb, J.D. (2007). Team Knowledge and Coordination in Geographically Distributed Software Development, Journal of Management Information Systems 24(1): 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Galliers, R.D., Whitley, E.A. and Paul, R.J. (2007). The European Information Systems Academy, European Journal of Information Systems 16(1): 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory, Mill Valley, CA: The Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. forcing, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Glaser, B.G. (2005). The Grounded Theory Perspective III: Theoretical coding, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  36. Goo, J., Kishore, R., Rao, H.R. and Nam, K. (2009). The Role of Service Level Agreements in Relational Management of Information Technology Outsourcing: An empirical study, MIS Quarterly 33(1): 119–145.Google Scholar
  37. Goode, S. and Gregor, S. (2009). Rethinking Organisational Size in IS Research: Meaning, measurement and redevelopment, European Journal of Information Systems 18(1): 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Goulielmos, M. (2004). Systems Development Approach: Transcending methodology, Information Systems Journal 14(4): 363–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gregor, S. (2006). The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 30(3): 611–642.Google Scholar
  40. Hackney, R., Jones, S. and Lösch, A. (2007). Towards an E-Government Efficiency Agenda: The impact of information and communication behaviour on E-reverse auctions in public sector procurement, European Journal of Information Systems 16(2): 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heath, H. and Cowley, S. (2004). Developing a Grounded Theory Approach: A comparison of glaser and strauss, International Journal of Nursing Studies 41(2): 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holmström Olsson, H., Conchúir, E.Ó., Ågerfalk, P.J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2008). Two-Stage Offshoring: An investigation of the Irish Bridge, MIS Quarterly 32(2): 257–279.Google Scholar
  43. Horton, K.S. and Wood-Harper, T.A. (2006). The Shaping of I.T. Trajectories: Evidence from the U.K. public sector, European Journal of Information Systems 15(2): 214–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huang, J.C., Newell, S. and Pan, S.-L. (2001). The Process of Global Knowledge Integration: A case study of a multinational investment bank’s Y2K Program, European Journal of Information Systems 10(3): 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Jones, S. and Hughes, J. (2001). Understanding IS Evaluation as a Complex Social Process: A case study of a UK local authority, European Journal of Information Systems 10(4): 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Keddy, B., Sims, S.L. and Stern, P.N. (1996). Grounded Theory and Feminist Research Methodology, Journal of Advanced Nursing 23(3): 448–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keil, M., Im, G.P. and Mähring, M. (2007). Reporting Bad News on Software Projects: The effects of culturally constituted views of face-saving, Information Systems Journal 17(1): 59–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kelle, U. (2007). The Development of Categories: Different approaches in grounded theory, in A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, London: Sage, pp. 191–213.Google Scholar
  50. Kendall, J. (1999). Axial Coding and the Grounded Theory Controversy, Western Journal of Nursing Research 21(6): 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Khoo, H.M. and Robey, D. (2007). Deciding to Upgrade Packaged Software: A comparative case study of motives, contingencies and dependencies, European Journal of Information Systems 16(5): 555–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kirsch, L.J. (1997). Portfolios of Control Modes and IS Project Management, Information Systems Research 8(3): 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kirsch, L.J. (2004). Deploying Common Systems Globally: The dynamics of control, Information Systems Research 15(4): 374–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kock, N. (2001). Asynchronous and Distributed Process Improvement: The role of collaborative technologies, Information Systems Journal 11(2): 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Larsen, T.J., Niederman, F., Limayem, M. and Chan, J. (2007). The Role of Modelling in Achieving Information Systems Success: UML to the rescue? Information Systems Journal 19(1): 83–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leonardi, P.M. (2011). When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies, MIS Quarterly 35(1): 147–167.Google Scholar
  58. Levina, N. and Ross, J.W. (2003). From the Vendor’s Perspective: Exploring the value proposition in information technology outsourcing, MIS Quarterly 27(3): 331–364.Google Scholar
  59. Lim, E.T.K., Pan, S.L. and Tan, C.W. (2005). Managing User Acceptance Towards Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems — Understanding the dissonance between user expectations and managerial policies, European Journal of Information Systems 14(2): 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O. and Schultze, U. (2004). Design Principles for Competence Management Systems: A synthesis of an action research study, MIS Quarterly 28(3): 435–472.Google Scholar
  61. Locke, K. (1996). Rewriting the Discovery of Grounded Theory After 25 Years? Journal of Management Inquiry 5(3): 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maldonado, E. (2010). The Process of Introducing Floss in the Public Administration: The case of Venezuela, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 11(11): 756–783.Google Scholar
  63. Markus, M.L. and Silver, M.S. (2008). A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A new look at desanctis and poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 9(10): 609–632.Google Scholar
  64. Matavire, R. and Brown, I. (2011). Profiling Grounded Theory Approaches in Information Systems Research, European Journal of Information Systems 22(1): 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Melia, K.M. (1996). Rediscovering Glaser, Qualitative Health Research 6(3): 368–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A sourcebook of new methods, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  68. Mills, J., Bonner, A. and Francis, K. (2006). The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory, International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 25–35.Google Scholar
  69. Mourmant, G., Gallivan, M.J.M. and Kalika, M. (2009). Another Road to IT Turnover: The entrepreneurial path, European Journal of Information Systems 18(5): 498–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. O’Reilly, P. and Finnegan, P. (2010). Intermediaries in Inter-Organisational Networks: Building a theory of electronic marketplace performance, European Journal of Information Systems 19(4): 462–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Orlikowski, W.J. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Ramesh, B., Cao, L. and Baskerville, R. (2010). Agile Requirements Engineering Practices and Challenges: An empirical study, Information Systems Journal 20(5): 449–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Remus, U. and Wiener, M. (2010). A Multi-Method, Holistic Strategy for Researching Critical Success Factors in IT Projects, Information Systems Journal 20(1): 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Robrecht, L.C. (1995). Grounded Theory: Evolving methods, Qualitative Health Research 5(2): 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ryan, G. and Valverde, M. (2006). Waiting in Line for Online Services: A qualitative study of the user’s perspective, Information Systems Journal 16(2): 181–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ryan, S.D. and Harrison, D.A. (2000). Considering Social Subsystem Costs and Benefits in Information Technology Investment Decisions: A view from the field on anticipated payoffs, Journal of Management Information Systems 16(4): 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schultze, U. (2000). A Confessional Account of an Ethnography about Knowledge Work, MIS Quarterly 24(1): 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Scott, J.E. (2000). Facilitating Interorganizational Learning with Information Technology, Journal of Management Information Systems 17(2): 81–113.Google Scholar
  81. Smolander, K., Rossi, M. and Purao, S. (2008). Software Architectures: Blueprint, literature, language or decision? European Journal of Information Systems 17(6): 575–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Spears, J.L. and Barki, H. (2010). User Participation in Information Systems Security Risk Management, MIS Quarterly 34(3): 503–522.Google Scholar
  83. Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research, 1st edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  85. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1994a). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1994b). Grounded Theory Methodology: An overview, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 273–285.Google Scholar
  87. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  88. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  89. Strong, D.M. and Volkoff, O. (2010). Understanding Organization-Enterprise System Fit: A path to theorizing the information technology artifact, MIS Quarterly 34(4): 731–756.Google Scholar
  90. Suddaby, R. (2006). What Grounded Theory Is Not, Academy of Management Journal 49(4): 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Urquhart, C. (2001). An Encounter with Grounded Theory: Tackling the practical and philosophical issues, in E.M. Trauth (ed.) Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and trends, Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing, pp. 104–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Urquhart, C. (2007). The Evolving Nature of Grounded Theory Method: The Case of the Information Systems Discipline, in A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, London: Sage, pp. 339–359.Google Scholar
  93. Urquhart, C. (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A practical guide, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  94. Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. van Niekerk, J.C. and Roode, J.D. (2009). Glaserian and Straussian Grounded Theory: Similar or completely different? Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, Vaal River, South Africa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R. and Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the Giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2009), Verona, Italy.Google Scholar
  97. Walker, D. and Myrick, F. (2006). Grounded Theory: An exploration of process and procedure, Qualitative Health Research 16(4): 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems 4(2): 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Watson, R. (2001). Research in Information Systems: What we haven’t learned, MIS Quarterly 25(4): v–xv.Google Scholar
  100. Webb, B. and 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
  101. Work, B. (2002). Patterns of Software Quality Management in Tickit Certified Firms, European Journal of Information Systems 11(1): 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Xu, P. and Ramesh, B. (2007). Software Process Tailoring: An empirical investigation, Journal of Management Information Systems 24(2): 293–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Seidel
    • 1
  • Cathy Urquhart
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsUniversity of LiechtensteinVaduzLiechtenstein
  2. 2.Manchester Metropolitan University Business SchoolManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations