Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Family Businesses’ Growth

Part of the book series: Familienunternehmen und KMU ((KMU))

  • 599 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

In order to approach the research questions a suitable method has to be applied. First of all it must be decided whether to follow a qualitative or quantitative research design. Therefore, the first explanations are dedicated to the clarification of the differences between those two types of research design and to the reason why a qualitative approach is used.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? The BMJ, 322, 1115–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartölke, K. (1980). Organisationsentwicklung. In E. Grochla (Ed.), Handwörterbuch der Organisation (pp. 1468–1481). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartölke, K., & Grieger, J. (2004). Individuum und Organisation. In G. Schreyögg & A. v. Werder (Eds.), Handwörterbuch Unternehmensführung und Organisation (pp. 464–472). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedeian, A., Taylor, S., & Miller, A. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(4), 715–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48(3), 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. (2003). Managing with style: the effect of managers on firm policies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1169–1208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, F., Muckel, P., & Dieris, B. (2018). Reflexive Grounded Theory. Eine Einführung für die Forschungspraxis. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1997). Postmodern management theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, R. (2003). Organization theory as a postmodern science. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 113–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. (2011). Von der Grounded-Theory-Methodologie zur Situationsanalyse. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 207–229). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D., & Crabtree B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project. Retrieved from http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html

  • Corbin, J. M. (1991). Anselm Strauss: an intellectual biography. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process. Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 17-44). New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J. M. (2011). Eine analytische Reise unternehmen. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 163–180). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe, A. L. (2010). Retelling tales of the field: in search of organizational ethnography 20 years on. Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 224–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P. (1991). Continued entrepreneurship: ability, need, and opportunity as determinants of small firm growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(6), 405–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., Achtenhagen, L., & Naldi, L. (2005). Research on small firm growth: A review. European Institute of Small Business. Conference Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. (1983). Realizing the potential of the family business. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmar, F., & Wiklund, J. (2003). Growth motivation and growth: untangling causal relationships. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: a theoretical orientation to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (2007). Grounded theory and the politics of interpretation. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 454–471). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Bone, R. (2012). Review essay: Situationsanalyse – Strauss meets Foucault? Qualitative Social Research, 14(1). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1301115

  • Downward, P., Finch, J. H., & Ramsay, J. (2002). Critical realism, empirical methods and inference: a critical discussion. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 26(4), 481–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, C. (2011). The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2), 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. (2008). Grounded theory method in management research: users’ perspectives. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 430–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2017). Triangulation in der qualitativen Forschung. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.). Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (12th ed.) (pp. 309–318). Reinbek: Rowohlts Enzyklopädie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U., Kardorff, E. v., & Steinke, I. (2017). Was ist qualitative Forschung? Einleitung und Überblick. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.). Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (12th ed.) (pp. 13–29). Reinbek: Rowohlts Enzyklopädie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: the birth of prison. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (1996). Deutschlands größte Unternehmen in Zahlen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 157, B2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (2007). Die größten Familienunternehmen. Retrieved from http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/unternehmen/die-groessten-familienunternehmen-das-rueckgrat-der-deutschen-wirtschaft-1460493.html

  • Frey, J. H., & Oishi, S. M. (2003). How to conduct interviews by telephone and in-person (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fylan F. (2005). Semi-structured interviewing. In J. Miles & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 65–78). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gephart Jr, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1344–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer, A. (2016). Growth behavior of family firms. Theoretical and empirical elaborations. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. & Holton, J. A. (2011). Der Umbau der Grounded-Theory-Methodologie. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 137–161). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12, 436–445.

    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). Emergence vs. forcing: basics of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (2002). Constructivist grounded theory? Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0203125

  • Glaser, B. G. (2005). The grounded theory perspective III: theoretical coding. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling grounded theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2). Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245

  • Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2007). Remodeling grounded theory. Historical Social Research, Supplement, 19, 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148-170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groeben, N., Wahl, D., Schlee, J., & Scheele, B. (1988). Das Forschungsprogramm subjektive Theorien: eine Einführung in die Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts. Tübingen: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Kahn, R. L. (1979). Surveys by telephone: a national comparison with personal interviews. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudkova S. (2018). Interviewing in qualitative research. In M. Ciesielska & D. Jemielniak (Eds.), Qualitative methodologies in organization studies (pp. 75–96). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: an enquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1965). Notes toward a logic of discovery. In R. J. Bernstein (Ed.), Perspectives on Peirce (pp. 42–65). New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, S. (2009). Eine kleine Erkenntnisgeschichte - Auf dem Weg zur Wissenschaftstheorie; Mannheimer Schriften zur Verwaltungs- und Versorgungs-wirtschaft, 15, 19–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppenstedt (Ed.) (1997). Handbuch der Großunternehmen. Darmstadt: Hoppenstedt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M (2002). Research methods in social relations (7th ed.). New York: Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, S. A. (1988). Education and grounded theory. In R. R. Sherman & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: focus and methods (pp. 123–140). London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative methods (pp. 135–148). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1967). Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1996). Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens (3rd ed.). Stuttgart: Metzler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, M. L., & Rumens, N. (2008). An introduction to critical management research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, U. (1994). Empirisch begründete Theoriebildung. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien-verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J. (1999). Axial coding and the grounded theory controversy. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 21, 743–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenealy, G. J. J (2008). Management research and grounded theory: A review of grounded theory building approach in organizational and management research. Grounded Theory Review, 2(7), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock Jr, N. F., McQueen, R. J., & John, L. S. (1997). Can action research be made more rigorous in a positivist sense? The contribution of an iterative approach. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 1(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kormann, H. (2017a). Governance des Familienunternehmens. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2011). Computing Krippendorff’s Alpha-Reliability. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/43

  • Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 837–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legewie, H. (1987). Interpretation und Validierung biographischer Interviews. In G. Jüttemann & H. Thomae (Eds.), Biographie und Psychologie (pp. 138–150). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindesmith, A. R. (1968). Addiction and opiates (2nd ed.). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindesmith, A. R., & Strauss, A. L. (1949). Social psychology. New York: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (1991). Experteninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In D. Garz & K. Kraimer (Eds.), Qualitativ‐empirische Sozialforschung (pp. 441–471). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey, G. & Mruck, K. (2007). Qualitative Interviews. In G. Naderer & E. Balzer (Eds.), Qualitative Marktforschung in Theorie und Praxis. Grundlagen, Methoden und Anwendungen (pp. 249–278). Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2011). Grounded-Theory-Methodologie: Entwicklung, Stand, Perspektiven. In G. Mey, & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 11-48). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey. G., & Ruppel, P. S. (2018). Grounded theory methodology. Workshop held at GESIS, Mannheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. D., Gaba, V., & Colwell, K. A. (2005). Organizing far from equilibrium: nonlinear change in organizational fields. Organization Science, 16(5), 456–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks et al.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. I. & Fredericks, M. (1999). How does grounded theory explain? Qualitative Health Research, 9, 538–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). Adopting a constructivist approach to grounded theory: implications for research design. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 12(1), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moldaschl, M. (2010). Was ist Reflexivität? Papers and Preprints of the Department of Innovation Research and Sustainable Resource Management. Chemnitz University of Technology, 11/2010, 2–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M., Stern, P. N., Corbin, J., Bowers, B., Charmaz, K., & Clarke, A. E. (2009). Developing grounded theory. The second generation. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oelmann, M. (2016). Die 1000 größten Familienunternehmen Deutschlands. Neuss: Die Deutsche Wirtschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1973). Lectures on pragmatism – Vorlesungen über Pragmatismus. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1976). The new elements of mathematics. Mouton: The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1986). Semiotische Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickard, A. J. (2007). Research methods in information. London: Facet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2003). Die Abduktion in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2009). Abduction: the logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(1), Art. 13. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1001135

  • Reichertz, J. (2011). Abduktion: Die Logik der Entdeckung der Grounded Theory. In G. Mey, & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (pp. 279–297). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichertz, J. (2017). Abduktion, Deduktion und Induktion in der qualitativen Forschung. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (12th ed.) (pp. 276–286). Reinbek: Rowohlts Enzeklopädie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing research in business and management: an introduction to process and method. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, L. (1994). Writing. A method for inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, R., & Kramer, E. H. (2006). Abduction as the type of inference that characterizes the development of a grounded theory. Qualitative Research, 6(4), 497–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S. (2006). Over-investment of free cash flow. Review of Accounting Studies, 11(2-3), 159–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riege, A. (2003). Validity and reliability tests in case study research: a literature review with “hands-on” applications for each research phase. Qualitative Market Research, 6(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riemann, G. (2011). Grounded theorizing als Gespräch: Anmerkungen zu Anselm Strauss, der frühen Chicagoer Soziologie und der Arbeit in Forschungswerkstätten. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 205–426). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robrecht, L. C. (1995). Grounded theory: evolving methods. Qualitative Health Research, 5(2), 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rössler, P. (2005). Inhaltsanalyse. Konstanz: UVK/UTB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2000). The growing family of Rasch models. In A. Boomsma, M. Van Duijn, & T. A. B. Snijders (Eds.), Essays on item response theory (pp. 2–42). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rost, J. (2003). Zeitgeist und Moden empirischer Analysemethoden. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Bristow, A. (2016). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development. In M. Saunders, P. Lewis, A. Thornhill, & A. Bristow (Eds.), Research methods for business students (7th ed.) (pp. 122–161). Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, F. (1977). Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien. Arbeitsberichte und Forschungsmaterialien Nr. 1 der Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Soziologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze, F. (1983). Biographieforschung und narratives Interview. Neue Praxis, 13(3), 283–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwass, J. (2005). Wise growth strategies in leading family businesses. Houndmills et al.: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. Göttingen et al.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibold, L. K. C. (2017b). Erfolgreiche Strukturvielfalt. Familienunternehmen in Deutschland. Audit Committee Quarterly, 4, 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibold, L. K. C., Lantelme, M., & Kormann, H. (2019). German family enterprises. A sourcebook of structure, diversity and downfall. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotter, J. (1990). Knowing of the third kind. Utrecht: ISOR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (2007). Hidden Champions des 21. Jahrhunderts: Die Erfolgsstrategien unbekannter Weltmarktführer. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinke, I. (2017). Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch (12th ed.) (pp. 319-331). Reinbek: Rowohlts Enzyklopädie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. N. (1980). Grounded theory methodology: its uses and processes. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 12(1), 20–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz/PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L. (1991). Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. München: Fink.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Strübing, J. (2004). Grounded Theory. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strübing, J. (2011). Zwei Varianten von Grounded Theory? Zu den methodologischen und methodischen Differenzen zwischen Barney Glaser und Anselm Strauss. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Grounded theory reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 261–277). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: issues and discussion for new qualitative researchers. Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terhart, E. (1981). Intuition–Interpretation–Argumentation. Zum Problem der Geltungsbegründung von Interpretationen. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 27(5), 769–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terhart, E. (1995). Kontrolle von Interpretationen: Validierungsprobleme. In E. König & P. Zedler (Eds.), Bilanz qualitativer Forschung: Grundlagen qualitativer Forschung (pp. 373–397). Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G., & James, D. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse analysis. In search of meaning. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M.-J. (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: the case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Human Relations, 54(8), 979–1013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tursman, R. A. (1987). Peirce’s Theory of scientific discovery. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, I. (2014). Using grounded theory to avoid research misconduct in management science. Grounded Theory Review, 13(1), 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wartenberg, G. (1971). Logischer Sozialismus – Die Transformation der Kantschen Transzendentalphilosophie durch Ch. S. Peirce. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J. (2007). Small firm growth strategies. In A. Zackarakis & S. Spinelli (Eds.), Entrepreneurship and growth: the engine of growth (2nd ed.) (pp. 135–154). Westport, CT: Praeger

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Aspiring for, and achieving growth: The moderating role of resources and opportunities. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1919–1941.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Löchgau, Germany

    Laura K. C. Seibold

Authors
  1. Laura K. C. Seibold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura K. C. Seibold .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Seibold, L.K.C. (2020). Methodology. In: Family Businesses’ Growth. Familienunternehmen und KMU. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29396-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation