Abstract
While grounded theory methodology was intended to be used as a general research method accepting any type of data, most grounded theory studies in the literature refer to research based on qualitative data. This paper aims to address this perceived neglect by describing our experiences and our approach while using grounded theory across qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. The case-based discussion presented in this paper, explains how the combination of these paradigms in exploratory studies can benefit research outcomes. The discussion follows the authors’ approach to a competitive research grant opportunity that resulted in a comprehensive study into the use and management of information and communication technology in Australian organisations. We propose that the use of classic grounded theory as a general research method enables researchers to capitalise on greater opportunities to participate in substantial team-based exploratory research endeavours.
Table of Contents
When the seminal work of Glaser and Strauss was published in 1967, grounded theory was proposed as a general method independent of a particular research paradigm. This early premise rarely, if ever, is mentioned in the current literature and thus many researchers perceive the method as being entirely within the domain of qualitative research, neglecting the fact that one of the cornerstones of the grounded theory method was the quantitative work of Barney Glaser (1964).
Glaser (1964), in an exploratory study of the professional careers of organisational scientists, presented many of the core elements of the grounded theory methodology. His study’s goal was ‘to explore for and to develop generalised formulations on these careers’. Thus, the research was not about testing preconceived theoretical propositions but rather its purpose was to develop plausible relations between variables that could ‘guide sociologists of science — as well as of occupations, professions, and organisations’.
Moreover, Glaser (1964) was able to acknowledge and include two important aspects of studies of sociological processes, namely: that a process exists within multiple contextual conditions and that these contexts are subject to variations as they present several stages or phases. The study described a process in conceptual terms in such a way that variations of context were accounted for in the theoretical formulation emerging from the research. Given this recognition of contextual issues, usually associated with qualitative studies, it may be surprising to some that for his foundational study, Glaser used secondary quantitative data and extant literature as data sources. By using extensive secondary quantitative data to search for patterns and the literature to inform the research, Glaser was able to detect and enrich many emergent concepts.
The exploratory analysis of quantitative data enabled the identification of processes and discovery of properties of these processes. For example, the property of ‘integration’ in a process of facing career concerns describes the concept of individuals choosing to integrate with peers according to their common circle of concern. By integrating with different members of the circle, the scientists were able to solve their own career concerns and to move forward in their careers. Another example can be found in the process of career advancement, where recognition was a property that resolved scientists’ career concerns.
The second book presenting the results of grounded theory research was Awareness of Dying (Glaser and Strauss, 1965), which was an exploration of the social process of dying in American hospitals. The overall research approach taken in this study was, in many ways, similar to Glaser (1964) and yet, as Glaser and Strauss conducted intensive fieldwork based on interviews and observations, the data was qualitative in nature. It was this work on dying that consolidated the grounded theory method and gave it its initial recognition.
Glaser and Strauss (1967) clearly state that grounded theory is a general method that accepts both qualitative and quantitative data, and claimed that ‘grounded theory is a general method of comparative analysis’ (emphasis in original). Indeed, Glaser and Strauss (1967) described the ‘slices of data’ collected for theoretical sampling as varied, providing researchers with limitless options for data gathering including different collection techniques, data types and ways of analysing the data with the objective of generating ‘different views or vantage points from which to understand a category and to develop its properties’. In other words, the nature of the data is not important in itself. More significant is the role the data play in providing evidence for useful conceptualisations.
Regardless of early descriptions and evidence, it is difficult to find recent examples of grounded theory studies that have used quantitative data or mixed data approaches. This is clearly the case in information systems (IS) research, a late adopter of the grounded theory method and where, to our knowledge, all published grounded theory studies are of a qualitative nature.
While this situation is neither desirable nor undesirable per se, we suggest that by failing to perceive grounded theory as a general research method, IS grounded theorists could be missing opportunities to participate in important collaborative research endeavours. In IS research it is often necessary to combine qualitative and quantitative research skills to analyse complex socio-technical phenomena and to satisfy the needs of diverse stakeholders. Furthermore, in IS it is important to produce empirical studies that are both academically rigorous and relevant to the information and communication technology (ICT) industry (Benbasat and Zmud, 1999) and grounded theory can contribute to rigorous and relevant research outcomes (Fernández and Lehmann, 2005).
This paper aims to address the apparent neglect of the general nature of the grounded theory method by describing the case of a recent study that used both qualitative and quantitative data. In the study we are about to describe, a team of researchers from different backgrounds decided to adopt key premises from grounded theory methodology for their exploratory investigation; in particular, the detection of patterns and the desire to discover what is going on in a particular substantive field. The ability to use a mixed-data approach was also a differentiation strategy in competing for the research opportunity.